HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Historic Preservation Commission (83)
D R A F T
AGENDA
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
STUDY SESSION
September 24, 2020
https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/97255144501
(669) 900-6833 Meeting ID: 972 5514 4501
STUDY SESSION AT OR AFTER 3:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
STUDY SESSION AGENDA
1.DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE FUNDING REQUESTS FOR STEAM PUMP RANCH
PRIORITIZATION PLAN
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED: 09/17/2020 at 5:00 p.m. by pp
When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours
prior to the Commission meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Instructions to Speakers
Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted Public Hearing. However, those items not listed
as a Public Hearing are for consideration and action by the Historic Preservation Commission during the course of
their business meeting. Members of the public may be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the
Chair.
In accordance with Amendment #2 of the Mayoral Proclamation of Emergency issued on March 27, 2020, the
following restrictions have been placed on all public meetings until further notice:
In-person attendance by members of the public is prohibited.1.
Members of the public can either watch the public meeting online
https://www.orovalleyaz.gov/town/departments/town-clerk/meetings-and-agendas or, if they would like to
participate in the meeting (e.g. speak at Call to Audience or speak on a Regular Agenda item), they can
attend the meeting and participate via the on-line meeting application, Zoom,
https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/97255144501 or may participate telephonically only by (669) 900-6833 Meeting
ID: 972 5514 4501 prior to or during the posted meeting.
2.
If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, it is
highly encouraged to email your request to speak to blaue@orovalleyaz.gov and include your name and
town/city of residence in order to provide the Chair with advance notice so you can be called upon more
efficiently during the Zoom meeting.
3.
All members of the public who participate in the Zoom meeting either with video or telephonically will enter
the meeting with microphones muted. For those participating via computer/tablet/phone device, you may
choose whether to turn your video on or not. If you have not provided your name to speak prior to the
4.
meeting as specified in #3 above, you will have the opportunity to be recognized when you “raise your
hand.” Those participating via computer/tablet/phone device can click the “raise your hand” button during
the Call to the Public or Regular Agenda item, and the Chair will call on you in order, following those who
submit their names in advance. For those participating by phone, you can press *9, which will show the
Chair that your hand is raised. When you are recognized at the meeting by the Chair, your microphone will
be unmuted by a member of staff and you will have three minutes to speak before your microphone is again
muted.
For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident.
Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Commission. Please organize your speech, you will
only be allowed to address the Commission once regarding the topic being discussed.
Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
During “Call to Audience” you may address the Commission on any issue you wish.
Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present.
If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Historic Preservation Commission for
their consideration prior to the meeting, please email those comments to blaue@orovalleyaz.gov no later
than sixty minutes before the public meeting. Those comments will then be electronically distributed to the
public body prior to the meeting.
5.
If you have questions, please contact Facility Manager, Brandon Laue, at 520-229-5032 or email at
blaue@orovalleyaz.gov.
Thank you for your cooperation.
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 least five days prior to the Commission
meeting at 229-4700.
“Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council, Boards, Commissions and Committees: In accordance
with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-4 of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the
Town Council, Board of Adjustment, Historic Preservation Commission, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,
Stormwater Utility Commission, and Water Utility Commission may attend the above referenced meeting as a
member of the audience only.”
Historic Preservation Commission Study Session AGENDA ITEM: 1.
Meeting Date:09/24/2020
Requested by: Lynanne Dellerman, Parks and Recreation
Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation
DISCUSSION REGARDING FUTURE FUNDING REQUESTS FOR STEAM PUMP RANCH PRIORITIZATION
PLAN
Priority 1:
This grouping includes structures and areas inside the historic core that have not been previously addressed or
are scheduled to be. These structures are in the most need of preservation, hold the most history on the site, are
realistic in cost and adaptability, and ultimately will provide the most public usage and benefit possible based on
actual data from programming and events coordinated by the Town. The historic core is identified in the attached
map as a dashed line around portions of the property.
Specific buildings/structures associated:
1. BBQ Building/Carlos’s House – $175,000 estimate 2013 – Item G on Map
The BBQ building, also known as Carlos’s House, is a building that the Town has been patchwork funding to
repair over a number of years. The roof has been replaced and windows have been boarded up as they have
been damaged. Internally, the building suffers from foundation issues and portions of the walls are deteriorating
due to moisture making its way in from an unknown source. There was an addition to the building in later times to
establish living quarters that have been completely ravaged by the elements. It is the desire of the Town to
remove the non-historic portion of the building and make the necessary repairs needed to return it to its original
state for historical accuracy and the ability for its usage in a large number of activities that take place on the
property. Its location makes it the first structure someone sees when entering the facility through the northern
parking lot and ramada area currently used for the farmer’s market. It creates a natural flow and entry point into
parking lot and ramada area currently used for the farmer’s market. It creates a natural flow and entry point into
the site and its improvement is essential if we are to “Tell the Story of Steam Pump Ranch”. The fact it is
attached to the event lawn provides delineation to activities taking place around the ramada or on the lawn,
whether it is used as a barbeque or simply a historical structure that provides shade to visitors. Cost estimates
from 2013 show that this would be the least expensive project to address moving forward in the historic core. Staff
sees no reason to doubt this assessment and are excited about the realistic ability to provide yet another historical
space to the residents of Oro Valley to enjoy.
Bunk Houses – $219,400 estimate 2008 – Item C on Map2.
Historically the Bunk Houses provided room for those working on the ranch. Discussions have been had on how
to best use this space while still providing the ability to showcase its historical significance. The popular
determination has been conversion to restroom facilities. Further discussion from staff as well as the addition of
the northern restroom building and the 2020 ConsultEcon Adaptability Report identified dressing room space for
programming and supportive visitor amenities as other suitable uses. Staff ultimately concurs with this new vision
and also pictures a small visitor’s center/office space that would much better showcase the history of this structure.
The need for restrooms in this portion of the site is no longer necessary, versatile space would be a much better
use. There has not been a more recent cost estimate for this area, which also included a shade structure prior it
being damaged, since 2008. Staff believes that this estimate is a good baseline moving forward which can be
investigated more thoroughly if necessary, as removal of plumbing and similar type features should provide
savings vs inflation from the time of original estimate. Preservation and restoration of these two buildings would
provide not only another historical and functional portion of the property, but would create a clear path through the
site and continue to “Tell the Story of Steam Pump Ranch” through the preserved structures. On event days
visitors will park to the north, walk underneath the shade ramada and across its pavers, past Carlos’s House and
be able to smell something good cooking, across the event lawn full of activity, past the Garage Building with its
roll-up doors open to staff onsite to greet them and answer questions, peek in the Bunkhouses, and visit the
Pusch House Museum, to ultimately the final destination of the Ghosted Structure of the Steam Pump Ranch
House, which is the reason everything on the site exists.
Continuing Planting Plan – Throughout the property3.
The property's planting plan is outlined in detail as a part of the Steam Pump Ranch Assessment/Stabilization
Report from December 2014, original estimates totaled more than $2,000,000 upon full build out. The Town has
worked annually to make improvements identified in this plan. Irrigation and the event lawn are two of the most
noticeable and popular improvements which have allowed for increased activity to be had at the ranch. The
increased popularity of the Steam Pump Ranch site can be attributed directly to the planting plan which has
provided the setting for the Town’s programming and public excitement towards the ranch. It is the desire of staff
to continue improvements in the form of more trees, shrubs, and irrigation where needed to make sure more of
the ranch has the same feel as its most popular areas. The landscape generational transition “Tells the Story of
Seam Pump Ranch”
Proctor-Lieber House – $510,500 estimate 2013 – Item H on Map4.
The largest structure on the site also comes with a matching estimate to improve. The estimate from the 2013
shows the Proctor-Liber House costing over $500,000 to preserve, however this figure is absent any sort of
upgrades related to technology. Additionally there is some uncertainly as to the inclusion of the northern, more
modern portion of the structure in this estimate. As shown in the 2020 ConsultEcon Adaptability Report, this is
the only structure on the site that has been viewed as having a realistic possibility for retail or food type of usage.
This is another reason that Staff is uncomfortable with the 2013 estimate as we expect it to be significantly higher
today, but did include it for consistency. Use of this building as a place of retail or food service would require
increased infrastructure work specific to that use, and the Town feels that a partnership with the company
interested in these types of uses would bring an investment in order to make it a reality. Currently, minor repairs
are done to the structure as needed, mostly to older adobe in the walls. Its current interior use is for storage of
supplies, which the Staff sees continuing for the time being. The yard area has seen improvement as a part of the
planting plan improvements and is another event space the community can currently utilize.
Priority 2:
This grouping includes structures and areas outside of the historic core. These structures are not in as severe a
need of repair and lack the historical significance of items listed as “Priority 1”. Additionally, their location is in the
area of current activity and public usage which would provide greater overall benefit. As such, there are no
estimates included with these items.
Relocation of garden and increased parking capacity and flow – Item J on map1.
Relocation of garden and increased parking capacity and flow – Item J on map1.
The Heritage Garden was originally located inside of the historic core near the Steam Pump House, it was later
moved to its current location but still uses the original seeds from its inception for growth each year. It is the
desire of Staff to return it to its original location. This would have historical significance in being the final piece of
the puzzle in putting the ranch in the same layout as was original. An added value of this relocation would be to
turn the current area into additional parking that would be a huge benefit when events take place. This would
provide for a much more natural flow and better visitor experience when smaller activities are held on the site.
The reuse of this space for parking and placement of the garden back at it original location inside of the historic
core will complete the site and allow the Town to fully “Tell the Story of Steam Pump Ranch”.
Stables – Item L on Map2.
The Stables are currently used for storage of equipment, and there are some structural issues with the building
itself. Additionally ,the large roof is viewable from the adjacent Steam Pump Village property and is the first thing
public sees when entering the site from this direction. Improvements to this structure are viewed as necessary for
future usage for not only functionality but also aesthetics due to its size and location.
Tack House – Item K on Map3.
This building is structurally sound and split into multiple rooms which serve as storage on the site. Unless there is
a desire to drastically change the use of this building, staff sees the use of storage as necessary and no
improvement needed until other projects are addressed. That being said, the Oro Valley Historical Society has
voiced interested in using the Tack House as their final home to store historic artifacts, conduct collection
preservation and office space.
Ramadas, traffic improvements, entry portals, and landscaping in pan handle – Area in and around Stables
and Tack House
4.
As a part of the Steam Pump Ranch Assessment/Stabilization Report from December 2014 this area was
identified as needing improvements in the form of a new traffic entry point into the site, appropriate traffic
improvements, shade ramadas and landscaping where necessary. Staff sees these needs as being able to be
delayed until other upgrades are made to the property in this area.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact will ultimately vary and would be dependent on what is approved as a part of the budget
process. It would be Staff’s desire to propose items 1-3 in the “Priority 1” for the upcoming FY22 budget process.
The expenditures for these projects should be viewed as investments in the property that can realize tangible
returns in the form of Town revenues through increased rental fee collection on the property, user fees charged
through increased programming, and an increase in sales tax revenue to the Town through visitors to our
community for larger scale events which would have the ability for increase capacity through preservation and
improvement efforts. More accurate estimates can be developed if this plan is approved and future direction
becomes established.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
This item is for presentation and discussion only.
Attachments
Conditional Assessment
Historical Preservation Code
Circulation & Programming
SPRMP
SPR Directory
1-6 ConsultEcon Report
Article 6-10
HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
Sections:
6-10-1 Purpose, Mission and Objectives
6-10-2 Relation to General Plan
6-10-3 Definitions
6-10-4 Historic Property Register
6-10-5 Historic Preservation Commission
6-10-6 Incentives
6-10-7 Historic Landmark Designation Process
6-10-8 Historic District Designation
6-10-9 Certificate of Appropriateness
6-10-10 Maintenance and Repair
6-10-11 Economic Hardship
6-10-12 Appeals
6-10-13 Violations and Enforcement
6-10-14 Severability
6-10-1 Purpose, Mission and Objectives
A. Purpose. It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the Town of Oro Valley joins with
the United States of America and the State of Arizona in promoting the protection, enhancement, and
perpetuation of properties, areas, documents and artifacts of historic, cultural, archaeological and
aesthetic significance as being necessary for the economic, cultural, educational and general welfare
of the public. This is done pursuant to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
as amended, the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 9-462.01, and the establishment of this Historic
Preservation Ordinance by the Oro Valley Town Council.
