HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Workshop Minutes 01.21.2020MINUTES
CITY OF LAUREL
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2020
A Council Workshop was held in the Council Chambers and called to order by Mayor Tom Nelson
at 6:31 p.m. on January 21, 2020.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
_x_ Emelie Eaton _x_ Heidi Sparks
x Bruce McGee x Richard Herr
x Scot Stokes x Iry Wilke
x Richard Klose Don Nelson
OTHERS PRESENT:
Stan Langve, Chief of Police
Nick Altonaga, Planning Director
Bethany Langve, Clerk/Treasurer
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director
Julie Wotring, Montana Department of Transportation
Stan Brelin, Montana Department of Transportation
Public Input:
There were none.
General Items
1. Laurel Signals Presentation
Julie Wotring and Stan Brelin, with the Montana Department of Transportation,
presented the attached PowerPoint in detail.
It was stated people turning left onto East Railroad are causing a back up of traffic. This
Council Member had called Helena and asked that a no left turn sign be installed. They
were told that if Laurel did not enforce it, it would not be put in. That ended it right
there. They found out from the Chief at the time that they would not enforce it. There
are times when two or three people are trying to turn left to go to Walmart. If it is slick,
it can cause issues for people to get up the hill. It is causing a lot of traffic delays. They
questioned if they had observed this during the traffic study. This Council Member
stated that if there is traffic, he goes through to the light to get to Walmart. They stated
they would take this back to their sign folks. It does hold true that there is a behavioral
element. They work with their law enforcement partners; otherwise, it is just another
sign. This Council Member stated that the current Chief is always about education.
People have to learn that that is a no left-hand turn. They may not be writing tickets
right away. It was clarified that they could say no left turn during the peak hours of the
day.
It was questioned if the State has any pull in regard to widening the underpass under the
railroad. It was clarified that yes and no. It is a partnership with the railroad. The State
has to work with them. They have their needs and restraints. It is something that can be
done. Mr. Brelin stated in his career, they had only seen the replacement of bridges, but
those were State-owned, not the railroad's bridge. He stated that he would differ to the
district folks in Billings.
It was questioned if more traffic used the East Laurel exit would it eliminate issues off
the main Laurel exit. It was further stated that the East Laurel exit is not user-friendly
either. It was clarified that the main exit has all the desirables, such as gas and Walmart.
When Walmart went in, there were not a lot of businesses on that road. It is a very
different road now. The new interchange may affect traffic flow.
A Council Member stated that there is talk about another big hotel going in by Walmart.
It was suggested that the Planner follow up with the systems impact folks.
A Council Member stated in Mandan North Dakota; they had an underpass similar to
what we have. They were able to put in a five or six -lane underpass. When the railroad
wants to rebuild the bridge, will that be discussed? It was stated that the bridge has
exposed rebar and is in disrepair. That the City will ask for the underpass to be wider
but may take work from all parties. As the City grows, it gets tougher. It is an expensive
endeavor.
It was questioned if the West Laurel Interchange could have an overpass to get to West
Railroad Street. It could help eliminate a lot of traffic problems. It was clarified that
there were conversations about three years ago when they were planning on the west
side connection, and they had not heard anything since. It was further stated that people
have talked about building warehouses but don't have a place for their traffic to go.
It was stated that Emergency services cannot get to the Southside of town if a train is
blocking. This is a safety issue. Mr. Brelin suggested we forward this to the Billings
District Administrator as they are the ones who come up with the projects.
Council thanked Miss Wotring and Mr. Brelin for the time for gathering and putting
together this information. They are excited for the new signal times.
Miss Wotring and Mr. Brelin wrapped up by letting Council know that they will come
back and do follow-ups on any issues sent their way.
Mayor Nelson stated if it's not traffic its parking in this town. He thanked them for their
time giving their presentation this evening.
2. Appointment of Karl Dan Koch to the City/County Planning Board for a two-year term
ending June 30, 2021.
Karl Dan Koch, 320 Colorado Avenue, introduced himself to Council. He stated that he
has served on this board before and would like to serve on this board again.
3. Mayor's Appointment Memo
Mayor Nelson stated this memo is to appoint Council Members to various boards.
Council will be voting next week to approve these appointments.
Executive Review
4. Resolution - Resolution Calling A Public Hearing To Approve Certain Public
Infrastructure Improvements In The Laurel Urban Renewal District As An Urban
Renewal Project And To Finance The Project Through The Issuance Of Tax Increment
Urban Renewal Bonds; And Making A Reimbursement Declaration In The Evet That
Tax -Exempt Bond Proceeds Reimburse Original Expenditures Of The City
Bethany Langve, Clerk/Treasurer, stated this is the first time the City is looking at
selling a TIF bond. This bond is for the East Downtown Infrastructure Improvement
(EDII) project. This resolution is to call a public hearing. If these resolutions pass, the
public hearing will be scheduled for February 11, 2020. There will be a terms sheet that
will list all the maximums. This term sheet will be given to the four local banks. The bid
opening is scheduled for February 13, 2020. By the time the bids come back, the
Clerk/Treasurer will know what the financing will look like. The TIF District will put in
between 1 million and 1.5 million cash to this project. The bond will be approximately
3 million.
It was questioned if this process is similar to a SID where the Clerk/Treasurer comes
and asks the Council's permission to do this. It was clarified that this is asking for
permission, the term sheet will outline the maximums for the Clerk/Treasurer and
Mayor to enter into an agreement up to a certain amount and accept the best quote.
Traditionally the City has gone with the four local banks, Yellowstone, Altana, SEG,
and Western Security Bank. The Clerk/Treasurer asked if Council would like to
consider any other banks.
It was questioned if Council will get a report back of who was selected and at what
terms. Council will see everything like always. The City is still waiting to hear back on
the status of the $750k grant. The grant awards should be out soon. The Clerk/Treasurer
spoke with Bond Counsel about the best way to proceed. This process was
recommended. The City has never issued a bond like this before. This public hearing
would see what the public has to say about it before any money is spent.
A Council Member stated it is a good idea to always send out information to the public
as it is always better in the end anyway.
It was clarified that these bonds should be desirable as they are large, but also tax-
exempt. Which means the City should get a good interest rate. The Clerk/Treasurer
needs to know if the Council would like to expand the banks listed to solicit quotes.
A Council Member questioned the banking institution by CVS. It was clarified that is
First Interstate Bank. It was asked they be included in the quote process.
It was questioned if the City would want to go with a credit union. It was clarified that
both Altana and SEG are credit unions.
It was clarified that the TIF would expire at the end of this year. This project will extend
the TIF up to 25 years. The max term for the bond is 25 years. The district will be able
to take care of the project and continue to save. Currently, the TIF district has 1.9
million and has a very healthy budget moving forward. At the next Workshop Council
will see a sample amortization schedule. This bond will be similar to a SID except
instead of reimbursing the contract, the TIF will be paying all feeds and the bond will
reimburse the TIF.
Resolution - A Resolution Of The City Council Accepting An Easement From George
M. Fox For The Purpose Of Constructing, Operating, Maintaining, Replacing And
Repairing A Sewer Line For Village Subdivision Within The Described Easement.
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, stated he and the City Planner had been doing
homework on a subdivision that wants to come into the City and started looking at
existing easements in the area. They looked at the easement for a water line by the
cabins and the sewer easement for the Village Lift Station. The easement for the Village
Lift Station did not have a recording number on it. The note said to file in the vault, not
file at the courthouse. He stated he reached out to the City Attorney and Clerk and
Recorder both stated this document needed to be recorded and the Council needs to
accept the easement. He stated he did try and find when this easement was discussed or
accepted by Council and was unable to find anything. This resolution is permission to
file this easement with the County.
It was questioned if the Village Subdivision is the trailer courts. It was clarified that was
correct.
6. Ordinance No. 020-01: An Ordinance Amending Certain Chapters Of Title 14 Of The
Laurel Municipal Code Relating To The Adoption And Enforcement Of Building Codes
For The City Of Laurel As Required By The State Of Montana.
Mayor Nelson stated the Planning Director is present if there are any questions on this
ordinance. The State requires an update to the building codes.
Council Issues
7. West Railroad Update
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, stated they have been working with KLJ
Engineering to get a scope on a task order and what it will entail. He stated for the past
five to six months; he has been trying to get an understanding of the task order. The
$85k is for them to come in and study how to get West Railroad Street built. They
wanted to look at the right of way and ownership survey, a topographic map, utility
mapping, prepare base drawings, water and sanitary sewer review, storm drainage
analysis, bridge replacement analysis, neighborhood intersection analysis, railroad
crossing analysis, and prepare a final report for the City. With that, the cost will be $85k
with that staff asked what does each part of that phase entail. So, they brought back a
task order that broke it out by cost.
• Right of way survey $17,500
• Topographic map $6,500
• Utility mapping $5,000
• Prepare base drawings $5,500
• Water and sanitary sewer review $5,500
• Storm drainage analysis $15,000
• Bridge replacement analysis $13,000
• Neighborhood intersection analysis $11,000
• Railroad crossing analysis $5,000
• Prepare final report $1,000
There are no storm drains in the area over there, so it is a really difficult analysis trying
to get storm drains over there. There is a small bridge over there. It is a concrete
decking bridge. He stated from the records he found it is a City bridge that was put in in
the '30s. Those bridges were originally for railroad cars for the railroad. Trying to
figure out who actually owns those because if its not a State bridge usually most
bridges revert over to County ownership and maintenance takes over that. Having a
bridge that is not on the State list and not on the County list we are left with a bridge
that is with the City and if we are not in bridge -building as a municipality as per State
code. It is either the State or the County governments that have the authority to deal
with the bridges in the Communities. Woodland comes up and intersects with a
railroad crossing. Then there is Cedar, is another one, that is a block off right now with
big concrete blocks right now because you are entering the railroad right of way. He
stated he looked at that and helped KLJ come to some kind of understanding of what
we are going to do there. The subdivisions on the Southside predated the City and were
recorded in 1907. The City became a City in August of 1908. Those subdivisions down
there predate the City. The streets actually go into railroad right of way. Typically, you
don't allow streets to do that anymore; you can't just go into a railroad right of way and
think you can travel that way. So there might be some discussions with MRL on how
those intersections are going to work so they wanted $11,000 for that. The railroad
crossing analysis will be how to make the grades work and what we can do there. The
Public Works Director stated he would love to have a quiet zone there, at those two
crossings if we can make it happen. He stated he is not sure if anyone else in Laurel
doesn't like that beep. KLJ wants $5k for that. We got all that information back from
KLJ; the next question is what if we do a project with the State Department of
Transportation, how much of this stuff would we have to pay for is going to get
reduplicated. Is the State going to come in and do all this over again? So they brought it
down and we just got the report back last Wednesday. They have not had a chance to...
