HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (848) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 13, 2008
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION - AT OR AFTER 5:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. UPDATE ON THE STEAM PUMP RANCH MASTER PLANNING
PROCESS BY THE MASTER PLAN TEAM: POSTER FROST
ASSOCIATES
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
REVISIONS
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 02/06/08
3:30 p.m.
cp
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). If any person
with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk's Office at
(520)229-4700.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: February 13, 2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL
FROM: Pamela J. Pelletier, Planner
SUBJECT: Study Session: Update on the Steam Pump Ranch Master Planning Process by the Master
Plan Team: Poster Frost Associates.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The consultant, consisting of Poster Frost Associates and Sage Landscape Architecture, will provide an update
to the Town Council on the planning process and draft Preferred Master Plan for Steam Pump Ranch.
Three public meetings have been held:
• September 6, 2007: A presentation by the Master Plan Team on the "Facts and Findings"; and
• November 1, 2007: A presentation by the Master Plan Team on the "Alternative Design Scenarios".
• January 10, 2008: A presentation by the Master Plan Team on the "Preferred Design Scenarios".
The Master Plan Team has been meeting with the Steam Pump Ranch Task Force since August of 2007. The
Task Force has been charged to evaluate studies, public meeting input, develop use and site design alternatives,
and formulate a final recommendation to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission and Town
Council.
The Task Force and the Master Plan Team have requested a study session to obtain direction in the master
planning process regarding the following issues:
■ Confirm Town Council support for the $5 million Pima County Bond funding request;
• Recognize support for the Town of Oro Valley taking responsibility in the maintenance, funding, and
programming for the Steam Pump Ranch;
• Support for revenue generating opportunities integrated into the historic character of the site:
o Café (food prepared offsite, with take-away service; a kitchen location plumbed for future use);
o Equestrian center;
o Event Center; and
o Gift shop.
• Support for partnerships with non-profits (i.e.: GOVAC, the Chamber of Commerce; museums).
The next Steam Pump Ranch update to Council will be in April of 2008 to present the final version of the
"Preferred Master Plan", with recommendations from both the Task Force and the Historic Preservation
Commission.
ACTION:
The Task Force and the Master Plan Team requests Town Council comment and provide direction.
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Study Session report: Steam Pump Ranch 2 of 2
Attachments:
1. Draft Preferred Master Plan;
2. ConsultEcon memo: "Four Alternative Reuse Models for Steam Pump Ranch"; and
3. Draft Preliminary Capital Costs.
/1PA2 k/(1,-, 7/1(10t---(„_
Sada . More, Planning & Zoning Director
Jere Watson, Assistant Town Manager
47
_,,,,,,,, ,,,A _get_
David Andr , o n M nager
cc:
Corky Poster& Drew Gorski, Poster Frost Associates
Fax: 882.0725
F:\PROJECTS\Steam Pump Ranch\reports
"tworifio - -' ,1,10,4,,Iww.••• - - ,,
*V 110
, 2....,•1. ",t **;21kt
I „ :
fitt 4101,01,4 . ‘ -'•„ 7
000 0 0
, A
7) 0 cn CD (9 ;3 74' (7,3 iF a' ff a' %
,,,livi. \ 4,,,..,att.,:.,- .,..: .4 1 coo . : _Ai 44g. ga at ......§. .17j,
...„,,
_....,, .. u, .•. :-....• -, ...,.: : :I,: .„.„ ..... . „ a 0 ,
,,,,, \\\,.,,,,„ a , c ir, 0 , ,T, ,T, Fr, co 1)• .,n 5 m
tir F, m s' at ms r, 51- a -z =... m zr
1
2 3
co 0 g Er w 4) tcg. -i 2 % (*f 57.: ; a
-, 0 a , 0
. ° . §: co 0 9, LI o w 3 rt.! 5*
• - --, 4 --, \-,
, 13 .tili$ i, ,---_,,,* . .,„ 1"%--'-
141,
CO .
I 0 a = o
'' ••• I i ' \ lir-... "
0
.Z' .... , CD — r › a 0
Hit
= a) Ob
..... "C, .
8 m
:. ...„
\-03)42). A) (7,\,n ' IT . e,
. . .
= r ai . • w CD —
.. qt,, CD -
irTa S a• = co Fr CD =
' - , s•-• , ,„,.
*
1'I '''.-- '",--0')0n. c. ...., 3 c a .
a .
.......
0 co ri T2-51:* 0.--- 5T-
-6
:-..,-,-' Z, i • it-\''', --0, GIP-. - qi',0 ' * ' ''''),,,,,.. c.„`"
-n
cri cc
a)
.-c-"-- 0-,
0,_
— = —
Z*5 ca = 5,......,
71! . g
• , ,\
s z ,
, . ,,, , = a9
c - ,
= r—
* * a-
o c T cr
mr "'C",ti, y.--,,,,..., .,*\• - , ok,.,
or
at
• ; D g-3 \ -,'\ „,' lb, - ,::-.---.1-,,,,, ' '.: ' ' ,11- ' a ' Q ,,,,4
8 ,f.41_ ,.7) Z . ... . '
-'-
,
0 404Yro (T) - ‘,At'
..,- 0 '‘
0 -
-.-,
-4"
","-*
a r r_‘'''''' 44:4t,4422:"*':'..'ot,, .11:*• 4,__' ''`‘ '"I' - Ot
0--i-,. 0 iliV\
.‘, \ -OS*: q(j---0--------,----L-
) - , 4 - • ..,,,,, ,.. ,„ .
• 4,', \ •'*',7,-; . lt,',.11',:,,l,„,:rv.- ~' -.,4,-'14;''
-‘;‘;'.,,,,,\N, ' I---- -- j--.) —-uc•---0, cy-- Ci- ;%(-.--', -•%,‘ca i\ 0
3.
--, ,-, ,n ,, 0''-11,...0.'s.2 S C.) C.CI!!)\ ,,,,.. 400' N, -,,.., . .4-"," •,,, ,,,C, ,
- -___ __ '1) (7`,_)ck*NC)• - 46* l'\9 r.-(_'-; .,,,,__ ,.......-....,z'11, .7*,, '",, • 4, ., -.,,,,,:
. .
r, r•-)\i',--., -,-,'... - :--:,: • ,-•-,... * ,-, 1 N-
,---rj}.,,,-/A. c.„ ,2% --‘41.t i .c" lo, •st ,„1,' • '1/4"' '' i\- t %-:
'.
":-.)\;). .110'.116
,8 ,Th.,,,.,--, ,,,...,--,,,,Oa
--S.a.) " -"C \ 'a` ' -1,•14"'-
r-A 0 0
,...g 1
41*P,. „ .4,,,, Kik
Fr o.:-.- Ft.4f- ---)Cor7 ItCCP ,0
„•,,,,,,,,... ,
,..„,
\ 7,,,,o _ 4• ... , a . ,...
4,0
: , IA, „ ,. ir•
c,c,• _ ...,. „. ......
p 0 c, et
0- ---?-, tp''''P go _ ,,„„ • .„. . • .. -
v. *- lkikiii
„ ....
, ..
z '
. t., .
,..,,,,,,,, ...... .....
...-
0. , •,
...* ,:.•
410g,, 4,,,,,r" •,,, ii , . ,.... ,,. ' ---:4;9;'i.,,,, ‘,. . , ,..,.„ \\t
'
MU 460.\'‘..,''''''''''Sr,,Z, \ , *... ,,,,, - ,..",:_•f:. / .\--,,, ,/
. ...e'44 . 1,-14\•\,:.,,,
,
,- „,r,,,,,,, ,,'4,,„,\.,.*"..: *..`.,f. .'t \4":,'•'
.,
. <it 44,4.*
— 3 '
' • ;•' ,'
-
C o l
'f :115 ',Nae..
-12 A.... . lith 1% ‘ -,
cD C • , ..;',.
4 ' 7-: '' . ...",*-- t#,0. .
.. :..,- --- --",--, -
.stios,".004t*O'
.\,.....
k •..."... . . -,,..:,,,. "II _, ,.. . 09\
.4.."....' 1.... g.::':*• . ......' ''''..
''' *... . J.. .
=a ,. ' .;:-„—..,s-, ' ,,../. - 4-—.....,.. • - -,,.. ,.1_,. ),...:
. ,:.... - -- 4- 'sr";#••
. , Nii -- . . .-,...1!„-.A,-,,-Tif,-4- .--- . :, ' - .... .- -1, , , -,•.3 , ,,, A.
