Last year, community activists and Ald. Gene Schulter (47th) pressed for action to fix the leakage, overcrowding, mold and other problems at the Sulzer Regional Library, 4455 N. Lincoln Ave.
One of their demands was to see the results of a facility study that had ostensibly begun in the year 2000.
In 2001, Public Building Commission head Eileen Carey and Library Commissioner Mary A. Dempsey refused to release the results of the long-awaited study, calling it only a “draft.” Carey announced on Sept. 14 that the real study was just beginning and would be completed within “eight to nine weeks”—by mid-November.
In December, library spokeswoman Margot Burke said the study wasn’t finished because “we’re expecting a totally comprehensive review, and that takes time.”
Most of the parties involved have told Inside that things are still being studied. But they seem as reluctant to divulge details as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is to talk about Delta Force operations in Afghanistan. None of the parties contacted by Inside seemed to know—or see any reason to reveal—precisely what is being studied, who is studying it, how they are going about it, how much it is costing taxpayers or when it’s expected to be finished. Sulzer’s recently installed director, Greta Bever, would neither confirm nor deny whether anyone had been on the Sulzer property to study anything, saying the commissioner was the only person who could comment on it.
When pressed further to tell whether she had seen—or even heard rumors of—anyone conducting a “comprehensive study” of the building, Bever repeated that “the only information I get comes through the commissioner’s office ... you had better talk to the commissioner.”
The commissioner’s press secretary, Margot Burke, said of the study’s status: “I assume it’s the same as when you last called [in December]... It’s a detailed study and it’s still in the works.”
Terry Levin of the Public Building Commission—the nonprofit, quasi-public agency that acts as a developer and general contractor for public building projects—was not quite as shy.
When asked about the timetable for completion of the study, Levin said: “We are less concerned with how much time it takes than that it is done comprehensively. Sulzer has had problems since it opened. We need and want a definitive study.”
Levin said concrete steps to correct the leakage problems could only be taken when the contractor, Holabird and Root, and its subcontractor are “satisfied they have all the information.”
He said he was unaware whether the newer study would include an assessment of mold damage and the danger that recurring mold growth, fueled excessive dampness, could pose to library workers and patrons. But he said that the PBC had determined that the mold was “not an immediate danger” to anyone.
Levin had no comment whether any public health or environmental agencies had become involved with the building, either in a regulatory or advisory capacity.
Levin also had no comment on the budget for the study. “We’re not going to constrain it” financially, he said. “We want a comprehensive look.”
Clive Bransby of CCS, a subcontractor used by Holabird & Root in both the draft and the current study, did say that they had begun studying the structural problems at Sulzer “two years ago.”
“Studies are definitely being carried out to look at ways to solve the problems and deal with the issues as soon as possible,” Bransby said. But he couldn’t offer much concrete information either.
“We only have a very small part in the whole process,” Bransby demurred. “Talk to the Capital Development Board or the PBC itself.”
When asked why the secrecy, he replied: “I don’t really know it’s that secret, but it’s something I’d have to talk to my client [about]. ... Without having spoken to our own client and knowing their position, to talk to the press is something we don’t do.
“If I hear from the PBC that I can talk to you further, I will. But as it is, I have to end the conversation.”
Printable Version