He stated himself, the Mayor and Nick have not had a chance to sit down and go over
that report yet. They will be doing that next Tuesday when they have their bi-monthly
meeting so they will be going over that detail of what would be duplicated and hope to
bring this up to Public Works Committee tomorrow evening and discuss this a little bit
under that committee as well and get more information out what the report states. When
we were looking at additional funds for West Railroad Street we were looking at, the
first five blocks from 1St Avenue to 5th Avenue are in the TIF District, but with this
other project going forward with the bond you heard tonight until we get what it's going
to cost and how much it's going to be, how much we are extending ourselves out and
what's leftover in the TIF District. Once this is extended, you could get another bond
project as long as it doesn't exceed passed the original bond that you may pass here
shortly. So if there is funds to still be able to do the grants and other infrastructure
projects that might free up some revenue to help with the West Railroad Street project
and get that rebuilt as well. Its kind of a dynamic situation right now not knowing
exactly what the annual payments will be for that bond. We should know more in the
next few weeks. So that's what we are trying to get close too, once we get this finalized
with KLJ would like to get another crack at the Department of Transportation and see
what they think and get their feelings on what will have to be duplicated. To get a better
understanding if they will bring this to Council for a task order for $85k what you are
getting your money for. And if it has to be duplicated and be done all over again, want
to be upfront with you, to spend the money now and that the State will have to do this
again. We know that's going to happen on some items, but sitting here waiting for the
State to come up with extra money is really not an option if we want to move forward.
Trying to do everything we can to keep moving this forward and engage the State and
make a project where there might be local match funds through the TIF District or any
other kind of bonds we would be able to do or Special Improvement District. If we do
our water and sewer, if the project would go, we would have to put away money for
water and sewer. If we need to extend the water and sewer, currently the Southside
water is not great. It is pretty good up to 5th Avenue. It is coming along the tracks and
hits the tracks, that is fairly new waterline its 1998. But from 5th over to 8th° that line is
old and would need to be replaced. If we are going to rebuild the street, we would want
to lay new water line out and potentially new sewer line out to Lion's Family Park or
South Pond, so if there is any growth going on south of the railroad tracks and south of
the interstate they can possibly tie into that sewer main. He stated he would hate to sit
here and have this project done and then go oh we need to get to that sewer line and dig
up that street. So would like to look at extending that out. Those funds would need to
either come from the enterprise funds because a lot of that is outside the TIF District.
That's the only funds we could look at is the water and sewer. Things are still
progressing; he stated he knows it is not as fast as everyone would like but keep
plugging away at it.
Mayor Nelson stated plus there is the truck traffic that chooses not to go under the
underpass because of the 13 feet 3 -inch height restriction. That hangs a left westbound
on West Railroad and crosses the railroad tracks onto West Main. Trying to see since
that is a designated truck route gets funding from the State as well, of course, that
usually comes in the form a long time before we need it as they move very slow. There
is a possibility of getting a commitment even would be helpful if we had something we
knew would pay something back. Investigating that as well.
Council President Eaton stated that she is a little bit confused. This started out with
$85k that KLJ was requesting for a 10 step process. This 10 step ... it was requested of
KLJ that they itemize that 10 step process. They itemized the 10 step process, and now
instead of KLJ working on it, the City Planner is working on some of it and there are all
of these objections that are coming up to moving forward with it. She stated she would
like to know is there a definite date with regard to when this project is to go forward
and come out of the researching stage.
Mayor Nelson stated that as we currently identified the project with the Urban Route
Funds with the State. The State and the way they take a look at the project and estimate
its cost. The State estimated that we were ... Mayor Nelson asked the Public Works
Director how much short. The Public Works Director clarified that we were anywhere
from 2mil-3mil short. Mayor Nelson clarified that we would have to come up with. So
we are struggling to find a way to come up with that shortfall. Doing that and what can
we do and is there any way we can modify what we are looking at. The KLJ's survey to
identify costs, or what they believe the costs are going to be in this project, some of
those would also be repeated again by the State if we went forward with them and the
Urban Route Funds. They would repeat some of that because they have to do that. I
guess the concern was that we scrape together $85k, up to $85k. It's up to it is not an
$85k. They don't see it being more than $85k. To scrape that money together and spend
it and then, in the case of the Gateway Plan, not do anything because you can't afford to
do anything. So we are trying to make sure that we can get to where we know we can
afford the project before we spend the funds that we need to with KLJ to get that
groundwork done and then move forward with it.
Council Member Klose questioned the 2mil-3mil shortfall within, do we expect any
money from the County to help us out with that?
Mayor Nelson stated that one would like to think so, but that is probably not going to
happen that discussion has been raised in many meetings we have had on this every
other week. One of that was that we have a tremendous amount of pressure on that
street as well from the refinery and the refinery is in the County and the County gets
money from the refinery we don't get that money directly from the refinery. It is much
that the County should bear some responsibility but obviously, they have a budget and I
think they have their funds allocated where they think they have to have them. There is
no guarantee that we can get money from them; it would be a struggle. To answer your
question, we probably should, but are we, can we, can we force them to, no we can't
force them to. But we can sweet talk them and try to get them to pitch something in or
can we leverage something else to try to convince them that would be a good idea,
maybe. We are looking at everything we can.
Council President Eaton asked is there a timeframe for the 10 -step plan that KLJ came
up with, what is the status of that?
Kurt Markegard, Public Works Director, clarified that they just got it Wednesday.
Mayor Nelson continued by stating not so much that that expires but more important if
we go through that process, and we determine we have to wait another year and a half
or maybe two years to get the funding in place. We may be required to go through this
again and spend another up to $85k or $90k because the State will say this is outdated;
you need to provide us with new engineering again. We have discussed that at one of
our meetings. If we wait too long, we may have to go through the process again.
Council President Eaton stated she is experiencing some frustration with this because
she was the first on Council in January of 2007. She stated she started bringing this
issue up somewhere in 2008. A resident of her ward asked her a year ago and a half ago
to please summarize why it was that nothing was being done with West Railroad. So
she went back through her records that she keeps at home and in 2013, she stated she
had written up a rather lengthy document then of every time she had brought up at
Public Works Committee or the Council as a whole discussion about West Railroad
Street. She stated that she ended up giving that particular constituent a document that
was 3 inches thick of all of the times and all of the ways that this had been brought up
and dropped. She stated it seems to her know that there are more objections and
problems that are being dug up that have never been considered before because this
project had never been considered. She stated that she is very worried that this balls
going to get dropped again. Given the fact that the east end project, which was
scheduled to take two years suddenly got combined into a one year project and we are
now looking at the funding for it. That went through very very easily and very very
quickly and there are no more constraints to that. I would think an engineering firm
could come up within a 10 -step program. She stated she would like to see something a
little bit more precise and concise rather than an engineering firm coming up with a
project and everyone taking potshots at it and saying they are charging too much. She
stated that she understands that we are trying to save money and that she understands
that it is a fight be the City trying to save their dollars and the State seeming to think we
have endless funds. This is a project that needs to be done. She stated that she doesn't
know how many times all of us around here have said that. She stated that she is
amazed at how many times a 10 -step program supposedly can be finished and brought
to the Council and then it doesn't get brought to the Council. Then the Public Works
Director is working on phases of it to try and save the City money, etc. etc. It looks
already as if it its infancy stage that we are just treading water already again on this
project. She stated that she wants to express the fact that this is not going to go away.
And if she has to haul her wheelchair in here at age 105, she is going to make life
difficult for all concerned. She stated that is her two cents and they can put that towards
the funding to improve West Railroad Street.
Mayor Nelson stated that they have talked about; there are other options too. There is
Gas Tax; there is the Street Maintenance levy. He stated he thinks if they through
everything they can find and pick up at that project it can probably be accomplished.
But it would be at the expense of not doing other things because of the finite amount of
funding. And there again the State may have grossly overestimated it as well. Our
engineering firm does seem to think that the State does overestimate because obviously,
that would be to their benefit to overestimate vs. underestimate a project's costs. When
we meet next week can take a look at that and bring that proposal on the engineering
task order to the Council and let you decide.
Council Member Wilke stated that he is curious, we spend this $85k to have this report
done, then we got all this information and then the State comes in and says we need to
redo this. At some point in time in the future are we going to have to spend more
money to help pay for some of these things we have already paid for? Or will they
except some of this information, it is coming from an engineering firm for crying out
loud. Does it all have to come from their dudes up there in Helena? He stated it is his
fear that we pay $85k and they come back that we need to pay $45k more because you
didn't do this right or you didn't get enough information. We pay $85k for the future to
hear, oh you got to pay for this too. He stated this is what he is worried about.
Mayor Nelson stated that the state will do their own topo; we will do a topo with a
drone, a drone is the least expensive way to do a topo survey. But we need the topo
survey for our stormwater and other considerations. So we have to have that. That is
something the State's going to do anyway but we are better off having our own done. Is
what we determined. There are a few things that they have to do. The other thing is if
we go and spend the money on this task order, we want to continue with the project
because if we stall and think we have to wait a year or two, then we will have to spend
that money again on a new task order. The State won't accept some of those things that
the State will accept from the engineering firm that they won't duplicate.
Council Member Herr stated he fully agrees with Council President. Railroad Street is
definitely a shot in the arm to get going on. On the same sort of token, but we are going
to need money again if the City chooses to put water and sewer out to the West
Exchange. That is going to be a big chunk of money. He stated he would rather see it
on West Railroad Street because right now, that's a big point. But how do we get
money for the west end and the new interchange the businesses and whatever is going
in out there. Maybe the business places will kick in, but it is still going to be quite a
large expense to get water and sewer out to the West exchange. Will, that interfere with
this or is that water and sewer money and this is road money?
