The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090908 - VIII-B-1Memo To:Mayor Hicks and City Council From: John Hinzman, Planning Director Date: September 8, 2009 SubjectAuthorize Signature: Hastings Bridge Programmatic Agreement : REQUEST The City Council is asked to authorize signature of the attached Hastings Bridge Programmatic Agreement. The agreement stipulates how certain affects to historical sites within the vicinity of the Hastings Bridge project will be mitigated during construction. The agreement requirements are the responsibility of MnDOT as approved by the State Historic Preservation Office. As an invited signatory to the agreement, the City is allowed to review and comment on certain mitigation items. The agreement also provides for an interpretive element (mitigation) for the demolition of the existing bridge. ATTACHEMENT Programmatic Agreement PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT AMONG THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA), THE MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (MNSHPO), THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (MN/DOT), THE CITY OF HASTINGS, AND THE MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA (MNRRA) REGARDING THE REPLACEMENT OF THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 61 HASTINGS BRIDGE (S.P. 1913-64), DAKOTA AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is providing funding to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for a project (Project) to replace the Hastings Bridge on Trunk Highway 61 in Washington and Dakota Counties; and WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has determined that this Project, due to its authorization under Section 10 and Section 404 permits, is an undertaking that requires review in accordance with 36 CFR 800; and WHEREAS, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2) and as per the terms of the 2005 Programmatic Agreement (2005 Agreement) between the FHWA, the Corps, the MnSHPO, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and Mn/DOT regarding the review of Federal-Aid funded projects in Minnesota, FHWA and the Corps have agreed that FHWA is the lead Federal agency for the purposes of Section 106 review; and WHEREAS, the FHWA is responsible for ensuring that all aspects of Project implementation meet the terms of this Programmatic Agreement (Agreement), and the Mn/DOT Cultural Resources Unit (CRU) has assisted the FHWA in coordinating the Section 106 process in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2) and as per the terms of the 2005 Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Mn/DOT CRU has made determinations on behalf of the FHWA and will administer the implementation of the stipulations of this Agreement on behalf of the FHWA and their responsibilities under Section 106; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT CRU has defined the area of potential effect (APE) of the undertaking (see Attachment A); and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT CRU has identified a number of historic properties in the project’s APE which are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and MnSHPO has concurred with these determinations; and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT CRU has determined that the project will have an adverse effect to the Hastings Bridge and the St. John’s Hotel and Saloon archaeological site, and may have adverse effects on the Hudson Manufacturing Company, the East Second Street Commercial Historic District, the West Second Street Residential Historic District, the Dakota County Courthouse, the 2 Hastings National Bank, the Dietrich Becker Wagon Shop, and other historic properties (as listed in Attachment B); and WHEREAS, development of this Agreement has included public involvement (pursuant to 36 CFR 800.2(d) and 800.6(a)) coordinated with the scoping, public review and comment, and public hearings and open houses conducted on 5/22/2008, 6/18/2008, 10/21/2008, 3/3/2009, and 5/20/2009 to comply with NEPA and its implementing regulations; and WHEREAS, upon initiation of the Section 106 consultation process and in accordance with 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii), the FHWA in a good faith effort contacted potentially affected Indian tribes inviting their participation in consultation and no tribe wanted to be consulted; and WHEREAS, the PROJECT site lies within the jurisdictional limits of the 72-mile Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (hereafter “MNRRA”), and the 16 U.S.C., 460zz-3(b)(1) requires the National Park Service to review Federal undertakings within MNRRA to ensure they are compatible with the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, and MNRRA has participated in the consultation and been invited by the FHWA to sign this Agreement in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(c)(2); and WHEREAS, Mn/DOT, as project sponsor, and the City of Hastings (CITY) have been invited by the FHWA to sign this agreement