Evanston upgrades, re-opens Bent Park Field House after 2022 fire
The city held a ribbon-cutting ceremony for the field house, built in 1927 and located near Harrison Street and Hastings Avenue, on May 23. The repairs to the field house include upgrades to the 805-square-foot building, which will house park and recreation programs and accommodate up to 36 people, according to the city's Capital Planning & Engineering Bureau Chief Lara Biggs. The field house's reopening also provides bathroom access for people at Bent Park.
The Bent Park Field House is now American with Disabilities Act accessible and fully electric and has no carbon emissions, aligning with the city's Climate Action and Resilience Plan. The building's exterior features new brickwork and a new roof, which was heavily damaged by the fire, Biggs said.
The City Council approved work contracts for Bent Park in 2024, per city documents. The original cost for the repairs and upgrades was estimated at $624,980, funded by the city's general fund and an $89,000 insurance reimbursement.
The repair cost shot up after a structural engineer hired by the contractor reviewed the site. The engineer discovered the masonry was oxidized and needed to be replaced, along with the porch, causing the cost of the repairs to go up $181,000.
Green energy upgrades were implemented during repairs, as much of the HVAC and electrical equipment was damaged in the fire and needed to be replaced, Biggs told Pioneer Press via email. Given that the city would have eventually made those upgrades to the field house to comply with the city's climate action plan and the Healthy Building Ordinance, Biggs said it was cost-effective to do it then.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
5 days ago
- Chicago Tribune
Historic St. Charles home to remain for now, after City Council denies request to demolish it
A historic house in downtown St. Charles, which recently made a state nonprofit's list of the most endangered historic places in Illinois, will remain for now, after the City Council Monday night denied its owner's request to demolish it. Owned by Baker Memorial United Methodist Church, the house at 217 Cedar Ave. has for years faced an uncertain future, as its owner has pursued city approval to tear it down and reuse the space. The house at 217 Cedar Ave. is also referred to as the Judge William D. Barry House, for its original owner. William D. Barry was a lawyer, a Kane County judge around the time of the Civil War and the first president of the Kane County Bar Association, who may have known Abraham Lincoln, according to former board president of the St. Charles History Museum Steve Gibson. Gibson has been researching Barry and the house since 2017, when he sat on the city's Historic Preservation Commission that first voted against demolishing the house. The building dates back to the 1840s, according to Gibson's history written for the St. Charles History Museum. Because it's located within the city's Historic District, exterior changes to the building must be reviewed by the city and its owners must receive a certificate of appropriateness before it can be demolished. The church brought a request about the property to the city in 2017, according to past reporting, but its application was withdrawn before the City Council could vote on the house's fate. In 2017, the church proposed creating a green space and prayer garden on the site, per the city. More recently, the church's pitch has been to turn it into parking spaces, citing a need for additional parking in the area, its financial situation and other concerns. Baker Memorial also owns the buildings at 211-215 Cedar Ave. and the parking lots to the south, west and north of the buildings, according to past reporting. The city's Historic Preservation Commission in 2017 OK'd the demolition of the structure at 211-215 Cedar Ave., but not the house at 217 Cedar Ave., per city documents. In October, the city's Historic Preservation Commission recommended the City Council deny the more recent request for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the Judge Barry House, based on findings about the building's significance and architecture. In December, it went on to the City Council's Planning and Development Committee, which ultimately postponed making a decision so city staff and the church could discuss their options. From there, the city and the church continued to discuss the house's future, including whether the city could purchase it from Baker Memorial, but they were unable to reach an agreement. So the matter went back to the City Council Planning and Development Committee in May and was recommended for approval, despite facing some opposition from residents and advocates. But a final City Council vote on the fate of the house was delayed because of offers to buy the house or move the structure off the property, according to past reporting. That brings the matter to Monday's meeting, when the City Council took up the issue again. But the council did not deliver the church its long-awaited green light to take down the house and put up the parking they have been expressing a need for. Mayor Clint Hull noted the months-long conversations that have been going on among the city, church and those advocating for preservation. 'The goal has been and always will be to continue to find a solution that would be what I would characterize, and many characterize, as a win-win,' Hull said Monday evening. 