2026_07_23 RFP Ph 3 Bldg Deconstruction Reuse Salvage.pdf

July 23, 2026

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

BUILDING DECONSTRUCTION AND SALVAGE

TWO INLETS AT BDÉ HEḢÁKA - OMASHKOOZ ZAAGA’IGAANS

REGIONAL PARK

Sherburne County Parks & Recreation Department is seeking proposals for deconstruction/disassembly of buildings and recycling/reuse of building components on

County-owned land.

6001 104th Avenue SE Clear Lake, MN 55319

Parcel ID # 40-00033-1400

Page | 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

HEḢÁKA - OMASHKOOZ ZAAGA’IGAANS

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY

A. Background

Sherburne County recently acquired land to be protected as culturally significant and appropriately developed as public outdoor recreation space. The County is partnering with the Upper Sioux Community, the Lower Sioux Indian Community, and the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe to follow cultural protocol for activities on the land.

Historic (last 100 years) agricultural use of the land has resulted in many buildings in varying states of disrepair that the County seeks to have removed through the process of reuse or deconstruction to allow salvaging and use of as much material as is feasible.

The County Conducted a Phase I Historic Architectural Survey to determine potential significance of buildings and guide the decisions on building retention. The Phase I Report is attached to this Request for Proposal (RFP) as Attachment A.

The County has also prepared a pre-demolition checklist for each building slated for removal. The completed checklist and photos are included as Attachment B.

The County has conducted HazMat Survey on each structure included in this RFP. The reports are included as Attachment C.

The County is seeking proposals from qualified contractors for building removal through deconstruction/disassembly and highest possible reuse, and recycling of components for the designated buildings located on the site under the direction of the County and in consultation with Tribal Monitor(s) to avoid any impact to cultural resources.

For the purposes of this RFP “Deconstruction/Disassembly” shall be defined as: The process of dismantling a structure to maximize the recovery of reusable material.

Sometimes called “construction in reverse” or “unbuilding,” deconstruction removes a building by selective disassembly of structural and non-structural building components.

This stands in contrast to conventional demolition, which uses mechanical equipment to destructively break apart buildings, resulting in limited reusability.

A site tour will be conducted on Wednesday August 5th between the hours of 9:00am – 11:00am for all interested contractors who intend to submit a proposal.

PLEASE RSVP to gina.hugo@co.sherburne.mn.us

B. Property Description

Project Site: Two Inlets at Bdé Heḣáka - Omashkooz Zaaga’igaans Regional Park mailto:gina.hugo@co.sherburne.mn.us

Page | 3 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

Address: 6001 104TH Avenue SE Clear Lake, MN 55319

Legal Description: Section 33 and 34, T35N, R29W – Palmer Township

Property ID Number: 40-00033-1400 View at https://beacon.schneidercorp.com/

C. Site Meeting Location and Building Deconstruction Maps

See aerial photographs on the following pages.

https://beacon.schneidercorp.com/

Page | 4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

Page | 5 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

Page | 6 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

D. Project Information Contact

Gina Hugo, Parks Director 13880 Business Center Drive NW Elk River, MN 55330 gina.hugo@co.sherburne.mn.us

E. Desired Project Schedule

The County desires the First Priority, Phase 3 portion of project to begin after April 1, 2026 and be completed before June 1, 2026.

Phase 3 buildings are shown on the preceding map in orange and include:

Two residential houses (1 for deconstruction and 1 for asbestos abatement only).

Two camper cottages (in shoreline area) Horse barn (3-sided)

The Second Priority, Phase 4 portion of the project should not begin before November 1, 2026 and the County desires it be completed before June 1, 2027.

Phase 4 is indicated on preceding map in blue and includes:

Three-story walk out home with full-sized swimming pool in basement

Based on proposals and available funding, the County may elect to advance the second priority building as a first priority.

II. SCOPE OF WORK

A. Purpose.

The selected Priority 1 and 2 structures onsite are to be deconstructed or disassembled in such a way as to maximize the amount of materials for reuse and/or recycling, thereby reducing the amount of materials to be landfilled. In the deconstruction/disassembly, materials expected to be removed and recovered are wood (floor joists, dimensional lumber, wood beams, wood flooring), fixtures, modular office furniture, windows, brick or stone blocks, cabinets, casing around doors and windows, light fixtures, mantels, molding, plumbing fixtures, solid wood doors, stair treads and railings, stone details, radiators, shutters or siding, carpet tiles, ceiling tiles, and any other salvageable

Page | 7 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ marketable materials. The building foundations and slabs are to remain in place.

Basements are to be cleaned of all household solid waste and household hazardous waste, then back-filled with clean sandy soil that is similar in structure to native soils of the site.

The selected contractor for the deconstruction/disassembly will also be required to Complete the report template attached to the RFP as Exhibit D documenting the final weight of materials salvaged, recycled, and disposed of and the final disposal location of all waste streams.

The County requires that best practices shall be used to abate as much material from the landfill as possible.

All proposals must include a narrative describing where materials will go and how reuse and recycling will be achieved. All proposals must also include a list of all materials planned for reuse or recycling. All proposals must include realistic percentage target for material diverted from landfill through re-use or recycling.

