State Historic Preservation Office Programmatic Agreement for use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) FundingCity of Dubuque
City Council
ACTION ITEMS # 3.
Copyrighted
February 2, 2026
ITEM TITLE: State Historic Preservation Office Programmatic Agreement
for use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Funding
SUMMARY: City Manager recommending City Council approval and to
authorize the Mayor to sign the Programmatic Agreement
between the City of Dubuque, Iowa; The Iowa State Historic
Preservation Officer; and The City of Dubuque Historic
Preservation Commission for U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development Part 58 programs administered by
the City of Dubuque, Iowa.
RESOLUTION Authorizing The Mayor To Execute A
Programmatic Agreement Between The City Of Dubuque;
The Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer And The City Of
Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission For HUD -Funded
Programs
SUGGUESTED Receive and File; Adopt Resolution(s)
DISPOSITION:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. MVM Memo SHPO Programmatic Agreement for use of HUD Funding
2. Staff Memo
3. Programmatic Agreement
4. HUD Correspondence
5. ACHP Correspondence
6. HPC Letter of Support
7. CDAC Letter of Support
8. Public Comments
9. Resolution
Page 686 of 865
Dubuque
THE CITY OF
uFA�a9a av
DuBE
13
Masterpiece on the Mississippi zoo�•*o
rP PP 2017202019
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
SUBJECT: State Historic Preservation Office Programmatic Agreement for use of
HUD Funding
DATE: January 22, 2026
Planning Services Director Wally Wernimont is recommending City Council approval
and to authorize the Mayor to sign the Programmatic Agreement between the City of
Dubuque, Iowa; The Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer; and The City of Dubuque
Historic Preservation Commission for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Part 58 programs administered by the City of Dubuque, Iowa.
I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council
approval.
v
Mic ael C. Van Milligen
MCVM:sv
Attachment
cc: Crenna Brumwell, City Attorney
Cori Burbach, Assistant City Manager
Wally Wernimont, Planning Services Director
Christine Happ Olson, Assistant Planner
Maddy Haverland, Urban Development & Housing Rehabilitation
Page 687 of 865
THE CITY OF
DUB El
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager
FROM: Wally Wernimont, Planning Services Manager
SUBJECT: SHPO Programmatic Agreement for use of HUD Funding
DATE: January 22, 2026
Dubuque
All -America City
I I I I V
2007-2012.2013
2017*2019
INTRODUCTION
This memo transmits a packet of information for the upcoming February 2, 2026 City
Council meeting. The packet includes a Programmatic Agreement between the City of
Dubuque (City) and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
BACKGROUND
The City, through its Housing & Community Development Department, has been the
recipient of HUD program funding since 1997. It has been over a decade since the City and
SHPO have had programmatic agreements for various HUD funded programs for the
purpose of simplifying the SHPO review for Section 106, essentially lessening the
bureaucracy for simple, straightforward projects when historic resources are not affected
negatively.
Section 106 refers to that portion of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), a
national law requiring federal agencies to assess the effects of their projects (funded,
licensed, or approved by the federal government) on properties listed in or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, ensuring historic preservation concerns are factored
into project planning through public consultation. This review process involves identifying
historic properties, assessing impacts, and finding ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
adverse effects to historic properties.
The requirements of meeting a concurrence from the SHPO have changed significantly
since we've had a past programmatic agreement in place, and therefore the new agreement
will be welcome in that it will decrease processing time for such cases where we deem the
program activities of the grant will have no negative effect. Where this is the case, we can
document our findings, make that determination and waive the review by the SHPO. At the
end of each contract year, we'll make a report back to the SHPO with that information.
In 2019, we began exploring a new programmatic agreement. Drafting was in process by
2020, but stalled due to various staffing changes at the SHPO over the years. This fall, they
took the process up again, it has gone through numerous iterations between the SHPO and
Planning Services office, with reviews and signoffs from:
Page 688 of 865
• City of Dubuque Housing & Community Development and Legal Department reviews
• Federal HUD and Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation (ACHP) reviews
• SHPO review
• Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) and Community Development Advisory
Commission (CDAC) reviews
• A draft was made available online to the public, following a news flash by the City,
and outreach to relevant tribal entities who are stakeholders in Iowa resulted in
hearing back from the loway's Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) in which
the THPO was in strong favor of the agreement.
Neither the ACHP nor HUD desire or are required to be a signatory, but both are in favor of
the agreement.
DISCUSSION
The final draft of the Programmatic Agreement is now ready for review by City Council.
Following approval and signature by the Mayor, the SHPO will authorize it for the State of
Iowa. Once signed, the agreement will be in place through the end of 2030, and as required
by the programmatic agreement, we will make this available to the public on our website.
REQUESTED ACTION
I respectfully request City Council approval and to authorize the Mayor to sign the
programmatic agreement between the City of Dubuque, Iowa; The Iowa State Historic
Preservation Officer; and The City of Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission for U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Part 58 programs administered by the City
of Dubuque, Iowa.
prepared by Christine Happ Olson, Assistant Planner
enclosures: Final HUD Programmatic Agreement— SHPO —City 2025-12-13
Compiled review results from the City's HPC and HC, the federal ACHP and
HUD, and the public outreach, including to the THPOs of various tribes.
cc: Christine Happ Olson, Assistant Planner
Maddy Haverland, Urban Development & Housing Rehabilitation
F:\Users\Planning Sec\City Council\00 Historic Preservation - non-Grants\Programmatic Agreement SHPO - 2026-2030\01 Staff
Memo SHPO Programmatic Agreement for HUD.doc
2
Page 689 of 865
PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA;
THE IOWA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER; AND
THE CITY OF DUBUQUE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FOR U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
PART 58 PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY
THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA
WHEREAS, the City of Dubuque, Iowa ("City"), now or may in the future, where staff
("Program Staff') administers grant programs, or serve as the responsible entity for grant
recipients that receive funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development ("HUD"), which include the Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG")
program, Lead Hazard Control Grant program, HOME program, Housing Trust Fund, and other
HUD programs (collectively, "Programs") for which the City assumes HUD's environmental
review responsibility pursuant to 24 CRF Part 58 (and as may be amended); and
WHEREAS, the City's Programs may encompass any of the following activities ("Program
Activity"), each of which may constitute an "Undertaking" as defined pursuant to 36 CFR Part
800.16(y): single-family and multi -family rehabilitation, property acquisition, property
relocation, handicapped accessibility improvements, demolition, new construction, lead hazard
reduction, and redevelopment projects; and
WHEREAS, in the administration of Programs and pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58, the City
assumes responsibility for compliance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act (54 USC § 306108), as amended and implemented in 36 CFR Part 800
("Section 106") for Programs; and
WHEREAS, the City has been designated as a Certified Local Government under Section
101(a)(c) of the National Historic Preservation Act as amended and its implementing regulations
found in 36 CFR Part 61, and as such has qualified staff ("Certified Staff') which meets the
appropriate qualifications set forth in 36 CFR Part 61 and is knowledgeable in Undertakings
relevant to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has authorized the Certified Local Government Dubuque Historic
Preservation Commission ("Commission") and qualified staff to administer the provisions of this
Programmatic Agreement ("Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the City, by and through its Commission, is responsible for the identification,
documentation, and surveying of all historic resources to determine their eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places ("NRHP"); and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that Undertakings may have an effect on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and has consulted with the Iowa State Historic
Preservation Officer ("SHPO") and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ("ACHP")
pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.14; and
Page 690 of 865
WHEREAS, the ACHP and Tribal Nations and entities were contacted to participate and
comment on this Agreement, the ACHP selected not to participate and no tribe but the Iowa Tribe
of Kansas and Nebraska provided comment, that being to decline to participate but share their
support in the agreement's creation; and
WHEREAS, the City agrees that, as part of the implementation of low and moderate income
housing activities, the City and Commission will consider the principles set forth in the ACHP's
"Policy Statement on Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation," which is attached as
Appendix A, when carrying out the stipulations of this Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City, the SHPO, and the ACHP agree that Undertakings implemented
with financial assistance from covered Programs will be implemented in accordance with the
following Stipulations to take into account the effect of the Undertakings on historic properties,
satisfying the City's Section 106 responsibilities for all individual Undertakings.
STIPULATIONS
The City shall ensure that the following measures are carried out:
I. QUALIFICATIONS OF PERSONNEL
A. The City shall ensure that all Undertakings and reviews of such activities carried
out pursuant to this Agreement are implemented by or under the direct supervision
of a person(s) qualified in accordance with The Secretary of the Interior's ("SOI")
Professional Qualifications Standards published in 36 CFR Part 61 (hereinafter
referred to as "Certified Staff'). Such Certified Staff will be responsible for
monitoring the administration of this Agreement. Certified Staff shall certify that
all work subjected to this Agreement is carried out in compliance with the
Agreement's terms and shall include such certification in the documentation
required pursuant to Stipulation XII.
B. When archaeological review and monitoring is necessary, the service of a
person(s) meeting the Professional Qualifications for the discipline of
archaeology shall be retained.
C. The City shall notify the SHPO in writing annually of the personnel or consultant
responsible for complying with and administering this Agreement. The City shall
submit a report to the SHPO to evaluate and verify the training and experience of
the proposed Certified Staff and that they are qualified to make determinations of
eligibility, assess effect, and apply The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties (the "Standards') as the Certified Staff.
D. The City shall notify the SHPO in writing of any proposed staffing changes or
vacancies. If the City does not have Certified Staff in place, or if the SHPO
determines that a City staff person or consultant is not qualified to carry out the
Page 691 of 865
review, the City shall consult with the SHPO and adhere to and follow Section
106 standards 36 CFR Part 800.3 - 800.6 until qualified Certified Staff is in place.
II. CONSULTATION WITH TRIBES/TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION
OFFICERS (THPOs)
When the City administers Programs or serves as the responsible entity for grant
recipients under Programs that are funded by HUD and for which HUD provides for
the City to assume HUD's environmental review responsibility, the City shall follow
procedures outlined in 24 CFR 58 and HUD Notice CPD-12-006 for consulting with
Tribes/Tribal Historic Preservation Officers ("THPO"). Program Staff will lead this
process with guidance from Certified Staff as necessary.
III. REVIEW PROCESS
A. The City shall adopt and implement internal procedures to ensure that all Program
activities that will affect, or have the potential to affect, historic properties are
forwarded to the Certified Staff for review pursuant to this Agreement prior to
implementation.
B. Program activities and project activities are understood to be Undertakings subject
to this Agreement.
C. The City shall ensure that City Program Staff, community development
corporations, registered community organizations, other citizen groups, and local
preservation groups are provided with copies of this Agreement and any
associated written guidance. Program Staff will ensure all subrecipients of HUD
funding in the City are aware of this Agreement, its requirements, and need to
complete the Section 106 review in coordination with Certified Staff prior to the
initiation of project activities. The City, in consultation with Certified Staff, shall
advise sub -recipients and project sponsors of the requirements of Section 110(k)
of the National Historic Preservation Act, should properties be adversely affected
prior to compliance with Section 106.
IV. ACTIVITIES EXEMPT FROM FURTHER REVIEW
The following Undertakings, which have limited potential to affect historic
properties, do not require review by the SHPO or ACHP. Further compliance with the
ACHP's regulation (36 CFR Part 800) is not required. These Undertakings and their
potential effect will be determined by Certified Staff.
A. Undertakings limited exclusively to the activities listed in Appendix C of this
Agreement.
B. Repair or rehabilitation Undertakings, but not demolition or new construction,
whose effects are limited to properties that are less than forty-five (45) years old,
unless the affected properties could meet Criterion Consideration G, or if ground -
disturbing activities are involved.
Page 692 of 865
C. Undertakings limited exclusively to interior portions of residential properties
where the proposed work will only directly affect buildings that are not listed or
are not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
Documentation concerning these determinations shall be maintained in each
individual project file by the City for five (5) years. Files shall be made available for
review by Certified Staff, or the SHPO, in accordance with Stipulation XII of this
Agreement.
V. AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
A. The Area of Potential Effects ("APE") for Undertakings covered by this
Agreement shall be limited to the legal lot lines of a property when the Program
Activity consists exclusively of rehabilitating a property's interior or exterior
features except when the project is located in a NRHP-listed or eligible historic
district.
B. The APE for general construction and installation of infrastructure, when the
project is located in a NRHP-listed or eligible historic district, shall be as follows:
i. Water, sewer, and any other utility lines: The APE shall be the trunk of the
water, sewer, and other utility lines.
ii. Curb cuts for disability access: The actual curb cut area under construction
shall be the APE.
iii. Pavements: The APE shall be the pavement structure and pavement base.
iv. All other infrastructure improvements: The APE shall be analogous in
purpose, structure, and location to the APE for those improvements listed
in subsections i. through iii. above.