in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(c)(2); and WHEREAS, the Hastings Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC), the Hastings Downtown Business Association (HDBA), and Hudson Manufacturing Company are consulting parties and have been invited to concur with this agreement in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(c)(3); and WHEREAS, the FHWA has notified the ACHP of its finding of adverse effect in accordance with 36 CFR 800.6(a)(1), and has provided the documentation specified in 36 CFR 800.11(e) and the ACHP has chosen not to participate in the consultation; WHEREAS, the full range of effects on historic properties will not be known prior to the selection of the Design-Build contractor, this Agreement provides for the ongoing consultation to assess effects and resolve adverse effects in fulfillment of the requirements of Section 106; and WHEREAS, the agreed-upon mitigation items herein are part of the Project costs, the State’s obligation to funding the Project is subject to and conditioned upon the availability and encumbrance of funds for such purposes as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, the FHWA, the MnSHPO, and all the invited signatories agree that the undertaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties: 2 3 STIPULATIONS The FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out: STIPULATION I. ARCHAEOLOGY A. St. John’s Hotel and Saloon (21DK0081) - A data recovery plan for the St. John’s Hotel and Saloon (21DK0081) site will be developed by Mn/DOT CRU, and submitted to MnSHPO for its review and concurrence. The data recovery plan will also be submitted to the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA for review and comment. Mn/DOT CRU will submit the final version of the plan to the MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA. Mn/DOT CRU will implement the data recovery plan. Mn/DOT CRU shall ensure that all materials and records resulting from the data recovery are curated at the Minnesota Historical Society in accordance with 36 CFR part 79. Mn/DOT CRU will submit the draft report of the data recovery excavation to MnSHPO for review and concurrence, and to the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA for review and comment within two years from the time the construction project is awarded. B. Archaeological Work - Two archaeological sites have been identified on the north bank of the Mississippi River in Washington County. These sites are 21WA0107, and an unnumbered mussel shell/charcoal scatter; neither has been evaluated. A number of areas have also been identified in the City of Hastings that have high potential for the presence of archaeological sites: Hudson Manufacturing southwest parking lot – Block 6 (Lots 6, 7, and 8), First National Bank parking lot - Block 12 (Lots 3 and 4), and Haley Fireplace Store parking lot – Block 12 (Lot 5). Mn/DOT will seek to avoid all direct and indirect effects to these sites and areas from project activities. If it does not appear feasible to avoid direct and/or indirect effects to these sites or areas, Mn/DOT CRU will evaluate the affected site(s) or areas for National Register eligibility. The results of the evaluation will be submitted to MnSHPO for review and concurrence, and to the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA for review and comment. If Mn/DOT CRU determines that a potentially affected site is eligible for the National Register, Mn/DOT CRU will consult with MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA to seek ways to avoid effects to the site. If such avoidance is conclusively determined not to be feasible, Mn/DOT CRU will develop and implement a mitigation plan in consultation with MnSHPO and submit the draft plan to MnSHPO for review and concurrence, and to the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA for review and comment. No project related work will occur in the area of a potentially affected site until these provisions have been completed. STIPULATION II. THE HASTINGS BRIDGE (DK-HTC-318) A. Mn/DOT CRU, in consultation with MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA, will complete an addendum to the existing Minnesota Historic Properties Record (MHPR) documentation for the Hastings Bridge, in accordance with current MHPR Guidelines. The work for the addendum will be completed prior to the start of construction on the new bridge and before any alterations are made to the Hastings Bridge. The draft MHPR documentation will be completed in consultation with MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA, and submitted to MnSHPO for 3 4 review and acceptance, and to the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA for review and comment. Mn/DOT CRU will submit final copies of the documentation to MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA. B. Mn/DOT CRU will develop interpretive information for the Hastings Bridge (DK-HTC-318) and the previous bridge at this location, as well as interpretive information on the East Second