A. Project Requirements.

1. Remove and properly dispose of all solid waste within buildings and associated with buildings (within 10” of building footprint), and if present, hazardous waste materials prior to deconstruction or relocation.

2. Deconstruct the selected structures in such a way as to maximize the amount of material for reuse and/or recycling, thereby reducing the amount of material to be landfilled. Properly recycle or dispose of building materials and other waste as directed by the County.

3. Deconstruct and if present, remove and properly dispose of all: Mercury and Mercury containing devises; Polychlorinated BiPhenyls (PCBs) and PCB Containing Devises;

Lead Based Paint, Lead Material and Lead Containing Devices; Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and Hydro-chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs); Household Hazardous Waste (HHW); and Asbestos (see Attachment B and C).

4. Deconstruct and if necessary, perform excavation, sampling and disposal of fuel oil contaminated soils according to Minnesota Rules Chapter 7037 (Petroleum Contaminated Soil Management). If petroleum contaminated soils are remediated at the site, the County reserves unto itself the right to seek reimbursement under Minnesota Statute Section 115C.09 (Petroleum Fund Cleanup). This work, if necessary may only be conducted under Tribal and Archaeological Monitoring.

5. Deconstruct, identify, sort, and properly dispose of any other hazardous waste items that may be located on this property.

Page | 8 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

6. For deconstruction, sort and recycle materials such as: concrete, wood, major appliances, electronics and electronic waste, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, plastics, glass, cardboard, paper, and waste tires at a licensed recycling or processing facility.

7. Practice cultural sensitivity and accommodate cultural protocols as identified by the

County in consultation with Tribal Monitor(s). This may include pre-work meetings to begin each day and end of day de-briefs ranging from 5-15 minutes.

8. Maintain open communication of daily work plans, overall schedules, and any changes with the County and Tribal Monitor(s).

9. Stop work as directed by the County and/or the Tribal Monitor(s) as deemed necessary to prevent impact to culturally sensitive resources.

10. Use best practices to prevent spread of invasive plant species by cleaning all equipment to be free of vegetative residue before entering the property.

11. Soil surface shall be back bladed to level as close to natural grade as possible at the discretion of Tribal Monitor.

12. For deconstruction, soil surface shall be stabilized with any fast-growing annual seed, tested, certified, and acceptable to Project Contact, at recommended rate of Pure Live Seed (PLS) per acre.

13. Erosion control best management practices must be installed with County and Tribal

Monitor approval.

14. For deconstruction, invoices must be submitted to the County along with verification that all solid waste and hazardous waste materials have been removed from the property and were properly disposed of at permitted and licensed facilities as directed.

15. For deconstruction, prepare a final report, including, at minimum, the following requirements:

a. Type and quantity of solid waste items/materials removed.

b. Disposal facility(s).

c. Recycling facility(s).

d. Days and hours needed to complete abatement procedures, and.

e. Itemized list of costs for completing abatement procedures.

Page | 9 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

III. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

A. Submission Requirements

Interested entities for the reuse of historical buildings or contractors for the deconstruction/disassembly must submit proposals using one of the following two methods: 1) PDF format, submitted electronically to the email address below, by 4:30 P.M. c.s.t. on Friday, September 4, 2026. Failure to submit a proposal on time may be grounds for rejection of the proposal. The proposal shall be addressed to:

Gina Hugo Sherburne County Parks Director 13880 Business Center Drive Elk River, MN 55330

OR

All proposals must be received in completed form by Friday September 4, 2026, at 4:30 p.m. c.s.t. Proposals received after that time will not be accepted.

B. Proposal Content

The following shall be provided within the proposal:

1. Project Proposal and Key Personnel. Briefly describe the project to be undertaken and the approach to be used. Identify key personnel who will work on the project, including if applicable, the Project Manager and their qualifications.

2. Experience. For deconstruction, give a brief description of your company’s experience in solid waste and hazardous waste removal and appropriate disposal.

Include any experience working in areas that may include culturally sensitive resources and/or ecologically sensitive resources.

3. Subcontractors. Identify any subcontractors that would be used and the work that would be performed by the subcontractor. Include a description of their relevant experience in performing the work.

4. Conflict of Interest. Identify any potential conflict of interest you may have with the County of Sherburne or its principals.

5. Other Information. Include other information you believe may be valuable in reviewing the qualifications of you as the proposer.

Page | 10 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

6. Fee Proposal. Provide a fee proposal for the work to be performed using the Bid Estimate Sheets that are specific to each building, included as Attachment E.

C. Proposal Evaluation and Selection

1. Selection Criteria. The County will review each proposal to identify the entity and/or Contractor that most closely meet the County’s needs. Although money will be considered in the award process, it will not be the determining factor. Emphasis will also be placed on the ability of the entity and/or Contractor to timely complete the project in the timeframe required by the County and on the Contractor’s deconstruction/disassembly experience in solid waste and hazardous waste removal and appropriate disposal and any experience working in areas that may include culturally sensitive resources and/or ecologically sensitive resources.

