Timeline: Key Events in the Leu Civic Center Situation in Mascoutah

MASCOUTAH — The future of the Leu Civic Center has developed over more than a year of discussions, decisions and, at times, differing interpretations between city officials and Civic Center leadership.

The following timeline outlines key events that have led to the current situation.

On Feb. 18, 2025, the Mascoutah City Council discussed a boiler issue at the Leu Civic Center, with officials noting that repair or replacement could come at a significant cost. At that time, it was stated that the system would be examined by a professional from Martin-Jetco Heating and Air Conditioning. City officials and Civic Center representatives also indicated that they would work together to define what success would look like for the facility moving forward.

On July 24, 2025, the direction of those discussions shifted. Instead of defining long-term goals for the Civic Center, it was stated that the organization would have approximately three to five years to vacate the building to allow for the construction of a first responder complex. Councilman Mike Baker referenced this timeline in multiple meetings.

On Nov. 12, 2025, the council held a special meeting regarding the proposed first responder complex. While the Civic Center building and its location were part of the broader discussion, the Civic Center organization itself was not a primary focus of the meeting.

On Nov. 17, 2025, Councilman Jack Weyant raised the topic of planning for relocation of Civic Center programs. The suggestion drew criticism during the meeting.

On Jan. 5, 2026, discussion included a building needs assessment document originally requested during former Mayor Pat McMahan’s administration. The assessment reviewed multiple city-owned buildings, including the Civic Center. Around this time, Councilmen Michael Voegle and Steve Beimfohr were assigned as liaisons between the city and the Civic Center.

City Manager Cody Hawkins later clarified that the Civic Center structural report referenced in these discussions originated from a 2022 space needs study conducted by FGM Architects, which had hired Kreher Engineering to complete the structural portion. According to Hawkins, the purpose of that study was to evaluate how much space the city had and identify future facility needs, not to determine the immediate viability of the Civic Center building.

Hawkins stated that he returned to his role with the city in October 2023 and, as discussion about the Civic Center intensified in 2025, he contacted FGM to obtain the structural report, which he received in November 2025. He stated that the report “was never hidden or secret,” but rather had not been previously needed until the Civic Center discussions resumed.

On Jan. 15, 2026, Hawkins further clarified the timeline regarding the FGM report, stating that he had documentation showing when it was received and that it was not withheld from council or the public.

During this period, Mayor Wally Battas stated in a council meeting that the document had not been discovered until later, presenting a differing characterization of when the report became known. Concerns raised within the report included issues related to ADA compliance and fire alarm systems. City Attorney Al Paulson also expressed ongoing concerns about the building during this time.

Hawkins also noted that the original structural findings from Kreher were based on photographic review rather than an on-site inspection. After council members became aware of this, they requested a more comprehensive, in-person evaluation.

On Feb. 2, 2026, the council informed Civic Center representatives that they would need to vacate the building by May 29, 2026. During that meeting, Councilman Weyant requested that a structural engineer evaluate the building. Mayor Battas expressed concern that conducting another inspection could be a waste of taxpayer funds, citing the prior report.

On Feb. 3, 2026, the day following the meeting, a structural engineering inspection was scheduled.

According to Hawkins, this second structural report was requested specifically due to ongoing debate and questions regarding the building’s viability. He stated that he contacted Kreher Engineering to conduct an on-site inspection for the city.

That inspection was conducted on Feb. 11, 2026. The review consisted of visual observations and identification of potential issues rather than invasive testing.

On March 2, 2026, the results of that inspection were presented to the council. According to information presented at that meeting, the building was recommended to be vacated within four days. Council members received the report the same day it was presented.

The inspection and its conclusions raised questions among some regarding how much time was available for review and whether the situation constituted an immediate safety concern.

It was also noted that liaison council members were not informed in advance of the inspection being scheduled.

Following the March 2 meeting, the building was vacated and has remained unused.

Subsequently, the Civic Center obtained a separate third-party structural assessment conducted by Pat Netemeyer of Netemeyer Engineering Associates, Inc. That report included limited destructive investigation and concluded that steel columns within the building’s masonry structure were intact and functioning as the primary load-bearing elements.

According to the report, cracking observed in the masonry was attributed to moisture infiltration and freeze-thaw cycles and did not impact the structural integrity of the steel columns. The report stated that the condition did not present a risk of structural failure or collapse and did not support the basis for an emergency evacuation.

Hawkins noted that this third structural report was commissioned independently by the Civic Center in early April.

On March 31, 2026, the city was informed of the findings of this independent assessment, which indicated that the building was structurally safe.

During this period, changes were also made to communication between the city and the Civic Center. Former liaison council members were told to no longer serve in that role, and it was stated that communication would instead be limited to Hawkins and Civic Center Board President Chris Bandre. Questions remain regarding how that decision was directed.

On April 6, 2026, the City Council considered future options for the property. Meeting agenda materials included a recommendation to transfer ownership of the building to the Civic Center under conditions that it be repaired and, if not maintained, returned to the city.

During the meeting, however, Mayor Battas and Councilman Baker stated opposition to gifting the property. Instead, a motion was made to advertise the building as surplus property.

The motion passed, with Councilmen Jack Weyant, Michael Voegle and Steve Beimfohr voting in favor, and Mayor Battas and Councilman Baker voting against.

At the April 20, 2026 City Council meeting, discussion on the Civic Center continued, with council members expressing differing views on how to proceed. Councilman Weyant said he believed the issue had gone on too long and suggested reopening the building for public use, particularly with summer approaching. He also raised questions regarding ADA requirements and whether programs operated by an outside organization could continue under different compliance standards.

City Attorney Al Paulson reiterated concerns about liability, stating he remained worried about the potential risk to the city if an incident were to occur and emphasized the need for a definitive structural determination.

Councilman Mike Voegele said he did not believe there was a structural concern with the building and identified ADA compliance and fire safety as the primary issues, which he suggested could potentially be addressed.

Councilman Steve Beimfohr agreed, referencing the most recent structural findings and stating that both engineers had acknowledged the building to be structurally sound. He also emphasized the need to move forward with a decision.

Mayor Battas stated that different inspectors may reach different conclusions and said insurance costs and repair requirements remain key concerns. Councilman Mike Baker reiterated that the council had already voted to proceed with selling the property as surplus and said the process should continue, citing liability concerns and the need to rely on the city’s own engineering report.

City Manager Hawkins asked the council for direction on whether to proceed with surveying the property and beginning the bidding process, noting that doing so would involve additional costs. Council members also discussed the timeline for surveying and advertising the property, as well as the requirement that it be publicly listed before a sale.

Hawkins stated that the second structural report and subsequent actions were part of the city’s effort to address questions about the building’s condition, adding that the situation has evolved based on the information available at each stage.

If anything has been missed or needs further clarification, please comment or contact The Herald at heraldpubs.com.