Kurt Markegard stated that any time so the last time we did anything with Urban Funds
and the State was 81h Avenue. The previous Clerk/Treasurer had put away 1 million in
the water and sewer funds to do that project. To redo the water and sewer mains for 7
blocks. So we had the money in the bank when the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act came through. And all of a sudden our project that was still in the
design phase; they were still doing it. But it was close enough design, the final design,
that we were eligible to be a shovel ready project. That project going forward, the City
had our match from the water and sewer funds that we had to pay the State to install the
water and sewer lines. Then we had to deal with the stormwater. That plan took 10
years for the plans to be drawn up and the environmental assessments to go on. They
looked at wetlands; they looked at stormwater. They even bought land next to the
church to deal with stormwater then gifted that over to the City of Laurel that now we
have to maintain to retain Cherry Hill stormwater so that the stormwater coming down
Stn Avenue didn't have to be such a large size so that we would save cost. The same
thing is happening on West Railroad Street; the problem is the State's not moving
forward towards plans. This is different because they looked at it and did their numbers,
the rough estimate and said we are not even going to move forward with plans until the
gap funding is closed. So they are doing nothing, that is what they came and told the
Council, they are not going to do nothing. So the State Department of Transportation is
doing nothing, absolutely nothing. So the only ones working on this project is the City.
We are trying to get you guys a number where your comfortable, then understand all
the things that are going to happen. We don't have stormwater, so right now, that street
is just shedding water off onto the railroad and into the neighborhood properties. It's
running across the berm; sometimes, it's not even doing that because the dirt has built
up so high along railroad street that water is just sitting out on the street creating
puddles which creates the potholes which deteriorates the street even more. So they are
looking at bringing a storm drain all the way from the underpass to the railroad spur at
Fox Lumber, hooking onto that and coming under 1" Avenue and going underneath two
railroad crossings and extending it all the way out to 8th Avenue. We have the other
option of dumping stormwater maybe into the pond. Do we really want stormwater
going into a pond where theirs fishery? We don't want that to happen either. So this
project is not simple. With the railroad and railroad property, if we went through and
did a Special Improvement District, we are probably not going to get the railroad to
participate in that because they have no beneficial frontage. It's not going to benefit
them to have curb, gutter, and sidewalks. So a Special Improvement District probably
isn't going to fly and if it did it would go on all property owners that would benefit it
cant be shared in the whole community on that whole Southside so your just looking at
property owners along Railroad Street to raise funds for a Special Improvement
District. Well, that's not going to work. It is just too much. So back to the gap funding.
The States is not working on it. The City Council and this Mayor and previous
administration want us to keep working on it. What we are trying is to get you a
number that we can. And that you understand if it goes forward our Urban Funds that
are sitting at the State are not just the City's it's the Counties too. So when we talk
about it, that district encompasses County properties and City properties. The County
has already said, the County Commissioners have said yes, you get to use that money
just for the street. They agreed to that. He stated that he went and asked the Public
Works Director for Yellowstone County if they have any money to contribute. The
answer was no. He stated he has already done the asking. What he is trying to do is to
the best that he can to make sure if they spend $85k, that is $85k that we don't get to go
pothole patch or crack seal any other project. It is going to go to this and then it might
sit and we may have a plan and the State comes in and says not sufficient. So we got to
have the funding and we got to have an understanding of what the costs are going to be,
how much it is going to cost to put in a storm drain per lineal foot, water line per lineal
foot, sewer line per lineal foot. Get all that done; how much curb is going to be
required. Are we going to do a three -lane or a two lane? We are trying to convince the
State that we only need two-lane until we get to the residential neighborhood and then
we can possibly go to three -lane. So you turn left to go in the South Side and keep
traffic flowing into the county. Urban standards is a three lane; we don't feel between
1St and Woodland that you need a three -lane. That is KLFs and his opinion. The urban
design requires that they are three -lane. So we have to convince the Department of
Transportation by data that we don't need three lanes to go over railroad crossings.
Why would you need it, if you turn North and nothing that turns South, we don't need
three lanes there? We are trying to get it all put together as one scope and have an
understanding that all the things that would go into design so we can get the cost
estimates. If we do everything and research everything, then we cant come to a realistic
cost estimate number to present to the State. That is what we are trying to get down to.
Yes, it is taking some time to get it all done; that is why he is asking all the questions.
So we are prepared to go forward and it doesn't take 10 years to do a design and have
10 years of looking at something. If we can compress that down to be able to do it in a
two-year design, that means the project can go forward faster. Know that every year we
are getting about $260k added to that account. When we did 8th Avenue, 8th Avenue
wasn't even projected to start construction until 2023 at the earliest. He stated when he
started here 2023 was the earliest it would ever go, then along came the shovel ready
project. So now West Railroad Street because that got done we had a balance left and
now that's where we are at. He stated he is hoping to have something in the next couple
of weeks to the Council so they have something to consider. Then it would be up to you
[Council] if you want to spend the $85k or not. He stated they have a meeting next
Tuesday and then he thinks if the Mayor feels comfortable putting it on the agenda, we
will bring a task order soon.
Mayor Nelson stated he doesn't know how much work is ever gone on with this project
in the past, but he does know in the last year, in the last 8 months have really focused
on this trying to get to where we can make this a reality and move the project forward.
It needs to be done obviously, that a major arterial into Southside. It's a major arterial
for transportation in and out of the refinery, especially during the turnaround. And at
some point in time, it's going to be a major arterial into a more development south of
the highway where eventually he would assume we will have the State putting
something over those railroad tracks and with a loop connector that connects into West
Railroad because it's going to be traffic that's coming in over there and eventually
probably something with the widening of 4th and getting traffic back out onto the
highway south from there. Then onto 90 again from there. We will continue to work on
that so in the next couple of weeks; we can bring that to the Council, and then you can
make that decision and give you the best... what we think can do if we go ahead with
that — exploring other options with some variables. We talk about it every two weeks.
We have been moving forward on it as well on identifying things on it that question or
funding avenues or different options. We have moved through the identification of the
streets that Kurt had mentioned to you. We have streets terminating into railroad right
of way; they have to be terminated and have to interconnect, brought down then come
over. He stated they are all very committed in making this thing work and getting it off
the ground this time. We give you that commitment here in a couple of weeks and get
you.
Discussion on National Historic Places Registry Designation.
Nick Altonaga, Planning Director, read the attached recommendation letter to Council.
He stated that Park Board met last spring with a member of the Yellowstone Historic
Preservation Board and discussed what it would like to be on the registry. Historic
designation opens the City to more funding and exemptions from certain regulations.
It was questioned if the Care Takers building would be torn down. It was clarified that
the City could demo buildings if documented properly.
Mayor Nelson stated a few years ago, this topic was brought to Council and he had
come to the same conclusion that the Planning Director had. This will open grant
funding opportunities to maintain and improve those buildings.
It was questioned how the Council moves forward with this item. It was clarified that
this item would be brought back as a resolution at the next Workshop.
Other Items
There were none.
Review of Draft Council Agendas
9. Draft City Council Agenda of January 28, 2020.
There were none.
Attendance at Upcoming Council Meeting
All in attendance will be at next week's meeting.
Announcements
Public Works Committee's next meeting is tomorrow, January 22, 2020, at 6:00 P.M. in
the Council Conference Room.
Emergency Service's next meeting is January 27, 2020, at 6:00 P.M. in Council
Chambers.
Mayor Nelson reminded citizens that ice is jamming up on the river. Areas near the
river may have flooding and to be safe.
The council workshop adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
OrittA
neyor an
Administrative Assistant
NOTE: This meeting is open to the public. This meeting is for information and discussion of the Council for
the listed workshop agenda items.
17,
A� V!
Q1/��� �� �4 • '
� :- Of ''�•., M:. , I i� � I � , i� c .c:.. j � err • �' •i' 90
go 90
tD
N
rgrg pp 1.s t 41
a ,+Ff � fl� , k7. R� I,I rf. ni��' 4 -f% ..1 ` 1 '• ,�. • �1. �
If 1 I,
�� �r'�y'=' - . ; rte,,` •_.{��. .. , � i 4 � ;` `•
�' arCl. �'•► . a t'j?C :;� {
j p f tOIN
V14 -
ME
X
O
a
O
Q
_3
D•
co
Q
Ni
Q
D
n
Q
D
Q
D
n
q-
0
D
x
V)
N
O
D
O�
D
(/)
C/)
c
Li
0
c
c
l J
�
7'
z
�
0
i
D
_•
O
O�
Y/A6
n
DL
%
� /
0
0
�_
`IV1
0
x
(D
(D
n
D
V!
n
O
C
0
- "
(Q
�_
0
!D
�•
0
0
-t
cn
C
-- -,
✓�_
\
(V
n,V
l.L
�
/
3/.
\ V
J
i
0
rn
(\V
I
�F
c :TO �O �0
Z:D �_ >O—an>Q,—,Q—a
� (D CD z=•Q:Q�:3n :3 'O
0 N Q O � CD m n _+. CD (� Qo n
Q O --1 =-, 0 co ODL � O
77 00 �
O Q O �- 7C) Q. O 0Q Q
� (D (D
-0_ (D cn Q CD Q
Q O T. -° o� CD CD
c c) = �- CQ O
o rn 0-
O
p CD <. CQ rn co n
h 77 O CD (T -+
: Q (D CD O
O n (DD �
77�
° �°. c
(D CD Q_
O O =} O -�-
I D D --N -7.
O' -+ CQ � Q
O
D' Q CD n
CD CD z N
CDLn
CD cn
Q
� Q Q
Q -� —
nCD � CD O N
QLn
Q Q
C1�
�- cc
�n0 NO (D =.n Z-1
0o 0� �ZQ -" :3 717
:3m� u 3• co O
• p po r Q
CQ =. :TQ D Z7 Q �� (D
CO Q Q O
O
N°��>� d
0 rn
3O�
Q Q ° � • Q CQ Q r7l
n `n � m 770
� c -+
Q n -E- --�- -0 r CD (D ::T
D (D CD D =T —i Q cn (D
Q CD Q- O (D717 --h —
Cn O -h C
ZnQ r O < _
ooQ o°
(D� �O Q p7
0o Q Q
70
717
oQ 7C)
O CD �.
..
Q
O
�• z
c (D
� �
- - Q
o
(D
CD (� `
Q -� ---F:
< O
N W -p cn 0-1 --II
O O O O O O O O
J
D N
O
N
O
D
CD
0
CD
O
00
D oon o 90
D o
r
O
N ��< O 90 d
CD
Oma_ —'- 3
SON.