C. In all other cases, Certified Staff shall determine and document the APE, in
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.16(d).
VI. IDENTIFICATION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES
The City shall submit review requests to Certified Staff for compliance with the
Section 106 process and the stipulations of this Agreement. Requests will document
the location and nature of proposed Undertakings. Certified Staff will make an initial
determination as to the NRHP status or eligibility of site locations in accordance with
the following provisions. Certified Staff will review all existing information on any
property within an Undertaking's APE as required by 36 CFR Part 800.4 to determine
if such properties may be historic properties and eligible for listing in the NRHP
either individually or as contributing to a historic district.
Page 693 of 865
A. Certified Staff will consult the NRHP listing for Dubuque, the SHPO's inventory
documentation, as well as building and block files, survey forms, maps, and
databases maintained by the Commission.
i. If the property proposed for Program activities is listed in the NRHP or
has already been determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP within the
last five (5) years, the Certified Staff shall proceed with the review of the
project pursuant to Stipulation VII, unless exempted under Stipulation IV.
ii. If the property has been determined by the Certified Staff, in written
consultation with the SHPO, within the last five (5) years prior to the
current Undertaking to be ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP, then the
Undertaking may proceed without further review under the terms of this
Agreement.
B. For properties that may be affected by an Undertaking that have not previously
been evaluated for NRHP eligibility, Certified Staff will use the NRHP Criteria to
determine if the property is eligible either individually or as part of a historic
district. If district potential has not been previously investigated, the Certified
Staff will consider the potential for a district. The Certified Staff will also
consider whether the property is clearly eligible under NRHP Criterion
Consideration G and is therefore a property achieving significance within the past
fifty (50) years because it is of exceptional importance. The City is not required to
submit such determinations individually to the SHPO for review but shall submit
a list of such properties annually as part of the documentation requirements
pursuant to Stipulation XII.
C. In the event that the Certified Staff has questions concerning a property's
eligibility for the NRHP, the Certified Staff will forward all documentation,
including an Iowa Site Inventory Form, to the SHPO for evaluation, along with
their determination, if one has been made by the Certified Staff.
i. If the SHPO agrees with the Certified Staff that a property is eligible
under the criteria, the property shall be considered eligible for the NRHP
for purposes of this Agreement and shall hereinafter be referred to as a
"Historic Property". The Certified Staff and City shall continue
consultation in accordance with the terms of this Agreement for all such
properties.
ii. If the SHPO agrees with the Certified Staff that the criteria are not met, the
property shall be considered ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP for a
period of five (5) years from the date of the SHPO's review. Such
properties need not be reevaluated during this five-year period, unless a
party to this Agreement notifies the City in writing that it has determined
that changing perceptions of significance warrants a property's
reevaluation. See Stipulation VI.A.ii for additional guidance.
Page 694 of 865
iii. If the SHPO disagrees with the Certified Staff's determination regarding
eligibility, the Certified Staff shall consult further with the SHPO to reach
agreement. If agreement cannot be reached, the Certified Staff shall obtain
a final determination from the Keeper of the National Register, pursuant to
the applicable National Park Service ("NPS") regulations, 36 CFR Part
800.
D. If the SHPO's opinion is not rendered within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
submission of adequate documentation, the Certified Staff may assume that the
SHPO has no comment on the Certified Staff's determination concerning
eligibility.
E. If the Certified Staff is unable to make a determination as to the eligibility of a
property for the NRHP, and the SHPO does not respond to a request for a
determination of eligibility within thirty (30) days of receipt of such a request, the
Certified Staff shall request a determination of eligibility from the Keeper of the
National Register (Stipulation VI.C.iii).
F. The Certified Staff will keep a written record of its consultation process regarding
NRHP eligibility determinations for at least five (5) years. Certified Staff will
forward summaries of the consultation process to the SHPO as part of the annual
report required under this Agreement (Stipulation XII).
VIL TREATMENT OF HISTORIC OR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES
A. Proposed undertakings for individual properties that are eligible for, nominated
for, or listed in the NRHP, or properties determined to be eligible or contributing
resources within an NRHP-listed or eligible historic district, that include activities
other than those in Stipulation IV, must be consulted on with the SHPO in
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.3 through 800.6 (Stipulation VIII). See
Stipulation VIII.A.ii for information on how to address Certified Staff
determinations of "no effect" to historic properties. Certified Staff will initiate
consultation with the SHPO. The City shall be responsible for insuring
compliance with this Stipulation, VII.A.
B. If a property owner submits a Federal Historic Tax Credit Part 2 Historic
Preservation Certification Application (pursuant to 36 CFR Part 67) to the NPS,
the review required by the certification process shall supersede the review
outlined above. If the Undertaking receives Part 2 Certification from NPS without
conditions, it shall be deemed to conform to the Standards and will require no
further review under this Agreement. If the Undertaking is certified with
conditions, the City shall require that the Undertaking be changed in accordance
with the conditions before granting any discretionary approval. If the Undertaking
is changed in accordance with the conditions, no further review under this
Agreement will be required. The Certified Staff shall document the successful
completion of the Part 2 Certification process and may authorize the Undertaking
to proceed.
Page 695 of 865
VIII. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
A. Certified Staff will forward initial findings for all Undertakings that include
activities other than those in Stipulation IV within thirty (30) days to the
responsible City program staff providing a determination on the potential effect of
undertakings on historic resources. If the City objects to the initial findings, the
Certified Staff shall consult with the SHPO in accordance with Stipulation VI of
this Agreement.
i. If the Certified Staff determines that no historic properties are affected by
Program Activities, they will document the basis for that determination
and the HUD -assisted activity(ies) may proceed as planned. These
determinations shall be on file with Certified Staff for at least five (5)
years. A copy of these determinations shall also be maintained in each
individual project file.
ii. If the Certified Staff determines that Undertaking's Program Activities
will have no effect on any historic properties (historic properties within
the APE but will not be directly affected), it shall document the basis for
that determination, and the Undertaking may proceed as planned. These
determinations shall be on file with Certified Staff for at least five (5)
years. A copy of these determinations shall also be maintained in each
individual project file.
iii. If the Certified Staff determines that an Undertaking will have "no adverse
effect" or "no adverse effect with conditions," the Certified Staff shall
notify the SHPO, through the SHPO's submission portal, of this finding
and allow them time to concur on the undertaking. If the SHPO concurs or
does not object to this notice within thirty (30) days from the date such
notice was sent to the SHPO, the Undertaking may proceed without
further review.
iv. If the Certified Staff or the SHPO determines that an Undertaking does not
conform to the Standards, the Undertaking will be considered an adverse
effect on historic properties.
a. If the Certified Staff makes this determination, they shall notify the
SHPO in writing of this finding. The SHPO has thirty (30) days to
provide comment. If the SHPO does not comment or object to this
notice within thirty (30) days, the Undertaking may proceed
following 36 CFR Part 800.6 and 36 CFR 800.7.
b. The SHPO may recommend modifications to the scope of work or
conditions under which the Undertaking would be found to
conform to the Standards in its response to the Certified Staff. The
Certified Staff shall consult further with the SHPO to seek ways to
avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect.
Page 696 of 865
c. If an adverse effect cannot be resolved, the Certified Staff shall
initiate consultation with the SHPO and the ACHP in accordance
with 36 CFR 800.6. The following documentation should be
provided to ACHP when being invited to participate in the
project's consultation:
• A description of the Undertaking, specifying the federal
involvement, and its area of potential effects, including
photographs, maps, and drawings, as necessary.
• A copy of Certified Staff s determination of eligibility.
• A conditions assessment or structural engineer's report.
• An analysis of the Undertaking and alternatives considered,
including costs, and the proposed mitigation measures.
• The adverse effect determination from Certified Staff and
copies of any relevant comments, recommendations or
correspondence between City Program Staff and Certified
Staff concerning the adverse effect.
• Any comments received from the SHPO as a result of
consultations.
• Any relevant comments received from consulting parties
and/or the public.
v. The Certified Staff shall notify the SHPO of any changes to the scope of
work that may result in a new determination of "no adverse effect," "no
adverse effect with conditions," or "adverse effect," and shall provide the
SHPO with the opportunity to review and comment upon such changes. If
the changes do not conform to the Standards or SHPO does not concur,
the parties shall consult further, and the Certified Staff will initiate
consultation with the SHPO and the ACHP in accordance with 36 CFR
Part 800.6 if an adverse effect cannot be avoided.
B. The Certified Staff shall consult in writing with the SHPO to determine if an
Undertaking which includes ground -disturbing activities has the potential to affect
archaeological properties that may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHR If the
Certified Staff meets the qualifications of Stipulation I.B, they shall investigate
historical records and pertinent information available within the state's or City's
historical record and shall complete any further studies recommended by the
SHPO to determine if the Undertaking has the potential to affect archaeological
properties that may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. If the Certified Staff
does not meet the outlined qualifications, the City shall retain appropriate staff as
required by Stipulation I.B. Once appropriate staff are retained pursuant to
Page 697 of 865
Stipulation I.B., that staff shall investigate the historical records and pertinent
information and complete the studies recommended by the SHPO.
It is agreed that the following ground -disturbing activities have potential to affect
historic properties: excavations of any kind, installation of new utilities such as
irrigation and sprinkler systems, sewer, water storm drains, electrical, gas, leach
lines, and septic tanks, except where installation is restricted to areas previously
disturbed by the installation of such systems. If an activity is not listed above nor
in Appendix C, then the Undertaking will not meet the requirements to use this
Agreement and will need to complete a Section 106 review per 36 CFR Part 800.
i. If an Undertaking has the potential to affect any archaeological property
that may be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, the Certified Staff shall
attempt to redesign the project to avoid the archaeological property and
shall provide the SHPO with documentation regarding the property and
the steps it has taken to avoid such property.
ii. If the Undertaking cannot be redesigned to avoid the archaeological
property, the Certified Staff shall develop a plan in consultation with the
SHPO to complete the identification, evaluation, and if necessary,
mitigation of the adverse effect. If the Certified Staff and the SHPO cannot
agree that the potential to affect archaeological properties exists or cannot
agree on a plan for the consideration of such properties, the Certified Staff
will initiate consultation with the SHPO and the ACHP in accordance with
36 CFR Part 800.6.
iii. For rehabilitation projects subject to the local historical review process
and/or the Federal Historic Tax Credit (36 CFR Part 67) and State Historic
Tax Credit review by the SHPO and NPS, the Certified Staff will consult
with the relevant Commission staff and SHPO staff to discuss
coordination of compliance requirements. See Stipulation VII.B for
additional information on the Federal Historic Tax Credit.
IX. UNANTICIPATED DISCOVERIES
A. Any unanticipated discovery, including but not limited to human remains, found
during an Undertaking covered by this Agreement shall comply with applicable
state notification standards, federal laws, 36 CFR Part 800.13, this Agreement,
and the ACHP's Policy Statement on Burial Sites, Human Remains, and Funerary
Objects (March 1, 2023). The City and other participants in any Undertaking
covered by this Agreement may, but are not required to, use agreement documents
pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.13(a)(2) to ensure site -specific procedures are
applied to unanticipated discoveries. Any such agreement documents are not an
amendment to this Agreement, and the signatories to this Agreement are not
required to sign any such agreement documents for those documents to become
valid.
B. The recordation of human remains in a burial context or as individual elements is
Page 698 of 865
a task that requires sensitivity and good judgement, as determined through
consultation. Consultation is a necessary part of documenting any human remains.
At all times, human remains must be treated with the utmost dignity and respect,
and in the manner consistent with the ACHP's Policy Statement on Burial Sites,
Human Remains, and Funerary Objects (March 1, 2023).
C. All human remains over 150 years old ("Ancient Human Remains") in Iowa are
protected by Iowa Code Chapter 263B, and Iowa Code Sections 523I.316(6) and
716.5; and Iowa Administrative Code rule 685-11.1. Ancient Human Remains
discovered on federal and/or tribal lands as a result of the Undertaking are also
protected under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
("NAGPRA") (25 USC 3001-3005). See Stipulation X for further information and
instructions on the discovery and treatment of human remains.
D. The City and Certified Staff shall consult with interested parties to determine the
proper course of action regarding the discovery. No further disturbance of the
deposits shall occur until the Certified Staff or City consultant meeting
Professional Qualifications for archaeology determines that the Project Activities
in that area may proceed. Compensation to the contractor for lost time or changes
in construction to avoid the find, if any, shall be determined in accordance with
changed conditions or change order provisions of the specifications. Authority for
this derives from the National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC Part 306108 et
seq.) and 36 CFR Part 800. If human remains are discovered, then state law also
applies pursuant to Iowa Code Section 263B.
