After 10 years of debating whether to extensively renovate the Civic Center or build a new one, the Evanston City Council decided Wednesday to look into conducting minor repairs instead.
“We don’t have the money for this now,” said Ald. Elizabeth Tisdahl (7th), who proposed the motion during a Civic Center Committee meeting. “I move that we consider staying in this building and spending the minimum to make it safe and healthy for the people that work here.”
The safety concerns at the Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Ave., include mold, asbestos and leaks in the roof, Tisdahl said.
“It’s not fair to ask people to work in that building,” she said. “It’s bad for morale. Buildings do get to a point where it’s just a black hole gobbling up money.”
Preliminary estimates for minor repairs were $6 million, while a major renovation of the 99-year-old building or construction of a new one would cost at least $50 million, City Manager Julia Carroll said. The latter options would lead to a 6 percent property tax increase for the next 30 years, she said.
The motion to gather more information about a “stopgap measure,” which would put off a major change to the building until the city’s economic situation improved, was passed after a two-hour discussion.
The primary concern now is the health of the building’s employees, said Ald. Delores Holmes (5th), who supported Tisdahl.
“I think we could make the building safe and healthy for the staff and people that work here on a daily basis,” Holmes said. “It’s our responsibility to do that.”
But not every alderman thought Tisdahl’s motion was the healthiest option.
Ald. Edmund Moran (6th) said he was concerned workers would be exposed to toxins while the repairs were going on.
“Your proposal is the least healthy thing that can be suggested in terms of the workforce here, now and in the future,” Moran said while addressing Tisdahl. “This is a crazy discussion … This is not an action plan; this is a ‘deferral with serious health consequences to our work force’ plan.”
Frustrations were evident Wednesday at the meeting of a committee that has been working for six years, spending half a million dollars on consulting fees with few results.
Over the years, the committee has wavered between renovation and relocation, mostly favoring relocation because of concerns that fixing the building would cost too much.
The committee voted to eliminate the renovation option from consideration in January 2005. But last April, more than 80 percent of voters in a non-binding referendum said the city should stay in the current building. A similar question on the April ballot, which listed a potential rehabilitation cost of at least $31 million, passed in favor of staying in the current building by just 72 votes.
Wednesday, Moran motioned to definitively decide on relocation, while Ald. Lionel Jean-Baptiste (2nd) motioned to commit to restoration. Neither motion passed.
“We’re between two rocks, both of which are very hard places,” Ald. Steven Bernstein (4th) said, adding Tisdahl’s suggestion would probably snowball into an expensive renovation of the building. “I see our bond lady circulating and it scares me to death because we don’t have the wherewithal to do this.”
The committee will meet again in two months to look at the cost of making the building safe and decide what to do.