2. Additional Information Requests. The County reserves the right to request additional information or clarification from responding Contractors during any phase of the proposal evaluation process.

3. Contract Award. Issuance of this RFP and receipt of proposals do not commit the

County to selecting an entity or Contractor or otherwise awarding a contract, nor does it obligate the County to pay for any costs incurred in preparing and submitting proposals in anticipation of a contract. The County reserves the right to postpone opening for its own convenience, to accept or reject any or all proposals received in response to this RFP, to negotiate with other than the selected entity or Contractor, should negotiations with the selected entity or Contractor be terminated, to negotiate with more than one entity or Contractor simultaneously, or to cancel all or part of this

RFP.

4. Selection. The County will notify the successful entity or Contractor following approval by the County Board.

IV. GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Examination of RFP. By submitting a proposal, the entity or Contractor represents that it has thoroughly examined and become familiar with the work required under this RFP and that it is capable of performing quality work to achieve the County’s objectives for the project.

B. Addenda/Clarifications. Any changes to this RFP will be made by written addendum.

No verbal modifications will be binding.

C Questions. Questions relating to the project requirements and the contents of this RFP may be submitted to Sherburne County Public Works in writing or by email by 4:30 PM (c.s.t.) on August 21, 2026. Any questions submitted after this date will be answered

Page | 11 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ only at the County’s discretion. Submit all questions via email to

D. Contractual Expenses. Pre-contractual expenses are defined as expenses incurred by the entity or Contractor in: 1) preparing its proposal in response to this RFP; 2) submitting that proposal to the County; 3) negotiating with the County on any matter related to this RFP; 4) any other expenses incurred by the entity or Contractor prior to the date of execution of the proposed agreement. The County shall not, in any event, be liable for any pre-contractual expenses incurred by the Contractor in the preparation of their proposals. The entity or Contractor shall not include any such expenses as part of their proposals.

E. County Rights. The County may investigate the qualifications of any entity or

Contractor under consideration, require confirmation of information furnished in response to this RFP, and require additional evidence of qualifications, to perform the work described in this RFP. The County reserves the right to:

1. Reject any or all proposals if such action is in the public interest;

2. Cancel the entire Request for Proposals;

3. Issue a subsequent Request for Proposals;

4. Remedy technical errors in a Request for Proposals process;

5. Appoint an evaluation committee to review the proposals;

6. Establish a short list of entities or Contractors eligible for interview after evaluation of written proposals;

7. Extend the deadline or accept late proposals under extenuating circumstances at its discretion;

8. Negotiate with any, all, or none of the RFP Contractors; and

9. Reject and replace one or more subcontractors.

F. Independent Contractor Status. The selected entity or Contractor will be an independent contractor, and nothing contained in any contract awarded shall be construed to create the relationship of employer and employee between County and the Contractor.

G. Contract Terms and Conditions. The County will prepare a contract with the selected entity or Contractor. The County will use its standard contract terms and conditions, which are available upon request. The contract will include the County’s standard insurance terms, which are attached to this RFP (Attachment F). The selected entity or Contractor must be willing to sign a contract that will incorporate the RFP plus attachments, the response to the request for proposal and any other terms negotiated by the parties. The term of the contract to be awarded under this RFP will be from the date executed by all parties until services are complete.

Page | 12 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

H. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act

Data submitted to the County in response to an RFP are private or nonpublic data until the responses are opened. Once the responses are opened, the name of the responder becomes public.

All other data in a responder’s response to an RFP are private or nonpublic data until completion of the evaluation process. "Completion of the qualification process" means that the County has entered into a contract with the selected Consultant. After the County has completed the evaluation process, all remaining data submitted by all responders are public with the exception of trade secret data as defined and classified in Minn. Stat.§ 13.37. A statement by a responder that submitted data are copyrighted or otherwise protected does not prevent public access to the data contained in the response. Proposals submitted in response to an RFP become the property of the County and will not be returned.

IV. RFP SCHEDULE

Sherburne County anticipates that it will maintain the following schedule for the CM selection:

Request for Proposals Released July 23, 2026 Site Tour for Interested Contractors August 5, 2026 9 AM – 11 AM c.s.t.

Deadline for Questions August 21, 2026 4:30 PM c.s.t.

Written Clarifications Sent August 28, 2026 4:30 PM c.s.t.

Deadline for Proposals September 4, 2026 4:30 PM c.s.t.

Contract Award Announced upon County Board Approval

October 6, 2026

Page | 13 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL|Building Deconstruction and Salvage - TWO INLETS AT BDÉ

ATTACHMENT A

(Phase I Historic Architectural Report)

Phase I Architecture Survey for Weise Property

Clear Lake, Sherburne County, Minnesota

Prepared for:

Sherburne County, Parks and Recreation Department

13880 Business Center Drive NW Suite 100

Elk River, MN 55330

Prepared by:

Mark Johnston, M.A., Principal Investigator and Author

Historic Design Consulting LLC.

