Progress Through Preservation

Executive Summary 

Purpose:

Strengthen historic preservation in Naperville through clear policies, incentives, staffing, and proactive planning as the City approaches its Bicentennial. 

Key Issues: 

• Naperville lags behind peer communities in preservation staffing, incentives, and number of landmarks. 

• Teardowns are reducing affordable housing, altering neighborhood character, and creating drainage/sunlight issues. 

• Lack of early warning before demolition limits public engagement. 

• Preservation is widely supported but lacks a coordinated City strategy. 

Strengths:

Strong tax base, AAA bond rating, active civic organizations, and a rich inventory of historic buildings.

Opportunities:

Bicentennial, rising construction costs, growing interest in mid-century architecture, and increased City Council engagement.

Goals:

• Protect historic resources

• Promote adaptive reuse

• Increase local landmarks

• Provide incentives

• Improve public education

• Integrate preservation into land-use decisions

• Support Missing Middle Housing

Recommended Actions:

• Add 0.5 FTE preservation staff

• Update historic surveys

• Create financial incentives (grants, loans, fee waivers)

• Establish a “Hot 100” list of significant properties

• Offer annual landmarking workshops

• Revise zoning to support renovation

• Adopt early-notification ordinance

•  Increase penalties for demolition by neglect

• Create annual preservation awards

Funding:

Most successful cities fund preservation through their General Fund, supplemented by grants, tax credits, and targeted programs. Naperville’s strong financial position makes this feasible. Bottom Line: Preservation is not a cost, it is an investment in economic vitality, community character, and long-term sustainability. With clear policies and modest funding, Naperville can achieve true “Progress Through Preservation.”

Progress Through Preservation 

I. Introduction 

April of 2017, Naperville residents got an unpleasant surprise: a proposal to replace Old Nichols Library with a large mixed-use building. Some design features from Old Nichols were to be included on the new building, but the library would be essentially destroyed. Concerned residents responded by forming Old Nichols Inc., a not-for-profit corporation that helped preserve most of the historic building. Today it’s a successful restaurant, creating jobs and providing property and sales tax revenue. 

This is an excellent example of “progress through preservation,” the unofficial motto of Naperville Preservation Inc., the 501C(3) corporation that evolved in the wake of the Old Nichols controversy. In one sense, local progress through preservation is nothing new. Naperville has found productive, profitable new uses for many old buildings. Examples include Meson Sabika (formerly Willoway Manor)--built in 1847 as a single-family home--as was the Judd Kendall home on East Jefferson, now home to several offices and Quigley’s Irish Pub. All create jobs and generate tax revenue. Another source of increased tax revenue: younger families moving into the City’s historic homes and making significant financial investments to improve them. There is clear local support for preserving older buildings—commercial and residential--even though Naperville does less than many other communities to promote historic preservation. 

The quality of life in Naperville is excellent. However, there is always room for improvement. City government leaders often look at other communities as part of their effort for continuous improvement. As the community approaches its Bicentennial, we hope this document helps keep Naperville a wonderful place. 

For several years Naperville Preservation Inc. (NPI) has pointed out how other communities encourage progress through historic preservation. But we have been told more than once that City staff--faced with other priorities established by the City Council--does not have enough personnel to focus on preservation. There is also staff sentiment that historic preservation is a low Council priority. And we have been told that nothing will change absent a clear plan of action. In response, Naperville Preservation Inc. has prepared this document. 

Building upon our earlier research, this research project shows how Naperville compares to other cities. It also discusses how much other cities spend on historic preservation, and where the money comes from. Goals and actions are also presented. We understand that the City Council and staff have many important issues to address. For example, as this is being written, the Council is examining how electric service will be sourced. However, once a historic building is demolished, it’s gone forever. Preservation mistakes can never be fixed, and there is little room for error, since only two percent (1,552) of Naperville’s homes were built before 1940, while another 3.6 percent (3.6 percent) were built between 1940 and 1959. (Source: 2019-23 American Community Survey) Many preservation efforts are “fire drills,” last-minute efforts to protect buildings threatened with imminent destruction. Such was the case with Old Nichols. However, the most effective way to protect the built environment is through planning and policies that are in place before threats occur. This is in the best interests of both builders and developers—who deserve to know up front what the rules are—and residents, who deserve to live in a place that values its past while planning its future. As we look forward to Naperville’s upcoming Bicentennial, that is our goal. 

II. SWOT Analysis 

A SWOT Analysis is a strategic planning tool that evaluates Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. It provides a structured framework for assessing factors that can help achieve goals. The main purpose is to help understand the current situation. 

Here's a breakdown of each component: 

• Strengths: These are Naperville’s advantages over others regarding historic preservation. They list things Naperville does well or unique assets it possesses. Examples include a strong brand reputation, strong demographics, tax base, skilled workforce, or highly engaged residents and business leaders 

• Weaknesses: Factors that hinder local historic preservation efforts. These are areas where an organization needs to improve or lacks resources compared to competitors. Examples include insufficient resources or population decline. 