Street Commercial Historic District and the West Second Street Residential Historic District. The interpretive information will be developed in consultation with MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA. Mn/DOT CRU will submit drafts of the interpretive material to MnSHPO for their review and concurrence, and to the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA for review and comment. Mn/DOT and their Design-Build contractor will work with Mn/DOT CRU, MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA, likely through the Visual Quality Advisory Team (VQAT), to incorporate the interpretive material in to the Design Build project. STIPULATION III. DESIGN AND PLANNING MEASURES FOR THE HUDSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY (DK-HTC-131) A. Any Project-funded modifications to the Hudson Manufacturing Company building will be made in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI STANDARDS). Mn/DOT CRU will develop plans for any modification to the building resulting from the Project in consultation all signatories and parties to this Agreement; and will submit draft plans to MnSHPO for review and concurrence, and to the other signatories and parties to this Agreement for review and comment. Mn/DOT CRU will submit final plans to all signatories and parties to this Agreement. If project funds are used to replace any portions of the building removed because of the Project, such as loading docks, the plans for the reconstruction of such elements will be consistent with the SOI Standards. If within three (3) years from the beginning of physical construction activities resulting from the Design-Builder, Hudson Manufacturing decides not to use the plans developed under this stipulation and the new elements do not meet the SOI Standards, additional mitigation will occur. The mitigation plan will be developed by Mn/DOT CRU, and submitted to MnSHPO for its review and concurrence. The mitigation plan will also be submitted to the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA for review and comment. Mn/DOT CRU will submit the final version of the plan to the MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA.Mn/DOT CRU will implement the mitigation plan. nd B. If the Hudson Manufacturing Company decides not to modify its building at 200 W. 2 Street to accommodate the project, and moves to another location within six (6) months of the beginning of physical construction activities resulting from the Design-Builder, mitigation to address the vacating of the building will be developed through consultation with all signatories and parties to this Agreement. Mn/DOT CRU, with consultation from all signatories and parties to this Agreement, shall oversee the completion of the agreed-upon mitigation item. Such mitigation may include a Reuse Study to seek appropriate new uses for the building, and/or a Historic Structures Report to guide the rehabilitation of the building to the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Mn/DOT CRU will submit draft versions of the studies and/or reports to the MnSHPO for review and concurrence, and to the other signatories and parties to this Agreement 4 5 for review and comment. Mn/DOT CRU will distribute final versions of the studies and/or reports to all signatories and parties to this Agreement. C. Mn/DOT and the Design-Builder will not be required to perform additional archaeological testing or site evaluations on either the current property, if Hudson Manufacturing chooses to modify its existing building, or on a new parcel, if Hudson Manufacturing decides to relocate. STIPULATION IV. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE EFFECTS TO HISTORIC PROPERTIES Certain measures have been agreed upon to minimize effects to historic properties within the project area through correspondence and the VQAT. The design of the new bridge and any project elements in the City of Hastings that have the potential to effect historic properties will take into account the approaches to new construction in historic areas as defined in the SOI STANDARDS. The historic properties consist of Hudson Manufacturing Company, the East Second Street Commercial Historic District, the West Second Street Residential Historic District, the Dakota County Courthouse, the Hastings National Bank, the Dietrich Becker Wagon Shop, and other individually eligible or listed properties (see Attachment B). A. Project Design Development and Plan Review - The Project design will effectively meet the project purpose and need, while avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating adverse impacts to historic properties. Avoidance of adverse effects is preferable and will be considered to the extent feasible. 1) Mn/DOT CRU will hire a historian to work with the selected Design-Build contractor to help ensure that consideration of application of the SOI Standards are applied throughout the design process in areas near the identified historic properties, including design elements on the new bridges; and to assure the Design-Builder access to a historian who can interpret and provide guidance on complying with the SOI Standards on a regular basis. Consultation by the historian for project elements not near historic properties is not needed. 