451 Westfield Lane

Vadnais Heights, MN 55127

July 2020

Management Summary

In May of 2020, Historic Design Consulting conducted a Phase One, reconnaissance-level survey for the Sherburne County Parks and Recreation Department. This project was initiated by a contract between the Sherburne County and Historic Design Consulting LLC. of Vadnais Heights, MN. Sherburne County is considering the acquisition of the Weise Property at 6001 104th Avenue SE in Clear Lake, Minnesota for use as a county park. Sherburne County was advised by the Minnesota State Archaeology Office to commission a reconnaissance-level, Phase One architectural survey to examine all buildings and structures on the property and document those older than 45 years.

The Weise Property is a single, contiguous farm comprising 430 acres and is located in sections 33 and 34, T35N, R29W, Sherburne County, Minnesota. The project area consists of agricultural fields, pasture, wetlands, timber and a farmstead containing a house, two vacation homes and numerous agricultural buildings.

Historic Design Consulting LLC is a consulting firm based in Vadnais Heights, MN specializing cultural resources surveys, archival research, and restoration services. Mark Johnston, principal and president of Historic Design Consulting LLC, acted as the principal investigator and author of the report. Mark Johnston’s activities included the field survey, documentary research, and site research.

Historic Design Consulting identified 28 buildings or structures 45 years of age or older. It is recommended that 6 of the inventoried buildings or structures be considered for further research and evaluated for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (hereafter NRHP). The inventory form and this report are the final products of this project.

“I certify that this investigation was conducted and documented according to the Secretary of the

Interior’s Standards and Guidelines and that the report is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge.”

Signature of Principal Investigator Date

Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 3

INTRODUCTION 4

METHODS 5

HISTORIC NARRATIVE 8

HISTOIC CONTEXT NARRATIVE 9

TABLE OF HISTORIC RESOURES 11

INVENTORIED RESOURCES 11

RESOURCES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INVENTORY 12

LIST OF INVENTORIED RESOURCES 15

LIST OF RESOURCES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INVENTORY 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY 41

List of Figures

Figure 1: Resource Map #1 13 Figure 2: Resource Map #2 14 Figure 3: Weise Property Survey Project Area 36

Figure 4: USGS 7.5 Minute Series Quadrangle, Clear Lake, Minnesota 37

Figure 5: 1938 Aerial Photo of Project Area 38

Figure 6: 1958 Aerial Photo of Project Area 39

Figure 7: 1977 Aerial Photo of Project Area 40

Introduction

Sherburne County is considering the acquisition of the Weise Property at 6001 104th Avenue SE in Clear

Lake, MN for use as a county park. In March of 2020 the Sherburne County Parks and Recreation

Department commissioned Historic Design Consulting LLC of Vadnais Heights, MN to complete a reconnaissance level, phase one survey to examine all buildings and structures on the Weise Property and document those older than 45 years. The goal of the study is to identify buildings and structures that possess historical significance, make recommendations for further study and assess their potential eligibility for listing on the NRHP. This survey and subsequent phase two surveys will provide information that will help the Sherburne County Parks and Recreation Department define the historic character of the

Weise Property, develop a park plan and allow for the best utilization of the property’s historic resources.

The Weise Property consists of four parcels in Palmer Township approximately 4 miles northwest of Clear

Lake, MN. The property comprises farmland and pasture as well as numerous buildings and structures on the southwest portion of the property. The survey boundaries are the extents of these four parcels, namely 40-033-1100, 40-033-1400. 40-034-2300 and 40-034-2400. The extent of these parcels is shown on the map in Figure 3.

Reconnaissance-level surveys typically involve a brief visual inspection of a property. The collection of detailed information about buildings’ or structures’ design, construction, and alteration is generally not within the scope of a phase one survey. In-depth research is also not usually conducted on individual properties at the reconnaissance level. Instead, these studies provide an initial evaluation of resources that may be historically or architecturally significant. As such, it provides a point of departure for further research.

The Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (hereafter SHPO) has developed numerous statewide historic contexts based upon archaeological and historical research. These contexts examine Minnesota’s history from the recent Prehistoric through the 20th century, and provide a contextual framework to classify and evaluate historic buildings, structures and landscapes in Minnesota’s history. Several of these statewide historic contexts are relevant to the history of The Weise Property and Palmer Township. These relevant contexts include: Railroads and Agricultural Development, 1870-1940, Minnesota Farms, 1820-

1960, Minnesota’s Tourism and Recreation, 1870-1945, and Indian Communities and Reservations, 1837-

1934. Palmer Township and the Weise Property have not been included in any studies for local historical contexts and no inventories exist in the SHPO files either for the township or the project area.

Methods

Objectives

The objectives of this survey are to assist Sherburne County identify buildings and structures that possess historical significance. This survey will assist the Sherburne County Parks and Recreation Department to develop the Weise Property as a park and allow for the best utilization of the property’s historic resources. This survey will include the following:

1) An inventory all buildings and structures 45 years old or older.

2) An evaluation these buildings for historical significance using historical context studies.

3) Description of historic resources in relation to historic contexts and make recommendations for subsequent, intensive survey work.