E. Procedure for Unanticipated Discoveries Not Involving Human Remains
i. If, during the course of construction, cultural materials 50 years old or
older or potentially significant properties or elements thereof are
discovered or affected, the contractor must cease all work within a 50-foot
radius of the discovery. Within 24 hours of discovery, the contractor shall
notify the Program Staff, which shall in turn notify the Certified Staff,
local law enforcement, the SHPO, and any other signatories to this
Agreement. Notification of Tribes, HUD, or other parties will occur as
needed. The contractor shall secure and protect the discovery site until it is
evaluated by SOI qualified personnel.
ii. As appropriate for the materials found, within three (3) business days of
the discovery, the Certified Staff will coordinate with SOI qualified
personnel, if they themselves do not meet the qualified personnel
standards (Stipulation I.B), to evaluate the material for NRHP eligibility
and the magnitude of the effects of the project on the material.
iii. The Certified Staff will make a determination of eligibility and finding of
effect. They will submit this information to the SHPO. The SHPO will
have five (5) business days to respond and comment.
iv. If further investigation is warranted to assess NRHP eligibility or that an
10
Page 699 of 865
adverse effect to an historic property has occurred, the Certified Staff shall
consult with SHPO and other consulting parties to develop either a
treatment plan which avoids an adverse effect or, in the case of adverse
effects to a historic property, a mitigation plan, and allow SHPO and other
consulting parties to comment.
v. Activities can resume with no further action required if the Certified Staff
determines that the discovery is not NRHP-eligible, that the historic
property can be avoided, or that an unanticipated effect was not adverse
and SHPO concurs. If further action is required, work can continue after
an appropriate treatment plan or mitigation plan is agreed upon. Cultural
material may be returned to the landowner once evaluation is complete.
The Certified Staff shall inform the contractor when the 50-foot radius
area is released for continued construction.
F. Once clearance has been given or a mitigation plan has been agreed on by all
involved parties, the Certified Staff may inform the contractor that work in the
area of the discovery may recommence.
X. TREATMENT OF HUMAN REMAINS AND ITEMS OF RELIGIOUS AND
CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
A. In the event that human remains are encountered during archaeological
investigations or construction activity, the City shall ensure that the remains are
left in place, that work within 100 feet of the remains ceases, that the site will be
secured, and that the following entities will be contacted immediately upon
discovery: local law enforcement, the State Medical Examiner, and the director of
the Bioarchaeology Program at the Office of the State Archaeologist ("OSA")
either directly or through the State Archaeologist. Signatories to this Agreement
will also be notified within 24 hours of discovery.
Any photographic documentation of Ancient Human Remains, and any associated
artifacts must not be publicly distributed or displayed.
B. All Ancient Human Remains in Iowa are protected by the following sections of
Iowa law: Code Chapter 26313, Code Sections 523I.316(6) and 716.5, and
Administrative Rule 685-11.1. Native American human remains discovered on
Federal and/or tribal lands as a result of the Undertaking are also protected under
NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001-3005), regardless of their antiquity.
C. If the remains are determined to be Ancient Human Remains, the Bioarchaeology
Program at the OSA shall have jurisdiction to ensure that the Iowa Code as well
as NAGPRA and its implementing regulations (43 CFR Part 10), as applicable,
are observed. The disposition of the remains will be arranged by the director of
the Bioarchaeology Program and the State Archaeologist in consultation with the
culturally affiliated Tribe(s) and the OSA's Indian Advisory Council, or other
descendant communities as applicable. Any dispute regarding the applicability of
11
Page 700 of 865
NAGPRA as a result of the Undertaking shall be resolved in accordance with 43
CFR Part 10.17. A copy of the local law enforcement report with the OSA
determination shall be sent to the Certified Staff for the project record. The
Certified Staff shall inform the contractor when the 100-foot radius area is
released for continued construction.
D. If the remains are determined to be less than 150 years old, the Iowa Department
of Public Health will have jurisdiction. The OSA will coordinate with the State
Medical Examiner ("SME") to determine the ancestry and antiquity of the
remains. If the human remains are identified as Native American and not of
medicolegal significance, the OSA will coordinate with the SME and Tribes to
determine the appropriate disposition. A copy of the investigative report
containing the human or non -human designation shall be sent to the Certified
Staff for the project record. The Certified Staff shall inform the contractor when
the 100-foot radius area is released for continued construction.
E. If the remains are determined not to be human, no further action is required under
Stipulation X but note that the discovery may still constitute an archaeological site
under other applicable law. A copy of the investigative report containing the
human or non -human designation shall be sent to the Certified Staff for the
project record. The Certified Staff shall inform the contractor when the 100-foot
radius area is released for continued construction.
F. Before work can resume in the area of the unanticipated discovery, the Certified
Staff will determine the NRHP eligibility of the historic resources in consultation
with the SHPO.
G. Contacts of OSA and SME:
i. Lara Noldner, PhD
Bioarchaeology Director
Office of the State Archaeologist
University of Iowa
700 S Clinton St.
Iowa City, IA 52242
319-384-0740
lara-noldner(auiowa. edu
ii. John Doershuk, PhD
State Archaeologist
Office of the State Archaeologist
University of Iowa
700 S Clinton St.
Iowa City, IA 52242
319-384-0740
j ohn-doershuk(c�r�,uiowa. edu
12
Page 701 of 865
iii. Dennis Klein, MD
State Medical Examiner
Iowa Office of the State Medical Examiner
Iowa Department of Public Health
2250 S Ankeny Blvd.
Ankeny, IA 50023-9093
515-725-1400
dennis.kleinkidph.Iowa. gov
iv. Melissa Bird
Bureau Chief of Health Statistics
Iowa Department of Public Health
321 E. 12th St.
Des Moines, IA 50319
515-281-6762
melis s a. bird(a� idph. Iowa. gov
XI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND EDUCATIONAL ACITIVIES
A. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as meaning that the City cannot
request advice, counsel, or assistance from the SHPO at any time.
B. The SHPO's staff shall provide technical assistance, consultation, and training as
requested by the City and/or Certified Staff to assist in complying with the terms
of this Agreement. This will include meetings of SHPO staff and Certified Staff to
review any changes to documentation standards, relevant historic context, and
approaches to application of NRHP criteria and levels of integrity.
C. The Certified Staff shall provide periodic training and develop guidance
documents in cooperation with the SHPO to assist the Program Staff in complying
with the terms of this Agreement.
XII. MONITORING AND DOCUMENTATION
The SHPO may monitor or review activities carried out pursuant to this Agreement.
The City shall cooperate with the SHPO in carrying out these monitoring and
reviewing responsibilities.
A. Annual Reporting
i. Certified Staff, in coordination with City Program Staff, shall submit an
annual report to the SHPO, summarizing activities carried out under the
terms of this Agreement in a format agreed to by the Certified Staff and
SHPO. The report shall include the project name, project addresses,
description of work completed, and any determinations of eligibility and
project effects made by Certified Staff.
13
Page 702 of 865
ii. The City shall retain and make available to the SHPO public records
documenting the date of construction of buildings, structures, and facilities
less than fifty (50) years old that were demolished under programs
covered by this Agreement.
iii. The annual report will be submitted on or before March 1 St for the
previous calendar year. The signatories to this Agreement shall review this
information to determine what, if any, amendments to this Agreement are
necessary.
iv. The City shall ensure that the annual report is made available for public
inspection, that potentially interested members of the public are made
aware of its availability, and that interested members of the public are
invited to provide comments to the SHPO as well as to the City.
v. The SHPO shall review the annual report and provide comments to the
City. There will be one mandatory review meeting between Certified Staff
and the SHPO during the term of this Agreement to evaluate the
Agreement after the first annual report has been submitted.
vi. At the request of any party to this Agreement, the City shall ensure that a
meeting or meetings are held to facilitate review and comment or to
resolve questions.
B. Project Documentation
i. Certified Staff will maintain records documenting its Section 106 review
and approval procedures in accordance with this Agreement. Records
maintained shall include, but not be limited to, eligibility determinations,
survey forms, maps, electronic files, and project files. Project files shall
contain, but are not limited to, project site photographs, work write-ups
and/or scope(s) of work, approval letters, memoranda, meeting minutes,
and correspondence. Records shall be maintained for at least five (5) years
from the project's completion.
ii. The City Program Staff shall also retain documentation, including work
write-ups and before and after photographs (that might be required for a
project), for all Program Activities carried out pursuant to this Agreement.
Files will be retained for a minimum of five (5) years from the project's
completion.
C. Upon written request by the SHPO or Certified Staff, the City will arrange for the
SHPO or Certified Staff to inspect individual project files and to conduct on -site
inspections to verify that the terms of the Agreement are being properly
implemented by City Program Staff and/or HUD funded recipients.
XIII. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
14
Page 703 of 865
Public participation shall occur in accordance with Implementation Principle II of
Appendix A: AMP' Policy Statement on Affordable Housing and according to the
process outlined in Appendix B: Section 106 Review Process.
A. Consultation with Interested Parties
i. Interested Parties ("IP") shall be offered an opportunity to participate in
consultation efforts relating to proposed Undertakings as required pursuant
to 36 CFR Part 800.2, including but not limited to Native American
groups, government agencies, historical and cultural organizations, and IP
invited to serve as consulting parties.
ii. The City shall identify and invite IP to comment in accordance with the
process outlined in Appendix B. IP are defined in Part III of Appendix B.
XIV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
A. At any time during implementation of the measures stipulated in this Agreement,
should an objection to any measure or manner of implementation be raised by a
member of the public, the SHPO, City, or another signatory to this agreement, the
Certified Staff shall take the objection into account and consult with the objecting
party and the SHPO to resolve the objection.
B. When the Certified Staff determines that such objection cannot be resolved, the
Certified Staff shall:
i. Forward documentation relevant to the dispute, including the City's
proposed resolution and SHPO comments, to the ACHP. If the ACHP does
not provide comment, the Certified Staff may make a final decision on the
dispute and proceed accordingly.
ii. Prior to making a final decision on the dispute, the Certified Staff shall
prepare a written response to the ACHP and SHPO that takes into account
any timely advice or comments regarding the dispute between the ACHP
and SHPO and/or other known IP and provide them with a copy of the
written response. The City will then proceed according to the Certified
Staff's final decision.
C. The responsibilities of the signatories to carry out all other actions subject to the
terms of this Agreement that are not the subject of this dispute remain unchanged.
XV. EFFECTIVE DATES
The Agreement will become effective on the date of the last signing and will continue
in force through December 31, 2030. From on and after December 31, 2029 through
and including October 1, 2030, the City may request in writing a meeting with the
ACHP and SHPO to review the City's Program and consider an extension or
15
Page 704 of 865
modification of this Agreement. No extension or modification will be effective unless
all parties to the Agreement have agreed to such an extension in writing.
XVI. AMENDMENTS
Any parry to this Agreement may request that it be amended, whereupon the parties
will consult in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.14 to consider such amendment.
Any amendment or addendum shall be executed in the same manner as the original
Agreement. If the City requests an extension meeting in writing by October 1, 2030,
all parties shall review the Agreement for possible modifications, termination, or
extensions and, if agreed to, present amendments to this Agreement in writing as part
of that extension meeting.
XVII. TERMINATION
Any party of this Agreement may terminate it by providing thirty (30) days written
notice to the other signatory parties, provided that the parties will consult during the
period prior to termination to seek agreement on amendments or other actions that
would avoid termination. In the event of termination, the City will comply with 36
CFR Part 800.4 through 800.6 with regard to individual Undertakings covered by this
Agreement.
Execution and implementation of this Programmatic Agreement provides evidence that the City
and HUD have afforded the SHPO and ACHP reasonable opportunity to comment on their 24
CFR Part 58 programs and their effects on historic properties, that the City and HUD have taken
into account the effect of their Undertakings on historic properties, and that the City and HUD
have satisfied their Section 106 responsibilities for all individual Undertakings implemented in
accordance with this Stipulations of this Agreement.
16
Page 705 of 865
SIGNATORIES:
Signatory:
City of Dubuque
By: '� Date: ek-omr 3 a0a�
Brad Cavanagh, Mayor
17
Signatory:
City of Dubuque
Attest:
By: Date: Fekruckr y0-�
Adrienne N. Breitfelder, City Clerk
18
Signatory:
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
M.