, .... ,
, 1
--\
r-'41,111 1
, . .. • • ..
,,. , ,, ,:: , - , .,... ,, \ . ,— •.,. , • - ',. .
, .. - ----,, •--* , - '`''""*.l..-
,. .
,... ,. -- — , - , •,, t.k.,,,,t, ,,,,,., ,......,
, ...,
1 fr.t. ',-''•.' 2- -z '',':',.'-.7.',•,, '4'. -/Rrt:,, . ' ' :_ •,-, f.:, , •'',..r..-'igiu,..A. i:C '
N ' +-. \ ..• 'i . , .'",,,,1:., -'it.': . . •L';'''' :'.'''''' '' - ' ' lk'', - '' . . * rAlitf, . .."
• ,,_, . ,--, a4a.. Jra, ,400
. ..\ •„,
• .r.t. • ,.. :.,;',,,,,=-:-,..;?•';-.--,1=-..'-'-----, II."' ',...:,-;;;----.-_,---,,---.- ..,... , 'N..
0,,
4 .77. 4:' ' '''.''. *41r:. . g 540 71 lit > e e EL0 -' - ,•,,:,,:•-,,, ,, -,-- ,-_-:-..,--,,, ,, -
\
.# 4 "Niff
21 '10 V . ;V'Z 'n X g -13 DJ
..:7' ..... , -0 0 z Z Z ' Z 3Z > m 77 — , 0 . D) CD
ii• ;4. 0 Cr, CD CD M a, CD 2. 11 3- & O o o •-• -, u) 0 3
.41
-,, ''''''\''-, k 4-',,,,, rea 0 SI 3 m ;?; * * * * _ R. * 3 ,... , ,...„.0 a 5, 3 ct 0) -0 3
• c,„ „,, . 0 „.. 04 -- c, 0,) — 0 =
:-‘7' .. V - 0 111 '''' a —2 2 (7.3 2 4I :-,- — — 3
- \ w cn
-0 a
i.. . 74,,., , ...,,,-.., -. v, g ft 49 97, •Pu, g a 5.c. = .7-,-, g — g' ar CI r. Er irr 6 cl, al f, „,
. ..
ie
Hi- u)
-I- ..,_
, ,,--„,I fr-r, ,—,
,..3 to — E° 13 (41 g ‘- --..
, _ , ,,.. . tga,.....,
-It ''.., '-fc'2( .
: - '-- ',,,', '-- ,e',-.• ' .
cl ) . a -F3
p -.,. ' iks 6 - z....,, a ... a ..... . . .,. ..... < . .
= i7,. ......., 0 = , 0- o > st.), o ----= ="..- F...%
-.....)- ... . ...,
n o cr = 3 8 = ES" 2 i-; 03 .....--`1‹ 0 — r...
, ,.:..., •. --,-----,,N,„:„ ' -,,,,..-- ..... ....- CD ''' C
0 ca Fi. (f) 2 X ID
-
,. ,..... 0 ....1. a =
.-.-• '..,: ,_ .r,,. _ . u,c;"e• i ; -,
0 -T, cn -a o
. - .. 0 , .," ' -'''''-..'
,,,,-,,,. i.-.: •:, - i,,,,. ',--_ .,.. m a„ =- co CD CD >
, •/, --7. , , , 3
co .=.
c, c, . „.....- ..„ :-..- Z ='
, t. 07.,.)._ a i o, iiiiiittli:174
---a;:
Ki --a--:
......
O CD OM
,-,.'0. i.. .'-• ' ' ' '-'---I ' .rs,_.,-,
0. 0 c.) ' • ,,,,,. ......
co 0
• ..... _
cf, co
w < SU
: s ^ •
L.,,,-. ' 0 - •'f5f.) - - 0 O tw.
6)6 ()'''''''
it .7.
,.. 0 C).
oc? v, . ......, ....
L. 0 ', . • .... ....., ?
C, •- -,- ...,7...
X.'',".-'••. 14. , ,-, ,T, .P.2. a
- .
-
,
4011011414-
•
•-:-,-,.-..,...-: ‘-‘,.., .\'',,,,,i 49,
- -
-:;,,4-:-...N ''' "
=
• ,,, . ..,'-,•,...,. , cn
-,-:,,,- ..=--f-* - =
I 6
4
=
• Err_ .) 'r __. \._,al-,, -. :.4. c .. - , .,-,,,, ,,4,.. . ..,, -0
- ..r. ,....--- ,•••,,,, ,•,;,,,-; ..._ . --,
• - V—
,:,, • \ \'' f -
ra. . ,,,:-- ,..,-.. 7-•- „„'-, ,
4 -, s- ik' w --- ,,, ,-', V. ,- • . S ', ' Ir
e g o0 0.:-L ' ' '''' . '''i. -'-. '''1'..*'. ''• - ' 9'' - '
, : • , . - II*
q-
I,a 1.24,
, 60 --,7 ,7e,--` ', ,•
,..„.,"r"(*"9Hit...4.311?9' i •
.,,.._' 0 ' s, \,*' '. •.-'-';',:.'Y*
.--- ,:-
, ..,.,\ 1:\ I. _,i_ . -,2.'i aft`.4.:.:, : •', '--0,,,,,..- L._ s
-,,i__,..-7)',-_../ ,' ® '0(1'1 QI:1)0 7,s— '4 ,,;Vi_ ',{<6,,N1.\ -ik_7111 ' -',t4,;.-..•'-': .,_?:::"'"F.- ,, ',..4,'?„.::-.. .''' i 1,,,,..„,i7 41. .t., '-ii
---;< 0— •,,s,„ 4.. t in
it
I / •
-,,,,y,-,: -, i - . . 0 . - ---. -141•Akt- z -- - -
. ro•- - ,
. . \\
-..- ,
\"Oa (0, \ 7 It ''t;t:',..'.'V:*';14, •'• - , "'''''' ''::'''.''.'at ''A°
A*•N
a
1-,:::,,,,
.,,,,,,,,,..„, , • ,-.7., m \ al, A. ,, ._ : . : .. " _•,,,,...I-•
,..._ n , A • . i.c. .? 8. ,.,-........, . ,..., -,., v -,
\ (7(7:•(">:V<' k:-) C--('''--- ", w ,...?7'.,n , ) -,,,,,, . ' _._._0 )-.,...., ,...7,
q.L.
s-....4...' ,I...-„, i--, ,-, ts..)....) --.,:•-• ,'---(....,.. -,...A.,7,,, 1:-1.;Alki, ,e.:,,,). El 0 \ i0' •
i,.j,-- .),
..._, It. .,.. .__..._:. ....., .
,
,•<..,•„:.:,,,,,,,„. , - ...-.),..7 0:..„, ..- -.
--
6iek,,,, -.-0v--.
,,,..---\ , \-,‘, ... e-=..,_,„,:vi.,,,..z:s.• . ,_,,,,,,it,,,, i. .....„, 1..
' C r ----.',;,,. '-''' :-IP "411,'9 4 \ ....% ,Ail' 1,---,.' '• • \-- .,.. ‘. :-_, :tr.4.1.1,. .,., ,..A.a...„4.,.• ...r.,.
i..... (-7ccD &'\
,., mr,,, '
._ ‘,.... . .. _
. ._ . . .....
'-':5:-.:: r'•'-',:':-,,„ .- --- (7 a ,....Itopo,;., . -, \im, --..." '7'.,- — ,.' '4::::, - .
?,:.7i7,47''.... \;,,. --) ---:,..:7,,(L--J. -,.ri 1 g. „ . /7. •' , ,...• *..,,,-_, ,
. .. .. 2..- .:•.„-. .
, ',' ,--.1,,, \ Th,....., ,g; -'"C C '••''''''' - '
•..--•.:'''. \0 c''' • ' .4 ..,,,,,,.....
*.
't 1 i
, ,,,,• .,,,,„ ,, t - ,,,,, ,.. ,i,,,,t..,-, • ..
•Y'Ll .4' ,...1 ift a , alea4w. ., ,,\\, .L.).' --:-11..:,..,,47", ,., l. :,.‘.•-'..-..0. :,.''..-•"',c,,,..T.iiii.,,,'"'":::,*-..
4.,
8',•'''' 910,„ -17"... (7,
0 ...
0 - 6-,-_. • ..-___.,.,.„4-0 Oar
.,,,,, itl) • Ci) 0 n — ,...,---..