Project Methods

The survey was conducted by Mark Johnston M.A. of Historic Design Consulting, who was hired under contract by Sherburne County Parks and Recreation Department. Mark Johnston served as the principal investigator and report author. The survey inventoried all standing buildings and structures on parcels 40-

033-1100, 40-033-1400, 40-034-2300, and 40-03402400 in Palmer Township, Sherburne County, Minnesota. The project area comprises farmland, pasture and a farmstead with agricultural buildings.

Extant buildings were constructed between 1890 and 1961 and are representative of diversified and specialized farming.

Pre-fieldwork Research: Before beginning the physical inventory, Historic Design Consulting conducted background research to identify any previously inventoried properties or properties listed on the NRHP.

Background research was completed to understand the historical development of the of the project area and identify relevant historic contexts. Historic Design Consulting contacted the Minnesota SHPO to access their files for information regarding previously inventoried buildings or structures within the project area, buildings listed on the NRHP and local context studies.

Historic Contexts: The Minnesota SHPO has developed statewide historic contexts based upon archaeological and historical research. These contexts examine Minnesota’s history from the recent

Prehistoric era through the 20th century, and provide a contextual framework to classify and evaluate historic buildings, structures and landscapes in Minnesota’s history. Four of these statewide historic contexts are relevant to The Weise Property and Palmer Township. The Minnesota SHPO files did not contain any local context studies that included Palmer Township or the Weise Property in their study areas. The relevant statewide historic contexts include:

1) Railroads and Agricultural Development, 1870-1940

2) Minnesota Farms, 1820-1960

3) Minnesota’s Tourism and Recreation, 1870-1945

4) Indian Communities and Reservations, 1837-1934

Previous Inventoried Properties: The Minnesota SHPO directs a statewide survey program that has recorded more than 50,000 historic structures and approximately 16,500 archaeological sites. These surveys were created by the SHPO, other government agencies, county and local historical societies, educational institutions, research organizations, and private property owners. However, many historic structures and buildings have not yet been previously inventoried. None of the buildings or structures in this project area have been inventoried.

Previously Designated Buildings or Structures: None of the buildings within this project area are listed on the NRHP and none are listed on a Local Register of Historic Places.

Inventory Methods: All fieldwork was accomplished following the standards and guidelines described in the Minnesota SHPO’s Historic and Architectural Survey Manual, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard and Guidelines and The National Park Service’s National Register Bulletin Guidelines for Local Surveys: A

Basis for Preservation Planning.

Fieldwork was completed in May and June of 2020 by principal investigator Mark Johnston using the

Multiple Property Form. This included photographing all resources, writing descriptions of each resource, and determining when possible the original function or use of each resource. All individual resources that met the inventory criteria were listed in the associated properties section and continuation sheet. Any resources that did not meet the minimum inventory criteria were listed in the survey report and included in the resource count.

Buildings and structures listed in the inventory will include:

1) Buildings and structures 45 years old or older.

2) Buildings and structures that are known to meet NRHP criteria.

3) Buildings and structures that help establish an architectural or historical context.

4) Buildings or structures that assist in supporting one or more context set forth in the scope of work.

Site Research: The intention of a reconnaissance survey is to collect information about historic resources that is required to gain a general understanding of the built environment, characterize resources in terms of historic contexts, and make recommendations for subsequent, more intensive surveys and research.

Since this is project is a reconnaissance survey, extensive background research was not required.

However, limited background information is included in the inventory forms and this report. This background information includes:

1) An overview of the history of Sherburne County and Palmer Township.

2) Actual dates of construction found in Sherburne County property tax records or estimated dates of construction.

3) An overview of ownership from county directories and plat books.

Evaluating the Significance of the Inventoried Properties. As a reconnaissance survey, this report will characterize the historic resources in relation to historic contexts and make recommendations for subsequent, more intensive survey work. Assessment of historic resources and recommendations for intensive research will be made based upon National Register criteria and criteria for historic significance and integrity outlined in The National Park Service’s Bulletin #24 Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. Reconnaissance level surveys generally do not make recommendations for eligibility for the NRHP or local designation. Subsequent intensive survey work would evaluate these resources for their significance in American History, architecture, engineering and culture according to the requirements of the NRHP and/or criteria established by a state or local government.

The Weise Property does not meet the eligibility criteria for listing as an historic site. The statewide context Minnesota Farms, 1820-1960 maintains that for a farmstead to be NRHP eligible, it must include a farmhouse, a barn, and a collection of historic or period outbuildings. The Weise Property retains only one agricultural building built before 1917. Furthermore, the original house was demolished ca. 1960.

Accordingly, the Weise Property does not have the integrity necessary for listing on the NRHP as an historic site. All buildings must be evaluated individually for NRHP eligibility.

Historic Narrative

The Weise Property comprises approximately 430 acres of agricultural land and a farmstead approximately 4 miles northeast of Clear Lake, MN. The property orders on Elk Lake on its southern extent and County Road 16 on northern extent. The northwestern and northern portions are plowed fields. The southern and southeastern portions are marshes or wooded hills that descend toward Elk

Lake. The original farmstead conforms to a typical courtyard arrangement with the house at the southwestern corner. To the farmhouse’s north are various agricultural buildings, including a dairy barn, chicken house, granaries, horse barn, tool shed and a hog house. According to previous owner Howard

Weise, only the tool shed remains from the original 19th century farmstead. With the exception of the poured concrete silo, the outbuildings have wooden frames with Dutch lap siding. Other agricultural buildings were built after 1917, included an open sided hay barn and a Quonset building. Further expansion occurred after 1951 when three poultry barns and an egg house were constructed to grow turkeys. The original farmhouse was demolished and replaced by another, larger house in 1961.