• Opportunities: These are favorable factors that Naperville could leverage for growth and competitive advantage. They are trends or conditions in the external environment that could be beneficial. Examples include emerging markets, new technologies, shifting consumer preferences, favorable regulatory changes, or potential partnerships. 

• Threats: These are external factors that could harm Naperville’s historic preservation efforts. They are challenges or obstacles that are generally outside of the City’s control. Examples include increased competition, economic downturns, changing regulations, or shifts in consumer behavior. 

Strengths: 

• Strong demographics: Median household income of $150,937; Poverty rate of 4.4 percent; (U.S. Census); 

• Local fiscal control: (Only large city in Illinois with Triple A bond rating) 

• Strong public facilities; 

• Robust and diverse business environment, leading to ample property tax and sales tax revenues for public agencies; 

• Active local economic development agency (NDP) 

• Active preservation advocacy group (NPI), NPI educational programs and tours draw many people. 

• Naper Settlement

Weaknesses: 

• Lack of incentives for preservation; 

• Lack of notice when historic properties threatened. The demolition of the church property on the north side of Benton west of Main Street is a recent example. 

• Teardowns depleting stock of affordable housing; Large new houses on lots originally platted for smaller houses can lead to flooding problems for neighbors. 

• Limited city staff resources; 

• Minimal training of HPC members; 

• Dominance of individual property rights over public benefit; 

• Perceived financial benefits of teardowns over rehab; 

• Lack of entry level and empty nester housing exacerbated by destruction of homes with first floor master bedrooms; 

• Lack of affordable housing and limited City Council interest in protecting existing affordable housing; and 

• Weak land use regulations. (For example, new homes often deprive neighbors of sunlight. Also, the condo tall building attached to Old Nichols is a permitted use that did not require any variances.) 

Opportunities: 

• Upcoming U.S. 250th anniversary 

• Upcoming Naperville Bicentennial 

• Possible economic downturn and rising building costs 

• Better appointments to HPC and PZC 

• Increased interest in preservation from Mayor, City Council 

• Local Media: Naperville Sun, NCTV17, Naperville Sun 

• Emerging interest in post World War II, mid-century modern homes. Naperville has few houses with first floor master bedrooms, but has many split-levels with wide stairways that can accommodate chair lifts, helping seniors age in place. 

Threats: 

• Lack of understanding and education as to the benefits of historic preservation and landmarking; 

• Potential loss of tax revenue when replacement houses are sold for less than the price paid by the replacement house purchaser. Personalized custom houses sometimes don’t appeal to re-sale buyers. 

• Bulk regulations privilege replacement housing (teardowns) over renovation and adaptive reuse; 

• Difficulty in landmarking without owner permission. Change made following YMCA loss; 

• Replacement houses–usually at least $1million–diminish opportunities for moderate and middle income families; 

• “No carrots, just sticks” approach in only historic district discourages others; 

• Buyers' drive to build larger homes versus buy/rehab existing homes; 

• Uncertain future of federal incentives for historic preservation; 

• Common view that historic preservation is restricted to just the historic district; 

• State budget problems, possibly threatening state support for historic preservation; 

• Potential for federal Naperville Historic district to be de-listed if there is too much demolition; 

• Builders unaware of or ignoring historic district requirements. Often, the best way to maximize profit is to simply pay the fine for demolition as part of the cost of new construction. The threat of a $15,000 fine may not dissuade teardowns. 

• Limited awareness among Realtors regarding historic properties throughout Naperville - not just within the historic district. 

III. Prior Research and Preservation Efforts 

A. City of Naperville 

1. Naper Settlement: One of the earliest local preservation efforts is Naper Settlement, founded in 1969 on 12 acres of the Caroline Martin Mitchell estate. The settlement is now home to approximately 30 historic structures, many moved from other locations. The settlement also is home to Pre-Emption House, a re-creation of a hotel built in 1834 and demolished in 1946. Sometimes those who want old buildings removed for new development suggest the buildings be moved to Naper Settlement, but this is seldom feasible because of lack of space.. The Settlement receives more than $4 million annually from the City of Naperville. Other funding comes from admission fees, private donations, and grants. 

2. Naperville National Register District: Added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1977, this federal designation does not offer any protection from demolition. It includes approximately 490 contributing buildings and 86 non-contributing structures. 

3. Naperville Historic District: Established by the City Council in 1986, the local district includes approximately 320 properties. It encompasses a smaller area than the federal district and provides some protection from demolition. No incentives—financial or otherwise—are available. 

