Evanston council directs staff to study non‑municipal reuse of 2100 Ridge; schedules public discussion

Council member Nussbaum moved and a majority approved adding consideration of non‑municipal uses and adaptive reuse options for the Civic Center at 2100 Ridge Avenue as a special order of business on upcoming council agendas, directing staff to prepare materials and community engagement for those meetings.

The council voted to add two agenda items: an initial public discussion at the February 24 meeting and an action item at a subsequent March meeting. The motion passed on a recorded vote; the clerk reported seven votes in favor and one against.

City Engineer Laura Biggs updated the council on a relocation and feasibility study for city hall, police and fire headquarters. Biggs said AECOM cost estimates for several alternatives ranged from tens of millions to more than $100 million depending on site and scope, and she noted prior reports (Doyle, US Equities) that consistently showed renovation of the existing Civic Center would be “fairly expensive.” Biggs said rebuilding or integrated redevelopment options ranged significantly in estimated cost and that renovating the existing building is now estimated at roughly $71 million (January 2024 dollars) with operations and maintenance adding substantially over a 20‑year horizon.

Biggs also briefed the council on federal historic preservation tax credits and the State of Illinois program. She said federal credits can cover 20% of qualified rehabilitation expenses (QREs) but are limited to portions of a building that are income producing after rehabilitation and require extensive documentation and compliance with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Because the Civic Center building is larger than the city needs, Biggs said developers would likely need to put part of the building into taxable, income‑producing use for tax credits to apply.

Council members debated whether to continue pursuing renovation versus moving operations to leased office space (909 Davis was discussed as a cost‑effective alternative). Council member Nussbaum urged staff to assemble alternatives and community engagement so the council can make a firm decision, and she moved the special order items. Council member Kelly said independent contractor estimates she had seen suggested lower renovation costs (about $35–$40 million) and urged more detailed, comparable estimates; others noted AECOM’s deeper review of building systems and code issues.

Council members also asked staff to clarify public engagement already completed (surveys and listening sessions) and to provide detailed comparisons that include ongoing maintenance and lease costs. The council directed staff to return with refined cost numbers and to include options for renovating, relocating, or adaptively reusing the site so the community can comment at the February 24 discussion and at the March action meeting.