'That win-win would allow the church to sell the property at a fair-market value and would also preserve the Barry House for future use.' In their conversations, Hull said three options were being considered: Baker Memorial selling the house at a fair-market value to a person or organization that would preserve it, the church selling or giving the structure itself to a person or organization that would move it off the property and, lastly, the church selling the property to the city. But none of those options were achieved. Hull said he has reflected on his own background as a Kane County judge as this issue has made its way through the city. 'When you make a decision like this, at the city council level or at a courtroom, you understand that people are very passionate on both sides of the issue,' Hull said. 'I have asked myself over the past three months, 'What would Judge Barry expect the City Council to do?'' He said he thinks Judge Barry would have wanted the City Council to research and understand all the facts, listen to both sides and keep an open mind, deliberate and reflect and make the decision transparently and communicate that decision. 'I can guarantee you that the City Council members that are here tonight have done all that and more,' he said at the meeting. City Council member Jayme Muenz, who shortly after voted against allowing the building to be demolished, emphasized that many residents are concerned about a reverence for history. 'I also feel that there is a precedent that is set when you make changes to historic structures,' Muenz said. 'You decide for the entire community what that value is.' Council member Vicki Spellman, who also voted against the house's demolition, said the issue is not just about the historic significance of the home, which has been debated, but the neighborhood it exists in. 'To me, it's not just a home,' Spellman said. 'I do think that it would affect the character of the neighborhood.' Ultimately, the request to allow for demolition was shot down, with three council members voting for it and seven voting against. Baker Memorial United Methodist Church did not immediately return The Beacon-News' request for comment. Al Watts, the community engagement director of local nonprofit Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley, told The Beacon-News on Tuesday that, with demolition not an option, the Preservation Partners could assist the church with applications for grant money to do maintenance on the house, connect them with contractors or help them get information on the value of their property if they were to sell, for example. Watts explained that members of the Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley are 'always going to be happier' that a historic building was preserved rather than demolished, but said they also don't want to see such buildings deteriorate and become a problem. 'The number one thing about historic preservation is if the building doesn't have a use, then it's never going to get saved,' Watts said. 'It's going to, eventually, it's going to get demolished one way or the other, either just because it'll literally fall down or because it'll just be too much of a problem that somebody has to knock it down. This building is not in that category yet, but, if nothing is done, eventually it will be.' But what happens next remains to be seen. 'This is just one vote,' Hull said at Monday's meeting. 'The city is committed to continuing to work together with both sides to continue to try to figure out if we can achieve that goal of a win-win.'
CBS News
5 days ago
- CBS News
How a Colorado woman used AI to save Marshall Fire survivors up to $2 million
After the Marshall Fire, the City of Louisville worked to put in rebate programs for survivors in an effort to make it easier for folks to rebuild and move back home. Now one neighbor is using AI to hold council to one of those rebate promises that could bring Marshall survivors a share of close to $2 million. More than three years later, the Marshall Fire continues to be a topic at city council meetings, and Tuesday was no different. But now, as the city voted on what money they could get back if there's ever a possible settlement, some residents are working to get back some of their own from the city. Tawnya Somauroo lost her home to the Marshall Fire and spent the time and money to rebuild, but doesn't have time for every city council meeting. "It's really hard to participate, like what happens in local government can be really important; its hard when you know you have a family, and a job, and meetings happen at dinner time for your kids," Somauroo said. But she wanted to get more involved, and she remembered that at some point in time in the last three years, the city council may have made a promise to pay back extra rebuilding permit fees to survivors. Those extra fees are now estimated to total between $800,000 and close to $2 million. "I saw the staff had told them that, you know, 'No, we never made this promise,'" Somauroo said, "I was like, that's not correct. So it's like me against, you know, a million videos." To prove she wasn't making it up, Somauroo put hundreds of hours of meetings into an AI program to check for anything the council ever said about these permit rebates. Somaruroo asked the AI program, "Did the council promise to return Marshall Fire permit profits to fire survivors?" adding, "I had to find this needle in the haystack." And as a result, the exact days, times, and related quotes all came up. On July 19, 2022, Deputy City Manager Megan Davis said in part, "City council has given staff direction to determine if the fees that we're collecting are in, you know, excess of the programs and services that are necessary to respond to the Marshall fire and the rebuilds associated with that and and if we find that there's, you know, any inconsistency there, then we can determine a way to rebate or pass on, you know, any discrepancy." Then again in that meeting, Ashley Stolzmann who was the mayor at the time says in part, "...make it clear that the we have given direction that we want the