Date:
Heather Gibb, State Historic Preservation Officer — Iowa Economic Development Authority
19
Page 708 of 865
APPENDIX A: Policy Statement on Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation
N HISFO9/
O r„
oACHP
N y
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION HOUSING AND HISTORIC
PRESERVATION POLICY STATEMENT
(Adopted December 22, 2023)
Many communities across America are experiencing housing shortages, especially shortages of
affordable housing. Cumulatively, this problem has grown to crisis proportions. Tackling this
challenge requires a multi -pronged effort, of which rehabilitation of historic buildings is a
critically important component. Recognizing that facilitating rehabilitations can help boost
housing supply, meet sustainability goals, and utilize community assets more effectively, the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has developed this policy statement to
encourage both rehabilitation of historic housing (including historic public housing) and
adaptation of historic buildings not originally built for housing.
SCOPE OF THE ISSUE
Estimates vary among studies quantifying the scope of the current housing shortage, but the
overall conclusion is the same —America is facing a significant deficit in housing supply versus
demand in many communities. This deficit is a major cause of rising costs. A 2023 report by the
Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, The State of the Nation's Housing 2023,
succinctly summarizes what many other studies have found:
Millions of households are now priced out of homeownership, grappling with housing
cost burdens, or lacking shelter altogether, including a disproportionate share of people
of color, increasing the need for policies to address the national housing shortfall at the
root of the affordability crisis.
While discussing the need to construct new units, the report also concludes that:
In addition to expanding the supply of new homes, improving the existing housing supply
is critical. Substantial investment will be needed to preserve the aging stock and respond
to climate change. At 43 years of age, the median home in 2021 was the oldest it has ever
been ...
Rehabilitating and reusing existing buildings must be integral to addressing the housing shortage,
which is not a problem America can build its way out of solely through new construction.
20
Page 709 of 865
Because approximately 40 percent of America's current building stock (residential and
commercial) is at least 50 years old, rehabilitation of historic and older buildings must play an
important role in addressing the housing supply shortfall. In towns, counties, and cities, and on
Tribal lands throughout the country, historic buildings either are or can be rehabilitated as
housing. Given that the cost of rehabilitation on a per -square -foot basis tends to be less than new
construction, historic buildings are an important source of so-called "naturally occurring"
affordable housing. The opportunities for housing creation and retention are immense. Further,
every person should have safe, clean, and affordable options for housing and a healthy
environment, and these needs are closely linked with other social determinants of health and
environmental justice goals.
This policy statement pertains primarily to historic properties —buildings, sites, districts,
structures, and objects —which are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places (National Register), and principally to individual historic buildings and buildings
within historic districts. However, it is important to recognize that many older buildings that
could qualify for historic designation have not yet been designated. Others are not yet 50 years
old —the usual age threshold that must be reached to be considered eligible for National Register
designation. The ACHP acknowledges that many of the strategies and suggestions offered in this
policy statement can apply to older buildings generally, not just those formally determined to be
historic.
It also is important to acknowledge that while efforts to honor and preserve the stories of all
Americans are expanding, historic properties in disadvantaged and underserved communities, as
well as communities with environmental justice concerns, are often underrepresented on the
National Register, creating imbalances in access to preservation incentives. Disproportionately
affected by the housing shortage, these communities also often lack management and decision -
making authority that would help them determine where and how investments in the reuse of
historic buildings for housing are made, or address any negative impacts of such determinations.
Projects to rehabilitate historic buildings for housing or build new housing may be subject to
historic preservation review at the federal, state, and/or local levels. The existence of these
processes sometimes gives rise to an assumption that historic preservation reviews will
complicate or be a barrier to housing development, particularly of affordable housing. This need
not be the case, and when fully integrated into regular project planning and scheduling, such
reviews can benefit project development without causing delay or increasing project costs.
However, such reviews do need to be grounded in a flexible yet consistent approach to ensure
that housing can be developed expeditiously while still preserving the historic qualities of
affected historic properties. One intent of this policy statement is to encourage such flexibility.
ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) states that it is the policy of the federal
government "to foster conditions under which our modern society and our historic property can
exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present
and future generations."' Consistent with this, the federal government plays a role in establishing
54 USC Part 300101.
21
Page 710 of 865
and implementing both historic preservation and housing policy. It also directly funds both
historic preservation projects and housing projects, undertaken by public and private actors alike.
And finally, it sets forth standards for the treatment of historic properties that are, in turn,
interpreted and applied by state, Tribal, and local governments and private parties. Thus, the
federal government has a significant role to play in the way that buildings are updated or
repurposed for housing.
A key player regarding historic preservation is the ACHP, an independent federal agency created
by the NHPA. It works to promote the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our
nation's diverse historic resources. It is the ACHP's responsibility to "advise the President and
Congress on matters relating to historic preservation, recommend measures to coordinate
activities of federal, state, and local agencies and private institutions and individuals related to
historic preservation, and advise on the dissemination of information pertaining to those
activities."2 The ACHP has developed this policy statement in keeping with this mandate.
Across the federal government, agencies are responsible for directly managing and caring for
historic properties under their control, and for fostering both nonfederal, governmental, and
private preservation activities. Section 110 of the NHPA sets out these broad historic preservation
responsibilities of federal agencies and is intended to ensure that historic preservation is fully
integrated into their ongoing programs.3 Federal agencies with responsibilities regarding housing
must consider historic properties as part of their program planning, addressing the role historic
buildings can play in providing housing and the potential impacts of housing projects and
programs on historic properties of all types.
Federal agencies also must consider the effects of projects — including housing projects — they
carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties. This requirement has been enshrined in Section
106 of the NHPA and in corresponding regulations issued by the ACHP.4 Section 106 applies
both to housing built directly by federal agencies and to housing funded by federal agencies.
Many federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Interior, and Agriculture build
housing for their staff and for other purposes. In addition, some federal agencies, notably the
Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs,
provide funding to and/or partner with public housing authorities, state and local governments,
and private entities for the creation of housing. These federal agencies (and funding recipients
that have assumed HUD's environmental review requirements by statute) must comply with
Section 106.5
z 54 USC Part 304102.
3 54 USC Part 306101-306107; 306109-306114.
4 54 USC Part 306108; 36 CFR Part 800.
s This statement incorporates provisions of a 2006 ACHP Policy Statement on Affordable Housing and Historic
Preservation (a replacement for a previous 1995 policy statement), which was designed to serve as a guide
for federal agencies and other stakeholders when making decisions about affordable housing projects during
Section 106 review. In recognition that the federal government engages in undertakings triggering Section 106
review for both affordable housing and other types of housing, this policy statement removes the word
"affordable" from text that previously appeared in the 2006 policy statement.
22
Page 711 of 865
Influencing the physical nature and form of both public and private projects, whether subject to
the Section 106 review process or not, are standards for the treatment of historic properties set
forth by the Department of the Interior, including the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation (Secretary's Standards). These standards have been adopted by state and local
governments and also influence private action.
It is within this context of the federal government's role at the intersection of housing and
historic preservation that this policy statement has been developed.
INTENDED AUDIENCE
Given the leadership role of the federal government in addressing both housing and historic
preservation, the following policy principles seek to promote informed policy making, decision
making, and responsible stewardship of historic properties by the federal government. The ACHP
also has designed this policy statement to assist Tribal, state, and local governments; community
groups; and nonprofit organizations (collectively, along with federal agencies, "public -serving
institutions"); developers, and others in the private sector as they seek to reuse historic buildings
for housing as a strategy to address the housing crisis.
It is important to note that a wide variety of nonprofit organizations can play a role in
rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing. Among these are nonprofit housing corporations,
community development corporations, land banks, and heritage conservancies. Similarly, for -
profit developers are central to maximizing housing creation through historic building
rehabilitation, frequently creating affordable housing through the use of local, state, or federal
tax credits or subsidies. The ACHP encourages both the nonprofit and the for -profit private
sectors to explore the opportunities inherent in reusing historic buildings for housing.
POLICY PRINCIPLES
It is the policy of the ACHP to encourage and accelerate rehabilitation of historic buildings for
housing and to assist in harmonizing historic preservation and housing goals. The ACHP has
developed the following principles to guide its own actions and to advise public -serving
institutions and other public and private entities on these issues. The ACHP will integrate these
principles into its oversight of the federal Section 106 review process and into the advice it
provides to federal agencies, Tribal, state, and local governments, and the general public.
Reuse Historic Buildings
1. The federal government and state governments should develop additional historic
tax incentives and easier ways to pair those incentives with housing and energy tax
incentives. The existing federal historic tax credit provides a 20 percent income tax credit
for the rehabilitation of historic, income -producing buildings. As of June 2023, 39 states
also have adopted state historic tax credits. Retaining and enhancing these credits and
developing new historic tax incentives is vitally important to scaling up rehabilitation of
historic buildings for housing. Policymakers should consider increasing historic tax credit
percentages for rehabilitation projects that create housing, particularly affordable
23
Page 712 of 865
housing, as well as setting aside a portion of tax credit benefits for housing creation in
states where the state historic tax credit has a monetary program cap.
Tax credits for rehabilitation of older buildings that are not formally designated as
historic also would contribute to housing creation while complementing and supporting
efforts to rehabilitate nearby historic buildings in historic neighborhoods. Also,
expanding homeowner historic tax credits should be considered. Rehabilitation of owner -
occupied historic housing does not qualify for all state credits or the federal historic tax
credit. Homeowner rehabilitation tax credits would encourage preservation of existing
historic housing by helping to support maintenance, rehabilitation, weatherization, and
energy retrofits of historic homes.
The effectiveness of federal and state historic tax credits could be further leveraged if it
were easier to couple them with housing and energy tax incentives, notably the Low -
Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC). Legislative and/or administrative fixes should be
explored to reconcile conflicts. It is particularly important to address disconnects that are
making pairing of the federal historic tax credit and LIHTC increasingly difficult,
including both tax policy and application -based challenges. More states should consider
giving preference points for historic preservation projects in their allocation of LIHTCs,
as some already do.
2. Public -serving institutions should support existing programs and develop new
programs that assist homeowners (particularly lower- and middle -income
homeowners) and small-scale landlords in maintaining, repairing, and weatherizing
their historic homes, and reducing their energy costs through renewable energy
installation. While historic tax credits for homeowners and small-scale landlords are one
vehicle to help preserve historic homes, other forms of assistance are needed. Support is
particularly critical in the case of low- and middle -income housing and can help assist in
discouraging displacement of long-term residents in established neighborhoods. Financial
constraints of owners can lead to a spiral of deferred maintenance and an inability to
lower utility costs through weatherization and energy retrofitting, potentially leading to
eventual vacancy and demolition of buildings. Types of assistance — with an emphasis on
retention and repair of historic materials — that should be considered include the
following: grants and low-cost loans for repairs and hazard mitigation (remediation of
lead -based paint, asbestos, mold, etc.); do-it-yourself support through materials
warehouses, tool sharing programs, and training workshops; free or low-cost energy
audits; and job training programs focused on historic home repair.
3. Public -serving institutions should support zoning code changes that encourage
greater density and availability of housing in tandem with preserving historic
buildings, that allow for mixed uses, and that allow housing in historic buildings in
areas where it is now prohibited. Increasing density and expanding housing options in
existing neighborhoods —including historic neighborhoods and historic districts —are
potential solutions to help address the shortfall in housing supply. This and other changes
to zoning to better balance competing factors —such as through the use of form -based
codes —should be seriously explored.
24
Page 713 of 865
Taking into account the unique conditions of each community, consideration should be
given to allowing and incentivizing "density without demolition" through: conversion of
historic single-family dwellings to multi -family dwellings; creation of accessory dwelling
units, either in rehabilitated historic structures or through compatible new construction;
removal or reduction of minimum parking requirements in historic neighborhoods;
enabling transfer of development rights to incentivize rehabilitation of historic buildings
while allowing new development in alternative locations; adoption of procedures and
permitting incentives to facilitate the reuse of existing buildings for housing; and
compatible infill construction of multi -family housing on vacant parcels in historic
districts. More guidelines, pattern books, best practices, and other resources are needed to
help assist local governments and developers in implementing additional density in a
manner most compatible with a community's historic buildings. Proactive efforts should
be made, however, to ensure "density without demolition" also means "density without
displacement," so that long-term residents are not priced out of living in their historic
homes and neighborhoods.
Many zoning codes prohibit historic buildings in certain areas from being converted into
housing. There is a significant need to rezone neighborhoods filled with office and
commercial buildings for residential use. In addition, large-scale historic industrial
buildings, like New England mill buildings, are often zoned for industrial purposes, even
in locations where manufacturing seems unlikely to return. And finally, public -serving
institutions should consider zoning for historic Main Streets, which organically
developed with housing mixed with (and usually above) shops but which are too often
now subject to prohibitions on residential uses enacted through ever -stricter zoning
codes. Upper stories can be returned to residential use and, in some instances, first -floor
commercial space could be converted to housing. This mix of uses that proved to enrich
small towns and larger cities alike should be allowed again through zoning.