O
90
�o
9 o
�o
�C
O
0
CD
MOW
U-1 0
CD 0 0
N) K) CA)
Cn 0 ()-1 0
0 0 0 0
I
I
CD
V <
(D
/
C�) =:t(D E3
Q rn
`V
D II
_0 ,ern'/
"'
Q
W
cJ,
4-1-
V)
(D
D
Q
m
DL
M
D
(D
Travel Time (Sec)
cn O
O O O
OD
Travel Time (Sec)
N N W
O O O O 01 O O cn O
H
a
C
_ N O
1 00 -p O
l J7
-� 122 L 15
182-01- 4-299
148 i 1-' 10
Itr
O N
N } • ' ' ` +� N (D C0
N
229 1 L17
273-0- 4--255 ~'- _5�' * co N ,-
216 i !""' 11 ., N �rn1 co
itr � Z
:r
wrno 169 L 31
-+-260 CD244-00-
(D o �;; 180 r 70
Ln +
(D �r
,., �.
Q z y -'Cn oma
l�
cD 7C)
- (D
Q Q
(D
aL , - --
Q
Q
DL
D
-(D
n
CT
0
C (A
(C)
cy,
(D
0
C)
0
Ln
(D
n
3
n
(D
Z
oo
O
lV
Q
Ln
L/)
—
o
(D
<
(D
7
J.
CQ
O
Q
D
Q
(D
t. 1
N)
_2 cc)
N) (3)
z
---h
0
0
7C)
J n
�"
w
11
<
z
7C)
J n
�"
w
--4
(n 0
O
CP
(D
Ln
lV
11
<
z
7C)
--4
(n 0
O
O
"IRV
C1�
N CD U7 OC
oc
� Z
It 3
{ f 0
p Q
N � O�
3 Q
70 Q
C1�
0 0
C
--F
C
(D
(D (D
n
O -+
� o
3 x
C
Q CCD
O�
C
(D
Q
CDD
O
Q-0
70
Q_ -. --7
Q N' (D
(D
�
-
n c'
O D
L Q
Q _
N �.
(D
(D
X
co
(D
O
3
n'
Q
Q
CQ .
Q
o�o�•
>
Do
O
a
b�
CQ
n
p
N
�
(Do
Q
�
D
�;
CD
(D
N%_
(D
n
Ln
CQ
CD
- .
3
o
O
(Q 0(D
L
((D
�-
7n
CD
OO
CnD
C
Q
Q
p
-
(D (D
O-
CD
Q
O
.N
O
�,
Q
070
C
-
Z
oco
-+,
(Q a
(D
c �-
--�
N
Q
—�
(D
O
— •
3
0= ---h
_(D
77—
(D
D
(D
—�
°
(D
:3c
(D ON.
n
�c
D
O
Q
c
((D
(DD
-+
(D
< (D
Q
CD
(D
n
� o
„
FD
Q
��Z
Q\O
Q
°77
0_
N
(DoQ
Z7
co
c
Z
_�
v
•N
Q
�°
-03
Q
Q
(
c
(D
Q
7,7,<
LO
V)
.N
D
CCD
CCD
<
C/)
(D
C
--F
C
(D
(D (D
n
O -+
� o
3 x
C
Q CCD
O�
C
(D
Q
CDD
O
Q-0
70
Q_ -. --7
Q N' (D
(D
�
-
n c'
O D
L Q
Q _
N �.
(D
(D
X
co
(D
O
3
n'
Q
Q
CQ .
Q
: � o>
Q
CD (D �
CD
x�(D
D t
O
CD Q Q
CD Q
7J
/000, ONS \
1
39 23
35 —lo- o ®-- 31
201 31
\N /
N pp C37
0 �OA
00"
C)NW
O W -�
J I L
59
L
23
54
30
36
r
29
itr
MW
CO N Cn
/
co
O X
n N.
m
w
W
O
N
O
4325
38 w 34
23 36
\ CA) /
W (37 C3�
'. �'�►
LE
f� m
3 ew
- 23
473-373
224 203 -
i1r
'Y
Ad,
m _3
00 " ODA >
JIL 3:
4 L, 34
256 558
7
C:)
22
(0 0) itr _a
AL Cn
C)
13 48
279 475
9 i 65
oitr p . .
Ul
A
ka
6 L 59
253-01- -4--569
15 —1 1— 81
oltr
N -1h,
00 m co
co co cn
r— ') o r— o
0 0
_ Q
:D- a: :3 --7 -0 n
-', DO Qc�Q --*' �•� n - c
D- Q 0 Q CD v� �_
O cD � CQ —� O
�
�O� O tD<Q p =CQ Q Q,
�rnc0 �(D=QC c -+-0
<
--+- (D
Q (DQ CO- L"O-
—<
O.olO /
-CD
c CD �- 1 O D p
_p
CD n(D --- xD C
n n �
-
� Q
Ln
OON 0 rn CD
� I/ rn
7E (DCD
Q QQ CD �Q D- Q Q
cQ :3(D D = Q —� 0
O
p Q O CQ �• Q D
CD O < Q QQ
Q� �— � v)
:' - 03 CD
co O Q p cD < O Cp
Q Q CD �. 3
-►, CD c
Q
0--0
-�- Q �' --1
c O Q Z
c -.-7:3 - O
_}
cD
Lool
n
a
x
O
:o
�. 0
{
0 0 0
N
o
-o N -ice
00
-� 00 W
N
_
0
O O V
n
a
x
Z C/' Z
N �
Q V)
+ -
XX X
Q Q
/V 717
O
(D
CQ
Q
m
Q
Q
co
cQ'
3
(D
Q
N
O
(D
O
x
C_
D
Q
(D
LnQ
-tz
Q
Ln
Ln
Ql
DO
0
F '�9
ONo
t
3
O
Cn
O
Ul
O
O
o
N
-P
O
W
Cn
J�
OJ
O
O
O
c
N
0
:'
O
N
r
O
O
O
N
0
W
GJ
N
F -A
C*
-
Ph,0
-NO
C.)
O
O
-
O
O
c
O
O
--�
0
0
\I
Ql
DO
0
F '�9
I
=r
cr,
cn
cri
U-1
cn
cy,
W
Cn
cn
-0--
00
0T
00
W
z
co
z
mz
ou
C/3
C/)
00
m
UD
<
z
co
C/)
Wou
CA)
CA)
011
Ck)CJL)
CA)
CA)
CA)
CA)
CA)
CA)
N
CA.)
I
D 77
O
CC/)
CC/3
O V
V V
W O
O co
'
� N
N --�
-.a �
V (n
'
D 77
I
0�1J J J ". • •
i
4r,- W cy) -..x M (,) --.x N.) W
W (D C:) N) 'b'. cy) OWE
JILO jj� i
32 N) 12 2) 6 —J L.. 8 59 23
16 17 37 > 11 54 30
59
j
NJ
23
0
5 43
1 1
6 t 24 7 25 36 -'1 f� 29
r
I r I r r
Nj m ro AWN
cD (JI
M 00 C) C) --4 cn C.0 N) C -n
Vil
1� m
x
(DWoo-
90
20
go
CA (A
-RaL
C:) (D N)
(f) cn C)) ol
32 9
34
18 9 37 12
6
6 24 27
NANO
1
43 25
38 34
23 36
CA) Cn Cn
C
--a
—r
--I
Z
--o
—I
—1
CD
O
N
CD
O
O
Q
Q
Q
-..
Q
Q
O
—
—
O
QO
O
(D
7C'
Q
O
CD
Q
Q
�
Q
�
Q
Ln
n
n
Q
Q
CD
CD
X
X
r`
N
N
N
-p
W
"o
=a
O
Cr
O,
N
N
v
N
O
N
p
--a
---I
----I
z
(D%
0-
0-
(D
3 N
C/)
+-
C)
S'
:3
n
C:) ---
(D
0
1--
---h
Q
0
0
I
(/)
(D
C7
X
0
CO
cy,
Q
n
(D
0-
(D
X
00
Q
-u
(D
--- I
0-
---I
0-
%,0
0
3 N
C/)
+-
C)
S'
:3
n
C:) ---
(D
0
00 CO
(D
-u
(D
--- I
0-
---I
0-
"t
0
3 N
C/)
+-
C)
S'
:3
n
o
0
Ln
(D
0
(D
:3
0-
(D
X
CO
cy,
Q
NO
Cri
CD
U)
00
� o
O
•
•
O
O
N W -P cn 01- �l
CD O O O O O O O
f5
ul
Q9
0 DL71� n z n K , z cri0
CD 00 00 73:0��
0D
n0 -o �n
� <�- -�0rn
o n
3 Q 3 n
< 3 5° o 0 0
•N0 n,< CD c�
c 0
CD
Q ° c �
co �- 0 0c n n
0 CD �' -� Q
c cD (D � _
Ln �° o �° �
Q � Q° (D 0
0 c
-0 • Co (C)
D Q c D
Q O c -•
Q v, CD
CD
O ° —
v�=t4 3
Q CD
CD (D ---h
-+- O
0
3
f-
D
O
12:0(
12:3(
1:0(
1:3(
2:0(
2:3(
3:0(
3:3(
4:0C
4:3(
5:0C
5:3C
6:OC
6:3C
7:OC
7:3C
8:OC
8:3C
9:OC
9:3C
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
3:00
3:30
4:00
4:30
5:00
5:30
6:00
6:30
7:00
7:30
8:00
8:30
9:00
9:30
10:00
10:30
11:00
11:30
N N w w a a
O Ln O Ln O In O Ln
O O O O O O O O O
O
--4-
0
C
Q
c
Q
Q
Q_
Q
Q
J
0
3
0
3
3
D o
,o
V I
�o
c
Q
0
0
X
y
1CITYW. IST S Cit Of Laurel
•
11s W. IST ST. v
PLANNING: 628-4796 J
WATER OFC.: 628-7431
COURT: 628-1964 P.O. Box 10
FAX 628-2241 Laurel, Montana 59044
January 17, 2020
Office of the City Planner
Regarding the Recommendation of Riverside Park for Inclusion on the National Registry of
Historic Places
Mr. Mayor,
After reviewing the federal guidelines, resources, and information available regarding inclusion
on the National Registry of Historic Places I am in support of placing Riverside Park on the
National Registry of Historic Places (NRHP). There have been many concerns about the NRNP
designation previously raised regarding:
• Floodplain regulations,
• Design and improvement constraints, and
• Federal oversight of local efforts.