building fee program to cover the cost of building inspection and plan review, and that if there are savings, because so many people are going through this at the same time, we. Hope there are savings like that could be a silver lining in a terrible situation, that we will rebate those savings." In another meeting on Aug. 16, 2022, councilmember Maxine Most said, "I think there's a general consensus that if we find out that we get way more in permitting fees than we expected, I think there's consensus among the council that we're happy to give that money back." This June, Somauroo emailed all of this information to the city council, and last month they voted to look into back into the issue. Still, some council members like Mayor Pro Tem Caleb Dickinson want some limits on funds the city was already counting on, especially as 90% of homes are already in the rebuilding process. "It is a tough time to be thinking about giving a million dollars back when we're making budget cuts to some of our core services. So it's a tough moment, but we want to hold to that, that idea that these permits are meant to pay for service," Dickinson said. When divided amongst survivors, the rebates could give each family a few thousand dollars. When CBS Colorado Your Boulder County Reporter Sarah Horbacewicz asked Dickinson if he thought this topic would ever come back up without Somauroo's detailed AI report, he said, "No, honestly, I don't think so. I think we felt pretty whole. I think we felt like we made a really good choice about what we did, rebate, didn't rebate, and I think it felt it felt good to me personally, but it didn't feel good to others," also adding, "For us to hear that voice, that that's really important. We've heard both sides." And Somauroo hopes other residents will hear more from their city council, even if they don't have the time for their next meeting. "I hope people who aren't engaged and want an answer, you can go and ask questions," Somauroo said. The city says it plans to look into the rebate options over the next few months as it hopes to find a balance between keeping a promise and balancing next year's budget.
Yahoo
7 days ago
- Yahoo
Survivors of devastating fire run into unexpected obstacle to recovery: 'There are still people in this community that are struggling to rebuild'
Survivors of devastating fire run into unexpected obstacle to recovery: 'There are still people in this community that are struggling to rebuild' More than three years after the Marshall Fire tore through Colorado, many of the people affected are still stuck in limbo, reported Denver7. At a gathering in Louisville, survivors shared that rebuilding has been more difficult than they could have ever imagined. Some people have had to leave their communities, and others are still living with financial stress and confusion about insurance. The wildfire, which destroyed over 1,000 homes and businesses, left people scrambling for help and answers in Boulder County, and now survivors are calling for major changes to the insurance system that was supposed to help them rebuild. They are asking for clearer policies, accountability, and support that meets the cost of rebuilding. "We had about 50% of the home dwelling coverage needed actually to rebuild our home," said Judi Kern, who lost her home in the fire and now serves on Louisville's City Council, per Denver7. What's happening? On July 8, around 50 Marshall Fire survivors met with state lawmakers to talk about how hard it's been to rebuild. Many say their insurance payouts fell short of the actual cost to replace a home. One study, which included University of Colorado Boulder researchers, found that 74% of policyholders were underinsured, and 36% were severely underinsured. Some survivors said their insurance companies paid out their policy in full, but still, it wasn't enough to rebuild. Others shared that they're still paying interest on mortgages for homes that no longer exist. "There are still people in this community that are struggling to rebuild," State Rep. Kyle Brown told Denver7. Why is the extreme weather concerning? Extreme weather events like the Marshall Fire are becoming more common and more destructive, much of which is fueled by the burning of dirty energy sources. The pollution from coal, oil, and gas traps heat, making wildfires worse and longer-lasting. This leads to more communities being at risk, and insurance companies are pulling back from covering those areas. Homeowners are more exposed and uncertain about the future. Without insurance, it's nearly impossible to rebuild and recover. After major fires in California and Colorado, many residents have faced the same uphill battle. According to a Vox report, insurers have declined coverage for millions in vulnerable regions over the last few years. Many homeowners have turned to the state's FAIR plan as a last resort. How concerned are you about the plastic waste in our oceans? Extremely I'm pretty concerned A little Not much Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. What's being done about insurance coverage? Colorado lawmakers created House Bill 25-1182, which requires insurance companies to be more transparent about wildfire risk scores and to consider steps homeowners have taken to reduce their risk. But lawmakers also warned that if regulations go too far, companies might stop offering coverage in the state altogether. The Colorado FAIR Plan, much like the California FAIR Plan, offers limited coverage to people who have had insurance denied by at least three carriers. Groups like Extreme Weather Survivors are working to connect disaster survivors across the country, providing support and pushing for reforms that protect people and not just profits. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