B. Inasmuch as the identity of a people is founded on its past, and inasmuch as Oro Valley has
many historic, archaeological and cultural resources which constitute its heritage, this article is
intended to:
1. Identify and preserve the historic properties that represent distinctive elements of Oro Valley’s
historic, archaeological, architectural and cultural heritage; maintain and foster their unique
identities, which in turn helps to make the community a desirable place to live, work and visit.
2. Promote the use of historic properties for the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of
the Town.
3. Foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past.
4. Protect and enhance Oro Valley’s attractiveness to visitors which also provides support and
stimulus to the economy.
5. Stabilize and improve property values of rehabilitated and protected sites.
Page 1 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
6. Provide incentives for restoration by owners of landmarks or historic properties.
7. Provide standards for restoration of designated properties and for new construction within
Historic Districts.
C. Mission. The mission of the Oro Valley Historic Preservation Code is to promote the
educational, cultural and economic welfare of the Town of Oro Valley by ensuring the preservation of
historic buildings, districts, landmarks, structures, documents, photographs and other artifacts that
represent the historic background and development of the greater Oro Valley area.
D. Objectives of the Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission.
1. To maintain a code providing for the designation and preservation of historic buildings,
districts, landmarks, structures, documents, photographs, and other artifacts;
2. Under the terms of the code, to promote the designation of historic landmarks and districts;
3. To keep a register of all historic landmarks and districts;
4. To conduct an ongoing survey to identify significant buildings, districts and structures within
the town;
5. To inform and educate citizens concerning the history and heritage of Oro Valley; and
6. To create an appropriate design of historical markers for identification of historic landmarks
and districts.
((O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-2 Relation to General Plan
The administration of this article shall be pursued in accordance with the policies set forth in the Oro
Valley General Plan.
((O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-3 Definitions
For the purpose of this article, certain words, phrases and terms used herein shall have the meaning
assigned to them by this section. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present
tense include the future; words in the singular include the plural and those in the plural include the
singular. The word “shall” is mandatory; the word “may” is permissive.
Alteration: Any aesthetic, architectural, mechanical or structural change to the exterior surface of any
part of a designated property as defined herein.
Archaeological site: A site containing any structure, articles or remains resulting from prehistoric
human life, habitation or activity, including but not limited to petroglyphs, pictographs, paintings,
pottery, tools, ornamentation, jewelry, textiles, ceremonial objects, weapons, armaments, vessels or
vehicles.
Page 2 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
Building: A structure created to shelter any form of activity, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or
similar structure. “Building” may also refer to a historically related complex, such as a courthouse and
jail, or a farmhouse and barn.
Cemetery: Any site, which contains at least one burial, marked or previously marked, considered a
dedicated cemetery under Arizona State Statutes, even though it may be currently suffering neglect
and abuse.
Certificate of Appropriateness: A document issued by the Commission, following prescribed review
procedures, certifying that proposed work on a designated property is compatible with the historic
character of the property, and therefore (1) may be completed as specified in the Certificate of
Appropriateness, and (2) any building permits needed to do the work specified in the Certificate may
be issued.
Chair: The Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission or his/her designee.
Chief Building Official: The Chief Building Official of the Town of Oro Valley, or his/her designee.
Commission: The Historic Preservation Commission of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona as
described in this article.
Construction: Any site preparation, assembly, erection, repair, alteration or similar action (excluding
demolition) for or of sites, structures, public or private rights-of-way, utilities or other improvements.
Contributing: A classification applied to a building site, structure or object within a Historic District or
landmark property signifying that it contributes to the defining characteristics of the Historic District or
landmark.
Demolition: Any intentional act or process, which totally or partially destroys a designated property.
Designated Property: A property which has received Town designation as a landmark, or as a
contributing property within a Historic District, according to the provisions of this article.
Director: The Planning and Zoning Director of the Town of Oro Valley or his/her designee.
Historic District: A geographical area whose boundaries are defined by a Historic District zoning
designation which contains properties, structures, sites or objects which are considered to have
historic or cultural value.
Historic Property Register: The listing and defining of designated properties of Oro Valley as
provided in this article.
Historic Resource Survey: The official historic resource survey book of the Town as produced by
the Commission, listing and describing properties, structures, sites or objects (whether designated or
not) which are considered by the Commission to have historic or cultural value.
Integrity: A measure of the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of
physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic or prehistoric period in comparison
with its unaltered state. For example, a historic building of high integrity has few alterations or ones
Page 3 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
that can be easily reversed, and an archaeological site with high integrity is one that is relatively
undisturbed; criteria evaluated include association, design, feeling, location, and materials.
Landmark: A designation, as a result of processes provided in this article, applied by the
Commission to an individual property, structure, site or object, which has a historic value or
expresses a distinctive character worthy of preservation.
Maintenance: Regular, customary or usual care for the purpose of preserving a property and keeping
it in a safe, sanitary and usable condition, without causing any alteration to the distinctive exterior
character of the property.
Noncontributing: A classification applied to a property, site, structure or object within a Historic
District or landmark property signifying that it does not contribute to the defining characteristics of the
Historic District or landmark.
Planning and Zoning Commission: The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Oro
Valley, Arizona.
PRAB: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board of the Town of Oro Valley, Arizona.
Preservation: The act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity and
material of a structure, and the existing form and vegetative cover of a site. It may include
stabilization work where necessary, as well as ongoing maintenance of the historic materials.
Preservation Covenant: A deed restriction filed with Pima County, which identifies the property as a
landmark or a contributing property within a Historic District.
Reconstruction: The act of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a vanished
structure or object, or part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period of time.
Rehabilitation: The act or process of returning a property to a state of utility through repair or
alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use, while preserving those portions or
features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural and cultural values.
Removal: Any relocation, in part or whole, of a structure on its site or to another site.
Renovation: See Rehabilitation.
Repair: Any physical change that is not alteration, construction, removal or demolition.
Restoration: The act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a property and its
setting as it appeared at a particular period of time, by the removal of later work or by the
replacement of missing earlier work.
Review Criteria: The standards, tests, norms or guidelines applied by the Commission during any
review process, including but not limited to surveys, designations, or Certificates of Appropriateness.
Secretary of Interior Standards: Standards which pertain to historic buildings of all materials,
construction types, sizes and occupancy, and encompass the interior and exterior, developed and
Page 4 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
published by the office of the United States Secretary of the Interior, as part of the Department of the
Interior regulations.
Stabilization: The act or process of applying measures designed to re-establish a weather-resistant
enclosure and the structural stability of an unsafe or deteriorated property, while maintaining the
essential form as it exists at present.
Structure: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires a permanent or semi-
permanent location on or in the ground, including but not limited to bridges, dams, water distribution
systems, buildings, garages, fences, gazebos, advertising signs, antennas, satellite sending or
receiving dishes, paved parking or circulation areas, landscapes, sculpture, and recreational facilities.
Town: The Town of Oro Valley, Arizona.
((O)08-16, Amended, 09/03/08; (O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-4 Historic Property Register
A Historic Property Register is hereby established for the purpose of listing and defining landmarks
and Historic Districts designated under the provisions of this article.
This register may be periodically amended by the Commission, and shall be available for public
reference and historical study.
((O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-5 Historic Preservation Commission
Pursuant to Ordinance Number (O)04-45, there is created a commission to be known as the Oro
Valley Historic Preservation Commission.
A. Membership.
1. The Historic Preservation Commission shall be composed of seven (7) members and
appointed by the Town Council.
2. Prospective members should have demonstrated significant interest in and commitment to the
field of historic preservation, evidenced either by involvement in a local historic preservation group,
current non-conflicting or previous employment or volunteer activity in the field of historic
preservation, or other serious interest in the field. To the extent possible, it is desirable that two (2)
members be current or previous professionals in the areas of architecture, history, planning or
archaeology.
3. Immediately prior to assumption of the duties of office, each member shall take and subscribe
to the oath of office.
4. All Commission members shall serve without pay, except that members may be reimbursed
for actual expenses incurred in connection with their duties, upon authorization.
B. Term of Office.
Page 5 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
1. Membership appointment to the Commission shall be for a period of three (3) years. Terms
shall be staggered so that no more than three (3) members’ terms shall expire in any given year.
All terms shall begin on July 1st and shall end on June 30th or until a successor is appointed and
qualified.
2. In the event of a resignation, removal or death of a member, the Council shall fill the vacancy
for the unexpired term.
3. The Council may remove any member of the Commission by a majority vote of the majority of
the Council, or as otherwise provided by ordinance or Town Code.
4. Repealed by Ord. (O)08-16.
C. Officers.
1. The members of the Commission shall elect from among themselves a Chair and a Vice
Chair, who shall serve for one (1) year or until their successors are elected. Officers may serve
successive terms, if so chosen by the Commission.
2. The Chair shall preside at meetings and exercise the usual rights, duties and prerogatives as
the head of similar organizations. The Chair shall serve as Commission liaison with the Town staff,
and shall also be responsible for other duties as described in this article.
3. The Vice Chair shall perform the duties of Chair in the Chair’s absence or disability.
4. The members shall fill a vacancy in either office for the unexpired term through a new election.
D. Meetings.
1. The Commission shall meet monthly, unless otherwise provided.
2. A majority of members shall constitute a quorum. The affirmative vote of the majority of
members present shall be required for passage of any matter before the Commission. Any
member may abstain from voting on a matter by declaring a conflict of interest, in which case such
member shall step down and take no part in discussions or deliberations on that matter.
E. Rules.
1. The Commission shall make and publish rules to govern its proceedings, subject to approval
by the Town Council. All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public and noticed as
provided by Arizona law.
2. Minutes shall be kept of all meetings. The minutes shall include all issues considered, and
shall record the individual votes of members on each action item.
F. Powers and Duties. The responsibility of the Commission is to promote the purposes and
objectives of this article and shall include, but not be limited to the following:
1. Maintain and periodically update, as needed, a plan for historic preservation.
Page 6 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
2. Maintain review criteria to assure fair and impartial evaluation and designation of properties as
landmarks and Historic Districts. The Commission shall periodically review these criteria, and
make such adjustments or updates as may be required.
3. Maintain criteria to assure fair and impartial review of applications for Certificates of
Appropriateness.
4. Review properties proposed for designation as landmarks, explain to the owners thereof the
potential effects of designation as known to the Commission at that time and make a decision to
designate, conditionally designate, or deny designation.
5. Review property nominations for designation as a Historic District, explain to the owners
thereof the potential effects of designation as known to the Commission at that time and make
recommendations regarding rezoning to a Historic District to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
6. Propose design guidelines appropriate to individual Historic Districts.
7. Review and approve, conditionally approve or deny applications for a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
8. Maintain the Historic Property Register.
9. Determine and cause to be created a system of markers for designated properties.
10. Recognize the owners of designated properties. Issue commendations to owners of historical
properties who have rehabilitated their property in an exemplary manner.
11. When Town Council approval is appropriate, make recommendations to the Town Council
regarding the acquisition of property suitable for preservation.
12. Make recommendations to the Town Council regarding the utilization of federal, state, Town
or private funds to promote historic preservation.
13. Make recommendations to Town Council to accept gifts, grants, funds, contributions, and
bequests from individuals and public and private entities, agencies, foundations, trusts,
corporations, and other organizations or institutions.
14. Cooperate with and enlist the assistance of persons, organizations, foundations and public
agencies in matters involving historic preservation, rehabilitation and reuse, with Town Council
approval as appropriate.
15. Increase public awareness of the values of historic, cultural, archaeological and architectural
preservation, by developing and participating in public education programs.
16. Annually prepare written reports of Commission activities; submit such reports to the Town
Council and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). These reports shall be available for
public review.
Page 7 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
17. Conduct detailed studies and surveys of properties and areas and assess their potential for
designation.
18. Periodically review the Historic Resource Survey and consider the inclusion of any
properties, which may have come to meet the requirements herein, and the deletion of any
properties which may no longer exist.
19. Work with and assist departments of the Town in matters affecting historic preservation.
20. Assist property owners, on request, on the restoration, rehabilitation, alteration, decoration,
landscaping, or maintenance of any historic property.
21. Encourage and assist property owners of historic properties on procedures for inclusion on
State historic listings and the National Register of Historic Places.