The National Floodplain Insurance Program (NFIP) has specific regulations for structures
regarding substantial improvement for both upgrades and repairing damage. Historic structures
do not have to meet floodplain management requirements so long as they maintain their historic
structure designation (44 CFR 49.1). The NFIP provides exemptions and variances for historic
structures that localities can implement for their jurisdictions. The NFIP recommends
considering improved construction and mitigation measures during rehabilitation despite their
exemption from floodplain management requirements. The Laurel Floodplain Hazard
Management Regulations updated in 2018 presents a basic variance process for historically
designated structures which matches the NFIP program. This is described in Section 12.4.2.2.
Inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places does not overlay restrictions on a property
owner nor does it mandate the preservation of that property in the future. Activities such as
demolition, structural upgrades, replacement of features, and rehabilitation are all allowable by
the building or site owner.
Communities have the option of choosing to adopt provisions for addressing the unique needs of
"historic structures" and their improvement and alternation. Unless Federal funding is secured to
improve/upgrade the site, direct oversight of activities will remain low. Inclusion of a site in the
NHRP does not place undue burdens upon the owner in regards to color, removal and
replacement of features, and site improvements unless federal licenses, funding, and permits are
involved which would elicit review and compliance through Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
I support the inclusion of Riverside Park on the National Register of Historic Places. I have
provided some documentation that supports my position on the matter. Please review the
attached and annotated FEMA and Code of Federal Regulations documents for further
information. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments on this item. Thank you
for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Nick Altonaga
Planning Director
�-
�
�' �s 4*ri rpt 3•; t .yi`.! f Y. :"yLl
BUT =a R
_ iou1T' e ilif��I1I1
,
777
,
V�', �+` "� � ��� II }I�' � III' �'r. �``� � }fc�`.� 3 .•�
!� ..- ... r k�'�1r :1"1'.�� x,4'i;��:��:i?c«r 1•..Y..iS F -.t "�_ K _...�`f
i
I
National Flood Insurance Program
Floodplain Management Bulletin
Historic Structures
This Floodplain Management Bulletin addresses how the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
treats historic structures. This bulletin also identifies mitigation measures that can be taken to protect
historic structures from floods. The bulletin addresses the following topics:
Introduction...........................................................................................................................................2
Backgroundon the NFIP.......................................................................................................................2
The NFIP and Historic Structures.........................................................................................................3
Definition of"Historic Structures".................................................................................................3
Floodplain Management Requirements that Provide Relief for Historic Structures ......................4
Historic Structures in the Floodway......................................................................................................5
New Construction and Non-contributing Structures in Historic Districts.............................................6
Substantial Improvements to Existing Structures in Historic Districts.................................................7
Flood Insurance for Historic Structures................................................................................................8
Minimizing the Impacts of Flooding on Historic Structures.................................................................9
Protection Measures for Historic Structures...................................................................................9
Hazard Mitigation Planning Can Benefit Historic Structures.......................................................19
FurtherInformation.............................................................................................................................20
State and Local Mitigation Planning "How -To" Guides..............................................................20
Other Mitigation Documents........................................................................................................21
Comments............................................................................................................................................22
OrderingInformation..........................................................................................................................22
Page 1 of 22
National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Bulletin
Introduction
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) gives special consideration to the unique value of
one of our Nation's most significant resources — its historic buildings, landmarks, and sites. It does
so in two ways.
First, the NFIP floodplain management regulations provide significant relief to historic structures.
I-IiStoriC structures do not have to meet the floodplain management requirements of the program as
long as they maintain their historic structure designation. They do not have to meet the new
construction, substantial improvement, or substantial damage requirements of the program. This
exclusion from these requirements serves as an incentive for property owners to maintain the
historic character of the designated structure (44 CFR §60.3). It may also serve as an incentive for
an owner to obtain historic designation of a structure.
Secondly, a designated historic structure can obtain the benefit of subsidized flood insurance
through the NFIP even if it has been substantially improved or substantially damaged so long as the
building maintains its historic designation. The amount of insurance premium charged the historic
structure may be considerably less than what the NFIP would charge a new non -elevated structure
built at the same level. Congress requires that the NFIP charge actuarial rates for all new
construction and substantially improved structures (National Flood Insurance Act of 1968,
42 U.S.C. 4015).
Although the NFIP provides relief to historic structures from having to comply with NFIP flood-
plain management requirements for new construction, communities and owners of historic
structures should give consideration to mitigation measures that can reduce the impacts of flooding
on historic structures located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (44 CFR §60.3). Mitigation measures
to minimize future flood damages should be considered when historic structures are rehabilitated or
are repaired following a flood or other hazard event. Qualified professionals such as architects,
historic architects, and engineers who have experience in flood mitigation techniques can help
identify measures that can be taken to minimize the impacts of flooding on a historic structure
while maintaining the structure's historic designation.
The purpose of this floodplain management bulletin is to explain how the NFIP defines historic
structure and how it gives relief to historic structures from NFIP floodplain management require-
ments (44 CFR §60.3). This bulletin also provides guidance on mitigation measures that can be
taken to minimize the devastating effects of flooding to historic structures.
Background on the NFIP
Congress created the NFIP in 1968 to provide federally supported flood insurance coverage, which
generally was not available from private companies. The NFIP is based on a mutual agreement
with communities that have been identified as having Special Flood Hazard Areas. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will make flood insurance coverage available in a
Page 2 of 22
National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Bulletin
community provided that it adopts and enforces floodplain management regulations that meet or
exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP (44 CFR §60.3). This is accomplished through
local floodplain management regulations.
The NFIP minimum building and development regulations that communities must adopt require
that new and substantially improved and substantially damaged residential buildings be elevated so
that the lowest floor is at or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) determined for the site. Non-
residential buildings have the option of elevation or dry floodproofing to the BFE [44 CFR
§60.3(c)(2), (c)(3), and (e)(4)]. Dry floodprooftng means making a building watertight, substan-
tially impermeable to floodwaters to the BFE.
Substantial improvement means "anv reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other i» rprove-
ment of a structure, the cost oJ'which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the
structure before the "start of construction " of the improvement. This term includes structures
which have incurred substantial damage regardless of the actual repair work performed."
Substantial improvement also includes the repair of buildings that have been substantially
damaged. Substantial damage means "damage of any origin sustained Uv a structure whereby the
cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of
the market value ofthe structure before the damage occurred. "
In summary, structures that are "substantially improved" and "substantially damaged" must be
brought into compliance with the community's floodplain management requirements [44 CFR
§60.3(c)(2), (c)(3), and (e)(4)].
The NFIP and Historic Structures
This section provides information on the NFIP definition of "historic structure" and the floodplain
management requirements that will be included in community floodplain management ordinances.
Definition of "Historic Structures"
The definition section of the NFIP [Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 44 Part 59], defines
"historic structure" as '`any structure that is:
(1) Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the
Deparbnent of Interiw) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as
meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register; (This includes
structures that are determined to be eligible for listing by the Secretary of the Interior as a
historic structure. A determination of "eligibility" is a decision by the Department of the
Interior that a district, site, building, structure or object meets the National Register criteria
for evaluation although the property is not formally listed in the National Register.)
Page 3 of 22
National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Bulletin
(2) Certified or prelirrrinarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the
historical significance of a registered historic district or a district preliminarily determined
by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
(3) Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation
programs which have been approved by the Secr-etary of the Interior; o? -
(4)
r(1) Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic
preservation programs that have been certified either:
(a) By an approved stale program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior o?-
(b)
r(b) Directly by the Secretary of the Interior in States without approved programs. "
This definition was coordinated with the Department of Interior when it was added to the NFIP
Regulations in 1989.
The purpose of this definition is to provide NFIP communities with criteria to distinguish between
"historic structures" and the other existing buildings which remain subject to NFIP floodplain
management requirements (44 CFR §60.3). While it is important to preserve historic structures and
other cultural resources, it is also critical to ensure that other existing flood -prone structures are
protected from flood damage when they are substantially improved or substantially damaged.
Floodplain Management Requirements that Provide
Relief for Historic Structures
The NFIP floodplain management requirements contain two provisions that are intended to provide
relief for "historic structures" located in Special Flood Hazard Areas:
(1) The definition of"substantial improvement" at 44 CFR 59.1 includes the following exclu-
sion for historic structures,
"Any alteration of a "historic strucliwe ", provided that the alteration will
not preclude the structure's continued designation as an "historic structure".
The same exemption also applies to "historic structures" that have been "sub-
stantially damaged".
This provision exempts historic structures from the substantial improvement and substantial
damage requirements of the NFIP.
(2) The other provision of the NFIP floodplain management regulations that provides relief for
"historic structures" is the variance criteria at 44 CFR 60.6(a). This provision states:
"Variances nrcty be issued for the repair or rehabilitation of historic struc-
tures upon a determination that the proposed repair or rehabilitation will not
preclude the structure's continued designation as a historic structure and the
variance is the mininn in necessary to preserve the historic character and de-
sign of the structure."
Under the variance criteria, communities can place conditions to make the building more flood
resistant and minimize flood damages, but such conditions should not affect the historic
Page 4 of 22
National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Bulletin
character and design of the building. See the section on Minimizing the Impacts of Flooding
on Historic Structures for ideas on conditions that could be established to make the building
more flood resistant and to minimize flood damages.
Communities have the option of using either provision for addressing the unique needs of "historic
structures". Communities should adopt only one option to address "historic structures." Some
communities have chosen to adopt an ordinance that requires variances for improvements or repairs
to "historic structures" and do not exclude such improvements from the substantial improvement
definition in their ordinance. Other communities include the "historic structures" exemption as part
of their "substantial improvement" definition. In either case, "historic structures" can be excluded
from the NFIP elevation and floodproofing requirements. Whether a community exempts a
"historic structure" under the substantial improvement definition or through the variance process,
the exemption of the "historic structure" from the NFIP floodplain management requirements
should be documented and maintained in the community permit files.
However, if plans to substantially improve a "historic structure" or repair a substantially damaged
"historic structure" would result in loss of its designation as an "historic structure", the structure no
longer qualifies for the exemption and would be required to meet the NFIP floodplain management
regulations (44 CFR §60.3). This determination needs to be made in advance of issuing a permit.
This provides an incentive to the property owner to maintain the structure's historic designation
rather than altering the structure in such a way that it loses its designation as a "historic structure".
Even if a "historic structure" is exempted from the substantial improvement and substantial damage
requirements, consideration should be given to mitigation measures that can reduce the impacts of
future flooding. There are mitigation measures that can reduce flood damages to historic structures
without affecting the structure's historic designation. See the section on Minimizing the Impacts of
Flooding on Historic Structures.