Local historic preservation commissions can play a pivotal role in advising on zoning
changes to address the issues raised above. They, as well as the planners responsible for
zoning code development and revision, should have the training and resources they need
to understand the options and opportunities for enabling and promoting rehabilitation of
historic buildings for housing and development of compatible new infill construction.
4. Public -serving institutions should advocate for changes in building codes and
interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities Act to create more flexible
standards (especially for small-scale housing of four units or fewer) to facilitate
conversion of nonresidential historic buildings to residential use and to prioritize
design solutions for historic housing that ensure access and inclusion of disabled
residents and visitors. Traditional building codes tend to focus on new construction to
the detriment of rehabilitation of historic buildings, particularly for affordable housing.
Property owners wishing to undertake renovations, regardless of their scope, are often
confronted with requirements to bring a historic building into full compliance with the
building code requirements for new construction. Cities and states should consider
adoption of performance -based rehabilitation building codes (such as the International
25
Page 714 of 865
Existing Building Code) or other building code changes to provide needed flexibility and
better relate building code requirements to the scale of projects. This also would facilitate
new approaches to housing development, such as conversion of underused office and
retail buildings —including those that are historic —for use as housing.
The American with Disabilities Act prohibits public -serving institutions from
discriminating on the basis of disability in providing or making available housing. Public -
serving institutions should give full consideration of all that is needed to ensure
accessibility for users of housing, including historic properties used for housing.
Interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities Act by public officials should prioritize
the need to provide accessible environments to all users of housing in historic buildings.
Collecting successful examples of projects that promote both preservation ideals and
accessibility could be useful to many different actors. It also is imperative that planners,
local historic preservation commission members and staff, and building inspectors have
the training and resources they need to understand the code enforcement options available
for the rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing and development of compatible
new infill construction.
5. Public -serving institutions should seek to promote thoughtful energy retrofitting
during rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing. Most states have adopted
energy conservation codes to enhance creation and operation of energy efficient
buildings. Widely used codes and standards often include options for exempting historic
buildings in situations where full compliance would damage their historic design and
materials. However, as the climate crisis becomes more acute, use of such waivers may
increasingly be seen as seen as problematic, discourage reuse of historic buildings for
housing, and cause disproportionate and adverse health or environmental impacts on
already overburdened communities with environmental justice concerns. More
guidelines, best practices, and other resources are needed to help promote energy
retrofitting of historic buildings used for housing in a manner most compatible with their
historic character.
6. Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments should lead by example through
disposition or outleasing of excess or underutilized historic government buildings
for housing development. Government building inventories often include structures that
are no longer needed to facilitate agency missions and that are vacant or underutilized.
Enhanced use of telework and remote work, sparked by the COVID-19 pandemic, has
further increased the amount of government office space that is underused. Governments
at all levels should examine the opportunities inherent in excess and underutilized
government buildings —including those that are historic —to create housing through office -
to -housing conversions and other adaptive use. Strategic disposal (with protective
covenants) and leasing to nongovernmental partners should be considered. Section 111 of
the NHPA and other agency -specific authorities allow federal property -managing
agencies to outlease historic buildings (or portions thereof) to nonfederal parties. Federal
agencies should identify and remove impediments to outleasing their historic buildings,
26
Page 715 of 865
with consideration given to the recommendations of the ACHP's 2021 report, Leveraging
Federal Historic Buildings.
7. The federal government should expand upon its guidance regarding reuse and
rehabilitation of historic properties for housing and should encourage flexible yet
consistent application of such guidance. Federal standards and guidelines significantly
influence the rehabilitation of historic properties, public and private alike, because they
are often adopted or adapted by state and local governments, as has been the case with
the Secretary's Standards. The federal government should add to and flexibly apply its
guidance on the treatment of historic properties in ways that will incentivize housing
development, particularly of affordable housing, and facilitate adapting nonresidential
buildings to housing. Likewise, additional guidance is needed on remediating
environmental, health, and safety hazards when rehabilitating historic buildings and
providing access for persons with disabilities. The federal government, particularly
agencies that fund housing development, also should accelerate the development of
guidance on the benefits of rehabilitating historic housing (including historic public
housing) and of adapting historic commercial buildings for use as housing. Enhanced
recommendations and training are needed to encourage reuse of historic buildings and
promote project planning and review that are adaptable yet consistent.
Accelerate Project Permitting and Environmental Review
8. Federal, state, Tribal, and local governments should expedite development of
housing projects through efficient and effective permitting processes and
environmental reviews while still ensuring full consideration of potential impacts to
historic properties. Addressing the problem of insufficient housing supply will require
widespread large-scale and small-scale projects, both for new construction and for
rehabilitation of historic and other existing buildings. Environmental reviews and
permitting processes for such projects, especially small-scale projects with limited
impacts, should be managed in such a way as to proceed expeditiously. However,
potential adverse effects to historic properties must be carefully addressed, whether they
be physical or visual impacts to historic properties from new housing construction or
effects to the historic qualities of historic buildings that are being rehabilitated. It also is
important that actions not be taken that result in the damage or destruction of historic
properties prior to applicants seeking tax credits and government funding, and prior to
agencies completing environmental review.
Efficient permitting and environmental review depends in large part upon the funding and
staffing capacity of the government agencies at all levels participating in the reviews. It is
vitally important to build capacity for historic preservation review within federal
agencies, State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and local historic preservation
27
Page 716 of 865
commissions, and to provide robust training for staff. Public -serving institutions also
should seek to educate communities and project sponsors on environmental review
requirements; their roles in those review processes; the need to initiate environmental
review early in planning; and the importance of flexible consideration of project
alternatives.
Current housing needs pose complex challenges that need to be addressed on an
increasingly accelerated timeline, and it is important that environmental reviews be
rooted in flexibility and creativity. The Section 106 regulations provide for development
of program alternatives to tailor and expedite the review process while at the same time
ensuring the consultation process is accessible, meaningful, and transparent to the wide
variety of consulting parties and stakeholders.6 Program alternatives already are in use for
a variety of housing -related projects and programs. The ACHP will explore further
opportunities to use program alternatives to expedite housing development, as should
other federal agencies. Federal agencies also should explore how best to integrate Section
106 review with review under the National Environmental Policy Act, based on options
available in the Section 106 regulations and advice in NEPA and NHPA: A Handbook for
Integrating NEPA and Section 106, issued by the ACHP and the Council on
Environmental Quality in 2013. Policy Principle #9 offers further recommendations on
flexibly proceeding through Section 106 review specifically for housing projects.
9. All participants in Section 106 review of housing projects should approach the
review flexibly in keeping with the following principles and any applicable
implementing guidance from the ACHP. In keeping with Section 110(f) of the NHPA,7
which requires federal agencies to minimize harm to National Historic Landmarks to the
maximum extent possible, the following provisions should not apply to National Historic
Landmarks. The ACHP plans to issue implementing guidance on effect determinations
under Section 106, including addressing the potential adverse effects of housing projects
to the interiors of historic buildings.
a. Review of effects on historic districts made up of buildings should focus on effects
to exterior features. Section 106 review of effects focuses on potential alterations
to the characteristics that qualify a property for listing in the National Register.
The significance of a historic district comprised of buildings is typically
associated in large part with the exterior features of the buildings, which
cumulatively convey the significance of the overall district and qualify it for
inclusion in the National Register. Accordingly, unless a building in a district is
listed or considered eligible for listing in the National Register as an individual
e 36 CFR Part 800.14.
54 USC Part 306107.
28
Page 717 of 865
property or specific interior elements contribute to maintaining a historic district's
character, review under Section 106 should focus on proposed changes to the
exteriors of the district's buildings.
b. Consultation should consider the overall preservation and housing goals of the
community. When assessing, and negotiating the resolution of, the effects of
housing projects on historic properties, consultation should focus not simply on
individual buildings but on the historic preservation goals of the broader
neighborhood or community. If the affected historic property is a historic district,
the agency official should assess effects on the historic district as a whole.
c. When possible, plans and specifications should adhere to the Secretary's
Standards, taking into account the economic and technical feasibility of the
project. The Secretary's Standards outline a consistent national approach to the
treatment of historic properties that can be applied flexibly in a way that relates to
local character and needs and project requirements. Plans and specifications for
rehabilitation, new construction, and abatement of hazardous conditions in
housing projects associated with historic properties should strive to adhere to the
recommended approaches in the Secretary's Standards when possible. However,
the ACHP recognizes that there are mission -related, economic, or other
circumstances when the Secretary's Standards cannot be followed and that
Section 106 allows for the negotiation of other outcomes.
When assessing effects during Section 106 review and seeking to avoid adverse
effects for housing projects, priority should be given to consistency with the
Secretary's Standards for the exterior of buildings. Adverse effects to historic
interior spaces and features may more frequently need to be accepted and resolved
to facilitate reuse of the buildings for housing. This especially is the case for
conversions of commercial or institutional buildings to housing and to address
issues such as energy retrofitting, providing access for persons with disabilities,
and hazard remediation. Projects taking advantage of the federal historic tax credit
must be reviewed by the National Park Service for adherence to the Secretary's
Standards in a separate and distinct process that benefits from early coordination.
d. Section 106 consultation should emphasize consensus building. Section 106
review strives to build consensus with affected communities in all phases of the
process. Consultation with affected communities should be on a scale appropriate
to that of the undertaking. Various stakeholders, including community members
and neighborhood residents, should be included in the Section 106 review process
as consulting parties so that the full range of issues can be addressed in
29
Page 718 of 865
developing a balance between historic preservation and housing goals. See Policy
Principle # 10 regarding the importance on consultation with Indian Tribes and
Native Hawaiian organizations, and engagement with disadvantaged and
underserved communities, and communities with environmental justice concerns,
including people with disabilities.
e. The ACHP encourages streamlining the Section 106 process to respond to local
conditions. The ACHP encourages participants to seek innovative and practical
ways to streamline the Section 106 process that respond to unique local conditions
related to the delivery of housing. Programmatic Agreements are one approach to
enhance efficiency in Section 106 reviews. Some such agreements delegate the
Section 106 review role of the State Historic Preservation Officer to local
governments, particularly where local preservation ordinances exist and/or where
qualified preservation professionals are employed to improve the efficiency of
historic preservation reviews. Such agreements may also target the Section 106
review process to local circumstances that warrant the creation of exempt
categories for routine activities, the adoption of "treatment and design protocols"
for rehabilitation and new infill construction, and the development of design
guidelines tailored to a specific historic district and/or neighborhood.
f. Archaeological investigations should be avoided or minimized for rehabilitation
projects with minimal ground disturbance. No archaeological investigations
should be carried out for housing projects limited to rehabilitation or energy
retrofitting that require no ground disturbance. In those circumstances where
minimal ground disturbance may be necessary to carry out rehabilitations,
archaeological investigations should be minimized and proportional to the
potential effects of such disturbance. Guidance on archaeological investigations in
this context can be found in the ACHP's Section 106 Archaeology Guidance. For
all other projects, archaeological investigation may be needed, to be determined
and carried out in consultation with State and/or Tribal Historic Preservation
Officers. Inadvertent discoveries related to any housing project once construction
has begun should be addressed in accordance with the Section 106 regulations,
the ACHP's Policy Statement on Burial Sites, Human Remains, and Funerary
Objects, applicable state burial laws, and the Native American Graves Protection
and Repatriation Act (if applicable).
10. During planning, permitting, and environmental reviews (including Section 106
reviews) for housing projects, federal, state, and local governments should consult
and engage —beginning early in the process —with Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian
organizations (NHOs), disadvantaged and underserved communities, and
30
Page 719 of 865
communities with environmental justice concerns, including people with disabilities,
and should explore capacity building options for supporting their participation in
consultation. The Section 106 process under the NHPA already requires federal agency
consultation with Indian Tribes, NHOs, and other consulting parties regarding the impact
of projects on historic properties. Here, the ACHP would like to emphasize the
importance of consultation and engagement —whether or not Section 106 applies —with
Indian Tribes, NHOs, disadvantaged and underserved communities, and communities
with environmental justice concerns, including people with disabilities, all of whom are
disproportionately impacted by the housing supply shortfall. Soliciting and considering
their views on reuse of historic buildings for housing and the impacts of housing projects
on historic properties should be done proactively, early in planning, and throughout
environmental reviews and permitting processes.