Sherburne County was established in February 25, 1856, and named in honor of Moses Sherburne, who was an associate judge on the Minnesota Territory Supreme Court. Palmer Township was surveyed between 1849 and 1852, had its first settlers in 1855 and was organized by 1858. The four land parcels that comprise the Weise Property had been joined together by 1900. A 1903 plat book shows the property owned by W. P. Hanton and a 1916 plat books shows the owner as C. C. Dawson. Dawson operated the farm under the name of Elk Lake Farms until 1917 when it was purchased by Dr. Claude

Lewis.

Lewis was a surgeon in St. Cloud who bought the property as an investment and rented the property to tenant farmers. Lewis and his family did use one of the two vacation homes during summers and rented the other. Lewis was the brother of author Sinclair Lewis and, according to Howard Weise, Lewis stayed at the summer home during visits from the East Coast. Lewis sold the property in 1951 to a turkey grower and Howard Weise purchased it in 1987.

Historic Context Narrative

The Minnesota SHPO has developed statewide historic contexts that examine Minnesota’s history from the recent Prehistoric era through the 20th century. These contexts provide a framework to classify and evaluate historic buildings, structures and landscapes and structures in Minnesota’s history. Four of these statewide historic contexts are relevant to The Weise Property and Palmer Township. These contexts include:

1) Railroads and Agricultural Development, 1870-1940

2) Minnesota Farms, 1820-1960

3) Minnesota’s Tourism and Recreation, 1870-1945

4) Indian Communities and Reservations, 1837-1934

Minnesota Farms, 1820-1960 and Railroads and Agricultural Development, 1870-1940 identify several phases in agricultural production and farm life in Minnesota. The first phase relevant to Palmer Township was diversified subsistence farming. Due to difficulties transporting agricultural produce over long distances, most early agricultural activity in Sherburne County was confined to subsistence production.

Farmers planted potatoes, corn, oats, barley, and wheat as well as vegetable gardens for their family’s consumption. Milk and livestock, such as cattle and hogs, were also produced mostly for local consumption. There were very few barns, as most livestock were kept outside or in primitive shelters, and small sheds that were built using local materials such as logs. The first farms established in

Sherburne County followed this pattern and sold their limited surplus to local communities such as Elk

River, Clear Lake and Becker.

The advent of railroads changed the scale of farming fundamentally. The first rail line reached Clear Lake in 1866, which gave farmers access to more distant markets. Farms transitioned from a subsistence to a cash economy. Railroads also allowed farmers to purchase machinery such and reapers, threshers, and binders which increased their productivity. The production of wheat increased significantly as farmers where able to transport their surpluses by rail to markets and mills in Minneapolis and beyond. New field equipment required the use of horses, which led farmers to construct horse barns and grow oats to feed their teams. Dairy herds grew as did herds of beef cattle, hogs, and sheep. Farmers built new diary barns, hog houses and sheds to house the animals and store hay and animal feed.

By the turn of the 20th century farms began to diversify as dairying, feeding livestock, and production of other crops predominated. Corn, oats, and alfalfa, which were grown largely as animal feed, replaced wheat. Farmers made capital investments in larger barns to house their livestock and built corn cribs, hog and chicken houses, silos, and granaries. Raising beef cattle, hogs and poultry grew as a share of income as advances in animal feed, animal husbandry and breeding increased production. In addition, by the

1920s, farmers increasingly mechanized their operations with tractors, trucks, and specialized equipment, which led to construction of machine sheds and garages. The importance of dairying and the network of improved roads and highways also led to a growing number of local, co-operative creameries that produced, cream, butter, and cheese. Diversified farming dominated agriculture in Minnesota through the 1950s. This era diversified farming is particularly relevant to the Weise property. The large dairy barn, hog house, chicken house and horse barn show how the access to markets and the transition away from monoculture wheat production had altered the farm economy.

Postwar agriculture in Sherburne County was characterized by dramatic increases in yields and a return to specialization. As farms became increasingly mechanized, capital costs grew and farms grew in size. New types of farm buildings appeared, including pole barns, larger machine sheds, and confinement buildings for livestock, which better suited modern farming methods and mechanization. Rural electrification also meant that farms could utilize machinery such as milking machines and automated feeding systems to increase productivity. The construction of the three turkey barns and egg house exemplify this transition to large-scale, factory-type production and show how these changes were manifested in Sherburne

County.