4. Local landmarks: As this report will demonstrate, Naperville has fewer designated local landmarks than most cities. The six landmarks are: First Congregational Church, designated in 2026 with assistance from Naperville Preservation Inc.; Beidelman Furniture, designated in 2024, also with assistance from NPI; the Thomas Clow House, 5212 Book Road; the Naperville Women’s Club, 14 S. Washington; the Truitt House, 48 E. Jefferson; and Old Nichols Library, 110 S. Washington, preserved by the City Council in 2017 following lobbying by Save Old Nichols Inc., which evolved into Naperville Preservation Inc. 

5. Historic Preservation Ordinance (Section 6-11 of Municipal Code: Enacted in 1986, the ordinance was amended by the City Council in 2022, making landmark designation without owner approval more difficult. 

B. Naperville Preservation Inc. (NPI) 

In 2022 NPI created “How Naperville Compares,” which demonstrated that Naperville puts less emphasis on historic preservation than most other communities. This research project described preservation efforts in Naperville’s often cited “Benchmark Communities” including: Plano, Texas; Independence, MO; Bellevue, WA; Scottsdale, AZ; and Overland Park, KS. Also studied were nearby cities such as Aurora, Elgin, St. Charles and Geneva. An updated, expanded version of the document appears here as Appendix One. 

With help from Landmarks Illinois, NPI produced a guide to potential funding for preservation. The document was updated in 2024. napervillepreservation.org/resources/financial-incentives 

Working with Naper Settlement and Paul Lehman, former president of the Macom Corporation, NPI collected important information about developer Harold Moser and his role in the post-World War II growth of Naperville. This project protects important documents that illustrate Naperville’s rapid post World War II growth. 

NPI also commissioned surveys of two mid-century neighborhoods, the East Highlands and River Haven Estates. As mid-century modern architecture becomes increasingly popular, NPI also commissioned a study of the mid-century modern homes designed by builder/architect Don Tosi. This could be a precursor to a thematic historic district, where buildings are designated because of common design or construction, even when not contiguous. The Tosi survey will be published later this year. 

C. Community First 

Every year Naperville sees dozens of “teardowns,” where entry-level houses are replaced with new, much larger ones that cost more than $1,000,000. This provides upscale buyers the amenities of new construction while living in an established neighborhood near the center of the City. But with more impervious surface on a lot, water problems can occur for neighbors. Many of the new, taller houses also block sunlight from their neighbors’ homes. Naperville lacks regulations regarding solar access or the “right to light.” 

The larger homes provide more tax revenue.. However, replacing average sized homes with buildings often two or three times as big reduces the availability of affordable housing, a topic of much discussion over the past several years. When the teardowns started, a group of neighborhood leaders, builders, architects and lawyers started Community First Inc. to encourage site-sensitive houses. The group is now defunct, but this link from the Metropolitan Planning Council explains what was accomplished.

D. Historic surveys: Johnson Laskey Windshield Survey (2007); Architectural and Historical Survey of Naperville’s Historic District (2008); Downtown Survey (2010); Naperville Preservation’s Survey of the Moser Highlands and River Haven Estates (2023); Naperville Preservation's Survey of Tosi Homes (2026) 

E. Historic Building Design and Resource Manual (2010):

F. Historic District Storymap (2022): An ArcGIS map that uses geography to present local historic preservation information. 

IV. Key person interviews 

An important part of any planning process is seeking insights from those directly involved. These include public officials, residents, and commercial property owners. Since local public policy decisions are made by the City Council, Naperville Preservation Inc. board of directors members first conducted in-person interviews with the following City Council members: Patrick Kelly; Mary Gibson; Josh McBroom; Ian Hozhauer; Ashfaq Syed; Dr. Benny White; former Councilwoman Jennifer Bruzan-Taylor; and former Councilman Paul Hinterlong. 

Board members also met with: Monica Connors, president of the Naperville Development Partnership; business leader Tom Miers; City Manager Doug Krieger; and Allison Laff, deputy director of the Department of Transportation, Engineering and Development. We also have met with representatives from North Central College, historic district residents and business leaders. Their input has been paramount in developing in this document. We thank them for their time and expertise. 

The key person interviews provided the following insights and opinions: 

• There is a consensus that historic preservation benefits the entire community, not just those who live or work in old buildings. Thus, preservation helps make Naperville a great place to live, work and play. However, there is less consensus on the question of property rights versus retaining community character.

• Naperville’s upcoming Bicentennial offers a unique opportunity to enhance historic preservation efforts. 

• It is important to clearly identify the City’s responsibilities regarding preservation. Also important is clearly stating why City officials should endorse this report. Should also establish timeframes and milestones for preservation efforts. 

• Naperville has six local landmarks, one local historic district and one National Register District. This is fewer than most other communities. (By way of quick comparison, Downers Grove has 31 local landmarks, Aurora has more than 50. Appendix 1, “How Naperville Compares,” provides much more detail.) Most agree that Naperville would benefit from more landmarks and historic districts, but caution that incentives–financial or otherwise–should be included. 