Historic buildings may also be subject to the local building codes. Many States and communities
use the International Codes as the basis for their buildings codes. The International Codes contain
provisions for addressing historic buildings in a manner consistent with the NFIP.
Historic Structures in the Floodway
The NFIP floodplain management requirements could apply to an addition to a "historic structure",
if the structure or addition is located in a floodway. The floodway includes the channel of the river
and the adjacent floodplain that must be reserved in an unobstructed condition in order to discharge
the base flood without increasing flood levels by more than one foot (44 CFR § 59.1, "regulatory
floodway"). All structures and improvements to structures, including additions to "historic
structures", must comply with the floodway encroachment provisions of 44 CFR § 60.3(c)(10) and
(d)(3) of the NFIP Regulations.
Page 5 of 22
National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Bulletin
44 CFR § 60.3(c)(10) applies to rivers and streams where FEMA has established BFEs, but has not
provided the community with the data necessary to designate a floodway:
Require until a regulatory flood►vay is designated, that no new construction,
substantial impl•ovements, or other development (including fill) shall be per-
mitted within Zones Al -30 and AE on the community's FIRM[Flood Insza -
ance Rate Map], unless it is demonstrated that the cumulative effect of the
pf•oposed development, when combined with all other existing and antici-
pated development, ivill not increase the water swface elevation of the base
flood more than one foot at any point within the community.
§ 60.3(d)(3) applies to rivers and streams where FEMA has provided both established BFEs and
provided the community with the data necessary to designate a floodway:
Prohibi[ encroachments, includingfill, new construction, substantial im-
provements, and other development within the adopted regulatory flood►vay
unless it has been denzonstrated through hydrologic and hydraulic analyses
pei formed in accordance with standard engineering practice that the pro-
posed encroachment would not result in any increase in flood levels within
the community during the occurrence of the base flood discharge.
As an example, an addition, or any portion thereof, to a "historic structure" that expands the square
footage of the structure beyond its footprint into the floodway must comply with the regulatory
floodway criteria [44 CFR §60.3(c)(10) and (d)(3)]. These additions can obstruct flood flows and
increase flood stages. Under 44 CFR § 60.3(d)(3), such an addition would be prohibited if any rise
in the flood level would result from the addition. FEMA defines "any" as meaning a zero increase.
New Construction and Non-contributing
Structures in Historic Districts
Generally, registered historic districts contain a mix of buildings. In addition to structures that
contribute to the historic significance of the district, there will generally be structures in historic
districts that have no historical significance and which do not contribute to the historic significance
of a registered historic district (called "non-contributing" structures). In addition, there may be
sites in these districts that are undeveloped or vacant land. Whole districts cannot be exempt from
floodplain management regulations and a blanket variance cannot be issued for all land within these
districts. The non-contributing structures and vacant lots in historic districts remain subject to all
of the floodplain management requirements that apply to new construction and substantial
improvements (44 CFR §60.3).
Some communities have argued that they should be allowed to grant variances for new buildings or
for substantial improvements to non-contributing buildings in historic districts. They claim that
requiring that the new structures or substantially improved structures be elevated to BFE could be
harmful to the historic significance of the district. FEMA maintains that this would be contrary to
the purposes of the NFIP and could result in greatly increased flood damages and, in some instance,
Page 6 of 22
National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Bulletin
even result in loss of life. There are ways to elevate or floodproof new structures and substantially
improve non-contributing structures so that they comply with the NFIP regulations, but that are still
in harmony with the historic nature of the district. While the NFIP requires protection to the BFE,
it does not specify the means (44 CFR §60.3). An architect should be able to design a new building
that is both compliant with NFIP floodplain management requirements and compatible with the
historic nature of the district. For example, the protection does not have to be achieved by unsightly
mounds of dirt or bare pilings or other elevated foundations. The structure could be elevated on
pilings or other foundation elements and the lower area then covered by an architecturally pleasing
fagade that will not impair the aesthetics of a historic district. The foundation could be camou-
flaged with landscaping, porches, or staircases (See the examples in latter sections of this bulletin).
The NFIP was specifically established by Congress to reduce threats to lives and the potential for
damages to new construction in flood hazard areas in exchange for providing flood insurance.
Exempting new construction from the NFIP elevation requirements in historic districts would be
contrary to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, and it would create a significant
flood risk to structures and to the health and safety of the population. Potentially thousands of
buildings would be placed in harms way, if new or non-contributing structures are not protected.
Substantial Improvements to Existing
Structures in Historic Districts
Some property owners have wanted to substantially improve a non-contributing structure in a
historic district, so that it can become a contributing structure to the historical significance of the
registered historic district. For example, this type of improvement could involve removal of
modern additions to the building, replacement of modern siding or roofing materials with historic
materials, and other actions to restore the historic nature of the structure. If the improvement is a
substantial improvement to a non-contributing structure, the structure still could qualify for relief
from the NFIP floodplain management requirements in the following ways (44 CFR §60.3):
The property owner could apply through their State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer for contributing status for the structure as is, prior to any im-
provements. If the building qualifies as "contributing to the historical significance of a reg-
istered historic district", the community can grant a variance or exclude the improvements
from the NFIP substantial improvement requirement depending on which provision the
community has adopted [44 CFR §60.3(c)(2), (c)(3), and (e)(4)].
The property owner could undertake the minimum work necessary to make the building a
contributing structure, as long as the work is less than a substantial improvement. Once the
structure is designated as "contributing", any additional improvements including a substan-
tial improvement could qualify for relief from the NFIP floodplain management require-
ments, so long as those improvements do not interfere with the designation as "contributing
to the historical significance of a registered historic district" (44 CFR §60.3).
• If the property owner chooses to undertake a substantial improvement of the building all at
once or the owner needs to undertake the substantial improvement in order for the building
Page 7 of 22
National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Bulletin
to qualify as "contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district', the
owner should contact the community for guidance on how they might qualify for relief from
the NFIP substantial improvement requirement [44 CFR §60.3(c)(2), (c)(3), and (e)(4)]. In
this situation, the community would have to issue a variance from the floodplain manage-
ment ordinance. The community should obtain documentation for assurance that the im-
provements being proposed would qualify the building for "contributing" status before
signing off on permits that would grant them relief under the NFIP. The owner should seek
guidance from their State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Offi-
cer on proposed improvements and on what documentation is needed to obtain preliminary
approval. This information should be shared with the community.
In all cases, the property owner should discuss their proposed plans with the community and seek
guidance from the State Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer before
undertaking any improvements to make sure the proposed work would qualify the building for the
designation as a contributing structure. For any of the options described above, the community
should also encourage the property owner to undertake flood damage reduction measures as part of
the improvement, as long as measures do not interfere with its designation as a "historic structure".
Flood Insurance for Historic Structures
In addition to the relief from the NFIP floodplain management requirements described above,
owners of "'historic structures" can obtain and maintain flood insurance at subsidized rates. Flood
insurance coverage is required for most mortgage loans and for obtaining Federal grants and other
financial assistance. The ability to obtain flood insurance coverage is also important to ensuring
that historic structures can be repaired and restored after a flood event.
The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, requires that FEMA charge actuarial rates
reflecting the flood risk to buildings built or substantially improved on or after the effective date of
the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the community or after December 31, 1974,
whichever is later. Actuarial rating assures that the risks associated with buildings in flood prone
areas are borne by those located in such areas and not by the taxpayers at large. These buildings are
referred to as Post -FIRM. The NFIP flood insurance rates are based on the degree of the flood risk.
The flood insurance premium calculations take into account a number of factors including the flood
risk zone shown on the FIRM, elevation of the lowest floor above or below the BFE, the type of
building, the number of floors, and the existence of a basement or an enclosure. The NFIP
floodplain management requirements not only are designed to protect buildings constructed in
floodplains from flood damages; they also help keep flood insurance premiums affordable (44 CFR
§60.3). Buildings not properly elevated will be charged a much higher flood insurance premium
due to the increased flood risk. If substantially improved historic structures were not elevated and
made subject to these rates, the annual insurance premiums could be many thousands of dollars a
year. Allowing historic structures to continue to be insured at subsidized rates, even when they are
substantially improved or substantially damaged, represents a significant financial benefit to these
building owners.
Page 8 of 22
National Flood Insurance Program Floodplain Management Bulletin
Flood insurance at subsidized rates is available whether the "historic structUrC" is exempt from the
NFIP substantial improvement requirement or is granted a variance under the variance provision.
"Historic structures" are considered Pre -FIRM under the NFIP and are charged subsidized rates
similar to existing structures. As long as a historic structure meets the definition of "historic
structure" under the NFIP, it will not be actuarially rated (44 CFR §59.1).
If a "historic structure" is substantially improved such that it loses its historic designation without
meeting the elevation requirements of the NFIP, it will be actuarially rated as a Post -FIRM
structure. This can be significantly higher than the subsidized rate on a "historic structure." Thus,
the subsidized flood insurance rate on "historic structures" also serves as an incentive to maintain
the historic designation of the structure.
Property owners of historic structures are encouraged to purchase NFIP flood insurance. Flood
losses are not covered by homeowner's insurance. Disaster assistance will not take care of all the
financial needs, if the historic structure is damaged by flood. Even if disaster assistance is
available, it is often in the form of a low-interest loan which has to be repaid, and it is only
available if the President formally declares a disaster. Flood insurance compensates for all covered
losses and is the best form of financial protection against the devastating effects of floods. Flood
insurance policies purchased by individual property owners help them recover from flooding more
quickly.
Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage is not available to a historic structure that is exempt
from the floodplain management requirements if a historic structure is substantially damaged (44
CFR §60.3). ICC coverage provides for the payment of a claim for the cost to comply with State or
community floodplain management laws or ordinances after a direct physical loss by floods. When
a building covered by a State or community declares the building to be substantially or repetitively
damaged, ICC will help pay up to $30,000 for the cost to elevate, floodproof, demolish, or relocate
the building. However, if an exemption is granted administratively through the community's
variance process, and conditions are placed in the variance requiring one of the mitigation measures
that meet the local floodplain management criteria, ICC will be available if the structure is declared
substantially damaged or repetitively damaged.
Minimizing the Impacts of Flooding on
Historic Structures
Protection Measures for Historic Structures
The primary damage to historic buildings in a flood disaster is from immersion of building
materials in floodwaters and the moving force of floodwaters that can cause structural collapse.
Storm and sanitary sewer backup during flooding is also a major cause of flood damage to
buildings. In addition, floods may cause a fire due to ruptured utility lines; result in the growth of
mold and mildew; and lead to swelling, warping, and disintegration of materials due to prolonged
presence of moisture.