In some cases, limited resources may constrain the active participation of disadvantaged
and underserved communities and communities with environmental justice concerns in
consultation. Federal, state, and local government entities should consider options for
strategic financial investments or other assistance to help with needed capacity
development. The ACHP previously has recommended capacity -building support for
consulting parties pursuant to the agency's "Guidance on Assistance to Consulting Parties
in the Section 106 Review Process." Since many Indian Tribes have been incorporating
consideration of housing issues into their environmental reviews and permitting processes
for decades, housing -related project planning should seek to adopt or align with existing
practices and standards, where feasible. On trust land, Tribes should control how housing
is developed and its location, whether as new construction or rehabilitation.
Gather Information
11. Public -serving institutions should work collaboratively to research and share
information with each other, policymakers, the private sector, and the public about
the costs, benefits, incentives, and disincentives associated with rehabilitating
historic buildings for housing. To maximize reuse of historic buildings, ongoing
research and study are needed in order to identify opportunities, document benefits, shape
guidance development, and disseminate best practices. Public -serving institutions should
undertake such research; recommended areas for study and dissemination of information
include those below. Consistent with their missions and authorities, federal agencies
should provide funding and technical assistance to support state, Tribal, local, and
nongovernmental research efforts.
• Existing Government Programs
31
Page 720 of 865
o Survey laws and financial incentives at the federal, state, Tribal, and local
levels that address rehabilitation of historic buildings for housing and assess
the impact of such laws and incentives on housing supply, housing
affordability, mixed -use development (including housing above ground -floor
commercial), and equitably distributed development; and determine if such
policies should be updated, modified, or expanded to ensure they are applied
and interpreted in a flexible manner allowing for housing production.
o Study how well federal programs are helping to meet the housing needs of
Indian Tribes and disadvantaged and underserved communities, as well as
communities with environmental justice concerns, while encouraging the
reuse and protection of historic properties, and what changes may be needed
to make the application process for federal assistance more inclusive and
easier to navigate.
• Historic Properties and Neighborhoods
o Assemble information about the location, size, condition, quality of features,
and occupancy of historic buildings in localities and assess those against local
housing needs.
o Evaluate any links between historic designation and housing affordability, and
between historic designation and displacement of residents in disadvantaged
and underserved communities, and in communities with environmental justice
concerns.
o Explore impacts of institutional real estate investment in owner -occupied
housing for rental use and (in some communities) an increase in short-term
rentals, seasonally occupied homes, and second homes in historic
neighborhoods.
• Rehabilitation of Existing Properties for Housing
o Study the costs of rehabilitating historic buildings for housing relative to new
construction, considering intangible and environmental costs and benefits in
addition to monetary cost.$
e Studies should not conflate rehabilitation and adaptive use with restoration (defined as accurately restoring
a building to its appearance at a particular point in time). The latter generally is more expensive and is not
necessary for effective reuse of historic buildings for housing.
32
Page 721 of 865
o Study the climate impacts of rehabilitating historic buildings for housing,
including decarbonization; improved operational energy efficiency; climate
resilience; decreased emissions through reduced urban sprawl; and responding
to housing needs following disasters.
• Preservation Workforce
o Survey the current and anticipated future state of the public sector
preservation workforce and its expertise and capacity to handle environmental
reviews, including Section 106 reviews, of housing projects in a timely
manner.
o Survey the current and anticipated future state of the private sector
preservation workforce, including its ability to rehabilitate existing buildings
for housing and conduct energy efficiency retrofits.
Educate
12. Public -serving institutions should educate policymakers, housing advocates,
developers, the media, and the public about the benefits of reusing historic buildings
in housing development and debunk misperceptions regarding historic preservation
as a barrier to addressing the housing supply shortfall. With increasing attention
being paid to reusing existing buildings to help address the housing shortage,
consciousness raising efforts are needed regarding the role historic buildings can play.
Outreach is needed to explain: why historic building rehabilitation for housing is a sound
financial investment and what incentives are available; how modern housing needs
(including accessibility for people with disabilities) can be accommodated in historic
buildings without sacrificing their historic qualities; and how rehabilitation of historic
buildings for housing also has intangible and environmental benefits for communities.
Countering misperceptions of historic preservation review as a barrier to addressing the
housing shortage also is critical. Preservation regulations that require review of housing
projects affecting historic properties help to preserve what makes the properties
historically significant and give local citizens a voice in project planning. However, such
review can be —and should be —approached flexibly, consistently, and expeditiously, taking
into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project. Public -serving
institutions overseeing preservation reviews should embrace this imperative and actively
work to educate all stakeholders, the media, and the public on how the historic
preservation review process balances consideration of housing needs and preservation of
the community's historic places.
33
Page 722 of 865
Collaborate
13. Public -serving institutions and the private sector should cooperate and form
partnerships across agencies, between levels of government, and within communities
to enhance the implementation of each of the principles discussed above. The impacts
of America's housing supply shortfall are so wide-ranging that collaboration among
public -serving institutions, developers, financial institutions, philanthropic organizations,
and others in the private sector is essential. Cooperation and forging of partnerships will
enhance implementation of each of the principles discussed above. Federal agencies can
take a leadership role in this regard through their own collaborative work and by
encouraging such work through funding and technical assistance.
34
Page 723 of 865
APPENDIX B: SECTION 106 REVIEW PROCESS
The following is an outline of the Section 106 review process for projects covered under this
Agreement. This document also presents additional information on the public participation
process to be used for all Programs covered under the Agreement, expanding on Stipulation XIII,
unless a party to this Agreement determines that a specific project requires an alternative public
participation process.
Part I - Section 106 Review Process
1) A request for environmental review is submitted to the responsible City Program Staff
(hereafter referred to as the "Requester").
2) Section 106 review information must be collected for each property within the APE. If a
Section 106 review has previously been conducted and an Iowa Site Inventory Form ("ISIF")
has been created with in the last five years with SHPO comments, a subsequent review is not
required unless a new scope of work at the project site has been developed. This does not
apply to new scopes of work developed in conjunction with the Commission and/or the
SHPO.
3) The following information, at a minimum, should be collected and provided to the Certified
Staff to initiate a Section 106 review. To help facilitate the collection of this information an
ISIF may be utilized.
i. Property Address
ii. Date of Construction
iii. Building Material
iv. Program
V. Estimated Rehabilitation Cost (if applicable)
vi. Scope of Work
vii. Current Photographs
4) The Requester forwards the project information to the Certified Staff. The Certified Staff
may conduct their own research on the property to facilitate making a determination on the
project.
5) The Certified Staff reviews the property and project and makes one of the following
determinations:
A. Not a Historic Structure.
i. If the Certified Staff determines the property is not historic, no further
consultation with the Commission, the SHPO, or IP as defined in Part III,
below, is required. Certified Staff shall adhere to documenting requirements
outlined in Stipulation IV (activities exempt from further review) or
Stipulation VIILA.i (non-exempt activities).
B. Historic Structure
35
Page 724 of 865
i. If the Certified Staff determines the property is historic, then the Certified
Staff must evaluate if the project activities meet the requirements for
exemption under Section IV of the Agreement.
(1) If all project activities meet the definition of an exempt activity listed
under Stipulation IV of the Agreement, then no further consultation with
the Commission, the SHPO, or IP, is required. Certified Staff will fill out
necessary information to document said determination as required per this
Agreement (Stipulation IV).
(2) If any of the project activities do not meet the definition of an exempt
activity under Section IV of the Agreement, then one of the following
options must be taken:
a) Modify the scope of work to ensure all project activities meet
the definition of an exempt activity (proceed to B.ii, below); or
b) Retain the existing scope of work and proceed with a standard
Section 106 review (36 CRF Part 800.3 through 800.6)
following Stipulations VII and VIII (proceed to B.iii, below).
ii. Modification to the project's scope of work will be conducted by the project
manager and/or program manager in consultation with the Certified Staff.
Consultation shall provide direction to the project manager and/or program
manager regarding steps which must be taken to preserve the historical
significance of the property.
(1) The Certified Staff, project manager, or program manager must
document the results of the consultation by preparing a modified scope of
work.
(2) If the project can be modified to the extent that all project activities are
exempt activities, step B.i.(1), above, may be followed. If all project
activities cannot be modified to exempt activities, proceed to B.iii, below.
iii. The Section 106 review form, the scope of work, and the Certified Staff's
determination of effect will be submitted to the SHPO and IP.
1. The SHPO will provide comment and/or concurrence to the Certified
Staff within 30 days of the receipt of the documents. Work at the project
site will not proceed until the SHPO has provided comment or the 30-
day response period has expired. If the SHPO does not comment or
object to this notice within thirty (30) days, the Undertaking may
proceed following 36 CFR Part 800.
a. If the SHPO concurs with the determination of the Certified Staff,
then no further modifications to the scope of work are required.
36
Page 725 of 865
The SHPO will provide written documentation stating their
concurrence to the Certified Staff.
b. If the SHPO does not concur with the determination of the
Certified Staff, then the SHPO, Certified Staff, and project
manager and/or program manager must resolve the dispute. Once
the dispute has been resolved, another modified scope of work
must be prepared by the Certified Staff and provided to the SHPO.
If the SHPO concurs, a letter of concurrence will be provided from
the SHPO.
c. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the Certified Staff and City will
consult with the ACHP. This process is described in Section VIII of
the Agreement.
2. IP are not required to provide comment to the City and the City will not
wait for comment from IP before beginning work on the project if the
SHPO has already concurred with the scope of work. Comments by IP
about the scope of work for a project should be directed to the Certified
Staff.
C. Exempt Activity — The description or scope of work indicates an exempt activity or
activities, as defined by the Agreement, will occur.
6) A copy of the signed Section 106 Review Request form and modified scope of work, if
required, will be returned to the Requester and included as supporting documentation for the
environmental review.
Part II — Public Participation
The City, in cooperation with the Certified Staff and SHPO, has developed public
notification procedures to ensure that IP are provided with timely and substantial
information concerning National Register listed or eligible historic properties that
may be affected by individual Undertakings covered by the Agreement and
procedures to invite and/or involve the public in decisions concerning the effect of
covered Program Activities on historic properties. Public notification and
involvement procedures shall include, but not be limited to the following:
A. Each year, the City will notify the public of its current activities funded by
HUD and make available for public inspection documentation on the City's
HUD -funded Program Activities and seek public comment and input. Included
in this documentation will be general information on the type(s) of activities
to be undertaken with Program funds during the current Program year and the
general amount of Program funds available from HUD, identified historic
properties that may be affected, and how IP can receive further information on
Program Activities. The City may accomplish public notification by
incorporating information concerning potential effects on historic properties
into the City's procedures for complying with the public participation
37
Page 726 of 865
requirements set forth in 24 CRF Part 58 provided pertinent information
regarding historic preservation issues has been developed by the City.
B. The City's Housing and Community Development Department ("HCD")
annual Consolidated Plan for CDBG HUD -funded Programs shall include, at
a minimum, a summary of the Section 106 process and a description of the PA
and its requirements. HCD staff and Certified Staff shall ensure that
information regarding the Agreement and the Section 106 process is included
in periodic newsletters and other notices for public distribution.
C. The Certified Staff will be available, as appropriate, for public hearings, City
Council meetings, Planning Commission meetings, Historical Commission
meetings, Community Group meetings, and other similar meetings, scheduled
to discuss Program Activities determined to have a potential effect on NRHP-
listed or eligible historic properties.
D. The City shall notify the Certified Staff of any public interest concerning a
preservation issue in any Program Activity covered under the terms of the
Agreement. The Certified Staff shall consider any preservation -related
comments from parties identified as interested, either by the City or Certified
Staff itself, concerning specific Program Activities, as it implements the
stipulations of the Agreement.
E. The Certified Staff shall invite IP to participate as consulting parties whenever
the Agreement mandates the consultation set forth in 36 CFR Part 800.6 or at
the request of the SHPO. Those invited to consult shall include, but not be
limited to, the SHPO, the HUD funding recipient(s), City Program Staff,
community development corporations, registered community organizations,
other citizen groups, and local preservation groups. In addition, Certified Staff
will make information available to the public so that they may express their
views on resolving the adverse effects. Notifications to IP will be done
through a combination of website postings, email notifications, and posting of
meeting notices in the neighborhood.
Part III - Interested Parties
IP are agencies and/or organizations which have an interest in the preservation of historic sites
and/or potentially historic sites within Dubuque County, Iowa. IP will be notified of the City's
scope of work for historic or potentially historic properties during the public participation
process described in Part II, above.
IP will be sent electronic copies of the Section 106 review request form and modified scope of
work, if required, sent from the Certified Staff to the SHPO.
The following organizations have been identified as IP and have indicated the following email
addresses as their preferred means of contact:
38
Page 727 of 865
• Heritage Works, info@heritageworksdbq.org
• Dubuque County Historic Preservation Commission, ed.raberkdubuquecountyiowa.gov
• Relevant Neighborhood Organizations, utilizing Neighborhood Association Map on this
webpaye(https://www.cityofdubuque.org/1966/Neighborhood-Support)
This list can be amended by the agreement of the SHPO and the City. IP are responsible for
notifying both the City and the SHPO of any changes to their preferred means of contact.