• There is a need for instructions on how people can landmark their homes. These instructions need to be as simple and clear as possible. In the aforementioned Downers Grove, the historical society offers seminars on this.

• Although guidelines can be established, preservation remains “subjective but complex.” As another respondent put it, preservation is often “too amorphous.” 

• Emphasize the relationship between preservation, affordable housing, energy conservation, and economic development.. When modest homes built in the 1950s and 1960s are replaced with McMansions, energy is wasted since “The most energy efficient building is the one that’s already built.” Also, the supply of housing for middle-income families is reduced. 

• Some residents asked what they can do to protect their homes in neighborhoods with ongoing teardowns. Constant construction, loss of sunlight, and changing drainage patterns encourage people to “give up” and move, which further reduces starter housing opportunities. They also appreciate being able to gain major profits by selling. 

• In recent years more attention and appreciation has been shown for mid-century modern architecture, which is plentiful in Naperville, where the population grew from approximately 7,000 in 1950 to almost 23,000 in 1970. In neighborhoods such as Moser Highlands, property values of mid-century modern homes have increased rapidly as young families have purchased and renovated them. Building on the popularity of mid-century modern architecture, Naperville Preservation Inc. commissioned professional surveys of the East Highlands and River Haven Estates. To be completed during 2026 is a survey of the distinctive homes designed by Don Tosi, a leading mid-century builder. 

• An approach used by military planners can also provide a framework for this preservation plan: (1) Strategic goals; (2) Operational goals; and (3) Tactical decisions. Problems occur when goals and tactics are blended. 

• Preservation in Naperville would be more effective if the City provided incentives–financial or otherwise. Currently the only local historic district regulates home appearance but does little to encourage rehab. This “no “carrots, just sticks” approach to historic preservation has not worked well enough for a city where best practices and continual improvement are part of the culture. 

V. Implementation 

A. Importance of preservation 

Most city planning efforts, like this one, identify the subject community’s strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes the strengths are evident, tangible and easy to quantify. For example, Naperville’s high quality electrical service can be measured by its relatively low rates and above average reliability. But other qualities–usually centered around visual appearance–are more difficult to quantify. The central part of Naperville is often described with words like “charming.” Of course, the Riverwalk is almost always mentioned first, but the older buildings–both downtown and in nearby neighborhoods– also contribute to Naperville’s charm. Therefore, there is a clear public purpose to protecting these buildings. Without them, the community would be worse off. 

In a community where people are proud of their past, old buildings are tangible links to that past, providing visual and physical connections to the people and events that shaped Naperville. Preserving these buildings helps Naperville maintain its character and identity, while also providing learning opportunities difficult to replicate in a classroom. 

Naperville Preservation Inc. has an unofficial motto: “Progress through preservation.” Unlike some preservation enthusiasts in other cities, we don’t expect our community to be frozen in time. A vibrant economy can be a key to successful preservation because it can enhance adaptive re-use, which means finding successful new uses for old buildings. As this is being written, on a warm weekend afternoon, downtown Naperville is packed with visitors, spending money in the businesses in old buildings. These include: La Sorella, a restaurant in the old city hall building; Naperville Running Company, located in the Masonic Temple building; and the classic Burger King and Dairy Queen on Washington Street. Even those who never patronize these businesses benefit from the buildings that house them, in part because of the jobs and sales tax and property tax revenues they generate. 

B. Goals 

• Protect and maintain historic and architectural resources that contribute to Naperville’s character, heritage and unique sense of place. 

• Emphasize progress through preservation. Empower the Naperville Development Partnership to initiate and help identify funding opportunities for projects that use historic preservation as an economic development tool, as is often done in peer cities. 

• Establish policies to address this dichotomy: Every year dozens of affordable homes are demolished and replaced with new million dollar plus homes, even though the need for affordable housing has been a major local issue for years. If we need more affordable houses, why do we destroy those that already exist? 

• Create a list of important Naperville buildings based on history and architectural significance. 

• Provide earlier warning when an important building is threatened with demolition. Once a chain link fence goes up, it’s often too late. 

• When houses are replaced, encourage architecture that fits in with the surrounding neighborhood, as described in the award-winning handbook published by the former Community First organization. 

• Increase the number of local landmarks.. 

• Integrate historic preservation concerns into public policy and land use decisions. 

• Encourage adaptive re-use of existing buildings in ways appropriate to their character. 

• Identify preservation as one of the reasons to encourage “missing middle” housing–products more expensive than entry level but more affordable than large McMansions. 

• Support education and public awareness to help residents and business people understand the value of preserving the built environment. 

• Maintain and improve partnerships with other local governments and preservation organizations. 