Also pertinent to the Weise Property is the context Minnesota Tourism and Recreation in the Lakes

Region, 1870-1945. Railroads provided the first means of access to distant vacation spots such as lakes and resorts. When the railroad reached St. Cloud in 1866 it allowed residents to travel to lakes and vacation homes like those found on the Weise Property. Improved roads, access to inexpensive automobiles and increased leisure time for the middle class helped expand the resort industry even more after WW1. The vacation houses in the project area typical examples. They are simple, cottage-type buildings with few amenities but often feature porches and verandas that provide views and access to lakes, streams and rivers. According to Howard Weise, Elk Lake and nearby Briggs Lake were ringed with summer cottages that were filled with vacationers St. Cloud and the Twin Cities. City dwellers came to the cottages like those found on the Weise Property to escape the heat and noise of cities, and to enjoy outdoor sports such as hunting, fishing and canoeing.

Table of Historic Resources

These tables include all buildings and structures observed during the survey. Buildings and structures included in Table One are 45 years old or older and potentially meet the minimum requirements for eligibility for the NRHP. Buildings and structures in Table Two either are not 45 years or older, do not meet the eligibility requirements for this survey, or do not meet minimum requirements for the NRHP.

The resource # number for each correlate to a number on maps found on Figures 1 and 2. All are included under the MN SHPO survey number #SH-PAL-009.

Table One: Inventoried Resources 45 Years Old or Older

Resource

Date of Construction

Historic Use Recommendation

1 ca. 1920 House Residence Not eligible

2 ca. 1960 Poultry Barn Not eligible

3 ca. 1965 Egg House Not eligible

4 ca. 1960 Poultry Barn Not eligible

5 ca. 1960s Open Hay Barn Not eligible

6 ca. 1955 Poultry Barn Not eligible

7 Ca. 1970 Garage Not eligible

8 ca. 1900 Tool Shed Not eligible

10 1961 House/Residence More research recommended

12 Vacation House

13 ca 1910 Storage/Outhouse More research recommended

14 ca. 1935 Stone Fireplace More research recommended

15 ca. 1910 West Vacation House More research recommended

16 ca. 1910 East Vacation House More research recommended

18 ca. 1965 Garage/Storage Not eligible

19 ca. 1900 Feed Store Not eligible

20 ca. 1965 Garage/Storage Not Eligible

21 ca. 1950 Loafing Barn Not Eligible

22 ca. 1920 Horse Barn Not Eligible

23 ca. 1920 Hog House Not Eligible

24 1916 Dairy Barn More research recommended

25 ca. 1920 Granary Not eligible

26 ca. 1920 Granary Not eligible

27 ca. 1920 Chicken House Not eligible

28 ca. 1920 Storage Shed Not eligible

29 ca. 1920 Machine Shed Not Eligible

30 Ca. 1920 House/Residence Not eligible

31 ca. 1960 Well House Not eligible

32 ca. 1955 Residence/House/Storage Not eligible

Resources Not Included in Inventory

Resource

Approximate Date of

Construction

Historic Use Reason Resource Not Included on Survey

9 ca. 1980 Four Manufactured

Homes

Trailer homes were moved to the site after 1987

11 Ca. 1990 Storage Shed Built after 1975

12 ca. 1990 Storage Shed Built after 1975

17 Ca. 1990 Storage Shed Built after 1975

Figure 1: Resource Map #1

Figure 2: Resource Map #2

List of Inventoried Resources from Table One.

#1 House/residence

Built ca. 1920

Not recommended for further study.

This wooden-frame house does not appear on the on the 1938 or 1958 aerial photographs and its construction date is not listed on county tax records. This house, with a gable-front configuration and shed dormer, is typical of houses constructed during the 1910s and 1920s. Since it does not appear on the early aerial photographs, it is clear than the house was moved to the property and likely housed workers for the turkey-growing operation. The building is not a distinctive example of a period, type, or method of construction nor is it the work of a master architect or builder. Furthermore, the property is not likely to yield significant new information in history. Although older than 45 years, the fact that the house was moved makes the house ineligible for the NRHP and does not merit further study.

#2 Poultry Barn

Built ca. 1955

Not recommended for further study.

This building is a 70’ by 300’ steel poultry shed used to raise turkeys. Dr. Claude Lewis sold the property in 1951 to a turkey grower and this building was built shortly thereafter. Tax records do not include a date of construction but the shed does appear in a 1958 aerial photograph. The building has poor integrity and has partially collapsed.

Although relevant to the growth of specialized farming outlined in the statewide context

Minnesota Farms, 1820-1960, the building is not a distinctive example of a period, type, or method of construction nor is it the work of a master architect or builder.

Furthermore, the property is not likely to yield significant new information in history. For these reasons, this property is recommended as being not eligible for an individual listing on the NRHP and does not merit further study.

#3 Egg House Built ca. 1960

This 30 x 40 building is clad in steel and set on a CMU foundation. This building was used to incubate eggs for the turkey growing business established on the farm after 1951. Tax records do not record a construction date and the building is absent on a 1958 aerial photography. The construction materials, however, suggest a construction date in the late 1950s or 1960s. Although relevant to the growth of specialized farming outlined in the statewide context Minnesota Farms, 1820-1960, the building is not a distinctive example of a period, type, or method of construction nor is it the work of a master architect or builder. Furthermore, the property is not likely to yield significant new information in history. For these reasons, this property is recommended as being not eligible for an individual listing in the NRHP and does not merit further study.

