Voters should decide on parking structure
Whitefish City Council is being asked to approve construction of a new parking garage and city hall on the present city hall site, probably the busiest corner in Whitefish.
Cost for this is approximately $11.5 million, along with up to $150,000 per year to maintain the parking structure. It will be a three-story building on one half of a city block. Currently no structures of this mass are permitted in Whitefish. This is a sufficient change to our community that I believe the vote belongs with Whitefish residents, not with the City Council.
First, this is a massive three-story parking garage plus a $5 million City Hall on one of the busiest corners in Whitefish. If a private developer proposed such a project, I can hear the opposition now complaining about its effect on the character of our town. Not only will this parking garage interfere with our mountain views, but according to our consultant, parking garages often attract vagrants, particularly during cold months.
Do we want a parking garage where we have to worry about security and smell? If we are deploying our limited law enforcement to the parking garage, do other Whitefish residents suffer?
Second, according to the parking study, this parking garage benefits the surrounding two blocks of downtown businesses while asking the entire Whitefish business establishment to foot the bill. Unlike other Whitefish businesses, those located in the railway and downtown areas have no obligation to provide parking or maintenance. In other areas of our town, however, property owners are required to pay for their own parking, maintenance, snow plowing, etc.
Whitefish businesses, from Pizza Hut on U.S. 93 South all the way to Big Mountain Road, pay into the Tax Increment Fund (TIF) that would be used to fund the new city hall and parking garage. Most of these businesses have to supply parking and maintenance for their patrons. Is a $6.5 million parking structure with a $150,000 annual operating budget, paid for through the TIF, a fair expenditure for construction that principally benefits a chosen few?
It would be better to impose a Special Improvement District assessment and have those downtown and railway property owners that benefit from the parking garage pay for it. The city could supply the land, which represents a value of $2 million, while the businesses could pay for the $6.5 million construction and $150,000 annual operations cost.
Lastly, everyone agrees that we need more parking in Whitefish. But we have ignored less costly, more effective options. Now the new city hall has become the Taj Mah City Hall Mall! Complete with a three-story parking garage.
Other close-in options cost considerably less and would allow us to successfully expand our surface parking. No vagrants, no additional law enforcement needed, no $150,000 annual maintenance fee, no Big Mountain view obstruction, more TIF money available for other priority objectives set by community.
So, where do we go from here? I have yet to talk with a city employee or a Whitefish voter that enthusiastically supports this plan. Even Crandall-Arambula (Whitefish’s consultants hired to look only at downtown), acknowledge that the communities where they have built such parking garages are much larger than Whitefish.
On May 20 at 7:10 p.m. at City Hall, we will discuss whether to commit the $11.5 million and $150,000 annually for the City Hall and parking garage. I would love to hear from you about whether you believe this project fits with our character and our budget.
If we can’t get unanimous support at the May 20 meeting for a decision this important, then Whitefish voters should make the choice. Since we have an election scheduled for November, it’s not that long to wait. A decision of this magnitude deserves at least that consideration.
— Phil Mitchell is a Whitefish City Councilor