• Provide incentives–financial and otherwise–to protect older buildings. 

C. Strategies 

• Celebrate success 

• Enhance property values by encouraging maintenance of older properties. 

• Discourage demolition through neglect. Increase penalties. 

• Research how other cities fund preservation efforts. This would include both staffing and financial incentives such as loans, grants, tax incentives, fee waivers. 

• Identify funding sources outside the General Fund. At one point, money was shifted from SECA to help finance pensions. 

• Consider establishing thematic or scattered site historic districts. A thematic district is a collection of historic buildings in separate locations that share common architectural characteristics. The Tosi homes–currently being surveyed– are the most obvious example. 

• Help residents and other property owners understand the value of post World War II buildings, especially mid-century modern style. 

• Establish policies that address the trend towards teardowns and expensive replacement houses. 

• Provide technical assistance to property owners for research and restoration efforts.

D. Actions 

• Increase City staff resources. Devote at least 0.5 staff positions to historic preservation. 

• Survey updates; 

• Quarterly meetings with NPI and Naperville Development Partnership leaders; 

• Develop and implement financial incentives. 

• Identify significant properties. Create a “Hot 100” list of properties that would be eligible for incentives. (See appendix 3) 

• Establish annual workshops on how to landmark properties, akin to the Downers Grove September event. 

• Examine and revise zoning and other regulations that privilege new construction over renovation. This could include floor area ratios, lot coverage ratios, bulk regulations, and “right to light” standards that limit construction that put neighbors’ homes into darkness. 

• Conduct an annual awards program to identify and honor outstanding efforts to restore, renovation or remodel buildings more than 50 years old. 

•  Create an ordinance similar to Will County’s early notification of threatened historic properties. 

• Increase fines for “virtual teardowns,” instances where builders demolish all but the front facade. 

• Encourage conservation districts, zoning overlay districts that protect existing buildings but without “fine grain” items such as windows, doors, trim and building materials. 

• Continue programs and tours such as those sponsored by NPI and Naper Settlement. 

VI. Funding 

“The economic benefits of historic preservation are enormous. The knowledge of the economic benefits of historic preservation are miniscule.”
— Greg Paxon, Georgia Trust for Historic Preservation 

A. The Big (National) Picture 

Preservation pays. Because it is labor intensive, rehab of historic buildings creates more jobs than new construction. Approximately half of the investment in new construction goes toward materials, while 60-70% of the investment in rehab projects goes toward labor (The Economics of Historic Preservation, Rypkema, 2009). More importantly, the skilled labor needed for a rehabilitation project is often found locally. Jobs created for local electricians, plumbers, carpenters, painters, etc., help support the local economy. For every $1 million spent on historic rehabilitation, local income increases by $704,000 and 20.2 jobs are created. Those results significantly exceed payback from other types of state investment. For instance, $1 million of manufacturing output adds an average of only $470,000 to local household incomes and creates only 13.9 jobs. (Rypkema) 

As Naperville approaches its Bicentennial, it is worth remembering that the United States Bicentennial in 1976 increased interest in preserving the built environment. As Americans focused on 200 years of history, preservation began to be seen as patriotic. Locally, the City Council designated Naper Settlement as a planned unit development. At the national level Congress approved the Tax Reform Act of 1976, introducing the first federal income tax incentives for the rehabilitation of historic buildings. Before this, the tax code favored new construction and sometimes incentivized demolition of historic structures. These incentives made preservation financially competitive with new development, attracting major private investment and helping to revitalize historic downtowns and neighborhoods. 

The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program—often simply called the Historic Tax Credit (HTC)—is one of the most powerful and successful tools for promoting historic preservation and community revitalization in the United States. The main incentive is the 20 percent income tax credit for rehabilitation of certified historic structures. The State of Illinois has a similar tax credit. These tax credits helped finance the renovation of the Washington Street post office into an improved facility and as the home of Naperville Bank and Trust. 

B. Local Focus 

In recent years, Naperville officials have expressed enthusiasm for enhanced preservation efforts but are concerned about where funding would come from. As will be shown below, some state and federal sources might be available. However, at the end of the day, cities that take preservation seriously invest in it financially. At first glance, this should be less of a strain on the City of Naperville–with an annual budget of more than half a billion dollars–than is the case in less affluent communities. 

But it’s not that simple. Much of the budget goes to operating the City-owned electrical and water systems, which are self-supporting via ratepayers. Rather than look at the entire budget, it may be best to focus on the General Fund, approximately $166 million for fiscal year 2025. Despite a strong base of property and retail sales taxes, Naperville leaders are justifiably concerned about keeping municipal spending under control, thus keeping taxes as low as possible. Naperville has been successful in this. 