Page 9 of 22
12.4.2
12.5 DECISION
12.5.1
12.4.1.4
Any enclosure including a crawl space must meet the requirements
of Section 10.2.14, Wet Flood Proofing if the enclosure interior
grade is at or below the Base Flood Elevation;
12.4.1.5
Granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights to
existing buildings, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary
public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of
the public, or conflict with other existing local laws or ordinances;
12.4.1.6
The proposed use is adequately flood proofed;
12.4.1.7
The variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood
hazard, to afford relief;
12.4.1.8
Reasonable alternative locations are not available;
12.4.1.9
An encroachment does not. cause an increase to the Base Flood
Elevation that is beyond that allowed in these regulations; and
12.4.1.10
All other criteria for a Floodplain permit besides the specific
development standard requested by variance are met.
An exception
to the variance criteria may be allowed as follows:
12.4.2.1
For either new construction of a structure outside of the Floodway
only or for substantial improvements or an alteration of a
structure, on a lot of one-half acres or less that is contiguous to and
surrounded by lots with existing structures constructed below the
Base Flood Elevation; or
12.4.2.2 For Historic Structures — variances may be issued for the repair or
rehabilitation of historic structures upon a determination that the
proposed repair or rehabilitation will not preclude the structure's
continued designation as a historic structure and the variance is the
minimum relief necessary to preserve the historic character and
design of the structure. The historic nature of the building must be
designated as a preliminary or historic structure by U.S. Secretary
of Interior or an approved state or local government historic
preservation program.
The City Council shall:
12.5.1.1 Evaluate the Floodplain permit application and Variance
application using the criteria in Section 12.4, and the application
requirements and minimum development standards in Section 9
and 10;
City of Laurel — Floodplain Hazard Management Regulations
August 2018
54
AUTHENTICATED
U.f.00VERNMENT
INFORMATION _'DI
r.Pn;5�1
Pt. 68
be made payable to: National Park Serv-
ices. A certification decision will not be
issued on an application until the ap-
propriate remittance is received. Fees
are nonrefundable.
(c) The fee for review of proposed or
ongoing rehabilitation projects for
projects over $20,000 is $250. The fees for
review of completed rehabilitation
projects are based on the dollar
amount of the costs attributed solely
to the rehabilitation of the certified
historic structure as provided by the
owner in the Historic Preservation Cer-
tification Application, Request for Cer-
tification of Completed Work (NPS
Form 10-168c), as follows:
Fee Size of rehabilitation
S500 $20,000 to 599,999
5600 $700,000 to $499,999
$1,500 S500,000 to $999,999
S2,500 51,000,000 or more
If review of a proposed or ongoing re-
habilitation project had been under-
taken by the Secretary prior to sub-
mission of Request for Certification of
Completed Work, the initial fee of $250
will be deducted from these fees. No fee
will be charged for rehabilitations
under $20,000.
(d) In general, each rehabilitation of
a separate certified historic structure
will be considered a separate project
for purposes of computing the size of
the fee.
(1) In the case of a rehabilitation
project which includes more than one
certified historic structure where the
structures are judged by the Secretary
to have been functionally related his-
torically to serve an overall purpose,
the fee for preliminary review is $250
and the fee for final review is computed
on the basis of the total rehabilitation
costs.
(2) In the case of multiple building
projects where there is no historic
functional relationship amont the
structures and which are under the
same ownership; are located in the
same historic district; are adjacent or
contiguous; are of the same architec-
tural type (e.g., rowhouses, loft build-
ings, commercial buildings); and are
submitted by the owner for review at
the same time, the fee for preliminary
review is $250 per structure to a max-
imum of $2,500 and the fee for final re -
36 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-02 Edition)
view is computed on the basis of the
total rehabilitation costs of the entire
multiple building project to a max-
imum of $2,500. If the $2,500 maximum
fee was paid at the time of review of
the proposed or ongoing rehabilitation
project, no further fee will be charged
for review of a Request for Certifi-
cation of Completed Work.
PART 68—THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROP-
ERTIES
Sec.
68.1 Intent.
68.2 Definitions.
68.3 Standards.
AUTHORITY: The National Historic Preser-
vation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470
et seq.): sec. 2124 of the Tax Reform Act of
1976, 90 Stat. 1918; EO 11593, 3 CFR part 75
(1971); sec. 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1950 (64 Stat. 1262).
SOURCE: 60 FR 35843, July 12, 1995, unless
otherwise noted.
§ 68.1 Intent.
The intent of this part is to set forth
standards for the treatment of historic
properties containing standards for
preservation, rehabilitation, restora-
tion and reconstruction. These stand-
ards apply to all proposed grant-in-aid
development projects assisted through
the National Historic Preservation
Fund. 36 CFR part 67 focuses on
"certified historic structures" as de-
fined by the IRS Code of 1986. Those
regulations are used in the Preserva-
tion Tax Incentives Program. 36 CFR
part 67 should continue to be used
when property owners are seeking cer-
tification for Federal tax benefits.
§ 68.2 Definitions.
The standards for the treatment of
historic properties will be used by the
National Park Service and State his-
toric preservation officers and their
staff members in planning, under-
taking and supervising grant -assisted
projects for preservation, rehabilita-
tion, restoration and reconstruction.
For the purposes of this part:
(a) Preservation means the act or
process of applying measures necessary
to sustain the existing form, integrity
362
National Park Service, Interior
and materials of an historic property.
Work, including preliminary measures
to protect and stabilize the property,
generally focuses upon the ongoing
maintenance and repair of historic ma-
terials and features rather than exten-
sive replacement and new construction.
New exterior additions are not within
the scope of this treatment; however,
the limited and sensitive upgrading of
mechanical, electrical and plumbing
systems and other code -required work
to make properties functional is appro-
priate within a preservation project.
(b) Rehabilitation means the act or
process of making possible an efficient
compatible use for a property through
repair, alterations and additions while
preserving those portions or features
that convey its historical, cultural or
architectural values.
(c) Restoration means the act or proc-
ess of accurately depicting the form,
features and character of a property as
it appeared at a particular period of
time by means of the removal of fea-
tures from other periods in its history
and reconstruction of missing features
from the restoration period. The lim-
ited and sensitive upgrading of me-
chanical, electrical and plumbing sys-
tems and other code -required work to
make properties functional is appro-
priate within a restoration project.
(d) Reconstruction means the act or
process of depicting, by means of new
construction, the form, features and
detailing of a non -surviving site, land-
scape, building, structure or object for
the purpose of replicating its appear-
ance at a specific period of time and in
its historic location.
§ 68.3 Standards.
One set of standards—preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration or recon-
struction—will apply to a property un-
dergoing treatment, depending upon
the property's significance, existing
physical condition, the extent of docu-
mentation available and interpretive
goals, when applicable. The standards
will be applied taking into consider-
ation the economic and technical feasi-
bility of each project.
(a) Preservation. (1) A property will be
used as it was historically, or be given
a new use that maximizes the retention
of distinctive materials, features,
§ 68.3
spaces and spatial relationships. Where
a treatment and use have not been
identified, a property will be protected
and, if necessary, stabilized until addi-
tional work may be undertaken.
(2) The historic character of a prop-
erty will be retained and preserved.
The replacement of intact or repairable
historic materials or alteration of fea-
tures, spaces and spatial relationships
that characterize a property will be
avoided.
(3) Each property will be recognized
as a physical record of its time. place
and use. Work needed to stabilize, con-
solidate and conserve existing historic
materials and features will be phys-
ically and visually compatible, identi-
fiable upon close inspection and prop-
erly documented for future research.
(4) Changes to a property that have
acquired historic significance in their
own right will be retained and pre-
served.
(5) Distinctive materials, features,
finishes and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that charac-
terize a property will be preserved.
(6) The existing condition of historic
features will be evaluated to determine
the appropriate level of intervention
needed. Where the severity of deterio-
ration requires repair or limited re-
placement of a distinctive feature, the
new material will match the old in
composition, design, color and texture.
(7) Chemical or physical treatments,
if appropriate, will be undertaken
using the gentlest means possible.
Treatments that cause damage to his-
toric materials will not be used.
(8) Archeological resources will be
protected and preserved in place. If
such resources must be disturbed, miti-
gation measures will be undertaken.
(b) Rehabilitation. (1) A property will
be used as it was historically or be
given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, fea-
tures, spaces and spatial relationships.
(2) The historic character of a prop-
erty will be retained and preserved.
The removal of distinctive materials or
alteration of features, spaces and spa-
tial relationships that characterize a
property will be avoided.
(3) Each property will be recognized
as a physical record of its time, place
and use. Changes that create a false
363
§ 68.3
sense of historical development, such
as adding conjectural features or ele-
ments from other historic properties,
will not be undertaken.
(4) Changes to a property that have
acquired historic significance in their
own right will be retained and pre-
served.
(5) Distinctive materials, features,
finishes and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that charac-
terize a property will be preserved.
(6) Deteriorated historic features will
be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration re-
quires replacement of a distinctive fea-
ture, the new feature will match the
old in design, color, texture and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features will be substantiated
by documentary and physical evidence.
(7) Chemical or physical treatments,
if appropriate, will be undertaken
using the gentlest means possible.
Treatments that cause damage to his-
toric materials will not be used.
(8) Archeological resources will be
protected and preserved in place. If
such resources must be disturbed, miti-
gation measures will be undertaken.
(9) New additions, exterior alter-
ations or related new construction will
not destroy historic materials, features
and spatial relationships that charac-
terize the property. The new work will
be differentiated from the old and will
be compatible with the historic mate-
rials, features, size, scale and propor-
tion, and massing to protect the integ-
rity of the property and its environ-
ment.
(10) New additions and adjacent or re-
lated new construction will be under-
taken in such a manner that, if re-
moved in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the historic property
and its environment would be
unimpaired.
(c) Restoration. (1) A property will be
used as it was historically or be given
a new use that interprets the property
and its restoration period.
(2) Materials and features from the
restoration period will be retained and
preserved. The removal of materials or
alteration of features, spaces and spa-
tial relationships that characterize the
period will not be undertaken.
36 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-02 Edition)
(3) Each property will be recognized
as a physical record of its time, place
and use. Work needed to stabilize, con-
solidate and conserve materials and
features from the restoration period
will be physically and visually compat-
ible, identifiable upon close inspection
and properly documented for future re-
search.