0- - .,<- '.L le - 1 - '1.N"-'• '
•,) ,-,c)
*:- PAL 0' 0., ,-, - •' ' .
.,.
ce .c'
, o ,50 .c.,:.) •-‘,,, ..:;-?-..., .. - ,.,.......-
.7
5' g IN - .., ,. ,. ,, ., . __ _.. • :,,,'.,,„....,..,.._,,"k
,
$.. ,s, E ,,,....
_,...„).... 7 t, ., ..._ ....._.,,,,,,
'"C-s' A .
---oci
•• . ,
• ,. = , „,. , ti
ki -1-• „„.„,.
, •.:,, ,,./- IIIII: ... ' . ' • . •-° — s., ..- . . -, ., ;' H. , 'it,-• ' .• '..:, ..*-._
V4Ilks,, 7111..".- ., \'," NZ:Z.: • N.--,.":•--•;Vr ----,..-.'..0.-'-'''''''-„••...'t,0• c 4,,-,;-:, 4•
• \ .'
•,),,,,,,, _.,,, ,:-.., ,.., .., ,.,..
• .
,
'1441.79 ... .? 5
, .,#-
,... .-- \, .„,,,-.,. *-, ii. 9
N,'.. -!...7.- . - - ,c, -0 . _- -
-,•,-----•_, 'do,.
ip••• .. _- P
... ' -.- . .. 4
' . - - "' ' 4) C ,, 11ple 4(..4, ,• 4.-• .,,
= \ , ,., ,,,, 3
' '0.-
. ...,.
. •- . „
.„. .
, .
,..,,
' .f. -__. .. '- .;.', '-,'''''.<.: •„ .- .-.1t.-..:‘,-,-..„,..,,,„... -, At,;.,,
.„•.'`, -,....... , .., .4,,....., ii, „, .,i-...164 .
,,fp _.•,;i: Al/ ,_,,, , . . , % {4, - \T#7-'—'' '
,./ ;1..,0 •-% -,.. 4. N,
-.•,_
N
•- :i°,1_.-''''''';;',f,:'-.:. -,..''''''.:0.'::",;-*--,......'...- t . .. N . x-. " .". '.. ....
• . 'V''.
's' • ' '1 ./' - ' ..!. '* •
7 „,, , • d. -- . .*.- _ --.,•,e, ,_
-I,-4-4 ..--,,: .•_ 1-,.tv- '
7 e.1,,.-.,,-„,„_..-:...,..'-.eL,-o-...,,c.t..?,,,',,,,”.,,,-n)„,„,-.•-s•,o,,,',,,-:m.--.:'•:.,-,-:,,k,L,,...,,,,:!.t;,,.7..,,•''-,it.,...-....-•....s,,‘,1.,.4.',.','..-,.,.,.,...,.;fr:--.-I-t.. :,:t..',..e.,..,,..,.4.,:k,....-1/47„,,,,„,,.,,,, ..'''.-._,.....'.„' :",....,,.-.,.„',.',..::--.:.
.H„.,.)-„:.,.',,)..,.. --4-..,',,',•..'.,,,.:-,,a,..--‘:,...4.ivL'.f.,:-.•
..,.
t'',"•'C.A-t.,s,v
4. / * ,.-:.;.,:,,.,„S',i,.,,.-r:.:....,,,,•.,C.i...4..,.-,.1-‘-.7,...._.,,,',,,',.•-•.4,7'.'_ '...0. ‘
.,
,,,,4*-,,,,,,-;.', • 1,„ ':, '''''-', ..-,..,:',"'". .1,, • .,
..., .,. .. . •-
ConsultEcon, In
Memorandum
To: Corky Poster and Andrew Gorski,Poster Frost Associates
From: ConsultEcon,Inc.
Date: January 29,2008
RE: Four Alternative Reuse Models for Steam Pump Ranch
This memorandum presents four alternative Steam Pump Ranch reuse models for the Town of
Oro Valley to consider as it plans for the redevelopment of the site. They represent four basic
approaches to site development and operation that have emerged in the planning process. Each
represents not only a series of physical investments and changes at Steam Pump Ranch, but also
associated operating approaches,economic models, and differing sets of project benefits. In all
cases,these models reflect the finding that onsite uses cannot fully support needed maintenance
and operating expenses of the site. This is true of most heritage and public purposes land uses
such as public parks, museums, historic sites, and so forth.
The models reflect the planning process to date,the input of Town of Oro Valley leadership on
the project, the consultants' professional experience,the experience of comparable heritage sites,
and the unique characteristics and opportunities of Steam Pump Ranch. The alternative models
are basic approaches to site use and redevelopment and certainly can be refined over time.
However, they do define basic approaches to site use, and the implications of various approaches
so that direction can be established for the site. The alternative models are called the Non-Profit
Heritage Model,the Public Heritage Model,the Preservation Model, and the Heritage Model
with Supportive Commercial Uses.
Non-Profit Heritage Model
In this approach, Steam Pump Ranch is both a public park and a heritage site, with exterior and
interior interpretation and guided docent tours. A not-for-profit organization, such as the Oro
Valley Historical Society,plays a lead role in raising funds for initial capital investment in the
historic buildings and on an ongoing basis to operate the buildings. Such not-for-profits are the
typical lead organization for heritage sites, often in a public-private partnership with a
government body—in this case,the Town of Oro Valley. The Town in turn would maintain the
building exteriors and the overall grounds of the site. There would be limited other uses on the
site such as a small café, gift shop, and rental of meeting rooms and outdoor event spaces.
Public Heritage Model
This approach is similar to the above in its interpretive focus and in the uses onsite, except that
the Town of Oro Valley would take the lead role in raising funds for initial capital investment
and managing the site as a heritage ranch. The non-profit Oro Valley Historical Society would
Phone: +1 (617)547-0100•Fax:+1 (617)547-0102•545 Concord Avenue,Suite 210,Cambridge,MA 02138 U.S.A.
www.consultecon.com•info@consultecon.com
COflSUItECOfl,
have a no role in site management or facilitydirection, limited '
guided to providing volunteers (for
tours and staffing the gift shop)and lendingartifacts. The Public •
Heritage Model is less
common among historic sites than the Nnn-Profit Fleritaen- M,dP.1 �,,,+ at;11 �,,,� *�, •
aaan �h t Val 1 rofit herita a Mo del, a 1'1!1te tfAl to
V VUV V1.111 11Lto Lll,w i.1VLV11LICH LV
provide significant public benefits. A challenge to this model 1 is that the Town would have to
provide ongoing support,which may be subject topolitical
J and financial pressures external to the
site's mission as a cultural and educational heritage site. Inaddition,addition,there may be limited
sources for fundraising, some of which may be better channeled through a non-profit
organization.
Preservation Model
In this model, Steam Pump Ranch would a basicar
ublic park,,with little or no public access to the
buildings. p
Neither the Town of Oro Valley nor the Oro ValleyHistorical
in developing the Society takes the lead
p g site as a heritage ranch museum. The buildings would bepreserved
limited presence bythe town. Thebut with
buildings do not undergo significant interior renovations.
interior exhibits are created and exteriorNo
exhibits are limited to signage and several stagingareas
for educational programs andpublic andprivate
events. There is limited earned revenue
potential associated with this approach.
Heritage with Supportive Commercial Uses
Model
In this model, a heritage site is combined with supportive commercial • •
pp uses to generate additional
earned revenue onsite,which would contribute to Steam
Pump Ranch's overall self-sufficiency
encyand ongoing economic sustainability. In addition
to the heritage museum, ift shop, and cafe
onsite commercial uses would include: g p' '
a horse trail riding operation (which was a onsite use in
the recent past), a destination restaurant, and a new event center. With capital investments
funded by the Town of Oro Valley or in conjunction withart rivate ongoing p partners also responsible for
their on
g g operation, these commercial uses would be designed to adapt existing structures
while maintaining their historical integrity, creating a unique place in Oro
Valley. Additional
activity generated by commercial uses would benefit the heritage site through hrough increased market
exposure and public awareness.
For the purposes of this analysis,the Town of Oro Valley alley is the operator of the heritage ranch
museum, but the Non-Profit Heritage Model could also apply in this approach.pp y pp h. There is potential
to add commercial uses to the Preservation Model;however,this model reduces the economic
viability and attractiveness of commercial uses because of the lost activity generated by a
heritage attraction.