22. Work collaboratively with PRAB in the design and use of parks and park-like areas which
have a historic or archeological significance.
23. Establish liaison with groups and organizations as appropriate.
24. Carry out such other duties as may be determined by the Town Council, and present other
such recommendations as may be deemed pertinent.
G. Committees. Advisory committees may be created by the Chair or by the Commission to study
and report on pertinent matters. Such committees may include citizens who are not members of the
Commission, but shall include at least one Commission member who shall serve as Chair of the
committee. Committees appointed for a specific task shall dissolve when the task is completed and its
report has been presented to the Commission.
((O)08-16, Amended, 09/03/08; (O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-6 Incentives
It is the intent of the Town to make ownership of a landmark or contributing property within a Historic
District as beneficial as possible. In addition to the intangible benefits of owning a property recognized
as an important community resource, the Council and Commission may, when applicable and
possible, provide such owners with one or more of the following:
A. Recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Department that an alternate or transitional use be
considered;
B. Advice in locating potential sources of financial assistance and tax credits;
C. Advice in preparing grant applications and potential third party sponsorship;
D. Technical information and referrals;
E. Assistance in locating buyers and/or sellers;
F. Assistance in the formulation of a neighborhood association;
Page 8 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
G. Assistance in obtaining other benefits as may become available.
((O)08-16, Amended, 09/03/08; (O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-7 Historic Landmark Designation Process
The Commission may designate as a landmark an entire property, an identified portion of a property,
or one or more individual structures on a property.
A. Application Submittal and Review Requirements. An application for a landmark designation
shall be submitted by the owner of the subject property or agent and involves the following steps:
1. Pre-Application Consultation. Prior to the submittal of an application for a landmark
designation, the applicant should consult with the Director to explain the application submittal
requirements.
2. Application Submittal Requirements. An application for a landmark designation shall contain at
a minimum the following, any of which may be waived by the Director, as authorized by the
Commission:
a. Completed application form.
b. Location and description of property.
c. Filing fee.
d. Statement or letter of authorization from the property owner, if different from the applicant.
e. An ownership map of property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the exterior
boundaries of the subject property as shown on the last assessment of the property. A list of
these property owners shall also be provided on mailing labels and keyed to the map showing
the location of the identified properties.
f. A written description of the proposed property. Description should include special aesthetic,
cultural, architectural, archaeological or engineering interest or value of a historic nature,
including information about the architecture, notable construction features and other information
indicating the historical significance of the property. Sketches, drawings, photographs, or other
descriptive materials may be included.
g. A written statement of condition of property and/or structure(s) including any known threats
thereto.
h. Other information as may be requested.
3. Incomplete applications may be returned to the applicant and not processed until all materials
have been submitted. If all the required materials have been submitted, the application shall be
considered complete and shall be accepted by the Director. Following acceptance of a complete
application, the Director shall conduct a formal review and prepare a comprehensive report which
shall be submitted to the Commission and made available to the applicant, media and general
Page 9 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
public at least seven (7) days prior to the Commission’s public hearing on the landmark
application.
4. Upon acceptance of a complete application, no building or demolition permits affecting the
proposed landmark shall be issued by the Town until the process as described herein has been
completed and the Commission has made its decision.
B. Notice of Commission Hearing.
1. Upon receipt of a complete application for a landmark designation, the Chair shall place it on
the agenda for a public hearing within thirty (30) days. Public notice of this hearing shall be given
as prescribed herein.
2. The Town shall give notice of the date, time, and place of a public hearing for consideration of
a proposed landmark, including general explanation of the matter to be considered and a general
description of the area affected at least fifteen (15) days before the hearing in the following
manner:
a. Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town.
b. Posting on the affected property so that the words “Public Hearing” and the date and time
of the hearing are visible from a distance of one hundred (100) feet. It shall be the responsibility
of the applicant to maintain the posting once erected.
c. Notification by first class mail shall be sent to each real property owner as shown on the
last assessment of the property within three hundred (300) feet of the property to be
landmarked.
d. In addition to notice by the means set forth above, the Town may give notice of the hearing
in a specific case in such other manner as it deems necessary or appropriate.
e. As provided in A.R.S. 9-462.04.A(7), or any successor statute, the failure of any person or
entity to receive notice as set forth in the statute shall not constitute grounds for any court to
invalidate the actions of the Town.
3. Persons with specific issues or concerns regarding a proposed landmark are encouraged to
contact the Planning and Zoning Department in writing, by phone or in person prior to the hearing.
C. Landmark Designation Criteria. The Commission shall evaluate each structure, site, building
or property within an area that is included in an application and may designate it as a landmark if it is
determined to have historical or other cultural significance or integrity, and is suitable for preservation,
using the following criteria:
1. Association with events that have made significant contributions to the broad patterns of our
history.
2. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past.
Page 10 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
3. Embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or
representing the work of a master, or high artistic values or representing a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinctions.
4. Yielding information important in the understanding of the pre-history or history of our
community.
5. Being at least fifty (50) years old, or having achieved significance within the past 50 years if
the property is of exceptional importance.
6. Possessing integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or
association.
D. Commission Public Hearing and Designation.
1. The Commission shall hold at least one public hearing on each landmark application. At the
public hearing, the Commission shall review the proposal with consideration given to the review
criteria. Approval, conditional approval or denial of a landmark application shall be based on the
findings of the Commission as they relate to the criteria.
2. The Commission’s decision shall be final unless appealed to the Town Council as provided for
in this article. A recommendation for approval may be subject to conditions as the Commission
deems applicable.
E. One (1) Year Bar on Refiling. If the Commission denies an application, the Commission may
refuse to accept another application for the same or substantially the same landmark on the same
property or any part of it within one (1) year of the date the original application was filed on the same
property or a portion of it.
F. Removal of Landmark. The procedure to remove a landmark status from a property shall be the
same as the procedure to designate. However, in the case of removal of a landmark designation, the
Commission may initiate the application.
G. Effect of Landmark Designation.
1. Upon approval of a landmark designation, the affected property shall be included in the
Historic Property Register and on any other applicable documents as appropriate for its
preservation.
2. Once approved, the historic landmark designation and applicable restrictions shall be
recorded in the office of the Pima County Recorder as notice to all future owners of the designated
property.
3. No person shall carry out any exterior alteration, restoration, renovation, reconstruction, new
construction, demolition or removal, in whole or in part, on any landmark, without first obtaining a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the Commission.
Page 11 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
4. No person shall make any material change in the exterior appearance of any landmark, its
color, materials, light fixtures, signs, sidewalks, fences, steps, paving or other elements which
affect the appearance of the property without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness.
5. Each property designated as a landmark shall be maintained in good condition and faithful to
its historic character.
6. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair, which
does not involve change in the exterior design, material, color or appearance.
((O)08-16, Amended, 09/03/08; (O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-8 Historic District Designation
A. A rezoning approval is required in order to receive a Historic District designation.
B. The Historic District is an overlay zone in which designated properties retain the uses of and are
subject to the regulations of the underlying zoning. The underlying zoning which relates primarily to
land use and density, continues to be administered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The
Historic Preservation Commission administers the regulations as they relate to the Historic District
designation.
C. The Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, Town Council, a property owner or
agent of property owner of the area subject to the request may initiate a request to rezone to a
Historic District.
D. Application Submittal and Review.
1. Pre-Application Consultation. A pre-application consultation between the applicant and the
Director is required in order for the Director to explain the rezoning review process and application
submittal requirements.
2. Application Submittal Requirements. In addition to the submittal requirements set forth in Oro
Valley Zoning Code Revised Section 22.3, all Historic District rezoning applications shall include
the following:
a. Written description of the proposed Historic District. Description should include
approximate construction dates, special aesthetic features, cultural, architectural,
archaeological or engineering interest or value of a historic nature, including information about
the architecture, notable construction features, and other information indicating the historical
significance.
b. Identification of prospective Contributing Properties and how they each meet one or more
of the Historic District criteria.
c. Current sketches, photographs or drawings.
d. Statement of condition of all structures.
e. Explanation of any known threats to any property or structures involved.
Page 12 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
E. Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Notice of the Commission’s public hearing shall be the same as set forth in the Oro Valley
Zoning Code Revised Section 22.3.
2. Upon publication of notice required above, no person shall make any material change in the
exterior appearance of any property affected by said notice, its color, materials, light fixtures,
signs, sidewalks, fences, steps, paving or other elements which affect the appearance of the
property until the finalization of the designation process described in this article; provided, that
nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair that does not
involve changes in exterior design, material, color or appearance.
F. Historic District Designation Criteria. Each structure, site, building or property within an area
that is included in a Historic District rezoning application will be evaluated using the following criteria
to determine if it has historical or other cultural significance or integrity and is suitable for
preservation:
1. Association with events that have made significant contributions to the broad patterns of our
history.
2. Association with the lives of persons significant in our past.
3. Embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction, or
representing the work of a master, or high artistic values or representing a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinctions.
4. Yielding information important in the understanding of the pre-history or history of the
community.
5. Being at least fifty (50) years old, or having achieved significance within the past fifty (50)
years if the property is of exceptional importance.
6. Possessing integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or
association.
G. Adoption of Historic District.
1. Action by the Historic Preservation Commission. Upon completing its public hearing on the
Historic District application, the Historic Preservation Commission shall transmit its
recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2. The Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation shall include the following:
a. A map showing the proposed boundaries of the Historic District and identifying all
structures within the boundaries, including classification as contributing or noncontributing.
b. An explanation of the significance of the proposed district and description of the cultural
resources within the proposed boundaries.
Page 13 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
c. A set of findings documenting the recommendation of the Historic Preservation
Commission.
d. Proposed design guidelines for applying the criteria for review of Certificate of
Appropriateness to the nominated Historic District.
e. The recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission may include reasonable
additional conditions and/or modifications to the proposed district property boundaries as
deemed necessary to promote the purpose of the District.
3. Action by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall
hold a public hearing to consider the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendations.
Following conclusion of its public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall transmit its
recommendation and the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission to Town
Council.
4. Action by the Town Council. The Town Council shall hold a public hearing to consider the
recommendations of the Historic Preservation and Planning and Zoning Commissions. Following
conclusion of its public hearing, the Council may approve the Historic District as recommended or
in a modified form, stipulating those conditions it deems necessary to carry out the purpose of this
district and this code.
5. Documentation. The appropriate supporting statements, design guidelines and documents
submitted with the application for a Historic District shall be considered by the Council and
included in any ordinance establishing the Historic District.
6. Recordation. Once approved, the Historic District designation and applicable restrictions shall
be recorded in the office of the Pima County Recorder as notice to all future property owners within
the Historic District.
H. Effect of Historic District Designation.
1. Upon approval of a Historic District designation by the Town Council, the affected property
(ies) shall be included in the Historic Property Register and on any other applicable documents as
appropriate for its preservation. The Town’s zoning map shall be updated to reflect the new zoning
district boundaries. The Town’s parcel information database shall be updated to include those
properties identified within the Historic District as contributing and noncontributing.
2. No person shall carry out any exterior alteration, restoration, renovation, reconstruction, new
construction, demolition or removal, in whole or in part, without first obtaining a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Commission.
3. No person shall make any material change in the exterior appearance of a designated
property, its color, materials, light fixtures, signs, sidewalks, fences, steps, paving or other
elements which affect the appearance of the property without first obtaining a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Page 14 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
4. Each property designated as a contributing property shall be maintained in good condition and
faithful to its historic character.
5. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair that does
not involve change in exterior design, material, color or appearance.
6. In addition to any other required review and/or approval, any proposed construction within a
Historic District shall also be subject to Commission review according to any design guidelines
which may have been applied to that District and other applicable criteria.
((O)08-16, Amended, 09/03/08; (O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-9 Certificate of Appropriateness
A Certificate of Appropriateness is required before commencing any exterior improvements or
development, including alteration, restoration, renovation, reconstruction, new construction,
demolition or removal, in whole or in part, of a landmark or property located within a Historic District,
whether or not the work will require a building permit. Building permits for exterior work on landmarks
or properties within Historic Districts shall not be issued without first obtaining a Certificate of
Appropriateness. If a building permit is sought from the Town without a Certificate of Appropriateness,
the issuance of the permit shall be deferred until after a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by
the Historic Preservation Commission.