2) Mn/DOT Metro District and their Design-Build contractor shall consult further with Mn/DOT CRU and all signatories and parties to this Agreement throughout the project design of only those project elements near the identified historic properties, including the design of the new bridge, in order to seek compliance with the SOI Standards for new construction in or adjacent to historic properties. It is anticipated that much of this consultation can occur on the ongoing VQAT meetings, although some separate meetings may be necessary. Since the project is a Design-Build contract, and it is acknowledged by the signatories and parties to this Agreement that some review items will need to be made in an expedited manner; when necessary, Mn/DOT CRU will request and MnSHPO and the other signatories and parties will make a good faith effort to meet an expedited consultation review period. a) Mn/DOT CRU and the MnSHPO will established weekly meeting times in order to review project plans submitted to Mn/DOT CRU by the Design-Build contractor. It is anticipated that weekly meetings will be required at the start of the Project, but as the Project progresses, meetings may only be required biweekly or monthly. b) All signatories and parties to this agreement will be notified of the meetings and will be invited to participate in any of the meetings. At least one day prior to the meeting, 5 6 Mn/DOT CRU staff will notify MnSHPO and all signatories and parties to this agreement about the items anticipated for discussion so the signatories and parties can determine if their attendance is needed. Staff from Mn/DOT CRU and MnSHPO will review the plans, document through meeting minutes any concerns or issues, and incorporating the comments of any signatories and parties to this Agreement. Mn/DOT CRU will submit the meeting minutes to Mn/DOT Metro’s Project Manager, who will then incorporate the changes and comments in the plans. 3) Mn/DOT Metro District will submit draft plans of project elements near the historic properties listed in Attachment B, including the new bridge, and for areas not previously included in the Project APE for archaeology or architectural history to the Mn/DOT CRU office throughout the Design-Build process. Mn/DOT CRU will review the draft plans to ensure design elements agreed upon through consultation, as described in Stipulation IV.2, have been incorporated into plans, and to determine if any areas beyond the reviewed APEs require survey work to determine if previously unidentified historic properties are present. If there are changes to the design plans or areas requiring additional survey work, further consultation with all the signatories and parties to this Agreement may be required. Mn/DOT Metro District will submit the final plans to Mn/DOT CRU, who will determine if the final plans meet the SOI Standards and if there is no additional adverse effect; or if the Standards were not able to be met and there are additional adverse effects. Mn/DOT CRU will provide any additional determinations to the MnSHPO, who will have 30 days to review and comment as per 36 CFR 800.3(c)(4). Any additional adverse effects identified will be addressed by amendment to this Agreement between Mn/DOT CRU and MnSHPO, after appropriate consultation with all signatories to the Agreement, the public, and the ACHP. B. Visual Quality - Staff from the Mn/DOT CRU and representatives from the MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA will serve on Mn/DOT’s Visual Quality Advisory Team (VQAT) for the Project. It is anticipated that discussion of the application of the SOI Standards for new construction near historic properties as it related to the new bridge will be addressed during VQAT meetings, although separate meeting may be required. Mn/DOT will submit the final draft of the visual quality manual to Mn/DOT CRU and MnSHPO for review and concurrence, and to the CITY, HPC, MNRRA, and HDBA for review and comment. Mn/DOT will submit final versions of the visual quality plan to Mn/DOT CRU, MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, MNRRA, and HDBA. C. Vibration - Mn/DOT will provide specifications to the Design-Builder regarding vibration, and require the Design-Builder to develop and implement a Vibration Monitoring and Control and Mitigation Plan for Historic Properties to address issues related to vibrations caused by the project. Mn/DOT and the Design-Builder will consult with the Mn/DOT CRU, MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, MNRRA, and the HDBA in the development of the plan. The plan will specify thresholds for vibration during construction and will include details about the preconstruction and post-construction building surveys, process, equipment (including crack-monitoring gauges), documentation standards, and frequency of monitoring. The draft plan will be submitted to Mn/DOT CRU for review and approval. Mn/DOT CRU will submit the plan to MnSHPO for review and concurrence, and to the CITY, HPC, MNRRA, and the HDBA for review and comments. 