Economic Potential of Four Alternative Reuse Models
Data in Table 1 present a summary of earned revenuepotential, operating
income, p ng expenses and net
operating income, including a measure of economic percent self-sufficiency, theof earned
revenue to operating expenses. These models may be refined and adapted through
planning as the Town p g subsequent
p g of Oro Valley determines which reuse model applies to the redevelopment
of Steam PumpRanch. pP
2
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Table 1
Operating Potential of Four Alternative Reuse Models
Steam Pump Ranch
Reuse Model
Public
Public Non-Profit Heritage with
Preservation Heritage Heritage Commercial
Earned Revenue Potential $51,000 $168,300 $82,500 $366,750
Operating Expenses $269,108 $493,202 $314,597 $597,441
Net Operating Income ($218,108) ($324,902) ($232,097) ($230,691)
Operating Support Required $218,108 $324,902 $232,097 $230,691
%Earned Revenue to Expenses 19.0% 34.1% 26.2% 61.4%
Source:ConsultEcon,Inc.
Potential Operating Support Required by the Town of Oro Valley
The Preservation Model is the least-cost alternative to the Town of Oro Valley if it plans to fully
support the annual operation of Steam Pump Ranch as a public amenity. The annual operating
support required from the Town of Oro Valley is estimated at$218,000. The Heritage with
Supportive Commercial Uses Model is the next, least-cost alternative to the Town of Oro Valley,
with $231,000 in annual operating support required from the Town of Oro Valley. The highest-
cost alternative is the Public Heritage Model, with $325,000 annual support required. The Non-
Profit Heritage Model would require $232,000 in annual operating support.
Rates of Economic Self-Sufficiency
The most economically self-sufficient model is the Heritage with Supportive Commercial Uses
Model: earned revenue potential covers 61.4 percent of annual operating expenses. The least
self-sufficient model is the Preservation Model,with 19.0 percent earned revenue to operating
expenses. The Public Heritage Model self-sufficient ratio is 34.1 percent while the Non-Profit
Heritage Model is 26.2 percent.
Summary
Four alternative reuse approaches are submitted for consideration by the Town of Oro Valley. In
addition to the variations in economic potential among the reuse models, each model offers a
different set of public benefits, especially in terms of onsite activity and the level of usage of the
site by Oro Valley residents, residents of the Tucson metropolitan area, and visitors from outside
the region. The Heritage with Supportive Commercial Uses Model offers the most potential
onsite activity,while the Preservation Model offers the least. The Public Heritage Model and
Non-Profit Heritage Model are similar to each other and would offer a degree of site activity
somewhere in between the two other models.
3
ConsuitEcon,
Appendix Tables
Table A-1. Staff Plan —Non-sProvit Heritage Mode!
Table A-2. Operating Expenses—Non-Profit Heritage Model
Table A-3. Staff Plan—Public Heritage Model
Table A-4. Model
g
Operating Expenses—Public Heritage g
Table A-5. Staff Plan—Preservation Model
Table A-6. Operating Expenses—Preservation Model
Table A-7. Staff Plan,—Public Heritage with Supportive Commercial al Uses Model
Table A-8. Operating Expenses—Public Heritage with th Supportive Commercial Uses Model
Table A-9. Operating Assumptions of Four Alternative Reuse Models
Table A-10. Earned Revenue Potential—Non-Profit Heritage eritage Model
Table A-11. Earned Revenue Potential—Public Heritage Model
Table A-12• Earned Revenue Potential— Preservation
Model
Table A-13. Earned Revenue Potential— Public Heritage with Supportive Commercial Uses
Model
4
ConsultEcon, Inc .
Table A-1.
Staff Plan—Non-Profit Heritage Model
Steam Pump Ranch
Annual Number of Number of
Salaries Full Time Part Time Total Salary
Personnel Schedule (FTE) Positions Positions Budget
Administration 1/
Recreation Manager $50,471 1 $50,471
Assistant Recreation Manager 32,360 -
(Programs and Events Coordinator)
Heritage Museum and Gift Shop 21
Museum Manger 50,000 -
Educator/Volunteer Coordinator 35,000 -
Concessions 20,000 -
Operations 11
Caretaker 3/ - 1 -
Park Maintenance Worker 30,802 1 1 46,203
Public Works Maintenance Worker 30,802 1 30,802
Intermittent Workers 20,000 -
(Interns,Seasonal/Event Support)
Total Salaries 4 1 $127,476
Taxes,Fringe&Benefits(@ 40%of salary) $50,990
Total Salaries&Benefits Budget $178,466
Total Full Time Equivalent Positions(FTE'S) 4.50
NOTE: Part Time Employees at 50%FTE.
1/Salaries based on 2007-2008 midpoint salary grade of Town of Oro Valley positions.Retrieved from http://www.ci.oro-
valley.az.us/HR/Updated%202007-2008%20Salary%20Structure%2007-01-07.htm on January,28 2008.
2/Salaries based on comparable operating profiles for historic sites and museums in the Tucson Area,and general knowledge
of the.culture industry.
3/A caretaker is a position designed to maintain a town presence onsite 24 hours per day. There is no paid salary.In
exchange for free room at Steam Pump Ranch,the caretaker would maintain site security between the hours of sundown and
sunup.
Source: ConsultEcon,Inc.
5
ConsultEcon
Table A-2.
Operating Expenses—Non-Profit •
Heritage Model
Steam Pump Ranch
Project Parameters
Attendance 1/
15,000
Acres
17
Building Interiors Square Footage(SF) 19,124 Poster Frost
Associates
Employees(FTEs)
4.50 See Personnel Schedule
Detailed Budgetary Analysis
Annual Amount Expense Factors 2/
Salaries(FTE,PTE)
$127,476 See Personnel Schedule
Fringe&Benefits
$50,990 See Personnel Schedule
Outside Professional Services
$50,000 Budgeted
Water and Sewer
$42,500 Budgeted
Waste Disposal Fees
$7,000 Budgeted
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance
$750 Budgeted
Equipment Repair and Maintenance
$750
Grounds Repair and Maintenance
$5,000
Rentals
$1,000
Postage
$750
Telecommunications
$1,500
Travel and Training
$300
Memberships and Subscriptions
$200
Gasoline and Oil
$1,500
Non-Capitalized Equipment
$1,000
Field Supplies
$2,000
Uniforms
$1,000
Advertising
Printing&Publications $0.25 per Attendee
Special Events @ $0.25 per Attendee
$5,000 Budgeted
Cost of Programs
• Not Calculated at This Time
Miscellaneous&Contingency
Subtotal OperatingExpenses $900 $200 Per FTE
$299,616
Capital Reserves 3/
$14,981 5%
1 Of Total Op.Expenses
Total Operating Expenses
$314,597
Operating Expense Per SF
$16.45
Operating Expense Per FTE
$69,910
Operating Expense Per Acre
$18,506
1/Midpoint of estimated range between 10,000 and 20 000vi'
sitors annually.
2/Based on analysis of Parks and Recreation Department
not include estimates for building maintenance, p budgets for other Oro Valley parks. Does
which will be incorporated into future drafts.
3/Capital Reserves include funds for equipment replacements nts and minor capital for building
improvements. P
Source:ConsultEcon,Inc.
6
ConsultEcon, Inc .
Table A-3.
Staff Plan—Public Heritage Model
Steam Pump Rancn
Annual Number of Number of
Salaries Full Time Part Time Total Salary
Personnel Schedule (FTE) Positions Positions Budget
Administration 11
Recreation Manager $50,471 1 $50,471
Assistant Recreation Manager 32,360 -
(Programs and Events Coordinator)
Heritage Museum and Gift Shop 2/
Museum Manger 50,000 1 50,000
Educator/Volunteer Coordinator 35,000 1 35,000
Concessions 20,000 1 20,000
•
Operations 1
Caretaker 3/ - 1 -
Park Maintenance Worker 30,802 1 1 46,203
Public Works Maintenance Worker 30,802 1 30,802
Intermittent Workers 20,000 -
(Interns,Seasonal/Event Support)
Total Salaries 7 1 $232,476
Taxes,Fringe&Benefits(@ 40%of salary) $92,990
Total Salaries&Benefits Budget $325,466
Total Full Time Equivalent Positions(FTE'S) 7.50
NOTE: Part Time Employees at 50%FTE.
1/Salaries based on 2007-2008 midpoint salary grade of Town of Oro Valley positions.Retrieved from http://www.ci.oro-
valley.az.us/HRIUpdated%202007-2008%20Salary%20Structure%2007-01-07.htm on January,28 2008.
