Constructing a new City Hall has been a topic of discussion in Whitefish for more than a dozen years. Three years ago, city council decided on a location, and two years ago it decided to build an attached parking structure. Still, a vibrant public debate continues on whether these decisions are correct.

A few vocal critics of the project say the projected costs are too expensive, the building should be in a different location and that more public input is needed.

Supporters say the project has been fully vetted over a number of years for both cost and location, and the time has come to replace a dilapidated building.

The cost of the project is set at $13.95 million for City Hall and the attached parking structure. The parking garage makes up about half the cost. In addition, the city expects to spend an additional $1 million on moving costs and lease of an interim building for two years.

To pay for the project, the city plans to use the tax-increment finance fund, which allows for the reserve of increases in property taxes collections within a district to be diverted to infrastructure improvements and civic projects within the district. In addition, the city is working toward creating a downtown special improvement district that would create an assessment on businesses to pay for maintenance of the parking structure.

Chris Burnatt said the project is not a smart use of tax-increment funds.

“We keep hearing over and over again this isn’t going to raise property taxes,” she said. “We have a laundry list of needs in the city. If we spend every penny on City Hall and a parking structure, property taxes will have to go up for those other needs.”

Former City Councilor Turner Askew said he worries the cost will be more than what has been estimated and the design isn’t what was discussed in the 1990s.

“We need a new City Hall — but can we afford it?” he said. “We’ve been talking about a new City Hall for a long time. However, this isn’t what we’ve been talking about.”

Askew continued to advocate for moving City Hall to another location, saying the block at Baker Avenue and Second Street could then be used solely for parking.

Supporters also outlined their reasons for building City Hall as proposed.

John Kramer created his list of the top-10 reasons to move forward with the project.

Amongst his arguments was that the current site was chosen by the founding forefathers of the community, and the city already owns the property. He said it’s time to replace the aging building and it’s time to create downtown parking.

“A successful, fun, vibrant community needs a successful, fun, vibrant downtown core,” he said. “We have seen many communities across Montana and America let their downtown deteriorate; and then eventually much of the community will also deteriorate. We should not and must not make that mistake here.”

John Frandsen looked back to the construction of the original City Hall in 1917 by referencing articles published in the Pilot that year.

He said there were a lot of residents who saw “Whitefish not for what it was, but what it would become,” and supported the new building even while most of the streets were dirt.

In February 1917 the city posed the question of building a City Hall and in May all decisions were made with construction following. By January 1918, the building was complete and the first council meeting was held in the building that year.

Frandsen said he was struck by how quick the process moved along.

“Today, Whitefish has known for a long time that the investment made by its earliest residents wouldn’t last forever,” he said. “That’s why a new City Hall has been marked as a priority for decades. Committees and subcommittees have reviewed and anguished over the details. Public forums have been held. The public process has been staggering.”

“It is time to build a new City Hall and address the parking issues with the parking structure,” he said. “And it’s time for us, as a community, to say — as the Pilot did in 1917 — all that remains to be done is to help a good thing along.”

Chuck Martin says the voters should decide the issue of a new City Hall.

“A lot of change has occurred since the mandate to build in the present location,” he said. “Escalating costs have occurred since then and there is a growing group of citizens who want it in a different location.”

“Let the people decide,” he added.