(4) Materials, features, spaces and
finishes that characterize other histor-
ical periods will be documented prior
to their alteration or removal.
(5) Distinctive materials, features,
finishes and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that charac-
terize the restoration period will be
preserved.
(6) Deteriorated features from the
restoration period will be repaired
rather than replaced. Where the sever-
ity of deterioration requires replace-
ment of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design,
color, texture and, where possible, ma-
terials.
(7) Replacement of missing features
from the restoration period will be sub-
stantiated by documentary and phys-
ical evidence. A false sense of history
will not be created by adding conjec-
tural features, features from other
properties, or by combining features
that never existed together histori-
cally.
(8) Chemical or physical treatments,
if appropriate, will be undertaken
using the gentlest means possible.
Treatments that cause damage to his-
toric materials will not be used.
(9) Archeological resources affected
by a project will be protected and pre-
served in place. If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measures will
be undertaken.
(10) Designs that were never executed
historically will not be constructed.
(d) Reconstruction. (1) Reconstruction
will be used to depict vanished or non -
surviving portions of a property when
documentary and physical evidence is
available to permit accurate recon-
struction with minimal conjecture and
such reconstruction is essential to the
public understanding of the property.
(2) Reconstruction of a landscape,
building, structure or object in its his-
toric location will be preceded by a
thorough archeological investigation
364
National Park Service, Interior
to identify and evaluate those features
and artifacts that are essential to an
accurate reconstruction. If such re-
sources must be disturbed, mitigation
measures will be undertaken.
(3) Reconstruction will include meas-
ures to preserve any remaining historic
materials, features, and spatial rela-
tionships.
(4) Reconstruction will be based on
the accurate duplication of historic
features and elements substantiated by
documentary or physical evidence
rather than on conjectural designs or
the availability of different features
from other historic properties. A recon-
structed property will re-create the ap-
pearance of the non -surviving historic
property in materials, design, color and
texture.
(5) A reconstruction will be clearly
identified as a contemporary re-cre-
ation.
(6) Designs that were never executed
historically will not be constructed.
PART 71—RECREATION FEES
Sec.
71.1 Application.
71.2 Types of Federal recreation fees.
71.3 Designation.
71.4 Posting.
71.5 Golden Eagle Passport.
71.6 Golden Age Passport.
71.7 Entrance fees for single -visit permits.
71.8 Validation and display of entrance per-
mits.
71.9 Establishment of recreation use fees.
71.10 Special recreation permits and special
recreation permit fees.
71.11 Collection of Federal recreation fees.
71.12 Enforcement.
71.13 Exceptions, exclusions, and exemp-
tions.
71.14 Public notification.
71.15 The Golden Eagle Insignia.
AUTHORMY: Sec. 4, Land and Water Con-
servation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C.A. 4601-
6a (Supp., 1974)), as amended by Pub. L. 93-
303; and sec. 3, Act of July 11, 1972, 86 Stat.
461; sec. 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1950 (64 Stat. 1262).
SOURCE: 39 FR 33217, Sept. 16, 1974. Redesig-
nated at 44 FR 7143, Feb. 6, 1979, and 46 FR
34329, July 1, 1981; correctly redesignated at
46 FR 43045, Aug. 26, 1981, unless otherwise
noted.
§ 71.3
§71.1 Application.
This part is promulgated pursuant to
section 4, Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund Act of 1965, 16 U.S.C.A. 4601-
6a (Supp., 1974), and section 3, Act of
July 11, 1972, 86 Stat. 461. Any Federal
recreation fee charged by any bureau of
the Department of the Interior shall be
charged according to criteria set forth
in this part.
§ 71.2 Types of Federal recreation fees.
There shall be three types of Federal
recreation fees:
(a) Entrance fees, charged either on
an annual or single -visit basis, for ad-
mission to any Designated Entrance
Fee Area;
(b) Daily recreation use fees for the
use of specialized sites, facilities,
equipment or services furnished at Fed-
eral expense; and
(c) Special recreation permit fees for
specialized recreation uses, such as,
but not limited to, group activities,
recreation events, and the use of mo-
torized recreation vehicles.
§71.3 Designation.
(a) An area or closely related group
of areas shall be designated as an area
at which entrance fees shall be charged
(hereinafter "Designated Entrance Fee
Area") if the following conditions are
found to exist concurrently:
(1) The area is a unit of the National
Park System administered by the De-
partment of the Interior;
(2) The area is administered pri-
marily for scenic, scientific, historical,
cultural, or recreation purposes;
(3) The area has recreation facilities
or services provided at Federal ex-
pense; and
(4) The nature of the area is such
that entrance fee collection is adminis-
tratively and economically practical.
(b) Any specialized site, facility,
equipment or service related to out-
door recreation (hereinafter "facility")
shall be designated as a facility for
which a recreation use fee shall be
charged (hereinafter "Designated
Recreation Use Facility") if:
(1) For each Designated Recreation
Use Facility, at least one of the fol-
lowing criteria is satisfied:
(i) A substantial Federal investment
has been made in the facility,
0$1
FAQs about the National Register of Historic Places
If the following questions and answers leave you still tivondering, please feel free to call its at the kfontana State Historic Preservation
Office. id% are always glad to talk ivith you on the phare or in person about the National Register if there is something you'd like
clarified Please ivrite its or give its a call: 1301 E Lockey, P.O. Box 201202, Helena, d/T 59620-1202, (406) 444- 7715.
1. What is the National Register of Historic Places?
The National Register is the official list of the Nation's historic buildings and archaeological sites that are considered to
be worthy of preservation. The Register was established in 1966 to help property owners, communities and
neighborhoods recognize their important historic properties, to offer realistic incentives for preservation, and to insure that
Federal actions do not harm these properties without alternatives being considered. The National Register was not
designed as a major regulatory program nor as just an honor roll. The Register was intended to be broad rather than
exclusive and includes many different kinds of properties important to the Nation, the State, a region or a local
community.
2. If I list my home or business in the National Register, what restrictions will be placed on
my rights to modify or sell the property?
Listing in the National Register in of itself does not interfere with an owner's right to manage their property as they see
fit. You may paint, remodel, administer. sell, or even demolish your property. You may alter your building at any time.
unless you use Federal funds or the Federal tax incentives to rehabilitate it, in which case the alterations are reviewed by
the agency in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (this is true not only for National Register properties
but also for those eligible for listing—see Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act). Placing a property in
the Register also does not obligate an owner to make any repairs or improvements. Moreover, the State or Federal
C, will not attach restrictive covenants to properties or seek to acquire them as a result of National Register -
listing. Local governments may adopt, design, or review zoning ordinances affecting properties listed in the National
Register of Historic Places. Please check with your local preservation office or planning office to see if your community
has adopted such provisions.
3. Does Register listing mean that my property must be opened to the public on aregular
basis?
As the owner of a property listed in the Register, you will not be required to open your house, place of business, or
historic site for public visitation. Your private property rights are in no way changed by Register listing, unless, again,
you have accepted Federal funds for rehabilitation, in which case the public must be allowed to visit the property for a few
days each year.
4. Can I get money to fix up my historic building if it is listed in the Register?
National Register property owners may apply for Federal grants for buildings rehabilitation when Congress appropriates
such funds. However, these funds are extremely limited and most property owners will not receive such funding. If you
are a Community Cultural Organization. we encourage you to check with the Montana Arts Council (444-6430) to
determine whether the project you are considering would qualify for Cultural and Aesthetic Grant monies appropriated
biennially by the Montana Legislature.
5. Is there some kind of tax credit I can get if I plan to repair my historic building?
Yes. If a property is listed in the National Register, certain Federal tax provisions may apply. The Tax Reform Act of
1986 allows you to credit 20 per cent of the rehabilitation costs against your federal tax liability for the substantial
rehabilitation of income -product properties such as commercial, farm, industrial, and residential rental buildings. Work
must meet certain standards and be reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Office and the National Park
Service. Because tax provisions are complicated, individuals should consult their accountants for assistance in
determining the tax consequences of the above provisions.
6. So what are the results of listing my property in the Register? Why should I consider
doing so?
Recognition
Most of all, Register listing provided your property recognition for its historic value and rewards you for your efforts in
preserving it. Listing of a building, site or district also afford it prestige that can enhance its value and raise community
awareness and pride. While National Register properties do not have to be preserved, listing does insure that preservation
is taken to be an important consideration whenever a building's or site' future is in question
Technical :1 ssis tante
Owners of Register properties are also able to seek advice from the Montana Historic Preservation Office on appropriate
methods to maintain and rehabilitate older buildings or sites.
Signs
Owners of listed properties may apply for funds to obtain Montana's official National Register interpretive plaque to
mount on a stand or hang on an outside wall of their building. The applicant pays only a $35.00 shipping and handling fee
or $55.00, depending upon the type of sign, the balance coming from the Montana Historical Society.
Govel'7Unent .,Igeney Compliance Review
The National Historic Preservation Act and the Montana State Antiquities Act require federal and state agencies to
consider the impacts of all projects occurring on public lands, or with federal funding, that affect historic properties
eligible for or listed in the National Register. In addition, the Surface Mining and Control Act of 1977 requires
consideration of historic values in the decision to issue surface coal mining permits.
7. How do you decide whether something is significant enough to be listed in the National
Register?
The National Register carefidly evaluates the quality of significance of eacli property being considered for listing. To be
eligible for the Register designation, a property must meet one of more of the followingcriteria:
A. Be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or that represent the work
of a master, or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Have yielded, or may likely to yield, information important in prehistory orhistory.
In addition, properties must possess a high degree of integrity to qualify for listing in the Register — in other words, they
must be relatively unchanged in appearance from the historic period.
Generally speaking, a property must be at least 50 years old to be considered for the Register, unless it is of exceptional
significance, or if it is an integral part of a historic district. Non -historic properties that are located within the boundaries
of historic districts are also listed in the Register as "non-contributing" components of those historic districts.
Who can nominate properties to the Register?
Anyone can prepare a nomination for listing a historic property on the National Register -- from private owners to local
historians to public lands manager to historic preservation professionals. Important properties worthy of listing are
identified by people across Montana, who frequently are most familiar with their local history and properties deserving
recognition. Eligible properties may also be identified by federal and state lands agencies, which must routinely consider
historic resources as a part of their permitting and project activities. The owner of a private property must concur in the
nomination of a private property to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places. In the case of multiple owners and
historic districts, the majority of private owners must object for an approved property not to be listed.