2/Salaries based on comparable operating profiles for historic sites and museums in the Tucson Area,and general knowledge
of the culture industry.
• 3/A caretaker is a position designed to maintain a town presence onsite 24 hours per day. There is no paid salary.In
exchange for free room at Steam Pump Ranch,the caretaker would maintain site security between the hours of sundown and
sunup.
Source: ConsultEcon,Inc.
NI
1111
0
7
COflSUItECOfl,
Table A-4.
Operating Expenses—Public Heritage Mod
C*^A g el
LYIVa111 i ui.q EEvaiirt s.ii
Project Parameters
Attendance 1/ 15,000
Acres 17
Building Interiors Square Footage(SF) 19,124
Poster Frost Associates
Employees(FTEs) 7.50
See Personnel Schedule
Detailed Budgetary Analysis Annual Amount
Expense Factors 2/
Salaries(FTE,PTE) $232,476
See Personnel Schedule
Fringe&Benefits $92,990
See Personnel Schedule
Outside Professional Services $50,000
Budgeted
Water and Sewer $42,500
Budgeted
Waste Disposal Fees $7,000
Budgeted
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance $750
Budgeted
Equipment Repair and Maintenance $750
Budgeted
Grounds Repair and Maintenance $5,000
Budgeted
Rentals $1,000 Budgeted
Postage g
$750 Budgeted
Telecommunications $1,500
Budgeted
Travel and Training $300
Budgeted
Memberships and Subscriptions $200 Budgeted
Gasoline and Oil g
$1,500 Budgeted
Non-Capitalized Equipment $1,000
Budgeted
Field Supplies $2,000
Budgeted
Uniforms $1,000
Budgeted
Advertising $3,750
@ $0.25 per Attendee
Printing&Publications $3,750
@ $0.25 per Attendee
Special Events $20,000 Budgeted
Cost of Programs g
Not Calculated at This Time
Miscellaneous&Contingency $1,500
@ $200 Per FTE
Subtotal Operating Expenses $469,716
Capital Reserves 3/ $23,486 5%Of Total Op.Expenses
Total Operating Expenses $493,202
Operating Expense Per SF $25.79
Operating Expense Per FTE $65,760
Operating Expense Per Acre $29,012
1/Midpoint of estimated range between 10,000 and 20,000 visitors annually.
Y
2/Based on analysis of Parks and Recreation Department budgets for other Oro Valley
not include estimates for building maintenance,which will be incorporated parks. Does
rp ated into future drafts.
3/Capital Reserves include funds for equipment replacements and minor capital for
improvements. P building
Source:ConsultEcon,Inc.
8
ConsultEcon, Inc .
Table A-5.
Staff Plan—Preservation Model
Stea ii P amp Ranch
Annual Number of Number of
Salaries Full Time Part Time Total Salary
Personnel Schedule (FTE) Positions Positions Budget
Administration 11
Recreation Manager $50,471 1 $50,471
Assistant Recreation Manager 32,360 -
(Programs and Events Coordinator)
Heritage Museum and Gift Shop 21
Museum Manger 50,000 -
Educator/Volunteer Coordinator 35,000 -
Concessions 20,000 -
Operations 11
Caretaker 31 - 1 -
Park Maintenance Worker 30,802 1 30,802
Public Works Maintenance Worker 30,802 1 15,401
Intermittent Workers 20,000 -
(Interns,Seasonal/Event Support)
Total Salaries 3 1 $96,674
Taxes,Fringe&Benefits(@ 40%of salary) $38,670
Total Salaries&Benefits Budget $135,344
Total Full Time Equivalent Positions(FTE'S) 3.50
NOTE: Part Time Employees at 50%FTE.
1/Salaries based on 2007-2008 midpoint salary grade of Town of Oro Valley positions.Retrieved from http://www.ci.oro-
valley.az.us/HR/Updated%202007-2008%20Salary%20Structure%2007-01-07.htm on January,28 2008.
2/Salaries based on comparable operating profiles for historic sites and museums in the Tucson Area,and general knowledge
of the culture industry.
3/A caretaker is a position designed to maintain a town presence onsite 24 hours per day. There is no paid salary.In
exchange for free room at Steam Pump Ranch,the caretaker would maintain site security between the hours of sundown and
sunup.
Source: ConsultEcon,Inc.
9
COflSUItECO ,
Table A-6.
Operating Expenses—Preservation Model
Steam Pump Ranch
Project Parameters
Heritage Attendance
Acres
17
Building Interiors Square Footage(SF) 18,988
Poster Frost Associates
Employees(FTEs) 3.50
See Staff Plan
Detailed Budgetary Analysis Annual Amount
Expense Factors 1/
Salaries(FTE,PTE) $96,674
See Staff Plan
Fringe&Benefits $38,670
See Staff Plan
Outside Professional Services $50,000
Budgeted
Water and Sewer $42,500
Budgeted
Waste Disposal Fees $7,000
Budgeted
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance $750
Budgeted
Equipment Repair and Maintenance $750
Budgeted
Grounds Repair and Maintenance $5,000
Budgeted
Rentals $1,000
Budgeted
Postage $750
Budgeted
Telecommunications $1,500
Budgeted
Travel and Training $300
Budgeted
Memberships and Subscriptions $200 Budgeted
Gasoline and Oil $1,500
Budgeted
Non-Capitalized Equipment $1,000
Budgeted
Field Supplies $2,000
Budgeted
Uniforms $1,000
Budgeted
Advertising
@ $0.25 per Attendee
Printing&Binding
@ $0.25 per Attendee
Special Events $5,000 Budg• eted
Cost of Programs Not Calculated at This Time
Miscellaneous&Contingency $700
g $200 Per FTE
Subtotal Operating Expenses $256,294
Capital Reserves 2/ $12,815 5%Of Total Op.Expenses
Total Operating Expenses $269,108
Operating Expense Per SF $14.17
Operating Expense Per FTE $76,888
Operating Expense Per Acre $15,830
1/Based on analysis of Parks and Recreation Department budgets p g s for other Oro Valley parks. Does
not include estimates for building maintenance,which will be incorporated into future drafts.
2/Capital Reserves include funds for equipment replacements and minor capital for
improvements. P building
Source:ConsultEcon,Inc.
10
ConsultEcon, Inc .
Table A-7.
Staff Plan —Public Heritage with Supportive Commercial Uses Model
Steam Pump Ranch
Annual Number of Number of
Salaries Full Time Part Time Total Salary
Personnel Schedule (FTE) Positions Positions Budget
Administration
Recreation Manager $50,471 1 $50,471
Assistant Recreation Manager 32,360 1 16,180
(Programs and Events Coordinator)
Heritage Museum and Gift Shop
Museum Manger 50,000 1 50,000
Educator/Volunteer Coordinator 35,000 1 35,000
Concessions 20,000 1 20,000
Operations
Caretaker - 1 -
Park Maintenance Worker 30,802 2 61,604
Public Works Maintenance Worker 30,802 1 1 46,203
Intermittent Workers 20,000 2 20,000
(Interns,Seasonal/Event Support)
Total Salaries 8 4 $299,458
Taxes,Fringe&Benefits(@ 40%of salary) $119,783
Total Salaries&Benefits Budget $419,241
Total Full Time Equivalent Positions(FTE'S) 10.00
NOTE: Part Time Employees at 50%FTE.
1/Salaries based on 2007-2008 midpoint salary grade of Town of Oro Valley positions.Retrieved from http://www.ci.oro-
valley.az.us/HR/Updated%202007-2008%20Salary%20Structure%2007-01-07.htm on January,28 2008.
2/Salaries based on comparable operating profiles for historic sites and museums in the Tucson Area,and general knowledge
of the culture industry.
3/A caretaker is a position designed to maintain a town presence onsite 24 hours per day. There is no paid salary.In
exchange for free room at Steam Pump Ranch,the caretaker would maintain site security between the hours of sundown and
sunup.
Source: ConsultEcon,Inc.
11
COflSUItECOfl,
Table A-8.