6 7 D. Traffic and Parking Plan - Mn/DOT will provide specifications to the Design-Builder regarding traffic and parking, and will require the Design-Builder to develop and implement a traffic and parking plan to maintain reasonable access to the businesses in the East Second Street Commercial Historic District and other historic buildings in the downtown area during project construction. Mn/DOT and the Design-Builder will consult with the Mn/DOT CRU, MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, MNRRA, and the HDBA in the development of the plan. The draft plan will be submitted to Mn/DOT CRU for review and approval. Mn/DOT CRU will submit the plan to MnSHPO for review and concurrence, and to the CITY, HPC, MNRRA, and the HDBA for review and comments. STIPULATION V. DISCOVERY A. If previously unidentified historic resources (including archaeological sites) are encountered during the Project, all ground-disturbing activities will cease in the area where any property is discovered, as well as in the immediately adjacent area. The contractor will immediately notify Mn/DOT and the Mn/DOT CRU of the discovery. The Mn/DOT CRU will record, document and evaluate the National Register eligibility of resources in accordance with 36 CFR 800. If eligible properties are identified, the Mn/DOT CRU, in consultation with the MnSHPO, the CITY, HPC, and MNRRA, will design a plan for avoiding or mitigating any adverse effects prior to resuming ground-disturbing work in the area of discovery. B. If any previously unidentified human remains are encountered during the Project construction, all ground-disturbing activities will cease in the area where such remains are discovered as well as in the immediately adjacent area. The contractor will immediately notify the Mn/DOT CRU of the discovery of human remains. The FHWA (with the assistance of the Mn/DOT CRU) will work with the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) to perform any necessary tribal consultation in order to meet FHWA’s responsibilities under Section 106. The Mn/DOT CRU will develop a reburial plan in consultation with the FHWA, the OSA, the MnSHPO, and, if appropriate, the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC), the CITY, HPC, and MNRAA prior to ground-disturbing work being allowed to proceed in the area of discovery. The FHWA will ensure that the terms of any reburial plan are fully implemented. C. Mn/DOT will include in appropriate construction contracts provisions to ensure that items established above in this stipulation are carried out by the contractor. STIPULATION VI. STANDARDS A. Mn/DOT CRU shall ensure that any products developed as mitigation for adverse effects to historic properties will meet the SOI Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Such products may include, but are not necessarily limited to, archaeological data recovery plans and final reports, MHPR documentation, historic structures reuse studies, and historic structure reports. B. Mn/DOT CRU shall ensure that all work carried out pursuant to this Agreement will be done by or under the direct supervision of historic preservation professionals who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR 61 Attachment A). 7 8 STIPULATION VII. AMENDMENTS The FHWA, MnSHPO, and the invited signatories to this Agreement may request in writing that it be amended, whereupon the parties shall consult to consider the proposed amendment. The regulations at 36 CFR 800 shall govern the execution of any such amendment. STIPULATION VIII.DISPUTE RESOLUTION A. Should the FHWA, MnSHPO, or the invited signatories object at any time any action proposed or the manner in which the terms of this Agreement are implemented, FHWA shall consult with such party to resolve the objection. FHWA consultation shall take place within 10 days of receipt of said objection and shall be documented in the form of meeting notes and/or written letter of response. If FHWA determines, within 30 days of documenting consultation efforts with the objecting party that the objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall: 1.Forward all documentation relevant to the dispute, including the FHWA’s proposed resolution, to the ACHP. The ACHP shall provide FHWA with its advice on the resolution of the objection within thirty (30) days of receiving adequate documentation. Prior to reaching a final decision on the dispute, FHWA shall prepare a written response that takes into account any advice or comments from the ACHP, signatories, and concurring parties, and provide them with a copy of this written response. FHWA will then proceed according to its final decision. 