A. Application Submittal and Review Procedure. An application for Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be submitted by the owner of the subject property or agent and involves the
following steps:
1. Pre-Application Consultation. Prior to the submittal of an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, the applicant should consult with the Director to explain the application submittal
requirements.
2. Application Submittal Requirements. An application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall
contain at a minimum the following:
a. Completed application form.
b. Location and description of property with photographs of areas affected by proposed
project.
c. Filing fee.
d. A letter of intent describing the overall project specifically addressing architectural style, its
compatibility within its context area, building materials, colors, exterior lighting, signage and
landscaping if applicable.
e. Site plan identifying all existing and proposed structures.
f. Scaled illustrations showing all existing and proposed site improvements and conditions,
landscaping, signage and building elevations.
Page 15 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
g. Samples of all proposed exterior paints or stains and colors and samples of roof and other
exterior materials to be used, with an explanation on how they relate to existing colors and
materials.
h. If the proposal includes signs or lettering, a scale drawing showing dimensions, lettering,
colors, materials and any illumination.
i. Any additional information which the Commission may require to visualize the proposed
work.
3. Acceptance of Application. Upon receipt of an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness,
the Director shall complete a preliminary review within five (5) working days to ensure that all the
required materials have been submitted. Incomplete applications shall be returned to the applicant
and not processed until all materials have been submitted. If all the required materials have been
submitted, the application shall be considered complete and shall be accepted by the Director.
B. Notice of Public Hearing.
1. Upon receipt of a complete application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Chair shall
place it on the agenda for a public hearing within thirty (30) days. Public notice of this hearing shall
be given as prescribed herein.
2. The Town shall give notice of the date, time and place of a public hearing for consideration of
a Certificate of Appropriateness, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered
and a general description of the area affected at least fifteen (15) days before the hearing in the
following manner:
a. Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town.
b. Posting on the affected property in accordance with Town posting requirements.
c. Notification by first class mail shall be sent to each real property owner as shown on the
last assessment of the property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property.
3. Following acceptance of a complete application, the Director shall conduct a formal review
and prepare a comprehensive report, which shall be submitted to the Commission and made
available to the applicant, media and general public seven (7) calendar days prior to the
Commission’s public hearing. Commission members shall make every effort to inspect the
property prior to the hearing.
4. At the hearing, concerned persons may present testimony and/or documentary evidence that
will become part of the record of the hearing and the deliberations of the Commission.
C. Commission Review and Decision.
1. It is the intent of this article to ensure, insofar as possible, that properties designated as a
landmark or a property within a Historic District shall be in harmony with the architectural and
historical character of the property or district.
Page 16 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
2. When reviewing an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Commission may
approve, conditionally approve or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness based on the following:
a. The proposed work does not detrimentally alter, destroy or adversely affect any
architectural or landscape feature; and
b. The proposed work will be compatible with the relevant historic, cultural, educational or
architectural qualities characteristic of the structure, or district and shall include but not be
limited to elements of size, scale, massing, proportions, orientation, surface textures and
patterns, details and embellishments and the relationship of these elements to one another; and
c. The proposed work conforms to review guidelines and/or other applicable criteria; and
d. The exterior of any new improvement, building or structure in a designated Historic District
or upon a landmarked site will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external
appearance of existing designated buildings and structures on the site or within a Historic
District.
3. Review Guidelines and Criteria. The Commission may utilize the following documents and
criteria as guidelines when considering an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness:
a. Approved design guidelines for a designated Historic District.
b. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
c. Secretary of the Interior’s Preservation Briefs and other information developed by U.S.
Department of Interior Park Service, Arizona Historic Preservation Office, National Trust for
Historic Preservation, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, Association of
Preservation Technology, and the Old House Journal.
d. Any other guidelines as adopted by the Town.
4. No change shall be made in the approved plans of a project after issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness without resubmittal to the Commission and approval of the change in the same
manner as provided for issuance.
5. A Certificate of Appropriateness expires six (6) months from the date of issuance unless
substantial work is started within that time.
6. If work exceeds that specified in the Certificate of Appropriateness, the Certificate of
Appropriateness shall be deemed to be revoked, a stop work order issued, and no further building
activities shall be allowed until another Certificate of Appropriateness is applied for and issued by
the Commission.
7. The Certificate of Appropriateness required by this article shall be in addition to any other
permit(s) or review required for the proposed project.
D. Demolition of Historic Landmark or a Contributing Property within a Historic District.
Page 17 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
1. No person shall demolish a landmark or contributing property within a Historic District or cause
or permit such demolition to be done, nor shall any permit for such demolition be issued unless the
demolition is approved by the Commission and a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued.
2. A landmark or contributing property may be demolished if:
a. The Chief Building Official has determined that an imminent safety hazard exists and that
demolition of the structure is the only feasible means to secure the public safety; or
b. The Commission finds, after review, that maintenance, use and/or alteration of the
designated property in accordance with the requirements of this article would cause immediate
and substantial hardship on the property owner(s) because rehabilitation in a manner which
preserves the historic integrity of the resource:
i. Is infeasible from a technical, mechanical, or structural standpoint; and/or
ii. Would leave the property with no reasonable economic value because it would require
an unreasonable expenditure taking into account such factors as current market value,
permitted uses of the property, and the cost of compliance with applicable local, state and
federal requirements. Costs necessitated by the neglect or failure of the current owner(s) to
maintain the property need not be considered in making this finding; or
iii. The Commission finds that the demolition of a contributing property would not have a
substantial adverse impact on the historic significance or integrity of a Historic District.
3. The applicant shall bear the burden of proof for all findings required for approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition.
4. If demolition is approved, the Commission may require the property owners to publish notice
at least ten (10) days prior to the scheduled demolition date, in a newspaper of general circulation,
of the availability of materials for salvage. Upon request, the Commission may make this
information available to persons who may be interested in contacting the owner(s) to arrange for
possible salvage of historic building materials.
((O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-10 Maintenance and Repair
Each property designated as a landmark, and properties designated as contributing properties within
a Historic District shall be maintained in good condition and faithful to its historic character. Nothing in
this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any exterior feature of any
structure designated as a landmark or contributing property within a Historic District which does not
involve change in design, material, color or outward appearance. The Commission shall not consider
the interior arrangements or alterations to the interior of a building, unless authorization would impact
the exterior.
((O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-11 Economic Hardship
Page 18 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
A. An application for demolition or removal of a landmark or property within a Historic District may, if
appropriate, be accompanied by a request for relief from economic hardship.
B. Before granting such request, the Commission shall study the historic or cultural value of the
property, and shall review options including incentives to the owner for restoration, or
recommendation to Council that the Town purchase the property.
C. Separate standards and application requirements may be established by the Town for granting
economic hardship relief for income-producing properties and for non-income producing properties.
1. Investment or income producing properties: Economic hardship relief may be granted if the
applicant satisfactorily demonstrates that a reasonable rate of return cannot be obtained from a
property which retains features which contribute to its distinctive character in its present condition
nor if rehabilitated, either by the current owner or a potential buyer.
2. Non-income producing properties: Economic hardship relief may be granted if the applicant
satisfactorily demonstrates that the property has no reasonable use as a single-family dwelling or
for institutional use in its present condition or if rehabilitated, either by the current owner or a
potential buyer.
D. Economic hardship relief shall not be granted due to any of the following circumstances: willful
destructive acts committed or caused by the owner; purchase of the property for substantially more
than its fair market value; failure to perform normal maintenance and repair; or failure to diligently
solicit and retain tenants or provide normal tenant improvements.
((O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-12 Appeals
Any person or group of persons aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may appeal to the Town
Council within ten (10) working days of the Commission’s action, by filing with the Town Clerk written
notice of appeal and any applicable fee as may be adopted. The Council shall render a decision to
sustain, conditionally overrule or overrule the Commission decision. The Council may choose to hold
a public hearing.
((O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-13 Violations and Enforcement
A. All work performed pursuant to a Certificate of Appropriateness under this article shall conform to
requirements thereof. Compliance shall be confirmed by inspections made by the Chief Building
Official and the Commission Chairman or his/her designee. Certain requirements of the Certificate,
such as signs, lighting, landscaping and site development shall be reviewed for compliance.
B. Any action regarding a violation of any provision of this article shall be brought to the Town
Attorney. Any person, firm, corporation or other entity found to be in violation of any provision of this
article shall be charged, at a maximum, with a class 1 misdemeanor. Each day in violation shall
constitute a separate offense.
Page 19 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
C. Any person who causes unauthorized demolition, alteration, construction, or permits degradation
or disrepair of a designated property as defined in this article, or property proposed to be included in
a Historic District, may be required to restore the property and site to its condition prior to the
violation. The civil remedy shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal prosecution and
penalty. Until completion of restoration, no permits for anything other than restoration shall be issued
for the property by the Town.
((O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
6-10-14 Severability
This article and its sections are hereby declared to be severable. If any section, subsection, clause,
word or phrase of this article is held to be void, unlawful or unconstitutional, such holdings shall not
affect the validity of the remainder of this article or of the Oro Valley Zoning Code Revised.
((O)06-20, Added, 10/04/2006)
Compile Chapter
The Oro Valley Town Code is current through Ordinance (O)
14-16, passed December 3, 2014.
Disclaimer: The Town Clerk's Office has the official version of the
Oro Valley Town Code. Users should contact the Town Clerk's
Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited
above.
Page 20 of 20Article 6-10 HISTORIC PRESERVATION CODE
2/25/2015http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/html/orovalley06/orovalley0610.html
Master Plan
Final Report
Steam Pump Ranch
May 2008
Steam Pump Ranch
Master Plan
Final Report
May 2008
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Reporti
Table of Contents
Project Team.......................................................................................iii
1.0 Introduction and Overview..................................................................1
2.0 Timeline...............................................................................................14
3.0 Master Plan Detail..............................................................................18 4.0 Market Analysis and Operating Plan for Steam Pump Ranch...........................................
5.0 Cost Estimates...................................................................................
6.0 Appendix............................................................................................A1
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report ii
This page is blank
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Reportiii
Consultant Team
Poster Frost Associates
Architects / Planners / Project Manager
SAGE Landscape Architecture
and Environmental
Landscape Architecture and Environmental
Desert Archaeology, Inc.
Cultural Resources and Archaeology
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Environmental Planning
Stantec Consulting
Civil Engineering
Compusult
Cost Estimating
ConsultEcon
Economic Analysis
Steam Pump RanchMaster Plan Task Force
Dick Eggerding
Oro Valley Historical Society
Patricia Spoerl
Historic Preservation Commission
Bill Adler
Planning and Zoning Commission
Margot Hurst
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Michael Zinkin
Development Review Board
Bob Baughman
Citizen at large
Linda Mayro
Pima County Cultural Resources
and Historic Preservation Office
Bill Collins
State Historic Preservation Office
Gregg Alpert
Evergreen Devco, Development Company
Town of Oro Valley Council
Paul H. Loomis
Mayor
Helen Dankwerth
Vice-Mayor
Paula Abbott
Council Member
Kenneth “KC” Carter
Council Member
Barry Gillaspie
Council Member
Al Kunisch
Council Member
Terry Parish
Council Member
Town of Oro Valley Staff
Sarah More
Planning and Zoning Director
Bayer Vella
Principle Planner
Pamela Pelletier
Planning Staff
Scott Nelson
Special Projects Coordinator
Ainsley Reeder
Parks and Recreation Department Director
Town of Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission
Bob Baughman
Chair
Salette Latas
Vice-Chair
Patricia Spoerl
Commissioner
Marilyn Cook
Commissioner
Lois Nagy
Commissioner
Daniel Zwiener
Commissioner
Project Team
OMNITUCSONNATIONALGOLFRESORT
HILTONELCONQUISTADORPUSCHRIDGECOURSE
OROVALLEYCOUNTRYCLUB
ELCONQUISTADORCOUNTRYCLUB
ELCONQUISTADORCOUNTRYCLUB
GOLFCLUBATVISTOSO
SUNCITYRANCHOVISTOSOGOLFCOURSE
STONECANYONGOLFCLUB NTWI
NLAKESDRN O R A CLERDNTHORNYDALERDW TANGERINERD NRANCHOVISTOSOBL
W NARANJA DR
WMAGEERD NLAGODELOROPWNNORTHERNAVE INA RD
E WILDS
RD
E WILDS RD
W LAMBERT LN
WHARDY RDNLACHOLLABL
NMONALISARDE TANGERINE RD
N
1
S
T
A
V
E NARANJA DR
W LINDA VISTA BL
CALLE CONCORDIA
W MOORE RD
W OVERTON RD
W CAMINO DEL NORTE
NLACHOLLABLNSHANNONRDNLACANADADREINNOV ATIONPARKD R
I-10
SR77I-19SR 8 6
S
R
79
SR83I-10
I-191 MIle
Steam Pump Ranch
Oro Valley, AZ
Tucson, AZ
Santa Catalina Mountains
Regional Map
Town of Oro Valley Map
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report1
Residents of the Santa Cruz Valley in Southern
Arizona generally perceive the Town of Oro
Valley as a vigorous young community, but,
in reality, it has a real and deep history in this
region. The Steam Pump Ranch on North Oracle
Roads represents a living piece of that history.