Additional IP may be added to this list by the agreement of the SHPO and the City.
39
Page 728 of 865
APPENDIX C:
Exemptions: Activities Not Requiring Review
The following project activities, which have limited potential to affect historic properties, may be
undertaken without further consultation with the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), provided the undertakings comply with the Standards. For the purposes of this
Agreement, the terms "in -kind repair" and "in -kind replacement" are defined as installation of a
new element that matches the original material in terms of composition, appearance dimension,
detailing, and durability. In addition, and to the extent practicable, original materials will be
preserved and reused for in -kind replacement/repair.
A. Rehabilitation
a. Interior:
i. Plumbing rehabilitation/replacement — includes pipes and fixtures when no
structural alteration is involved. Modifications should not result in the loss
of woodwork, press metal ceilings, or other decorative details.
ii. Heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning (HVAC) system
rehabilitation/replacement/cleaning — includes furnace, pipes, ducts,
radiators, or other HVAC units when no structural alteration is involved.
Modifications should not result in ceilings being dropped to accommodate
work or in plaster removal.
iii. Electrical wiring — includes switches and receptacles when no structural
alteration is involved, and plaster is not removed to run conduit.
Modifications should not result in the demolition of walls, ceilings, and/or
floors.
iv. Restroom improvements for handicapped access — provided that work is
contained within the existing restroom and no structural alternations are
involved.
v. Interior surface treatments (floors, walls, ceilings, decorative plaster,
woodwork) — provided the work is restricted to repairing, repainting, in -
kind patching, refinishing, repapering, or laying carpet or vinyl flooring
already replaced (non-original/non-historic) flooring.
vi. Interior feature treatments including but not limited to doors, moldings,
fireplaces, and mantels - provided the work is limited to in -kind repair,
patching, repainting, and refinishing.
vii. Insulation - provided it is restricted to ceilings, attics, and other enclosed,
unobtrusive spaces. This does not include blown insulation.
viii. Repair of, or pouring of, concrete cellar floor in an existing cellar, as long
as grade level of the floor is not changed.
ix. Asbestos abatement — provided it does not involve the removal or
alterations of interior features and decorative details.
x. Lead -based paint removal — provided it involves only paint removal and
not the removal of trim or other interior features and decorative details.
xi. Installation of fire, smoke, and carbon monoxide detectors.
b. Exterior
40
Page 729 of 865
i. Caulking, weather-stripping, reglazing, scraping, and/or repainting of
windows.
ii. Non -character defining flat or shallow pitch roof repair/replacement.
"Shallow pitch" is understood to have a rise -to -run ratio equal to or less
than three inches (3") to twelve inches (12").
iii. Window repair:
1. Replacement of windowpanes in -kind or with double or triple
glazing so long as glazing is clear and not colored and replacement
does not alter existing window material and form. Does not apply
to decorative windows such as leaded, stained, wood tracery,
historic etching, etc.
2. Repair, scraping, stripping, reglazing, and repainting existing
windows.
3. In -kind replacement of window sash, glass, and hardware,
including jam tracks.
4. In -kind replacement of damaged and non -operable transoms.
iv. Replacement of non -historic windows so long as no historic material will
be removed to accommodate the replacement and the window opening
size is not altered unless being returned to its historic opening size.
v. Replacement of below -grade basement windows when not character
defining and not highly visible from the public right-of-way.
vi. Repair or in -kind replacement of storm windows and storm doors, historic
and non -historic — provided they conform to shape and size of historic
windows and doors. The meeting rail of storm windows must coincide
with that of the existing sash. Color should match trim. Mill -finish
aluminum is not acceptable.
vii. Repair of exterior feature, which is understood to mean the repair of
features as close to an exact match as possible maintaining the features
form.
1. Wood siding
2. Exterior architectural details and features (windowsills, eaves,
dormers, etc.)
3. Street facing doors
viii. Repair or in -kind replacement of exterior features, which is understood to
mean that the new features/items will duplicate the material, dimensions,
and detailing of the original. Consideration should be given to the feature's
condition to ensure replacement is the only viable option (i.e., the feature
is too far gone to be repaired).
I. Porches, railings, posts/columns, brackets, cornices, steps, and
flooring.
2. Roofs
3. Non -street facing doors
4. Cellaribulkhead doors, provided the element is not a character
defining detail
5. Gutters and downspouts, provided the element is not a character
defining detail (copper, terra cotta, etc.)
41
Page 730 of 865
6. Awnings
7. Installation of door/window locks and/or electric security
apparatus
ix. Rebuilding existing wheelchair ramps
x. Replacing non -historic or non -character defining materials (such as roof,
gutters, downspouts, porch, or siding) with a substitute material
documented to be original and that is appropriate in texture and color to
the style of the property.
xi. In -kind repair or replacement of non -historic features.
xii. Clean and seal treatments. Cleaning masonry surfaces done with low-
pressure water (80-300 psi) and detergents using natural bristle brushes.
xiii. Removal of exterior paint by non-destructive means, limited to hand
scraping, low pressure water wash, heat plates, heat guns or paint -removal
chemicals, provided that the removal method is consistent with the
provisions of 24 CFR Part 35, "Lead -based Poisoning Prevention in
Certain Residential Structures" including Part 35.140, "Prohibited
Methods of Paint Removal". All lead paint abatement that does not
involve removal or alteration of exterior features and/or windows.
xiv. Masonry repair using materials, mortar composition, color, joint profile,
and width that match the existing historic materials. However, pointing
repairs require consultation with the Certified Staff.
xv. Correcting structural deficiencies in basements, crawl spaces, attics, and
beneath porches so long as there will be no ground disturbing activities
and no additional exterior visual elements.
xvi. Radon related equipment, as long as it is located in the rear one-third of
the building or faces the rear of the building.
B. Site Improvements
a. Line painting, maintenance, repair, resurfacing, or reconstruction of existing roads
— provided that no change in width, surfaces, or vertical alignment or drainage is
to occur. Also repair or replacement of guide rails and traffic signage.
b. Repair or replacement of existing curbs, sidewalks, driveways, alleys, streetlights,
and ramps, provided that the work is done in -kind to match closely the existing
materials and form and that only minimal change of dimension or configuration
occurs.
c. Maintenance and repair of existing features, including landscape features, within
existing parks and playgrounds, and in -kind replacement of dead or unsafe
landscape features, as deemed necessary by relevant City Departments, and
documenting as such by them in relevant project files. This includes the
resurfacing of tennis courts, basketball courts, and street hockey courts that
require less than four (4) inches of ground disturbance.
d. Trimming trees or other planting provided that such activity does not noticeably
change the size or shape of the tree or planting.
e. Repair or replacement of fencing, steps, or retaining walls when the work is done
in -kind to match closely the existing material and form and when there is no
disturbance of soils that have not been previously disturbed.
42
Page 731 of 865
f. Installation of temporary construction -related structures including scaffolding,
barriers, screening, fences, protective walkways, signage, office trailers, or
restrooms. Fences shall be self -standing or not be ground penetrating other than
spike pole fences.
C. Infrastructure
a. Repair or replacement of water, gas, storm, and sanitary sewer, electrical, and
cable lines — provided that work is confined to existing and disturbed rights -of -
way, within dimensions of the existing trench/areas previously disturbed by the
installation of such system, or an existing location on buildings and no known
archaeological sites are present. Depths and widths of new infrastructure should
not be deeper than existing infrastructure being replaced. In the event of
unanticipated archaeological discoveries, Stipulation IX and/or Stipulation X is to
be followed.
b. Construction or installation of new sewer lines or water lines in existing buried
utility line trenches, provided the construction activity is limited to a road surface
(curbline to curbline) or berm which has been previously disturbed or excavated,
no known archaeological sites are present, and no new ground disturbance is
proposed.
c. Sewer or water treatment plant equipment replacement as long as it does not
require ground -disturbing activities.
D. Demolition
a. Demolition of structures or building additions less than forty-five (45) years old,
following review of City records, other than those eligible for listing in the NRHP
as defined by National Register Bulletin 22, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Nomination Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty
Years as determined by Certified Staff and no known archaeological sites are
present.
b. Demolition of buildings, structures, or facilities where a designated City official
(engineer) has determined that the structural integrity has been lost and there is an
imminent threat to public health and safety, provided:
i. That the property has been evaluated for inclusion in the NRHP at the time
of the proposed undertaking by the Certified Staff, and
ii. That the historical significance of the site has been evaluated for
archaeological or other capacity to yield information that may contribute
to the understanding of Dubuque history, and
iii. In all such circumstances, photo -documentation shall take place prior to
demolition and photography shall follow guidelines established in The
Secretary of the Interior's Documentation Standards, when and where
safely feasible.
iv. If these three procedures cannot be followed, then the project shall follow
the review and evaluation process outlined in Stipulation VIII.
c. Demolition of structures determined by the SHPO within the last five years to be
ineligible for listing in the NRHP, either individually or as part of a district, unless
changes in the condition or status of the property necessitates review and no
known archaeological sites are present. The five-year time period shall be applied
43
Page 732 of 865
from the date of request for demolition. The demolition must be in accordance
with local ordinances for conservation districts.
d. Demolition of non-contributing accessories and those ineligible for listing on the
NRHP with a building footprint of less than 300 square feet, including, but not
limited to, garages, sheds, and carports when no known archaeological sites are
present. The demolition must be in accordance with local ordinances for
conservation districts.
e. Removal or disposal of collapsed building debris and rubble not attached to any
structures, except where the building debris is determined to be a contributing
element of a site, or district, or archaeological site.
f. Cleanup and removal of trash, refuse, and abandoned vehicles.
E. Other Activities
a. City Acquisition — acquisition of properties that is limited to the legal transfer of
ownership with no physical improvements proposed. This is understood to mean
that no change in use will occur, and any future rehabilitation or change -in -use
will be subject to Section 106 review.
b. Architectural and engineering fees.
c. Cleaning, sealing, securing, and "mothballing" of structures using methods
defined in the National Park Service's Preservation Brief 31, Mothballing Historic
Structures. Activities shall not alter the historic features of the property.
d. Refinancing, without demolition, repair, rehabilitation, or construction.
e. Leasing, without demolition, repair, rehabilitation, or construction.
f. Acquisition or land -banking of vacant real property (i.e., property without
buildings or structures) for which there is no reasonably foreseeable plan for
redevelopment, reuse, or new construction and without any reasonably
foreseeable plan for ground disturbing activity. Properties acquired under this
exemption require review pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.3 through 800.6, as
appropriate, upon identification of a plan for redevelopment, reuse, new
construction, or ground disturbance.
g. The sale or conveyance of platted, previously built upon but now vacant single
family residential lots by the City to not -for -profit housing development entities
or other governmental entities where the planned development is construction of
new single family homes, provided, however, that the vacant lot(s) being sold or
conveyed are not located in a historic district designated by the national or a local
government, and the vacant lot(s) is not immediately adjacent to an existing
individually designated historic structure or resource and the land has undergone
an archeological survey since 1999 and no NRHP-eligible or listed archaeological
sites are present. For the purposes of this Appendix, the term "single family
homes" may include residential duplex structures.
44
Page 733 of 865
Christine Happ Olson
From: Alexis Steger
Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 8:58 AM
To: Christine Happ Olson
Subject: FW: <External Message> City of Dubuque - Programmatic Agreement w/ SHPO
HUD is on board
From: Held, Beth A <Beth.Held @hud.gov>
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2024 9:06 AM
To: Robbins, David E <David.E.Robbins@hud.gov>; Griego, Karen M <Karen.M.Griego@hud.gov>; Alexis Steger
<Astege r@cityofd u buq ue.o rg>
Cc: Nuccio, David A <David.A.Nuccio@hud.gov>
Subject: RE: <External Message> City of Dubuque - Programmatic Agreement w/ SHPO
This sender is trusted.
Good morning All,
I agree with you Karen, that HUD and the SHPOs are definitely interested in pursuing statewide PAs versus having
individual PAs, but unfortunately, our current workloads in the regions are such unprecedented high volumes with the
addition of another year of congressionally funded grants that the required time and resources necessary to accomplish
the statewide goal would take much longer, so would agree at this time that a program(s)-specific PA be pursued if the
City is interested.
I can assist when it comes to incorporating the other HUD programs outside of OLHCHH if that is a goal that the City
wishes to pursue.