At a time when many places are facing potentially devastating future pension obligations, Naperville is in good shape, its pensions the best-funded of the 20 largest cities in Illinois. This is partially because more than a decade ago the City Council diverted funds from what was then called the Special Events and Cultural Amenities (SECA) fund to help shore up pensions. One way to judge municipal financial health is to examine bond ratings. Naperville is one of just four Illinois cities to have AAA bond ratings from Moody’s Ratings. The others–Champaign, Northbrook, and Highland Park–are much smaller. Of the Illinois cities with populations of more than 100,000, only Naperville rates that high. 

Cities with successful historic preservation efforts usually have staff members who propose policies and programs, then implement those approved by elected officials. Naperville currently has one assistant planner who works on preservation approximately 15 percent of the time, according to a Jan. 29, 2026 email from the City’s planning director. Some communities, including Elgin, Geneva and St. Charles, have full-time preservation staff. One city in Kane County recently hired a full-time preservation planner. The advertised salary range was $82,790 - $111,778. Another Kane County city with an experienced preservation planner pays approximately $110,000 annually. A Cook County suburb near Chicago recently advertised for a planner whose main duties would be preservation-related. Salary range is $80-85,000. Funding for preservation planning staff almost always comes from general funds. 

A vibrant, well-funded preservation program would help the local economy, just as Naperville’s aggressive economic development efforts contribute to the City’s fiscal health. Adaptive re-use of older buildings such as Old Nichols and Meson Sabika contributes to that effort. Thus, funding historic preservation is not a cost, it is an investment. As the examples below demonstrate, leaders of many cities understand that historic preservation serves a public purpose. 

C. Financial incentives 

With help from Landmarks Illinois, several years ago Naperville Preservation Inc. created a summary of various financial incentives. For various reasons, these incentives have been used sparingly in Naperville. For example, federal Community Development Block Grants work best in neighborhoods with low to moderate income levels. Naperville does not qualify for the Illinois River Edge Redevelopment Zone program, which has funded preservation in Aurora. Likewise, Naperville does not have a gambling casino, which has helped fund preservation in Aurora, Joliet, Elgin and several other cities. DuPage County does not offer an incentive such as Cook County’s Class L Program, which protects buildings from increased property assessments following renovation.

In other cities, tax increment financing (TIF) has been used to help preservation projects work financially. However, in Naperville–which has used TIF just once, for the Water Street parking deck–there is widespread suspicion of TIF largely because of overuse in Chicago. Despite these obstacles, opportunity still exists. As mentioned earlier, Naperville Bank & Trust used tax credits when redeveloping the old post office on Washington Street. 

The most direct way to preserve important properties is to purchase them and then decide what to do with them. For example, currently the City of Batavia owns four downtown properties that it seeks to redevelop. The Village of Oswego has a similar downtown project, as do Rockford and Elgin. In Naperville, the City purchased part of the former Moser Lumber property now rented to the DuPage Children’s Museum. This approach is akin to that of groups like the Nature Conservancy and the American Farmland Trust: If you purchase a property, you can determine its future use. The idea usually is not for government to own properties indefinitely. Rather it is to determine the best land use, figure out how to finance it, find a user, then sell or lease the property, putting it back on the tax rolls. 

Probably the best way to show how other cities use financial incentives is through examples. Appendix 1. Comparing municipalities 2026, provides overviews of preservation efforts in 30 other cities and two counties, but here are further details from other cities in metro Chicago: 

Geneva: Historic Preservation Commission has a small annual budget, but last year it was expanded to $30,000 for Commission Assistance and Mentoring Program (CAMP) sponsored by the National Alliance For Preservation Commissions.. 

$13,000 for the former Little Owl building at State and Route 31. Built in 1837. Public funding source: American Rescue Plan Act. This federal funding, which Naperville used for capital projects–funded several other preservation efforts in metro Chicago. In Geneva, the funding was used to replace deteriorated windows. The Little Owl project helped inspire a new Historic Preservation or Adaptive Reuse Grant Program aimed at revitalizing business corridors and repurposing underutilized older buildings. Annual funding will depend upon available funds as determined through the City’s budgeting process. Funding currently is $40,000. The program offers grants to finance a portion of construction costs for projects that create new uses for older structures while preserving their historical significance. 

Projects may qualify for awards to cover costs related to: Historic preservation of the façade or other architecturally significant portions of the building; renovation of building faces visible from the public street); Internal life safety and/or building co (mechanical, electrical, plumbing) requirements that arise from a change of use; utility upgrades; ADA improvements; and fire prevention measures. 

Cary: $10,000 through the local Facade Improvement and Interior Buildout Grant Program for the Cary Street Apartment building, circa 1865. The grant will help convert building into apartments. Cary also reduces fees for projects that meet goals of village planning documents. The village also offers sales tax reimbursements. 