The historic preservation efforts of the Town of
Oro Valley and its partner, Pima County, have
the potential to bring that history back to life. It
is an opportunity to give residents and visitors an
exciting window into the past, allowing the Town
of Oro Valley to add this Steam Pump Ranch site
to Honeybee Village and Catalina State Park, and
to further establish its proper place in the unfolding
history of Southern Arizona.
History
In 1874, two German immigrants – George
Pusch and Johann Zellweger – arrived in Arizona
and established the Steam Pump Ranch as an
important way-station in the mercantile structure
of the southern Arizona cattle industry and in
the transportation corridor to Oracle and points
north. The two entrepreneurial immigrants used
a steam engine as the state-of-the-art power to
pump water from the shallow aquifer and to make
it an oasis in the arid landscape of the region.
This “Steam Pump” gave its name to the ranch
itself. George Pusch and his wife Matilda Feldman
were active business people and citizens of the
region. The Pusch family operated a downtown
butcher shop and ice plant along the railroad in
Tucson. George Pusch was also active in Tucson
politics and an instrumental voice in the Territorial
Legislature during the evolution to Statehood.
During that same era, the Steam Pump Ranch
figured in the military operations based from Fort
Lowell in Tucson and in relation to other military
encampments.
In 1933, John Procter migrated from Pasadena,
California, to become the manager of the Pioneer
Hotel. He made the Steam Pump Ranch the bread-
basket for his upscale hotel and raised produce
and eggs for the enterprise. “Jack” Procter was an
active businessman in Tucson with a seat on the
The Santa Catalina Mountains provide a majestic backdrop to the
Steam Pump Ranch site in Oro Valley, Arizona
Introduction and Overview
1903 GLO Survey of Pusch’s Steam Pump Ranch
Stationary from Pusch’s butcher shop in downtown Tucson
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 2
Valley National Bank board and a stint as president
of the Chamber of Commerce in 1966. Jack and
Elizabeth Procter’s daughter Betty married Hank
Leiber, a prominent professional baseball player
for the Chicago Cubs and the New York Giants.
As the baseball spring-training industry emerged
in Tucson in the 1950s, the Steam Pump Ranch
became an occasional headquarters for parties and
barbeques for professional baseball players training
in Tucson. The site remained in the hands of John
and Cheryl Leiber until its acquisition in 2007 by
the Town of Oro Valley.
1960 Aerial with Current Steam Pump Ranch property boundary shown
John Monroe “Jack” Procter in 1941.
Image courtesy of the Arizona Historical Society
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report3
Today
Today the material remains of the Steam Pump
Ranch stand mostly intact along the banks of the
Cañada del Oro, in the shadow of Pusch Ridge and
the Santa Catalina Mountains. The site is tucked
away in the midst of a busy modern commercial
corridor along North Oracle Road, just north of
the contemporary roads of First Avenue and La
Reserve. With the acquisition of this property
by the Town of Oro Valley, in partnership with
Pima County, we now have the means to tell
important Steam Pump Ranch stories in a setting
that can preserve its significance and integrity.
Of special importance is the key commercial
role this site has played in the ranching, water,
and food production businesses of Tucson and
the region. With appropriate capital investment
in historic preservation of the buildings, artifacts
and landscape, a plan for creative interpretation, a
blueprint for economic sustainability, and a long-
range vision for stewardship, the Steam Pump Ranch can be brought back to life as a vehicle for
education and inspiration. This Steam Pump Ranch
Master Plan is intended as a tool to do precisely
that.
Since this 2005 Aerial, commercial development at Steam Pump Village northeast of the ranch site has begun
Pusch Ranch House and historic ranch setting, 2007
Steam Pump Village
Steam Pump Ranch15.5 Acres
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 4
Goal
The goal of this Master Plan process is to help the
Town of Oro Valley – its residents and its Town
Council – to decide on a strategy for the future of
this 15-acre property: a future that strengthens Oro
Valley’s firm connection to the past. Master Plans,
in general, are not meant to be rigid definitions
of future activities. Instead, they are intended to
provide a precise but flexible framework so that the
next decision that needs to be made can be made
in the context of, and consistent with, an overall
long-term vision. A Master Plan, by its nature,
generates overall concepts and recommendations
for a site, based on desired goals and outcomes.
Process
The Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan was
developed in the context of very active
involvement of Town and region residents and with the careful oversight of the Mayor and Town Council and its appointed advisory committees and commissions. The immediate steward of the planning process was the Steam Pump Ranch Task Force appointed by the Mayor and Town Council of Oro Valley. The charge to the Task Force by the Mayor and Town Council, was to:• Evaluate studies, public meeting input, and develop use and site design alternatives.• Formulate a final recommendation on the Master Plan document and Design Scenario to be considered by the Historic Preservation Commission and Town Council.
The Oro Valley Preservation Historic Commission was charged with the larger oversight of the process and was actively engaged with the Master Plan at most of its monthly meetings. The Mayor and Town Council also participated in extensive review and commentary in three formal Town Council meetings and a lengthy Study Session. There were three public meetings to gather commentary directly from the community.
The Master Plan itself was organized around a carefully-structured process using a “Rational
Planning” model. The first step in this process was
the extensive gathering of factual, technical and
historical information about this site. Economic
and marketing analysis of comparable sites was
also collected and it informed the planning process.
These facts were presented to the residents of
Oro Valley in a public meeting on September 6,
2007. From the citizen input at this meeting and
other commentary, the Task Force defined the
guiding principles that would become the project
evaluation criteria. The Steam Pump Ranch Task Force met on a monthly basis (and occasionally more often as needed) from the summer of 2007 through March of 2008. The Task Force developed the following project guidelines as a starting point for the Master Plan work and as a set of criteria from which to evaluate alternative design concepts:
Members of the Task Force working through the planning process
The Town’s Founding Father, the late Jim Kreigh, speaking at the
dedication of the site on August 15th, 2007
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report5
Project Guiding Principles
1. All of the elements of the Steam Pump Master
Plan must focus on authenticity.
2. The improvements to the site must conform to
the preservation policies of Pima County.
• the Oro Valley/Pima County IGA
• the 2004 Pima County Bond language
• Pima County’s preservation easement
• and standards of eligibility for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places.
3. Steam Pump Ranch should appeal to a broad
range of visitors.
• youth/school children
• winter visitors
• local residents
• visiting friends and relatives
• academics
• seniors
• students of history
4. The site should be a part of the Santa Cruz
Valley National Heritage Area with other historical
sites including• Catalina State Park• Honeybee Village Archaeological Preserve
5. There are stories that need to be told about the Steam Pump Ranch: • a stop-over on the route of territorial commerce• the food connection: Tucson and Steam Pump Ranch• the role of immigrants in southern Arizona• the story of technology in everyday life• the daily life of the ranch: fun, hardship, risks • the role of Native Americans on this site• Steam Pump Ranch and military activities
6. The site should demonstrate and teach about the long-term natural ecology of our landscape • the evolution of the property over time• water• drainage• plant materials• wildlife
7. The development of engaging programs will be
critical to the success of the site.
8. Partners that bring something of value will be
important to the development of this site
9. The Steam Pump Ranch program must be
carefully crafted to be economically sustainable
but “without selling our soul.” Any commercial
activity must be directly tied to the core education
and preservation mission of the Steam Pump
Ranch site.
10. The proper stewardship of the site is essential.
This can best be achieved by building an evolving
program on a solid foundation.
Location of the Steam Pump Ranch on the route of Territorial
Commerce. Approximate area of Pima and Pinal Counties involved
in Pusch and Zellweger’s ranching enterprises. Cattle on the way
to market, via the railroad from Tucson, would be watered at the
Steam Pump Ranch. Image courtesy Hank Zipf
Pusch and Zellweger’s Feldman Ranch Headquarters
Steam PumpRanch Headquarters
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 6
Alternative Concepts
From these ten principles, three distinct Master
Plan concepts were developed as alternative means
to preserve and interpret the site. After review
and commentary by the Task Force, these three
concepts were presented to residents at a public
meeting on November 7, 2007. The three concepts
were organized around three different approaches
to interpretation:
1. Eras of Oro Valley History, a rehabilitation
approach
2. A Day in the Life, 1944, a preservation
approach
3. Two Periods (Pusch/Procter), a restoration
approach
Preferred Plan
As is typical, the preferred plan evolved as a
hybrid of the three alternatives studied. From an
interpretive perspective, the consensus conclusion
was the preference to tell the stories of the
two major family eras on the site: the Pusch
Family period (1874 – 1933) and the Procter
Family period (1933 – 2007) with a “period of
significance” for the site of 1874-1960. The intent
of this interpretive strategy was to highlight the
differences in technology, architecture, landscape,
water use, food production, transportation,
commerce, education, and leisure activities of these
two distinct eras. The layout of the Steam Pump
Ranch happily facilitates a north-south imaginary
line to be drawn through the site and to use the
preserved buildings, landscape and artifacts on
either side of this line to tell the distinctly different
stories of these two eras. The additional guideline
that emerged from the Task Force in response to
the three concept plans, was the desire to keep any
significant new structures or commercial activities
out of the historical core of the Steam Pump
Ranch.
A Day in the Life, 1944
Two Periods (Pusch / Procter)
Eras of Oro Valley History
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report7
The Master Plan
(See Chapter 3, for Master Plan Detail)
The Master Plan itself is organized by three
separate phases:
1. The Pre-Opening Phase is intended to invest
modest available and attainable funds to stabilize
the site and threatened structures, to restore and
rehabilitate the Pusch Ranch House (and hopefully
the Pump House Building) and to prepare the
site for future investment. It is intended that,
during this phase, the public would be allowed
limited access to the site, with docent-led tours
by appointment only. The capital cost of this
phase would range from $300,000 to $700,000
depending on available funding. This phase would
be implemented from May 1, 2008 through fall,
2009. Included in this cost should be design and
implementation of modest signage for current orientation and interpretation as well as graphics that characterize the Opening Phase (below) to generate interest and Town support.
2. The Opening Phase anticipates major capital
investment in:
• infrastructure development in grading,
power, gas, domestic water, fire protection,
wastewater, and drainage.
• landscape restoration, new plant materials
and gardens, irrigation, water harvesting,
walking paths, drives, parking, fencing and
security, corrals, accessibility, screening, sound
mitigation and site furnishings.
• building preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration, and reconstruction, limited
new construction (ramadas and restrooms), all
building sub-systems and interior finishes
ready for installation of interpretive exhibits.
At the completion of this Opening Phase, the site
would be a fully-developed Town heritage park
facility open to the public. The capital cost of
this phase would be approximately $5.0 million
to $5.3 million, depending on the extent of the
Pre-Opening Phase capital budget. This Opening
Phase is planned to be funded by Pima County
Cultural Resource Bonds and is anticipated to be
implemented from November 2009 to February
2012 (in time for the February 14 Centennial
Celebration of the Statehood of Arizona). If
Pima County Bond funds are delayed, cancelled
or rejected by voters, the only viable alternative
would be Town of Oro Valley Bond funding.
The costs of the interpretive exhibits themselves
are excluded from this capital cost of the Opening
Phase and a detailed interpretive plan is beyond
the scope of this Master Plan. It is recommended
that upon the final acceptance of this Steam Pump
Ranch Master Plan, a professional museum and
exhibit planner and designer be engaged in a two-
stage exhibit design process. Phase one would
be conceptual planning, design and cost analysis.
