City Council members voted this week to delay their decision for two weeks on whether or not to demolish the aging Pioneer Way structure to put up a parking lot.

On Tuesday, the council seemed to be leaning toward following the proposal by City Engineer Joe Stowell that the building be razed after the new sewage treatment plant is built adjacent to it.

The decision, he said, wouldn’t be set in stone because the demolition wouldn’t happen until 2018, after the treatment plant is done. He said the council members could change their minds before then if another solution comes to light.

“I try to stay neutral as I can,” Stowell told the council, “but I really feel this is the best solution for the situation we’re in.”

The city purchased the former bank property in order to build the treatment plant on the back parking lot, which is next to Windjammer Park. The building came with the deal, but leaders had no specific plans for the structure.

The problem Stowell is trying to solve is that a neighboring business has a parking easement that requires the city, as the new property owner, to provide parking spaces. The easement comprises 90 spaces between the two property owners.

In addition, the plant may also need to up 50 parking spaces.

Councilwoman Tara Hizon noted that the building “isn’t exactly a jewel.”

In fact, it has a long list of problems that could cost the city as much as $2 million to fix in order to use the building as a public facility.

Instead of investing potentially millions into retrofitting an old building, Councilman Joel Servatius said he would prefer to spend money relocating the ballfields in Windjammer Park to a bigger, better location and expanding the park.

Hizon and a couple of other council members said they were uncomfortable making a decision in such a short timeframe and with some questions unanswered.

Stowell made the demolition proposal during a workshop the previous week.

Councilman Bob Severns, a candidate for mayor, seemed the least convinced about the demolition proposal, though he admitted he might be persuaded with more information. He pressed his idea of moving the sewage treatment plant northward — further out of Windjammer Park — in order to save as much park property along the water as possible.

“If we could take the building down and move it further north, I would vote on it tonight,” he said.

Stowell explained that the current design configures the treatment plant building into a “campus” setting in order to make it aesthetically pleasing and also for an efficient interconnection between the sewage-treatment buildings. Moving it north in its current configuration would require the purchase of property from neighboring Wells Fargo, which would be problematic.

“Communication with Wells Fargo has been difficult at best,” he said.

Severns questioned whether it makes sense to destroy the building after paying so much for it. He pointed out that the city paid $2.6 million for the building and property; the building itself likely amounted to a significant portion of that cost.

Severns recused himself from the decision to purchase the property because he was a board member of Whidbey Island Bank, which is now Heritage Bank.

In an interview with the Whidbey News-Times after Tuesday’s meeting, Severns said he wishes he could have been involved in the decision to buy the property so he could have asked questions about a facility with so many problems.

“We’re going to have citizens asking why in the world did we pay $2.6 (million) for it in the first place,” he told his fellow council members.

“That’s behind us. I want to make the best decisions going forward.”

The property and building were appraised by a professional at the purchase price of $2.6 million. The county valued the building at $4.25 million and the land alone at $960,000 in 2014, according to the Island County Assessor’s Office.

Whidbey Island Bank purchased the building and property in 2004 for $828,000.

The building needs a seismic retrofit if it is to be used as a public facility. An engineering firm estimates the cost of the retrofit from $163,000 to $5 million, with a median of $900,000.

If the city keeps the building, a long list of costly improvements would likely be necessary, including roof repairs, replacement of upstairs windows, replacement of the elevator, improvement of fire alarm and sprinkler systems and installation of new carpet.

City officials were aware of those issues before the building was purchased, but the inventory of available property for the plant in the area was limited.

Stowell urged the council not to delay its decision.

City Administrator Larry Cort said it is perfectly reasonable for the council to ask for more information before moving forward. He suggested a special meeting to discuss the issue, which was set for 3 p.m. May 19.

The council may make its final decision that night.