#4 Poultry Barn

Built ca. 1960.

This building is a 70’ by 300’ steel poultry shed used to raise turkeys and is similar in type and construction to the #2 poultry barn listed above. Tax records do not include a date of construction and it does not appear in a 1958 aerial photograph. The building has very poor integrity and has partially collapsed. Although relevant to the growth of specialized farming outlined in the statewide context Minnesota Farms, 1820-1960, the building is not a distinctive example of a period, type, or method of construction nor is it the work of a master architect or builder. Furthermore, the property is not likely to yield significant new information in history. For these reasons, this property is recommended as not eligible for an individual listing in the NRHP and does not merit further study.

#5 Open Hay Barn

Built ca. 1960s.

This 50 x 104 open hay barn has a steel roof resting upon wooden posts set in concrete.

The building does not appear in a 1958 aerial photo but does appear in a 1977 aerial.

These buildings were commonly built during and after the 1950s as farmers began storing hay in larger bails closer to their fields. The building has good integrity and is relevant to the growth of specialized farming outlined in the statewide context

Minnesota Farms, 1820-1960. However, the building is not a distinctive example of a period, type, or method of construction nor is it the work of a master architect or builder.

Furthermore, the property is not likely to yield significant new information in history. For these reasons, this property is recommended as not eligible for an individual listing in the

NRHP and does not merit further study.

#6 Poultry Barn

This building is a 70’ by 300’ steel poultry barn used to raise turkeys and is similar in type and construction to the poultry barns #2 and #4 listed above. Tax records do not include a date of construction although it does appear in a 1958 aerial photograph. The building in in fair condition and does not appear to have been significantly altered. Although relevant to the growth of specialized farming outlined in the statewide context

Minnesota Farms, 1820-1960, the building is not a distinctive example of a period, type, or method of construction nor is it the work of a master architect or builder.

Furthermore, the property is not likely to yield significant new information in history. For these reasons, this property is recommended as not eligible for an individual listing in the

#7 Garage

Built ca. 1970

This 24’x24’ wooden-frame, double car garage is clad in vertical panel siding and is set on a poured concrete slab. The building does appear on the 1977 aerial photo but its date of construction is not listed on the county tax records. The building is not a distinctive example of a period, type, or method of construction nor is it the work of a master architect or builder. Furthermore, the property is not likely to yield significant new information in history. For these reasons, this property is recommended as not eligible for individual listing on the NRHP and does

#8 Tool Shed

Built ca. 1900

This 16 x 20 wooden frame building is clad with wooden, Dutch-lap siding and is set upon a concrete block foundation. According to a letter written by property owner Howard.

Weise in 2004, this tool shed was part of the original group of farm buildings built before

Dr. Lewis purchased the property in 1917. The building has good integrity and is relevant to the growth of diversified farming outlined in the statewide contexts of Minnesota

Farms, 1820-1960 and Railroads and Agricultural Development, 1870-1940. However, the building is not a distinctive example of a period, type, or method of construction nor is it the work of a master architect or builder. Furthermore, the property is not likely to yield significant new information in history. For these reasons, this property is recommended as not eligible for an individual listing on the NRHP and does not merit

#10 House

Built in 1961

More research is recommended.

According to Sherburne County tax records this two-story, wooden-frame house was built in 1961. The 20th Century Contemporary Style, side-gable house has a brick veneer on the lower level of its front elevation and is sided elsewhere with beveled wooden siding. There is a projecting garage wing on the east side and an elevated deck on the south side facing Elk Lake. The house is a representative example of the Contemporary

Style and has good integrity. It is unknown if the house was designed by an established architect or builder. Due to its integrity, building style and potential association with an established architect or builder, this building merits further study to determine if it is eligible for listing individually on the NRHP under criterion C.

#13 Storage Shed /Outhouse Built ca. 1910

More research is recommended.

The historic function of this 4 ‘x 6’ building is unclear. It has a wooden- frame and is clad in Dutch lap siding and is located just to the southwest of the two vacation homes. The exposed rafter tails suggest a date of construction sometime around 1910 or later. The county tax records do not list a build date. It is unclear if this is a storage shed or an outhouse Howard Weise describes as being built for the vacation homes. As such, more research is recommended to determine the original function of the building and if it is associated with the vacation homes.

#14 Stone Fireplace

Built ca. 1935

This stone fireplace is located just to the southwest of the two vacation houses. It is constructed with rubble stone and Portland cement with a cast iron grate and door. The door has a casting which identifies the manufacturer as Hancock Iron Works of Pontiac, MI. There also is a patent number which dates to 1935. Like the adjacent vacation homes, this fireplace can be associated with the statewide context of Minnesota’s Tourism and Recreation, 1870-1945. It seems clear that the fireplace is connected with the two vacation homes and should be included as part of the research into their histories.

#15 West Vacation House recommended.

This vacation home is one of two located near the northern shore of Elk Lake on the southwest section of the Weise Property. The house has a single-story and its main mass is square with a pyramidal, hipped roof. There is a projecting, enclosed porch on the south side facing the lake and a projecting entry on the north side.