Phase two would be a detailed implementation
design for the graphics, technology and exhibits.
The cost of museum-quality exhibits are projected
to be approximately $500,000. The professional
fee for the exhibit design and planning should be
budgeted at $60,000.
3. The Build-Out Phase includes place-holders
for future buildings that may possibly be located
on or near the site. It generally includes new
construction that would bring additional attendance
and more mixed uses of the site. These include:
• An Event Center located in the panhandle
in the northern end of the site. This Event
Center is envisioned as a multi-use large
community room intended for banquets,
weddings, conferences, concerts, art exhibits,
and other large-venue activities. The building
would include restroom facilities, modest
office space, storage space and a kitchen
intended to accommodate catering rather
then large-scale cooking. The Event Center
is preliminarily projected to be 8400 square
feet and might accommodate 200 people seated
at tables or 350 people in theater-style seating.
The building could be operated by the Town
of Oro Valley or a private operator under
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 8
contract to the Town. The capital cost of
this building is projected at $1,512,000
in current dollars. Escalation of costs needs
to be included depending on the time of
construction. This building would be
constructed only after a detailed cost-benefit
analysis and market study is undertaken under
Town supervision. The time of implementation
is unknown.
• An Equestrian Center is also suggested as a
compatible use. It might house, at a minimum,
a mounted sheriff patrol assigned to monitor
the behavior and activities on the Cañada
del Oro Multi-Purpose path. Additional
possible equestrian uses include trail rides,
riding lessons and modest commercial boarding
of horses. Again, this building would only
be constructed after a detailed cost-benefit
analysis and market study is undertaken under
Town supervision. The Equestrian Center is
preliminarily projected to be 3500 square feet
with a budgeted cost of $307,500. The building
would likely be operated by a private operator
under contract to the Town.
• Chicken Coops and Arts and Crafts stalls are
also suggested Build-Out uses. The
projected costs of these buildings are $60,000
and $112,000 respectively in current dollars.
These buildings would be constructed only
after a detailed cost-benefit analysis and market
study is undertaken under Town supervision.
The time of implementation is unknown.
• A New Caretaker’s Residence would be
required if the existing non-historic caretaker’s
cottage were demolished to accommodate
the Event Center as shown. The building is
projected at 1250 square feet and with a
projected cost of $225,000 in current dollars.
The time of implementation is unknown.
• A Potential Office Building has been identified.
During the Master Plan process there was an
expressed interest in office space on site by the
Northern Pima County Chamber of Commerce,
the Greater Oro Valley Arts Council and the
Oro Valley Historical Society. In cooperation
with the adjacent Steam Pump Village, a
potential pad has been identified off-site and
adjacent to the eastern boundary of Steam
Pump Ranch. This structure has the potential
for housing these related activities with the
benefit of bringing a larger critical mass of
visitors to the Steam Pump Ranch site.
This project is beyond the scope of this
Master Plan but has been shown on the Build-
Out plan for connectivity purposes only. The
actual implementation would depend entirely
on an agreement between private parties with
no affiliation to the Town of Oro Valley.
Operating Plan for Steam Pump Ranch
The following chart summarizes the projected operating and maintenance costs, revenue and attendance
for the three phase of the Steam Pump Ranch. See Chapter 4, The Market Analysis and Operating Plan
for Steam Pump Ranch for additional detail.
Phase Site Cost Program Cost Revenue Net Cost Site Attendance
Pre-Opening Phase $ 90,840 $ 13,406 -0- $104,406 1,000-2,000
Opening Phase $312,466 $127,309 $119,700 $319,925 30,000 -40,000
Build-Out Phase $376,191 $191,529 $298,950 $268,470 60,000 -80,000
Steam Pump Ranch
Pre-Opening Phase
I 0 50 100
Scale in Feet
PRE-OPENING PHASE BUILDINGS
1
2
9
Historic Core Landscape: See Maintenance Guidelines for Specific Treatments during Pre-Opening Phase
1 Pump House
Restore the Pusch era Pump House to a Late 19th Century Appearance.
2 Pusch Ranch House
Additional funding is required to supplement the remaining 2004 Pima County Bond Funds for the rehabilitation and restoration of both the Pump House and Pusch Ranch House. The capital cost of this phase would range from $300,000 to $700,000 depending on available funding.
2008 EMERGENCY PRIORITIES
4
5
1 Pump House
Strengthen bracing and protective coverings until structure can be restored.
2 Pusch Ranch House
Install a high quality roof and appropriate flashing on those portions of the building not re-roofed during the summer of 2007.
Evaluate interior ceilings and walls to determine if temporary shoring is required.
4 Workers’ Housing and Garage
Clean-out interior spaces to better evaluate the condition of the existing walls. Brace walls as required.
Support interior beam with a 4” x 4” post until the wall can be repaired.
Openings should be protected to prevent water and animals from entering the building.
5 Procter / Leiber Residence
Support the ceiling in the living room below the second story fireplace with temporary shoring until removal of the non-historic second story addition.
Protect exterior wood windows damaged by termites to prevent additional damage.
Site Infrastructure
Mitigate site hazards to eliminate dangers to people and historic buildings.
Restore the Pusch Ranch House to a Late 19th Century Appearance.
Steam Pump Ranch
I 0 50 100
Scale in Feet
1
2 3
4
5
67
8
A
A
Oracle RoadSteam Pump Village
20
46
9
10
ReconstructedHistoric Corrals
Opening Phase
Crops
Lawn
Open Ground
Native Plantings
Fruit Trees
EmergencyAccess
Low Annualsand Perennials
BUILDING LEGEND
1 Pump House with Optional Blacksmith / Interpretive Exhibits
2 Museum Exhibits (Pusch Era), Small Meeting Room, Research Library, Office*
3 Restrooms (West), Cowboy House Museum (East), Farm Implements (Covered Area)
4 Natural History & Native American Exhibits, Rotating Gallery, Multipurpose Room / Classroom, Restrooms / Storage / Small Kitchenette
7 Rehabilitate for Orientation / Entry Building / Gift Shop
Stabilized Former Chicken Coop Structure (No Chickens or Livestock- Consider Use for Site Storage and Outdoor Market Uses)
8
Rehabilitate as Caretaker’s Residence9
Rehabilitate as Barbecue Pavilion / Storage / Restroom6
5 Procter / Leiber Era Exhibits, Other Exhibits, Offices* / Sun Porch / Accessible Restroom, Food Service (Optional Gift Shop)
PARKING COUNTS
66 Organized Spaces
10 New Restroom Building for Park Use
Outdoor Market Area
Optional Overflow Parking Lot
I
Drop-Off
10
* Office use is intended for Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation or other Town use, Oro Valley Historical Society, or a “Friends of Steam Pump Ranch” type group. Cañada del OroRamada
Foothills Wash
I
Interpretive RamadaI
Potential Outdoor Activity / Event SpaceA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Potential Interpretive Path
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
10
+100 Overflow Spaces
Steam Pump Ranch
I 0 50 100
Scale in Feet
1
2 3
4
5
67
8
A
A
Oracle RoadSteam Pump Village
32
46
910
ReconstructedHistoric Corrals
Full Build-Out Phase
Crops
Lawn
Open Ground
Native Plantings
Fruit Trees
EmergencyAccess
Low Annualsand Perennials
BUILDING LEGEND
1 Pump House with Optional Blacksmith / Interpretive Exhibits
2 Museum Exhibits (Pusch Era), Small Meeting Room, Research Library, Office*
3 Restrooms (West), Cowboy House Museum (East), Farm Implements (Covered Area)
4 Natural History & Native American Exhibits, Rotating Gallery, Multipurpose Room / Classroom, Restrooms / Storage / Small Kitchenette
7 Rehabilitate for Orientation / Entry Building / Gift Shop
Rehabilitate as Barbecue Pavilion / Storage / Restroom6
5 Procter / Leiber Era Exhibits, Other Exhibits, Offices* / Sun Porch / HC Restroom, Food Service (Optional Gift Shop)
PARKING COUNTS
78 Organized Spaces
10 New Restroom Building for Park Use
Outdoor Market Area
I
Drop-Off
10
* Office use is intended for Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation or other Town use, Oro Valley Historical Society, or a “Friends of Steam Pump Ranch” type group. Cañada del OroRamada
Foothills Wash
I
Interpretive RamadaI
Potential Outdoor Activity / Event SpaceA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Potential Interpretive Path
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
11
Proposed Town Well
PotentialOffice Building
8 Restore / Rehabilitate Structures for Potential Use by Youth Animal Husbandry Program, similar to 4-H
9 New structures based on historic layout for vendors/ artists/ antique fairs / markets
New Multi-Purpose Event Building 11
New Caretaker’s Residence12
New Equestrian Building with Tack Room / Office1313
12
11
+100 Overflow Spaces
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report12
Timeline
Prehistoric Context
9000 B.C. Oro Valley was used by hunters and gatherers as early as 9000 B.C.
Oro Valley was used throughout prehistoric times for hunting deer, sheep, and a
range of smaller animals in the hills and mountains, for farming on the lower
mountain flanks and larger floodplains, for gathering wild plants and mineral
resources, and for habitation in temporary camps and year-round settlements in
the best-watered areas
Pusch’s and Zellweger’s Arrival in the United States
1865 (3 October) Johann Zellweger (18 year old) arrives in New York aboard the Bellona.
1865 (28 October) George Pusch (b.24 June 1847 in Darmstadt, Germany)
arrives in New York aboard the Wieland.
Pusch and Zellweger became close friends in NYC with Pusch apprenticing as a
butcher for $7.50 a month. The two eventually went their separate ways.
1870 Pusch moved on and spent time in Baltimore, St. Louis, Sedalia, Missouri and
Chetopa, Kansas. Pusch listed as a butcher during the 1870s census. Pusch moves
on to San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Arrival in Arizona
1874 Pusch comes to Arizona driving a 14-mule team. Pusch lived in Phoenix and
Prescott for a while before moving to Tucson.
Mid 1870s Pusch met up again with John Zellweger in Tucson and together they opened a
butcher shop together, realizing they could make more money selling meat from
their cattle than by merely selling the cattle.
Pusch and Zellweger purchase the Cañada del Oro Ranch and mark their cattle
with the PZ brand.
Purchase of a steam pump led to the renaming of the ranch as Steam Pump Ranch.
1876 (March 15) George Pusch becomes a citizen of the United States.
1879 Pusch and Zellweger are running cattle in Pima and Pinal counties.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 13
Arrival of the Railroad
1880 Pusch and Zellweger operate the Pioneer Meat Market on Mesilla Street. The
shop sold both wholesale and retail beef, pork, and mutton. They deliver
their products to any part of the city free of charge.
1880 (March 20) The Southern Pacific Railroad arrives in Tucson. Rail line ran from San Diego
through Yuma to Tucson and then eastward, connecting with other lines.
The railroad opened up the market for cattle for local ranchers. Cattle no
longer had to be herded, but could be loaded on railroad cars for large cities to the
east or west.
Ranchers to the north of Steam Pump Ranch bring their cattle to the ranch and
water them, with Pusch charging 15 cents per head. The cattle would weigh more
on the scales at the railroad embarkation point, bringing the rancher more money.
The ranch was a stopping point for other travelers, including stagecoaches. It’s
been reported that a post office and store were once located at the ranch.
Marriage and Family
1881(April 24) George Pusch marries Matilda Feldman (b. 19 June 1861 in Drakenberg,
Germany) in Tucson. Matilda may have been related to A.M. Feldman who was
working at the Pusch and Zellweger butcher shop in the early 1880s.
1882 (April 15 / 16) The Puschs' infant twin daughters, Jennie and Tillie, die one month after birth.
1882 (April 17) Pusch sells a piece of land to M.G. Samaniego, marking the beginning of
numerous sales over the next 39 years (50 individual sales recorded by
Pima County Deed Record Entries and 18 in Bureau of Land Management
records).
1883 Matilda is joined by childhood friend Sophia Sieling (b. 29 May 1855 in
Drakenberg, Germany).
1883 (February) Pusch and Zellweger purchase another ranch near the Gila River in Pinal County.
1883 (May 20) Marie Sieling (Sophia’s sister) marries John Zellweger.
1883 (June 15) Zellweger sells Pusch his share of the Steam Pump Ranch.