Operating Expenses—Public Heritage with Supportive g pp ve Commercial Uses Model
Steam Pump Ranch
Project Parameters
Attendance 1/ 25,000
Acres 17
Building Interiors Square Footage(SF) 19,124 Poster Frost Associates
Employees(FTEs) 10.00 See Personnel Schedule
Detailed Budgetary Analysis Annual Amount Expense Factors 2/
Salaries(FTE,PTE) $299,458 See Personnel Schedule
Fringe&Benefits $119,783 See Personnel Schedule
Outside Professional Services $50,000 Budgeted
Water and Sewer $42,500 Budgeted
Waste Disposal Fees $7,000 Budgeted
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance $750 Budgeted
Equipment Repair and Maintenance $750
Grounds Repair and Maintenance $5,000
Rentals $1,000
Postage $750
Telecommunications $1,500
Travel and Training $300
Memberships and Subscriptions $200
Gasoline and Oil $1,500
Non-Capitalized Equipment $1,000
Field Supplies $2,000
Uniforms $1,000
Advertising $6,250
@ $0.25 per Attendee
Printing&Publications $6,250 @ $0.25 per Attendee
Special Events $20,000 Budgeted
Cost of Programs Not Calculated at This Time
Miscellaneous&Contingency $2,000 @ $200 Per FTE
Subtotal Operating Expenses $568,991
Capital Reserves 3/ $28,450 5%Of Total Op.Expenses
Total Operating Expenses $597,441
Operating Expense Per SF $31.24
Operating Expense Per FTE $59,744
Operating Expense Per Acre $35,144
1/Midpoint of estimated range between 20,000 and 30,000 visitors annually.
2/Based on analysis of Parks and Recreation Department budgets for other Oro Valley parks. Does
not include estimates for building maintenance,which will be incorporated into
po future drafts.
3/Capital Reserves include funds for equipment replacements and minor capital for building
g
Source:ConsultEcon,Inc.
12
ConsultEcon, Inc .
F
Table A-9.
Operating Assumptions of Four Alternative Reuse Models
Stable Year in Current Dollars
Steam Pump Ranch
Public Heritage
Public Non-Profit with
Assumptions Preservation Heritage Heritage Commercial
Heritage Attendance 15,000 15,000 25,000
Events Attendance 5,000 10,000 10,000 25,000
Park Attendance 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total Attendance 55,000 75,000 75,000 100,000
Heritage Ranch
Guided Tour Per Capita Fee $5.00 $5.00
Retail and Vending Machines
Per Capita Gross Retail Sales $1.50 $1.50
Cost of Goods Sold as a%of Retail Sales 52% 52%
Per Capita Gross Vending Sales $1.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50
Contracted Gross Vending Sales Fee 20% 20% 20% 20%
Gross Room Rental and Event Fee per Use
Building 2 Meeting Room $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Building 4 Meeting Room $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00
Area b/t Buildings 2 and 3 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00
Porch/Patio(Building 5) $200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $200.00
Outdoor Barbecue/Gathering Space $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00
Room Rental and Event Annual Use
Building 2 Meeting Room 80 150 150 200
Building 4 Meeting Room 80 150 150 200
Area b/t Buildings 2 and 3 40 75 75 100
Porch/Patio(Building 5) 40
Outdoor Barbecue/Gathering Space 40 75 75 100
Event Center
Gross Fees per Use $2,500
Number of Uses per Year 150
Percent of Gross Event Center Revenue to Town 10%
Cafe/Restaurant
Per Capita Gross Café Sales $2.00 $2.00
Contracted Gross Café Sales Fee 10% 10%
Restaurant Area-Square Feet 2,500
Annual Rent per Square Foot $22.50
Equestrian Center
Estimated Number of Trail Rides 10,000
Average Price of Trail Ride $40.00
Percent of Gross Revenue to Town 10%
Source: ConsultEcon,Inc.
13
v
COflSUItECOfl,
Table A-10.
Earned Revenue Potential—Non-Profit Heritage Model
Steam Pump Ranch
Revenue Category Amount
OVHS Rent
$0
GOVAC Rent 0
Heritage Tickets 0
Retail Sales 0
Vending Machines 7,500
Meeting Room Fees
Building 2 7,500
Building 4 7,500
0
Outdoor Event Fees
Area b/t Buildings 2 and 3 15,000
Porch/Patio (Building 5) 0
Outdoor Barbecue/GatheringSpace
30,000
Restaurant Rent 15,000
Equestrian Center Rent 0
Event Center Rent 0
Total Earned Revenue $82,500
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
14
ConsultEcon, Inc .
Table A-11.
Earned Revenue Potential—Public Heritage Model
Steam rump Rancll
Revenue Category Amount
OVHS Rent $0
GOVAC Rent 0
Heritage Tickets 75,000
Retail Sales 10,800
Vending Machines 7,500
Meeting Room Fees
Building 2 7,500
Building 4 7,500
Outdoor Event Fees
Area b/t Buildings 2 and 3 15,000
Porch/Patio(Building 5) 0
Outdoor Barbecue/Gathering Space 30,000
Restaurant Rent 15,000
Equestrian Center Rent 0
Event Center Rent 0
Total Earned Revenue $168,300
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
15
COflSUItECOfl,
Table A-12.
Earned Revenue Potential—Preservation Model
Steam Pump Ranch
Revenue Category Amount
OVHS Rent $0
GOVAC Rent
0
Heritage Tickets 0
Retail Sales 0
Vending Machines 11,000
Meeting Room Fees
Building 2 4,000
Building 4 4,000
Outdoor Event Fees
Area b/t Buildings 2 and 3 8,000
Porch/Patio (Building 5) 8,000
Outdoor Barbecue/Gathering Space 16,000
Restaurant Rent 0
Equestrian Center Rent 0
Event Center Rent 0
Total Earned Revenue $51,000
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
•
16
ConsultEcort Inc .
Table A-13.
Earned Revenue Potential—Public Heritage with Supportive Commercial Uses Model
Qf TPump
t\li11v11
Revenue Category Amount
OVHS Rent $0
GOVAC Rent 0
Heritage Tickets 125,000
Retail Sales 18,000
Vending Machines 10,000
Meeting Room Fees
Building 2 10,000
Building 4 10,000
Outdoor Event Fees
Area b/t Buildings 2 and 3 20,000
Porch/Patio (Building 5) 0
Outdoor Barbecue/Gathering Space 40,000
Restaurant Rent 56,250
Equestrian Center Rent 40,000
Event Center Rent 37,500
Total Earned Revenue $366,750
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
111
17
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Draft Prelimi!j !iy Building Capital Costs (Rev. - Jan. 30, 2008)
Prepared by Poster Frost Associates (final costs by Compusult)
BASE PHASE 1 CAPITAL COSTS interior finishes but exhibits not included
ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS
Pump House Restoration/ Reconstruction $ 292,200
Original Ranch House Restoration $ 490,840
West Bunk House Rehabilitation $ 61,020
1 East Bunk House Preservation $ 28,560
Covered Vehicle Area Restoration/Reconstruction $ 27,990
Garage and Workers' Housing Preservation I Rehabilitation $ 211,070
Procter/Leiber House Preservation/Rehabilitation $ 477,560
Carlos' House (BBQ Pavilion) Rehabilitation $ 74,580
Chicken Coops (Stabilize only) Preservation $ 18,000
Orientation/Entry Building Rehabilitation $ 87,660
2 New Restroom Buildings New Construction $ 300,000
Tack Building (Caretaker) Rehabilitation $ 76,250
Subtotal $2,145,730
LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS
Planting and Irrigation $ 784,080
Pathways 4' wide SDG 17,000 SF $ 46,750
Drive Lanes 48,000 SF Gravel Pave $ 209,520
I Parking 130 spaces 45500 SF $ 198,835
Fitness path 12000 SF $ 33,600
Event Paving Area 4000 SF $ 34,400
Entry Gate and Sign $ 75,000
Corral 2' thick retaque 796 LF $ 76,615
Site Fencing 4000 LF $ 200,000
Site Furnishing benches,picnic tables, trash, bike racks,
grills, signs, fountains, post& cable barrier $ 55,000
Ramada w/no electric, w/pad 2 EA 25,000. $ 50,000
Site Lighting for parking, night use, security $ 145,000
Water Harvesting grey water $ 30,000
Crops and Garden $ 45,000
Subtotal $1,983,800
CIVIL AND SITE INFRASTRUCTURE allowance $1 000 000
Grand Total Capital Costs $5,129,530
OPTIONAL FUTURE PHASES(a,BUILD-OUT
Chicken Coops/Animal Stalls Restoration/Reconstruction $ 60,000
Arts/Crafts Sheds Reconstruction/ Rehabilitation $ 220,000
New Equestrian Facility (3500 sf) New Construction $ 306,000
New Caretaker's Residence New Construction $ 225,000
New Multi-Use Building New Construction $2,160,000
Subtotal $3,277,500
Total Capital Cost for Phase 1 +Optional Proposed Future Phases $8,407,030
Adjustments ConsultEcon Alternatives
Preservation, Subtract$700,000 from architectural costs for unfinished interiors. Other costs unchanged.