2.If the ACHP does not provide its advice regarding the dispute within the thirty (30) day time period after receipt of adequate documentation, FHWA may render a final decision regarding the dispute and proceed accordingly. In reaching its decision, FHWA shall prepare a written response that takes into account any timely comments regarding the dispute from the signatories and concurring parties to the Agreement, and provide them and the ACHP with a copy of such written response. 3.FHWA’s responsibilities to carry out all other actions subject to the terms of the Agreement that are not the subject of the dispute remain unchanged. STIPULATION IX. TERMINATION The FHWA, MnSHPO, and the invited signatories to this Agreement may terminate the agreement by providing thirty (30) days’ written notice to the other signatories, provided the signatories consult during the period prior to termination to agree on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. If the agreement is terminated and the FHWA elects to continue with the undertaking, the FHWA will reinitiate review of the undertaking in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.13. STIPULATION X. DURATION This agreement will terminate December 31, 2014 or upon mutual agreement of the FHWA, MnSHPO, and the invited signatories. Prior to such time, FHWA may consult with the other signatories to reconsider the terms of the Agreement and revise, amend, or extend it in accordance with Stipulation VI. Execution of this agreement by the FHWA and the MnSHPO and implementation of its terms is evidence that the FHWA has taken into account the effects of its undertaking on historic 8 9 properties and has afforded the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation opportunity to comment. SIGNATORIES: FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION (FHWA) ______________________________________________ ____________________ Derrell Turner, Division Administrator Date MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (MnSHPO) ______________________________________________ ____________________ Nina Archabal, State Historic Preservation Officer Date INVITED SIGNATORIES: MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION _______________________________________________ ____________________ Thomas Sorel, Commissioner Date CITY OF HASTINGS _______________________________________________ _____________________ David Osberg, City Administrator Date NATIONAL PARK SERVICE (MNRRA) _________________________________________________ _____________________ Paul Labovitz, Superintendent Date 9 10 CONCURRING PARTIES: I concur with the Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the City of Hastings, and the National Park Service (MNRRA) regarding the Trunk Highway 61 Hastings Bridge replacement project. HASTINGS HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION _______________________________________________ ____________________ Bertrand Goderstad, Chair Date 10 11 I concur with the Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the City of Hastings, and the National Park Service (MNRRA) regarding the Trunk Highway 61 Hastings Bridge replacement project. HASTINGS DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION _________________________________________________ _____________________ Kevin Hoeschen, President Date 11 12 I concur with the Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Highway Administration, the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the City of Hastings, and the National Park Service (MNRRA) regarding the Trunk Highway 61 Hastings Bridge replacement project. HUDSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY _________________________________________________ _____________________ Wayne Beissel, PlantManager Date 12 13 ATTACHMENT A AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT 13 Í±«®½»æ Ó¿° ¿¼¿°¬»¼ º®±³ ËÍÙÍ Ì±°±¹®¿°¸·½ Ï«¿¼®¿²¹´»æ Ø¿¬·²¹ øïççí÷ô Ð®»½±¬¬ øïççí÷æÓÒóÉ×ô Í¬ò Ð¿«´ Ð¿®µ øïççí÷ô Ê»®³·´´·±² øïççí÷æÓÒå Í»½¬·±² îïô îîô îéô ¿²¼ îèô ÌïïëÒô ÎïéÉ ±º Ü¿µ±¬¿ Ý±«²¬§ô ¿²¼ Í»½¬·±² éô ÌîêÒô ÎîðÉ ±º É¿¸·²¹¬±² Ý±«²¬§ò ÌØ êï Ø¿¬·²¹ Þ®·¼¹» Î»°´¿½»³»²¬ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ð¸¿» × ¿²¼ ×× ß®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´ Ø·¬±®§ ×²ª»¬·¹¿¬·±² É¿¸·²¹¬±² Ý±òô ÓÒ Ü¿µ±¬¿ ¿²¼ É¿¸·²¹¬±² Ý±«²¬·» ß®½¸·¬»½¬«®¿´ Ø·¬±®§ ßÐÛ Ð·»®½» Ý±òô É× Ú·¹«®» ï ¯ ß®½¸¿»±´±¹§ ßÐÛ Ð®±¶»½¬ Ô±½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ß®»¿ ±º Ð±¬»²¬·¿´ Ûºº»½¬ ððòïðòîðòíðòìðòë Ó·´» Ü¿µ±¬¿ Ý±òô ÓÒ ïæïîôððð ATTACHMENT B LIST OF ELIGIBLE OR LISTED PROPERTIES IN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT 1.Schaller Building (DK-HTC-008) 2.Diedrich Becker Wagon Shop (DK-HTC-010) 3.Dakota County Courthouse (DK-HTC-015) 4.East Second Street Commercial District (DK-HTC-016) 5.Van Dyke-Libby House (DK-HTC-023) 6.West Second Street Residential District (DK-HTC-024) 7.First Presbyterian Church (DK-HTC-029) 8.Hastings Post Office (DK-HTC-119) 9.Hastings Depot (DK-HTC-125) 10.H.D. Hudson Manufacturing Company (DK-HTC-131) 11.House (DK-HTC-166) 12.Bridge No. 005895/Hastings Bridge (DK-HTC-318) 13.Hastings National Bank (DK-HTC-323) 14.St. John’s Hotel and Saloon (21DK0081)