1883 Pusch has a residence on Jackson Street.
Birth of daughter Gertrude D. Pusch Zipf.
1884 (May 31) Marie (Sieling) Zellweger dies.
1885 (January 24) Sophia marries John Zellweger.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report14
Business and Politics
1885 Local ranchers band together to round up their cattle in the spring and fall. Pusch
and Zellweger’s ranch is an important gathering point with cowboys finding ready
water at the ranch.
1885 Pusch and Zellweger form a wholesale butcher business and after October 1 they
will simply supply the markets with dressed meats. Jas. Simpson succeeds Pusch
in the management of the Mesilla Street market.
1885 Lack of summer rain causes cattle to eat mesquite pods and cactus pads. Winter
rains are severe and cause flooding along the Santa Cruz River. Many cattle are
too weak to walk away from the muddy flood plain, and subsequently die. Many
ranchers lose seven to eight percent of their herd, but Pusch and Zellweger report
a loss of only three percent because they move their “blooded” stock more often
to pastures, rather than leaving them in one spot.
Birth of George William Pusch.
1886 The partners operate a slaughterhouse about three miles north of Tucson with a
45-ft-deep well pumped by a windmill. Herman Grief was the chief butcher.
Pusch and Zellweger purchase the Feldman Ranch along the San Pedro River
between Mammoth and Winkleman. The Feldman Ranch is managed by Matilda’s
brother.
1886 (June) A grading contract is awarded to A.J. Davidson and E.O. Shaw to construct a
narrow-gauge railroad to the ranch to facilitate the shipping of cattle. Grading
began that same month but the railroad was never completed.
1886 (June) 17 carloads of beef cattle, each with 28 head, are sent from Pusch and Zellweger
and Pedro Charouleau’s ranches to Kansas City.
1886 (Sept. 4) Apache leader Geronimo surrenders.
1887 (May) George and Matilda and their children live much of the year in Tucson.
Occasionally, the family moves out to the ranch, including May 1887.
1888 Birth of Henrietta Louise Pusch Ballinger.
1890 Birth of Wilhelmina Pusch Knabe.
Early 1890s Drought conditions throughout the region. Effects are felt less severely at the
Steam Pump Ranch.
Timeline
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 15
1890s Cattle from Pusch’s various ranches and partnerships are shipped to Los Angeles, San
Francisco, Denver, and Chicago. Pusch helped consolidate cattle from smaller ranches
and arranged for their shipment on the Southern Pacific Railroad. About 1,000 head were
shipped at a time.
1891 Pusch serves in the 16th Territorial Legislature. He is a life-long Republican.
Birth of Maybelle Pusch Hankins.
1893 Well continues to produce ample water during a dry year because it was dug during a dry
year.
1894 Birth of Fred Lewis Pusch.
1896 (Sept) Pusch and Zellweger install the largest refrigerator in the Territory of Arizona at their
meat market on Congress Street. It was manufactured especially for them by the Gurney
Refrigerator Company of San Francisco.
1897 Arizona cattle are worth about $12 per head, while Sonoran cattle are worth $10.
At one time, Pusch held interest in 15,000 cattle while owning portions of the Arivaca
Land and Cattle Company and the Pusch, Bogan, and Bernard Company. He was director
of the Arizona National Bank and served as chairman of the Territorial Livestock Sanitary
Board for four years.
1898 (Jan) The last Pusch child, Walter Feldman Pusch, is born.
1899 (May) Pusch and Zellweger relocate their meat market to the Pusch Block of Congress Street.
1899 Pusch serves in the 20th Territorial Legislature.
1900 (June 4) Pusch family lives at 145 W. Jackson Street with George working as a retail butcher. 36
year old Nellie Burns was the family servent.
1903 Pusch listed as secretary of the Pioneer Meat Market and owner of the Tucson Ice and
Cold Storage Building.
1907 (May 18)Tucson Ice and Cold Storage Company officially incorporated with Pusch, Zellweger, and
N.C. Bernard as its Board of Directors.
1910 (Apr 10) Pusch family lives at 428 S. 4th Avenue. George is employed as a stockman and the
couple has seven children: Gertrude, George, Henrietta, Wilhelmina, Maybelle, Fred, and
Walter. The youngest six children had attended school in the last year.
Timeline
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report16
1912 Pusch and Zellweger Meat Shop (34 Congress Street) and Tucson Ice and Cold
Storage Company (65 Toole Avenue) are in operation.
1912 Pusch serves on State of Arizona Constitutional Council.
1914 George has a stroke and by 1917 was declared incompetent. Matilda is made his
guardian.
1920 George and Matilda live with their son Walter, daughter Wilhelmina,
Wilhelmina’s husband Gustav Knabbe, and that couple’s son Robert.
1921 (August 20) George dies at 428 S. 4th Avenue from a cerebral hemorrhage.
1924 (March 3) John Zellweger dies in Los Angeles following an operation.
1930 (April 10) Matilda and son Fred live at 428 S. 4th Avenue.
1933 (July 5) Matilda dies at home from apoplexy. Childhood friend Sophie Seiling Zellweger
dies in Tucson in May 1948. George and Matilda are buried in Evergreen
Cemetery.
Shortly after Matilda’s death the Steam Pump Ranch is raided by federal officers,
who arrested John J. Hartney and discover an 80-gallon still, 30 gallons
of whiskey, and 450 gallons of mash. The officers may have been alerted by a
boiler explosion that had taken place in the previous week.
Procter / Leiber Period
1933 to present John Monroe “Jack” Procter buys the Steam Pump Ranch for $10,000. Procter
was born on October 4, 1891 in Oakville, Kentucky. On January 21, 1916 he
married Elizabeth H. Simmons. The couple lived in El Paso, Texas with John
working as a cashier at the Texas Bank and Trust Company. John registered for
the draft in June 1918 and was described as being tall and slender, with brown
eyes and light-colored hair. The couple and their daughter Elizabeth lived in
Eastland, Texas in 1920 and John was vice president at a bank. In April of 1930,
the family, including daughter Elizabeth and son J. Monroe, Jr., lived in Pasadena,
California. Jack was the manager of the Hotel Constance. The Procters move to
Tucson in 1932 when Jack is hired to be the manager of the Pioneer Hotel, a
position he held until 1962.
While the owner of the Steam Pump Ranch, which he called “his favorite
diversion,” Procter constructed a number of new buildings, including a residence
for his family, two small dwellings for workers, a barbeque building that was later
converted into a dwelling, and a large number of chicken coops. He raised
chickens for meat and eggs for the Pioneer Hotel.
Timeline
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 17
In Tucson, Jack was active in many organizations. He was on the Board of Directors for
Valley National Bank from 1938-1966. Other positions he held included being president
of the Tucson Chamber of Commerce in 1966 and chairman of the Arizona Highway
Commission from 1940 to 1944. Procter was a 33rd degree Mason with the Scottish Rite
Temple in El Paso and was a member of the Elks, Rotary, Old Pueblo and El Rio Golf
clubs and the Tucson Country Club. He also served as the secretary-treasurer of the
Tucson Cemetery Association from 1955 through 1960.
Elizabeth (Betty) Procter (1918 - 17 May 1978) married Henry (Hank) Leiber (17
January 1911- 8 November 1993). Hank had been a professional baseball player for the
Chicago Cubs and New York Giants between 1933 and 1942. Hank and Betty had
two sons, John Lee Leiber and Henry E. Leiber, Jr. who inherited the Steam Pump Ranch
from their grandfather.
Betty Procter died on 21 March 1968 in Tucson and her estate was valued at
approximately one million dollars at that time. John Procter died on 29 January 1972. He
is buried in the Evergreen Cemetery.
Timeline
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report18
Master Plan DetailOverview
The three phases of the Master Plan: Pre-Opening, Opening and Full Build-Out are presented in more
detail, beginning with a summary of the landscape
and environmental context of the site. Following
the section on landscape, the proposed plans for
the existing buildings are presented. Information
previously presented in the Steam Pump Ranch Building and Landscape Assessments, prepared in
August 2007, are summarized in the Appendix of
this report.
Landscape and Environmental Context: Natural History
Prior to the mid 19th century, the landscape of the
site likely consisted of relatively undisturbed native
flood plain habitat with mesquite/palo verde habitat
and cottonwoods in wetter locations in the flood
plain. The wash likely ran intermittently, dependent
on regional precipitation. The site received regular
inundations from water overflowing the wash and
also moving down from the mountain in small
washes or as sheet flow. The ground water was
closer to the surface than it is today, supporting
denser vegetation. The site was part of a continuum
of sloping grades and habitat that linked the wash
and the mountains.
In the past forty years, the natural dynamic
process of the flood plain and sheet flow have
been significantly altered. Along the wash
frontage, a flood control berm was erected and
has eliminated flooding from the site. This berm
has also eliminated the direct visual and physical
connection to the wash. The elevated roadway on
the east side of the site effectively channels all
sheet flow and water from small washes away from
the site. While controlling the flow of water on the
site, the berms have also disrupted the historical
natural relationship of the site to the wash and
mountains.
Most of the native flood plain vegetation that once
existed on site has been removed or has died due
to the channelization of the wash and the lack of
water.
The Cañada del Oro wash is directly north of the site and runs
sporadically throughout the year.
Flood berm adjacent to the Cañada del Oro wash interrupts natural
flood plain dynamics on the site and cuts the site off from an
important natural feature. View looking southwest from the site’s
panhandle. Note: multi-use path at top of flood berm is unpaved
adjacent to the site. A funding source for improving the path and
connecting across the Foothills Wash at the southwest corner
of the site should be identified and implemented to improve the
connectivity of the site to greater Oro Valley.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 19
Historical Context
Beginning in the last quarter of the 19th century,
the landscape has been valued and significantly
altered by uses related to its location along a major
trail and on the banks of the Cañada del Oro, a
major wash feeding the Santa Cruz River. The
land was developed by George Pusch into a stop-
over and water source for cattle herds on route to
Tucson, making it a vital component of the early
cattle ranching communities in Pima County. In the
early twentieth century the land’s Sonoran Desert
landscape, replete with unique native plants and
views to the Catalina Mountains, attracted John
1937 Aerial (of poor quality) showing Pusch era structures and native flood plain vegetation
Procter, a Tucson hotelier. He developed the land
into a scenic rural respite which catered to the
growing tourist economy. These two men, their
families and workers each adapted and altered the
landscape and built structures to suit their different
needs.
Pusch Ranch House
Pump HousePusch Era
Corrals
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report20
Overall Landscape Concept
The center of the site is the historic core where
the structures of the two historical eras were
built in separate locations. Surrounding this area,
adjacent to the flood plain berms and the new
commercial development to the northeast are
functional zones which will accommodate any new
structures as well as parking and non-historic drive
lanes. The proposed landscape plan will restore
the appropriate historical setting for each era as
determined by the (limited) documentation. The
restoration of the historic core and the surrounding
functional use zones will meet the current building
codes and laws required for safe and universal
access by visitors and staff.
For the Pusch era, the working vernacular
landscape will consist of mainly of cleared ground
around the buildings and the corrals surrounded
by native plants. From limited documentation, the
focus of the land is understood to have been to
accommodate large herds of cattle passing through
on the trail to Tucson. The site was a commercial
venture dependent on abundant water. Of the
buildings, corrals, steam pump, water troughs and
shade structures that were added, only the house
and steam pump structure remain today
By contrast to the cattle-oriented open landscape
of the Pusch era, the Procter era is understood to
have served as a rural retreat for a small number
of tourists, with shade and ornamental trees, and
as a supplier of meat, produce, and eggs to the
downtown hotel. There is very little documentation
available on the physical layout and spatial
arrangements of this era. The proposed landscape
treatment for this area is based on an aerial
photograph from 1960 and a 2007 survey of the
existing major vegetation.
The following list defines the treatments of the
different eras and areas as they relate to the historic
guidelines as stated in the U.S. Department of
the Interior, National Park Service’s bulletin
“Characteristics of the Rural Landscape.” Of
the eleven elements in the guidelines, three
Landscape Concepts
View looking southwest along the imaginary “dividing line” between
the Pusch and Procter / Leiber era landscape. To the right, the
landscape will be restored back to a more native, flood plain setting
with open ground to represent the former cattle activity on the site.