Supportive Commercial Uses, subtract$400,000 for by-commercial fit-out, but Build-Out required.
• \
4,
ORO VALLEY
r' HISTORICAL SOCIETY
b , ,
The Oro Valley Historical Society is concerned about the four alternative economic models
presented to the Task Force on January 30, 2008.
1. The N I I o erita•e Model assumes that the OVHS plays "a lead role in raising funds for
initial capital investment in the istoncal buildings and on an ongoing basis to operate
buildings." Our desired roles and responsibilities, as provided to Town staff and Poster/Frost,
are listed below and they do not include this role. As an organization we want to support and
assist the Town in developing a historic reservation program rather than being the lead
entity to assume Town responsibilities.
The Non-Profit Heritage Model should not receive further serious consideration because
the responsibilities in that model are not within our capabilities currently or in the near
future, and they are not within our mission and purposes (listed below) for the long term.
2. The Preservation Model is not satisfactory from the OVHS perspective because it does
not adequately provide for educational and community programs which is a major purpose
of the OVHS. In addition, under this model there would be no place at Steam Pump Ranch
for the OVHS to display historical materials from the George Pusch collection, to archive
historic documents or to have a small administrative space for the organization. If this
model is seriously considered further the OVHS will be put in a position of actively looking
for another "home" and place for exhibits and historical projects. It has long been the
assumption that the OVHS would have a presence at Steam Pump Ranch. This model does
not accommodate that and should not be further considered.
Role of the Oro Valley Historical Society at Steam Pump Ranch (as provided to Town and
Poster/Frost 01/28/08)
*The first priority for all partners involved in Steam Pump Ranch is the acquisition of
funding for the "bricks and mortar"work of renovating the buildings and restoring the
historic landscape.
*The Historical Society envisions a physical presence at the site consisting of office and
shared meeting space.
*The Historical Society foresees responsibility for Educational Programs and Guided
Tours as our primary role. We anticipate developing and providing educational materials
andro ams for school children as well as adults. Funding would come from fundraising
p �'
events, donations,partnerships and grants.
*Sponsorship of specific organized events and programs (eg Town Birthday, crafts fair,
youth fair, history lectures) and assistance in Town organized events is also anticipated.
*Providing materials for exhibits from OVHS collections and development of specific
exhibits and interpretive materials is planned dependent upon future membership,
fundraising capabilities and grant opportunities.
*Curation and coordination of access to the George Pusch documents collection for
research purposes if held at the SPR.
In general, the Historical Society envisions participating as a major partner in the
management and care of the Steam Pump Ranch. In keeping with our mission we would
provide historical programs and materials and volunteer staffing. The Society operates on
a volunteer basis and the time expended by volunteers would reduce expenses to the
Town for educational and interpretive programs. In terms of developing operating and
financial plans with revenues and expenses the Society's role is one of minimizing those
costs while maximizing activities at the site to ensure continued visitation and use.
OUR MISSION
To promote research, preservation, education and dissemination of historical information related
to the greater Oro Valley area.
PURPOSES OF THE SOCIETY
Assist the Town of Oro Valley in protecting and preserving places of historical importance.
Provide educational opportunities in our schools to encourage student awareness and interest in
history.
Sponsor informative programs that increase interest and knowledge in area prehistory and
history.
Play a key role in the Oro Valley community to make our past an integral part of our future.
OJP�`EY o
6
i
•+1X.
AL
OVNDED 191
Office of the Town Ma .ager
Oro Valley Administration Building
1000 N. La Canada Drive,85737--7016
(520) 229-4700 FAX(520)229-4724
DAVID ANDREWS
Town Manager
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 13, 2008
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Town Council
FROM: David Andrews, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Councilmember Terry Parish is unable to attend tonight's Study Session. He requested
that I bring forward to you his concern regarding the Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan.
Terry believes that the Steam Pump Ranch Task Force has built up expectations
beyond what is affordable for the Town.
question Terry's to the Task Force is how do they plan to address this issue? In his
,
o inionthe plan focuses so much on aesthetics that is has gotten too far away from
p
economic sustainability. This is comparable to what happened with the Naranja Town
Site project.
(1442i
David Andrews, Town Manager
F:\Carol\Town Manager\Memos\Memos 2008\SPR- Parish concern for Council.doc
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 1 of 4
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: February 13, 2008
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
FROM: Paul Keesler, Public Works - Development Review Division Manager
Bayer Vella, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Development Review Process Revisions
SUMMARY:
Purpose:
g
The purpose of
this agenda item is to inform and solicit feed-back from Mayor & Council with regard to staff
suggested modifications to the Town's review and permitting processes for new development.
Background & Process:
Workplan Planning &
ZoningWork lan for the past two cycles has included an item entitled "Development Review
Process Revisions
to ZoningCode and Internal Procedures". It entails review of procedures to accomplish the
following:
1. Increase efficiency of staff review
2. Enable earlier review of design at public meeting — before substantial applicant engineering cost has
been incurred
3. Evaluate additional opportunities for administrative review.
4. Further define role of Development Review Committee
5. Further define Master Development Plan
Work on this
item commenced byforming an internal team with representatives from the following departments
and agencies: Planning & Zoning, Public Works, Building Safety, Town of Oro Valley Water, Economic
g
Developmentp
ment Golder Ranch Fire and the Town Manager's Office. The team identified the goals to "Increase
,
efficiencyof staff review" and "Enable earlier review of design at public meeting" as a priority.
The first step taken to find efficiency savings was to thoroughly document current procedures. A significant
emphasis was placed on mapping the entire development review process from beginning to end. This was a
challenge because we are all experts within our specialties; however, few understood the entire process.
yp
Staff created
a hypothetical commercial project that would be subject to the Development Plan process. After
several meetings, a Gantt chart was produced that outlined all the steps involved, with particular assumptions,
understand the true process timeline. Assumptions were created to represent typical project aspects not
to
under control of staff such as consultant plan quality and number of returned plan reviews to acceptance, as
p
I
well as the developer's construction schedule. The schedules attached to this communication use an
1 assumption that:
• Building construction will take 52 weeks.
• There will be one Development Review Board (DRB) public meeting.
• There will be one Mayor & Council public meeting.
• velo ment reviews include three cycles for initial submittals and two subsequent submissions.
De p
Once
this first stepwas completed, the team worked to identify ways to eliminate duplication and increase
efficiency - without compromising quality of review. The remaining steps are as follows:
• Town Council Review at Study Session, 2/13/08
• Request for Developer Comment: 1) Request Written Comments, 2) Informational Meeting
q p
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 2 of 4
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: February 13, 2008
• Request for HOA Comment: 1) Request Written Comments, 2) Informational Meeting
• Update Zoning Code and Submittal Requirements
• Implement Proposed Changes
• Develop a Brochure outlining Review and Permitting Procedures for New Development.
PROPOSED PROCESS CHANGES
1. Early Citizen Involvement: Preliminary Plat, Development Plan, and Rezoning Process
Issue:
Staff has received comments that citizens feel excluded from the development review process. Citizen
input is particularly critical when a project involves in-fill development.
Recommendation:
All applicants should be required to conduct two neighborhood meetings (minimum) prior to Town
acceptance of any new development proposal. The first meeting is intended to introduce the project to
the neighbors. The second meeting is intended to solicit feed-back and resolve neighborhood concerns.
Benefits:
• Neighbors will have early notice regarding an upcoming project. This will create an opportunity to
guide the design from the start.
• It affords staff a forum to educate residents with respect to the existing development review
process, zoning requirements, and potential solutions to their issues.
• It can shorten the overall Town public meeting process (Development Review Board, Town Council
etc.) if a "win-win" scenario is produced by the neighbors and developer.
2. Tentative Development Plan (TDP): Development Plan Process Only
Issue:
Staff has received comment from citizens and applicants that development plans depict too much
information. Impacts:
• The development plan can be difficult for citizens to understand.
• A full development plan is costly to prepare because of the extent of technical information
required. In fact, a full development plan is equivalent to a 50% complete construction
document. As a result, a developer would rationally be more resistant to proposed changes
because of the significant investment.