Hinsdale: Recently established Historically Significant Structures Property List, which now includes more than 100 properties. Owners are eligible for matching grants, zoning bonuses, permit fee waivers, and property tax rebates for exterior improvements. The program is voluntary. The Village Planner staffs the program, which she estimates takes approximately 30 to 40 percent of her time. All funding comes from the general fund. 

Riverside: Façade Improvement Grant Program: This program offers reimbursement grants to encourage property owners and tenants to enhance and preserve commercial buildings in the downtown B2 Commercial Central Business District. Businesses can receive a rebate of up to 50% of the total project cost, with a maximum grant amount of $5,000 (and a lifetime maximum of $10,000). Eligible projects include exterior restoration and exterior improvements. 

St. Charles: From Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley: The Judge Barry House at 215 Cedar Ave. and the house next door at 211 Cedar Ave. will be sold for $525,000. TIF money from the City will provide: $125,000 grant funding to assist in the purchase of the two buildings; $250,000 to add at least 10 parking spaces on 3rd Ave by changing parallel parking to angled parking; $50,000 facade grant funding to the buyer so that the stucco can be removed from the Judge Barry House. The two buildings are to be rehabilitated by May of 2027, and the Barry House will be individually landmarked. 

St. Charles also offers a Facade Improvement Grant Program geared toward reinvestment and restoration of commercial and residential buildings, with an emphasis on historic preservation. Here is a portion of a letter sent to the city following a Facade Improvement Grant: “Thank you for the $15,228 Façade Improvement Grant awarded to us in 2023 for soffit, fascia, and crown molding replacement, roof repairs, and gutter installation for the historic landmarked 1850 William Beith House at 8 Indiana Street in downtown St. Charles. In addition, a fundraising campaign in 2024 funded the reconstruction and replacement of all the house’s wooden storm windows.” 

Eligible Properties: Properties located in the Downtown Special Service Area, a Historic District, or a designated Historic Landmark site. Commercial, multi-family residential, and historic single-family residential properties are eligible. 

These are matching grants. Reimbursement Rate: Commercial/Multi-Family: Typically 50% reimbursement for improvements (25% for maintenance work). Historic Single-Family Residential: Typically 50% reimbursement for certain historic preservation projects. Maximum Grant Amount: Single-family residential properties are typically limited to $5,000. Commercial and multi-family properties generally have a limit (e.g., $20,000 within a five-year period) 

Rockford: Commercial Corridor Property Revitalization Program offers forgivable loans to business and property owners who make investment in commercial and industrial spaces in specific corridors in Rockford. The program offers to cover 75% of project costs up to $25,000 to assist property owners and/or tenants make building improvements. Ideal projects add value, extend the longevity of the qualifying properties, and make substantial or aesthetic improvements to the property. Each of the identified corridors has a designated $125,000 in funds available on a first-come first-serve basis. (for approved projects) through the duration of the Program, which covers 75% of a project costs up to $25,000. The City of Rockford funds will be provided as a five-year forgivable loan. The applicant is responsible for the remaining 25% of the project costs. 

Available for for-profit commercial and industrial businesses or properties zoned commercial or industrial. 

Benchmark Communities: When studying best practices, Naperville often looks at a group of peer communities with demographics similar to ours. In some cases, historic preservation is administered by counties. Appendix One provides a list of preservation activities in these benchmark communities, but here are some examples: 

Bellevue, WA (King County): King County, Washington offers several financial incentives for historic preservation, primarily for designated landmarks or properties contributing to a historic district. Incentives include: 

Tax Incentives: Special Valuation: A property tax incentive that allows owners of designated historic properties who undertake a substantial rehabilitation to subtract the eligible rehabilitation costs from the assessed value of the property for up to ten years. A "substantial" rehabilitation typically means the cost must equal at least 25% of the property's assessed value (excluding land) within a 24-month period. 

Current Use Taxation (CUT): Owners of King County Landmarks may be eligible for a property tax adjustment that reflects the property's "current use" rather than the "highest and best use." This can result in a significant reduction in taxable value for the portion of the property in current use (e.g., land buffers). 

4Culture Grants: 4Culture, King County's cultural funding agency, offers grants that can support various historic preservation activities, including: 

Landmarks Capital Grants: Competitive "bricks and mortar" grants for preservation projects on designated King County and Seattle Landmarks, or National Register properties in areas without a local ordinance. 

Landmark Nomination Support: Grants to help fund the research, documentation, and preparation of a local landmark nomination. 

Landmark Loan Fund: King County, in partnership with local banks, may offer low-interest loans to owners of landmark properties. 

Fort Collins, CO: Landmark Rehabilitation 0% Interest Loans: A City of Fort Collins matching loan program (1:1) for up to $7,500 per year for approved exterior work on properties designated as a Fort Collins Historic Landmark. The loan is interest-free and is repaid at or before the property's sale. 