Thanks & have a great day!
eel
Beth A. Held
Regional Environmental Officer II HUD Region 7
U.S. Dept Housing & Urban Development II 400 State Ave II Kansas City, Kansas II 66101
Office: 91 3-321-9732 II Email: beth.held@hud.gov
www.hudexchanae.info/Droarams/environmental-review
P'CMENTOR
7 QP III�IIS yOGGxi
vGp IIIIIIII
Bqh oEAlYo Please consid r ftie environmenike fore ptinfinq ibis email
No frees were karmedin ftie sendnq o f ihis emai; however, kdons o f efecirons were rea § agifafed
From: Robbins, David E <David.E.Robbins@hud.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 11:56 AM
To: Griego, Karen M <Karen.M.Griego@hud.gov>; Alexis Steger <asteger@citvofdubuque.org>
Page 734 of 865
Cc: Held, Beth A <Beth.Held @hud.gov>; Nuccio, David A <David.A.Nuccio@hud.gov>
Subject: RE: <External Message> City of Dubuque - Programmatic Agreement w/ SHPO
I don't have an update to offer about programmatic agreements in process, but am comfortable that David would
agree, we support the initiative from the program perspective.
Also, I am happy to send an update notice to the HUD Federal Preservation Officer just for awareness and also to
see if he is aware of any related developments.
David E. Robbins
Program Environmental Clearance Officer
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes
Department of Housing and Urban Development
David.E.Robbins@hud.gov
Cell 617-416-1292
From: Griego, Karen M <Karen.M.Griego@hud.gov>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 12:16 PM
To: Alexis Steger <asteger@cityofdubug ue.org>
Cc: Held, Beth A <Beth.Held@hud.gov>; Nuccio, David A <David.A.Nuccio@hud.gov>; Robbins, David E
<David.E.Robbins@hud.gov>
Subject: RE: <External Message> City of Dubuque - Programmatic Agreement w/ SHPO
Hello Alexis,
That's wonderful news. I hope I can speak on behalf of our Program Environmental Clearance Officers
and the Regional Environmental Officer, all copied on this email, by encouraging Programmatic
Agreements with SHPOs. HUD is particularly interested in statewide PAs but if interim agreements for
specific programs or activities (like minor housing rehab including lead hazard control) will help, are
quicker to achieve, and the SHPO is willing to "play ball", we would support that too.
Beth, David, Dave, my finger is not as much on the pulse of this effort as a whole, so perhaps you have
updates or guidance that will help?
Best Regards,
Karen
I-te,2Ltkl I-toVMs Represevvtative, HMD R-60i0V S Ix �§ x, State of NM
SevuiorPr0e0w, EvWv rovuvMotal,Spec, 2List
T>rograwt.s avid Rerqu.iator� Support 7 i,Msion
Df r� e of Leas{ Hazard covvtroi avid HeaLthU HovKes
L�t.s Depwtvu.ewt of Housiwq awd L�trb,2n Devel.opmewt
Did you remember to cc: dour CITR avud add Dour gravut tke'SIA eat Ui e?
www.hlxd.coy/Lead
www.hL, dexchavuc4e.iwfoT rawts/dead-based-paivt/
www.hudexchawc�e.iwfoT rawt.s/evwirowwi.ewtal.-review/
Page 735 of 865
owl!NT pF _
OFFICE OF
1 LEAD HAZARD CONTROL
IIIIIIh AN0 HEALTHY HOMES
. • a • -
¢
OLHCHH Grantee Training Webinars https://www.gotostage.com/channel/f4aOdda684424a94be27d697e2dO4326
From: Alexis Steger <Asteger@citvofdubuque.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2024 9:31 AM
To: Griego, Karen M <Karen.M.Griego@hud.gov>
Subject: <External Message> City of Dubuque - Programmatic Agreement w/ SHPO
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments
unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you have concerns about the content of
the email, please send it to phishing@hud.gov or click the Report Phishing Button on the Outlook ribbon
or Phishing option within OWA.
Hi Karen!
Back in 2021 we had reached out to ask if HUD would support the City of Dubuque in executing a Programmatic
Agreement with SHPO. At that time you provided the following:
HUD is very interested in municipalities entering into Programmatic Agreements (PA) with their SHPO. As such, I
am in favor of you moving forward with a PA for your Lead Hazard Reduction (LHR) (and other similar HUD -funded
rehab programs) grant. There are quite a few formula grantees (CDBG) who administer LHR grants and
successfully utilize a PA to streamline compliance with Sec 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR
part 800).
Is this something you would still support? Our SHPO put a pause on PA's for the past several years and is ready to
look at PAs again as long as HUD is still onboard with it for Dubuque.
Thankyou,
Alexis M. Steger
Housing & Comm Development Director
City of Dubuque
563.589.4230
Page 736 of 865
ACHP
,M0
July 9, 2025
Wally Wernimont
Planning Services Director
City of Dubuque
Ref: Programmatic Agreement for the Administration of Department of Department of Housing and
Urban Development Part 58 Programs Within the City of Dubuque
Dubuque, Dubuque County, Iowa
ACHP Project Number: 022734
Dear Mr. Wernimont:
On July 7, 2025, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) received the additional
documentation as requested regarding the potential adverse effects of the referenced undertaking on a
property or properties listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Based upon
the information you provided, we have concluded that Appendix A, Criteria for Council Involvement in
Reviewing Individual Section 106 Cases, of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) and its implementing regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), does
not apply to this undertaking. Accordingly, we do not believe our participation in the consultation to
resolve adverse effects is needed.
However, if we receive a request for participation from the Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO), Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, affected Indian Tribe, a consulting party, or other party, we
may reconsider this decision. Should the undertaking's circumstances change, consulting parties cannot
come to consensus, or you need further advisory assistance to conclude the consultation process, please
contact us.
Pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(b)(1)(iv), you will need to file the final Section 106 agreement document
(Agreement), developed in consultation with the Iowa SHPO and any other consulting parties, and related
documentation with the ACHP at the conclusion of the consultation process. The filing of the Agreement
and supporting documentation with the ACHP is required in order to complete the requirements of
Section 106 of the NHPA.
Thank you for providing us with the additional information we requested regarding this notification of
adverse effect. If you have any questions or require our further assistance, please contact Bill Marzella at
(202) 517-0209 or by e-mail at barzella@achp.gov and reference the ACHP Project Number above.
Sincerely,
Dana Daniels
Historic Preservation Technician
Office of Federal Agency Programs
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
401 F Street NW, Suite 308 • Washington, DC 20001-2637
Phone: 202-517-0200 • Fax: 202-517-6381 • achp@achp.gov • www.achp.gov
Page 737 of 865
THE CITY OF
Dubuque
DUB E
11 1 I'
mm•z012
2013.2017
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Mayor Brad Cavanagh and City Council
The City of Dubuque
transmitted via email
Dear Mayor Cavanagh and members of the City Council,
Planning Services Department
City Hall - 50 West 131h Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4845
(563) 589-4210 phone
(563) 589-4221 fax
planning@cilyofdubuque.org
January 21, 2026
This letter transmits the Historic Preservation Commission's support of the adoption of a
Programmatic Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office. This agreement is
for the purpose of the City expediting reviews for projects using federal funding from
Housing & Urban Development when there are no negative effects to historic or cultural
resources.
At the January 15, 2026 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, the Commission
reviewed a finalized Programmatic Agreement. A link to the document is located here:
https://cityofdubug ue.orq/DocumentCenter/View/62183/02--Dubug ue-HUD-PA-Final-122325
To summarize, this agreement between the State and the City creates a streamlined
process for reviews where there are no historic resources present, and there isn't the
concern with disturbing underground cultural resources. The Historic Preservation
Commission has been engaged in this process and supports the development of a
Programmatic Agreement, which would be the only one in Iowa.
The Historic Preservation Commission recommends review and adoption of the
Programmatic Agreement by City Council.
Sincerely,
Janice -Esser, Chairperson
Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission
Service People
Integrity
Responsibility
Innovation
Page 738 of 865
THE CITYFDubuque
hCINbd
IFlssia
DUT�BQE
2007.2012
Masterpiece on the Mississippi 2013.2017
Mayor Brad Cavanagh and City Council
The City of Dubuque
transmitted via email
Dear Mayor Cavanagh and members of the City Council,
Planning Services Department
City Hall - 50 West 131h Street
Dubuque, IA 52001-4845
(563) 589-4210 phone
(563) 589-4221 fax
planning@cityofdubugue.org
January 22, 2026
This letter transmits the Community Development Advisory Commission's support of the
adoption of a Programmatic Agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office. This
agreement is for the purpose of the City expediting reviews for projects using federal
funding from Housing & Urban Development when there are no negative effects to
historic or cultural resources.
At the January 21, 2026 Historic Preservation Commission meeting, the Commission
reviewed a finalized Programmatic Agreement. A link to the document is located here:
https://cityofdubug ue.orq/DocumentCenter/View/62183/02--Dubug ue-HUD-PA-Final-122325
To summarize, this agreement between the State and the City creates a streamlined
process for reviews where there are no historic resources present, and there isn't the
concern with disturbing underground cultural resources. The Community Development
Advisory Commission has been engaged in this process and supports the development
of a Programmatic Agreement, which would be the only one in Iowa.
The Historic Preservation Commission recommends review and adoption of the
Programmatic Agreement by City Council.
Sincerely,
Julie Woodyard, Chairperson
Community Development Advisory Commission
People Integrity Responsibility Innovation
Page 739 of 865
THE C
DUUB*'_TE
Masterpiece on the Mississippi
Dubuque Planning Services Department
City Hall - 50 West 131h Street
�ul�eerie�ci� Dubuque, IA 52001-4845
II (563) 589-4210 phone
I I (563) 589-4221 fax
2007.2012-2013 planning(aD_cityofdubugue.org
2017•2019
January 22, 2026
Comments sought regarding the possibility of Programmatic Agreement:
On May 12, 2025, the City of Dubuque created a webpage with information about the
programmatic agreement draft, a link to the draft, and a request to collect public
information and input. This was sent out as a news flash to all City -subscribers and posted
on our main page. It was also sent out to preservation entities and a list of tribal contracts
obtained from the Office of the State Archaeologist. The comment period was closed on
June 16 over a month from the start, by making the online form inactive. No comments
were received via email or online through the form system.
On May 15, 2025, Alan Kelly, THPO with the Iowa Tribe of Nebraska, called with strong
support of a PA. "If you can get this passed with HUD universally, that would be great." He
expressed the strong desire, unless a building is clearly historic or has connections to
tribes, to not have to review any items unless they deal with ground disturbance. Alan is an
experienced THPO and is very familiar with Section 106. Alan called from the Iowa Tribe
Museum 785-351-0080 and took over from Lance Foster there and with the THPO this year
after Lance's death. This is the only comment we received in the process.
Chris Happ Olson
Assistant Planner/Historic Preservation
colson@cityofdubuque.org
563-589-4387
Page 740 of 865
Prepared by: Wally Wernimont, City Planner Address: City Hall, 50 W. 13th St (563) 589-4210
Return to: Adrienne Breitfelder, City Clerk Address: City Hall, 50 West 131h St (563) 589-4121
RESOLUTION NO. 31 - 26
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A PROGRAMMATIC
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DUBUQUE; THE IOWA STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICER AND THE CITY OF DUBUQUE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION FOR HUD -FUNDED PROGRAMS
Whereas, the City of Dubuque has administered U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) programs since 1997, including Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG), HOME, Lead Hazard Control, and other programs; and
Whereas, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal
agencies and their responsible entities to assess the effects of federally funded projects
on properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; and
Whereas, the City and the Iowa State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) have
collaborated to develop a Programmatic Agreement to streamline Section 106 reviews
for HUD -funded activities, reducing unnecessary delays for projects with no adverse
effect on historic properties; and
Whereas, the Programmatic Agreement establishes procedures for identification,
review, and treatment of historic properties, defines exempt activities, and outlines
consultation requirements with SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and other
interested parties; and
Whereas, the Agreement has been reviewed by the City's Planning Services
Department, Housing & Community Development Department, Legal Department,
Historic Preservation Commission, Community Development Advisory Commission, and
federal partners, and has received public input and tribal consultation; and
Whereas, the Agreement will remain in effect through December 31, 2030, and will
ensure compliance with Section 106 while facilitating efficient administration of HUD
programs;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DUBUQUE, IOWA:
The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to sign the Programmatic Agreement
between the City of Dubuque; The Iowa State Historic Preservation Officer; and The City
of Dubuque Historic Preservation Commission for U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development Part 58 programs administered by the City of Dubuque, Iowa.
Passed, approved and adopted this 2"d day of February 2026.
ATTEST:
By:
s?'� /A/
Adrienne N. Breitfelder, City Clerk
By:
Bradv1a nagh, Mayor