Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 445 West Newhall Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears city water official on possible demolition of historic pump station at 445 West Newhall
Summary
City water operations manager Kelly Zylstra described serious structural deterioration and asbestos at the National Register‑listed pump station at 445 West Newhall and said the utility is likely to seek demolition after weighing costs, mitigation and SHPO negotiation; commissioners discussed surplus sale, mitigation and Council review but took no formal vote.
City and commission members discussed the future of a National Register‑listed water utility pump station at 445 West Newhall and the utility’s current preference to demolish the structure rather than undertake a costly rehabilitation.
Charlie introduced the item and said the water utility is considering demolition. Charlie had earlier told the commission that, because the structure is on the National Register, formal demolition “will have to go through a negotiation process with the State Historic Preservation Office, the SHPO,” and that the project would not require a Section 106 federal review if no federal funds are used.
Kelly Zylstra, identified in the meeting as the water utility operations manager and a city resident, described her inspection and photos of the building: “It does contain asbestos which is somewhat concerning to me as a citizen,” she said, noting corroded metal joists, visible daylight through roof intersections and mold inside the reservoir structure. Zylstra said the property was built in 1948, that Well 4 was properly abandoned under DNR standards in 2018, and that the utility no longer needs the site after centralizing operations.
Commissioners pressed alternatives and costs. The Chair said the structure’s visible columns give it character but asked whether retaining the building was feasible; another commissioner said, “trying to save this far exceeds any value,” arguing rehabilitation costs would likely be high. Several commissioners suggested listing the property as surplus and offering it for sale as‑is so a private buyer might repurpose it, while others noted that mitigation requirements associated with the National Register status and hazardous materials would complicate a sale.
Charlie told the commission the final disposition would likely be decided by the Common Council and that the Landmarks Commission would have the opportunity to comment if SHPO mitigation is proposed. No formal motion or decision to demolish was made; the commission’s discussion centered on options for reuse, sale, mitigation and the budgeting and regulatory steps needed for abatement and removal.
Next steps identified in the discussion included staff continuing negotiations with SHPO as necessary and consultation with the Common Council about surplus designation and potential sale or demolition funding.