Recommendation:
Streamline the front end of the project by using a Tentative Development Plan for submission to the
DRB. A Tentative Development Plan is roughly defined as a site plan that depicts basic zoning and
engineering compliance (refer to exhibit "A" for examples of content).
A full development plan - with the same level of information currently provided - should be required for
presentation to Mayor & Council.
Benefits:
• Produced in a simple format, the average layperson will be able to read and understand the plan.
• The developer will not need to make as heavy of a financial commitment for plans — before the
design is approved by the Development Review Board.
...
E X Nierr A
Tentative Development Plan Contents
1. Site Layout
a. Structures and Use
b. Ingress/Egress
c. Buffer Yards
d. Typical General Notes
e. Standard Formatting and Scale
f. Parking
g. Building Height
h. All required items specified by zoning such as loading zones, passenger
drop-off areas, shopping cart bays, etc.
i. Detailed landscape plan
j. Other
2. Grading
a. Building FFE
b. Single Spot Grade at PAAL Intersections
3. Drainage
a. General Flow Arrows
b. Schematic layout of Detention Facilities
c. Identification of existing Flows Impacting Site
d. Drainage Impact Statement
•
4. Traffic
a. Ingress/Egress Points Defined
b. Traffic Impact Statement
5. Offsite Utilities
a. Schematic Design of all Major Utilities
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 3 of 4
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: February 13, 2008
• Further
enhance Board member's ability to direct the developer to incorporate layout changes that
will not be costly to produce.
• Shorten the overall schedule to reach the first public meeting as well as eliminate duplication of
information that is presented to both the DRB and Mayor & Council.
• Sho rten the timeframe required to obtain Mayor & Council approval. Project approval by Mayor &
Council is a major milestone in a development's life. This approval codifies the design and renders
"entitlement".
3. Shorten the Overall Process to Receive the Certificate of Occupancy (C of 0)
Issue:
The entirep rocess from initial development plan review to final C of 0 can take three or more years to
complete. After Development and Improvement Plan approval, the next opportunity for efficiency gain
p p
involves Grading permit review. The Grading permit, which is usually the first permit issued for a
constructionJ ro'ect, requires approval of all engineering components and site construction documents.
p
Recommendation:
The Building Safety Department, in concert with the recommendations of the Matrix Management
Study, has shortened the overall project schedule by implementing new procedures such as:
• Building pmay be submitted and reviewed once the Development Plan has been approved by
Y
DRB.
• Allowing foundation only permits to precede the issuance of full building permits.
These measures, already in effect, have created substantial project schedule reductions.
Benefits:
• The developer is able to obtain a C of 0 much sooner than in the past.
• Citizens can enjoy the new facilities and services being delivered at an earlier time.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Thero osed changes to the development review process will create additional direct fiscal impacts to the
p p
Town by reducing staff review time and the overall construction schedule.
REQUEST:
Staff input is seekingin ut from the Mayor and Town Council with regard to the above development review and
permitting procedures.
Attachments:
1. Exhibit A—Tentative Development Plan Content Checklist
2. Exhibit B — Rolled-up Development Process Gantt Timeline Comparison
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
Page 4 of 4
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: February 13, 2008
j •� i
1,
Craig Civali:r, Public Works Director
fi
(fp61
Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director
Jerene Watson, Assistant Town Manager
/6(2,J
David Andrews o Manager
S.
�' < 10 0 a a. CD< =. 0
E. — a co v co CO
,,t c. -c 3 A) O
al o CD CD CD —++ ca -a v
N 15 co , 13 F.
M C 3 r) CD C a ° el '1
> > E v O N A) < O
Cl) ''. < < C
CD P. CD d ..�M IN co a U) co to N -0
g ..c.ig
co ea
Iv M
C ? C 3 c
a c a c a
cD A FD-
=
v '0
0
0 CI CD
CD CA
V)
Cl)
Cl)
V ;MI. MN ,, = �- ,o,, II mi 3
i .
Ell i i i i l':
-v $ • • •
�� �� 3' • DRB Approval of11. a
III • • •
IIIIIIM WO ./1 TDP a mi al a M fl• .M■•1111111•1M =MINI= �
111.1 111111 =MM. r `� i ^O• a • • .' a mi••-,
Ta ! ! : T> !___v
111•11•111111 IIMMI••• NI IN MI 6 III MI IMMINEMI MI NI III s, III NI
IIIMIMIIIII IIMIMIIIIIII IN. III IN '. INI MI NI IN 10 um ,
mai mi . is •
_ a a a1111 •
- a • a .Q a■ a a •■
.1,
- a • a D IN IN' MI 1•111Mlam Mii •i a • • •i
rNNIIIINNIM Mil si • 6. A•e,
� a • = •• "aaM"anompal " •• =i ORB Approval
- � a a '2.
a a� Ir. • Itir ttt.•Y w
MEI tilii
�= : : -' 2• i i M+ i : i 17.1. .
' f�layor 8 Council for _ _ _• _ • ■ a
— "IL • DP Approval a a a a a • •
C ... .....1 a a a INM a i -.
/ \ on IN is • IN a I c, \• no a a a IN a • •1
i 1=1•
a • a D v lo Ni v -i a a a a a • • a ■INA
a - a a a a a •I - a a • ,-'c ■■�
Cr
I. a a • M 3 El a a • =n■■� - " - a-a a • • • -c •a �•
MI ^a a a c• a Et,,
v •a IN NIv
a1 a a a:, • M n< I■ a • ••;..4 ■••
NO a a < ,•• a "3 ■ a a a., ■a. a a a .,w a a a • s ua —
al• a a tlIZ
E a a `e a a M 0 a
ON a s a a • • a • a► NOM" al ' NI NI IN now NM. . . c.,,
al °a _ a a ■ a a a)•Amo■ a IN a a _ -■ Mayor&Council
-41
M N/ MNJGrdlngPermitl= = 2 • _ - � � -�al
• Mil � � �. � all/ n '-mar lam 6. jA a a ssue
unimi.a► 41. a► •• - — II Grading Permit Issue = . �• a '<•a`"
NW MN a► NMIM. 41: MI mai so AMN M a Building Permit w I= \ II is.,
-A•a .-a IN
• \ . 11 . . MI issued MEla _ ' ••T a � � ata '■■/D
a • a ..-a a • a a • a a • mai
- w
la so ama
IN E" • MEIN! •• a a a a tea. o /■
a =t.• _ • \ a c a a a _.data\
D a b a a • mar •
a - aa Ni aim 111•11111M�IN
a !- Ji
� • al c a a aEra _ o aI ij= MI . • Ell
IIII a= i \ no : NI MIN .aa ■ • - a • ■ 21111.1111 a ? a • • a • • v nIN a a•
mg - • 5 a m imam
• .2 OI • • • •of alb■ a ■ a a a�� 11111
M ' - i a i s a Iia -• i. j a • a 2, a•i 11111
Building Permit
a - a 5 • = =an no a M► on • 5 so OR `O issued
a a a ,, • IN A INE : / \ a •ie•:a o a atm o
• a n_ • • ■ ■ISM ' ap
• • a x • — .ar ■� a a a ••a ai•l
a �a Mara a- tea.
Eli • a III• / \a• as a a • II MOM a Ill
a a a a# - m• v a� -• a •a a ■ a a ■
a a a gam v • a a a ■
a a a • a - . a_ Sia a a •ata a M
a a a 3 • a , •
•a1 a n ■III INIMII NI W
NI ■MEIN a
a a a ' a•E �■ a Nli 1111 ,..., IN •
a a a ■a•a a
NM all a a a o l al illi '■aa
nor '� a ■ a s. a M_ ■ a ^ a • ■ala a
�,�� a • a L^ as a '
me um 1111 aa ' a a ■aIM a II 1.):
s a' : — - .•- �a ■aa a
11 o .: A • A.MEI �-aCertificate of i . a a IN ON= _ J..a
1f a► a► MI al
• Occupancy Issued m 3 a a ■ a a N
a U ata• • aI a
Milli II N:
■
a El a Mal • tr moilmil•I IN
IN c a all• ■ a► n 1111
•R mem i nor ‘loo ill
a ii a."'"• ■ a/
a a a ■
WI
a a. .a • a -a. a
a a ataa IN a ;a
a a Mrs• ■ a.c a
IN INI IL IN MI IN g IN =NOMMEN' II
IMI a as ■ a v a _
was• i
; !:
a2. IIII
g ow oil n o= III
�
;n� �' a
O.5 la. Ai : j Certificate of
': '°i NW - NW A fa Occupancy Issued