Design Assistance Program: City grants up to $2,000 for no-obligation consultations with architects, preservation contractors, or engineers on design and construction issues for historic buildings. 

Independence, MO: City of Independence Square Facade Program (Rebate/Grant): Offers reimbursement grants for exterior improvements on eligible commercial and residential historic structures within the Independence Square area, such as exterior repairs, window/door repair or replacement, and signage. 

Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Grants: 

These are federal matching grants administered by the Missouri State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Independence, as a certified local government, is eligible for these funds which typically support: Architectural/archaeological surveys; National Register nominations; preservation planning documents (e.g., historic structure reports, design guidelines); and training for local preservation commissions. 

These grants are primarily available to local governments and qualified non-profit organizations with a preservation mission. 

Plano, TX: The City of Plano, Texas, offers several incentives for historic preservation, primarily focused on property tax relief and grants. 

The main incentives include the Heritage Tax Exemption Program, which offers a partial exemption on city property taxes based on the improvement's value of a designated heritage property (it does not affect the land's tax portion) The percentage of the exemption varies based on the class of the historic structure, which is determined by its use and designation: 

Class A Structures (Residential Heritage Landmark): Potentially up to a 100% exemption. 

Class B Structures (Non-residential Heritage Landmark): Potentially up to a 50% exemption. 

Heritage Preservation Grant Program for non-profit organizations provides funds to local organizations that promote heritage preservation, heritage tourism, and support the city's hospitality industry. Grant types include: 

Major Heritage Grant (for substantial projects/programs). 

Minor Heritage Grant (max of $2,500 per eligible organization). 

Downtown Events Heritage Grant (for heritage-related events in the historic downtown). 

Emergency Heritage Grant Fund (for emergency repairs to designated heritage resources due to unforeseen damage like natural events). 

Scottsdale, AZ: Historic Residential Exterior Rehabilitation Program (HRER) to assist homeowners in designated historic district neighborhoods with maintaining and protecting the exterior historic features of their homes. 

Funding: The maximum reimbursement grant amount is generally 50% of the total project cost, up to a maximum of $5,000 per home. Funds are for reimbursement only after the project is completed. 

Eligibility: Owners of residential properties within city-designated historic district Recipients must maintain the exterior of their home and dedicate a Conservation Easement to the City to protect the historic character of the property's exterior in. 

Overland Park, KS: Does not have specific historic preservation incentives, focusing instead on economic development and neighborhood conservation programs.

VII. Conclusion: What Success Would Look Like 

Naperville Preservation Inc. grew out of the effort to save the Old Nichols Library. As mentioned in this document’s introduction, it was a classic preservation “fire drill.” Fortunately, most of the building was saved, but all parties—property owners, City officials and the general public—would be better served with clear policies established ahead of time. This planning effort, prepared by the NPI board, is an effort to meet that need through established policy. Real estate developers and builders can deal with hurdles that they know about early on. It’s last-minute surprises that hurt. 

We understand that not every old building can or should be preserved. But preservation should be considered as a viable option. As of early 2026, not far from downtown Naperville is an excellent old home on several acres. The house will be replaced by several new homes. No doubt, they will meet code requirements. But the site probably could be redeveloped while saving the old house, which could have been the focal point of the new development. Was the developer encouraged–perhaps enticed by a density bonus–to consider that option? Doubtful, but that's what would happen in a community with a strong preservation ethos. Buildings like this are part of what makes Naperville great. It is important to protect them while also protecting property rights. It can be done. That’s why this document is titled “Progress Through Preservation.” 

As Naperville approaches build out, there will be more redevelopment. This document is an effort to anticipate and suggest policy options to address the future. Success could encompass the following: 

• Incentives to encourage preservation as a redevelopment option; 

•  Leadership from the City Council, letting staff and the public know where preservation fits in with other municipal objectives; 

• Consideration of preservation as a possible element of redevelopment proposals; 

• Transparency, letting NPI know about preservation related threats and opportunities; 

• Ongoing cooperation between City officials, business groups, NPI and the public. 

In conclusion, this document examines local problems and opportunities regarding preservation. Although implementation takes firm commitment from both the public and private sectors, the bottom line goals are fairly simple. They are: 

• Identify what buildings should be preserved; 

• Explain why they should be preserved; and 

• How to preserve them, explaining that preservation presents investment opportunities.

Acknowledgements 

This document has been prepared by Naperville Preservation Inc. 

Project Lead/Author: Joe McElroy 

Research Assistance: Jane Ory Burke, Marilyn Schweitzer, Diane Diamond 

Infographics: Kay McElroy 

Naperville Preservation Inc. extends appreciation to the many people, including officials from the City of Naperville and the Naperville Development Partnership, who provided input for this document.

Appendices 

Appendix 1: Comparative Information on Municipal Historic Preservation, 2026 update 

Appendix 2: “How Naperville Compares” infographic