In contrast, areas to the left of this dividing line will be preserved
and enhanced to represent the more ornamental landscape of the
Procter / Leiber period on the site.
Ornamental plants and lawns create a shady oasis around the
Procter / Leiber residence. When contrasted to the Pusch era
landscape, important interpretive themes on land use and water use
can be developed.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 21
Pusch:
Reestablish native xeroriparian (A, B or C sub •
classes) habitat.
Cultural Traditions
Pusch:
Restore fenced areas at buildings, protecting •
plants, doors & windows.
Restore overall open work area beyond.•
Procter:
Restore shaded leisure areas around house and •
shaded work areas by chicken coops.
Circulation Networks
Pusch:
Preserve open areas and links to trails, road and •
wash as established by foot, cattle and
horse traffic.
Procter:
Preserve main entry drive to house, paths •
between house, coops, animal yards and fields
as established for foot, horse and motorized
vehicle traffic.
Boundary Demarcations
Site wide:
Not applicable. •
Vegetation Related to Land Use
Pusch:
Restore open area around steam pump, house •
and corrals adjacent to road.
Restore china berries and fig tree next to steam •
pump structure if documents indicate historical
relevance.
Preserve line of mesquites (possibly incidental •
to old corral or fence line) if tree ring survey
indicates historical relevance.
Procter:
Preserve fruit, nut, and ornamental / shade •
plants and limited lawns areas (adjacent to
structures and serving as outdoor living areas).
Small Scale Elements
Pusch & Procter:
Restore fencing, signs, gates, markers and •
machinery/equipment.
(archaeology, buildings, and groups of buildings
[clusters]) are not included in the following.
Land Uses
Pusch:
Preserve sense of open space as was required to •
direct, contain, and water cattle herds.
Remove eucalyptus and other plants not •
historically accurate.
Procter:
Farming - Rehabilitate farm fields & chicken •
coops.
Gardening – Recreate kitchen or flower garden •
area if historically accurate.
Leisure - Preserve shaded outdoor living areas •
and functional lawns.
Spatial Organization
Pusch:
Preserve orientation and grouping of major •
existing structures, connections to road, entry
drives related to eras, path systems, fields,
animal structures
Interpret existence of minor and removed •
structures: wood sheds, outhouses, bunk
houses, clothes lines.
Reconstruct corrals and historic relationships •
between fences, corrals, pump area, watering
devices, fields, holding pens.
Site wide:
Remove non historic structures: overhead •
utility lines, metal sheds, metal fencing, utility
pad & pool.
Remove non-historic paths and drive lanes by •
replanting to specific era.
Response to Natural Environment
Pusch & Procter:
Preserve views to Catalina Mountains. •
Site wide:
Interpret altered connections to flood plain and •
uplands.
Preserve existing grade conditions. Restrict •
major grade changes and/or earthwork (berms,
basins) to less than 12” depth or height. No
earthwork or grade changes in historic zone.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report22
October 2007: Taking a core from the trunk of a mesquite tree near
the Pusch Ranch House for dating by the University of Arizona
Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.
Nut trees south of the Procter / Leiber House should be preserved.
Lawn area between the Procter / Leiber House and the restored
barbecue pavilion contribute to the mid 20th century setting of the
ranch and can be used for special events.
Landscape Maintenance Plan
Overview
This three-year strategy for removal, maintenance,
irrigation and overall care of the landscape should
be adopted as part of the Pre-Opening Phase.
The following maintenance recommendations
for the 15.5 acre Steam Pump Ranch site are a
component of the Master Plan for the rehabilitation
and restoration of the historical landscape and
buildings. The intention is to guide routine
maintenance activities to accommodate and
promote the vision for the landscape master plan.
The recommendations are closely coordinated
with the final landscape master plan and the
plant inventory. Proper execution of these
recommendations will require access to both of
these plans.
Background: An initial short term landscape
maintenance report was submitted to the Town
of Oro Valley on May 29, 2007 by SAGE. It
outlined recommended steps to ensure public
safety and protection of historic structures until the
completion of the landscape assessment and Master
Plan. The recommendations in that report are not
repeated in the following narrative. The following
recommendations proceed with the assumption that
the initial short term work was completed in full.
Recommended Landscape MaintenanceMay 1, 2008 to Feb. 14, 2012
Year One
Record: Begin keeping monthly site-wide
irrigation water-use records to identify unusual-
use conditions which could indicate a leak or
poor function, and for future comparison to new
irrigation system.
Remove
Pusch era landscape
• All lawn. Turn off irrigation to lawn in this
area, as indicated on plan.
• All non-historic and non-native trees as
identified on the Master Plan and Plant Inventory
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 23
in consultation with landscape architect. Turn off
irrigation to these trees.
Site wide
• In coordination with Tucson Electric Power,
remove or trim trees and branches obstructing
power lines. Consult with Town of Oro Valley
arborist on trimming methods to result in proper
form.
Protect the following areas from damage by
vehicles, construction, under/over watering,
storage of material in root zones, etc. This may
include installing fencing or other barricades.
Pusch era landscape
Mesquites and palo verdes in east/west line
numbered T-67 through T-82 on the Plant
Inventory.
• Any mesquites determined to be potentially
historic in addition to those listed above. These
may include trees numbered T-45, T-83, T-85,
T-86, T-96 and T-171 through T-177 on the
Plant Inventory. Consult with landscape
architect and dendrochronologist. Provide
supplemental water as determined by arborist
to sustain health of trees.
• All native plants in areas indicated on plan.
Procter era landscape
• All native and exotic fruit, nut or ornamental
trees and shrubs.
• Mixed hedgerow along Oracle road.
• Lawn areas identified for programmatic use on
plan.
Year Two
Remove
Procter era landscape
• Lawn in areas indicated on plan. Turn off or
modify irrigation to eliminate water to these
lawn areas while maintaining irrigation to trees.
This may require several months to complete
Vegetation and irrigation near buildings should be monitored to
prevent damage to the buildings. At this location near the western
adobe bunk house, standing water appears to be infiltrating the
adobe walls causing the cement plaster to erode.
During the Pre-Opening Phase water to lawns may be eliminated so
long as water to trees is maintained.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report24
since the lawn and tree irrigation may be the
same. The intention is to keep the trees
watered where lawn is removed. Until a new
irrigation system is designed and installed, a
temporary above ground system may be
required.
Protect
Continue protecting areas established in year one.
On-Going To 2012
Annual
• Prior to storm season, arborist shall conduct
site review of trees identifying dead or
damaged limbs for removal.
• Conduct site review to identify and remove
accumulations of dense, dried vegetation (such
as dead grass, leaves, branches and piles of
dead wood) which could pose fire risk.
Quarterly
• Conduct inspection of operational irrigation
lines and valves to identify and repair leaks or
other malfunctions. Adjust irrigation schedule
to respond to seasonal water needs.
• Conduct inspection of protected areas and
plants to repair barriers or remove hazards.
Monthly
• Dry months: In coordination with ADOT,
conduct monthly visual inspection of Oracle
Road Right-of-Way to identify and remove
areas of dense dried grass, which could pose
fire risk.
• Remove newly volunteered weeds throughout
the site.
• Pick up litter and trash.
• Trim vegetation to remove only damaged
or broken branches and mistletoe, and prevent
conflicts with buildings and structures.
• Remove low branches (as identified in the
Plant Inventory).
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 25
Steam Pump RanchWater Demand Analysis
Area Plant List Ac SF
Design
SF Eto (IE)(Ks) (Kd) (Kmc) (Kl) ETl Gallons
(July)
Gallons
Annual
Acre feet
Annual
1 - 347043.81 Native trees,shrub,
groundcovers
xeroriparian species 7.97 347,173 208,304 9.06 0.63 0.5 1.1 1 0.6 4.983 1,035,155 12,421,862 37.27
2 - 59717.16 Lawn Area, Trees 1.37 59,677 59,677 9.06 0.9 0.7 1 0.8 0.6 5.0736 209,691 2,516,289 7.55
3 - 72399.93 Historic Trees: Fruit, nut, Eucs Understory: low annuals 1.66 72,310 54,232 9.06 0.63 0.9 1.1 1 1 8.9694 481,257 5,775,086 17.33
4 - 43560 Farm crops:1 43,560 21,780 9.06 0.63 0.7 0.5 1 0.4 3.171 68,330 819,959 2.46
tbd #VALUE!#VALUE!9 06 0 9 0 2 0 5 1 0 1 0 906 #VALUE!#VALUE!#VALUE!21,533,195 64.60
Project Total Annual Water Demand GallonsProject Total Annual Water Demand Acre feetTotal Maximum Annual Water Demand Acre Feet Density Factor Species Factor Irrigation Efficiency Landscape coefficient ETl (project specific ETo)Highest Water Demand Gallons Per Month (July)Estimated Total Area SFEstimated Total Area AcreageTotal Maximum Annual Water Demand GallonsMicroclimate FactorEvapotranspiration rate (Tucson) Estimated designed landscape SF (% of total SF)NOTES1) Figures used are for mid-summer baseline case (July). Calculation method adapted from LEED-NC 2.2 water efficiency reference guide.
2) Drip irrigation unless otherwise noted.
3) Soil analysis not available or included in calculations. 4) Rainfall for Oro Valley not included. Ave. Annual Rainfall for Oro Valley = 12.4 inches.
5) Reductions possible through use of captured rainwater; recycled on-site greywater; treated,
reclaimed municipal wastewater and the use of unirrigated seeded areas. LEED-NC Equation 1 KL=ks * kd * kmcLEED-NC Equation 2 ETL (in) = ETO-KL
LEED-NC Equation 5 Total Water Demand Gal = Area (SF) x (ETL(in)/IE) x .6233 gall/sf/in
Water Zones and Budget
Area 1 - Xeroriparian Vegetation
Area 2 - Lawn
Area 3 - Historic Trees
Area 4 - CropsWater Zones Map
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report26
Interpretation
Landscape Interpretive Overview
This section provides an outline of potential site
landscape and ecological systems, interpretive
themes and an overview of programmatic/
interpretive uses of specific outdoor spaces.
The following interpretive themes consider ideas
as points of departure to compare and contrast the
natural systems at Steam Pump Ranch during the
two historic eras and contemporary times. Ideally
personal stories from people who lived, worked or
visited Steam Pump Ranch would be woven into
the interpretation, making the historic site come
alive. The goal is to have the visitor engage with
the personal stories of the site (e.g. harvest time,
a cattle herd visit, a flood, a visit from an unusual
animal, first horse-back ride into wash, etc.) to
become more aware of the value of preserving the
site’s natural and historic resources.
Interpretive Themes
Landforms surrounding the site: Natural forces
shaped the washes and mountains. Engineered
landforms, like the flood plain berm, were built for
specific reasons. How do these landforms differ
and how are they similar? How long/how much
soil did it take to construct the berm.
Flood plain and uplands: Explanation of the
floodplain dynamics, how it’s linked to the
mountains and geology and how the current
condition differs from what the site was like in
1880 or 1940. What is a floodplain, and where is
it in relation to the steam pump now and in the
historic eras. How did geology influence the water
resources of the site? How did flooding shape the
lives of the people on the ranch prior to the berms?
Discuss the benefits of flooding (enriched soil,
connection to dynamic ecological system, ground
water recharge) as well as the costs to life and
structures.
Water: from floods to drought, how has available
water influenced the historic story of Steam Pump
and changed the site landscape? What is ground
water and where does it come from? Where does
Interpretive signage and interpretive displays should be developed
to communicate the environmental and human history of the site.
The following points of interest and view points may be used as
interpretive nodes throughout the site.
Top of flood plain berm (water, landforms, floodplain, • habitat, animals)
View to Catalina Mountains (landforms, floodplain, • habitat)
Chicken coops, roughly where the 1940 flood plain • might have been (domesticated animals, water, agriculture)
Farm field (agriculture, seasons)• Shaded lawn near Procter house (introduced plants, • native animals)
Native plant area at south end (native plants and • habitat)
Open area at corral (water, domestic animals, • agriculture)
Parking lots, pathways, and landscape (stabilized • site soil, alternative paving techniques, water harvesting methods)
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 27
the water in the CDO wash go?
Habitat: What kind of habitat or how many
different kinds of plants are in the wash? How does
this compare to the site? How is this different from
1880 and 1940?
Agriculture in Pima County: What are the growing
and harvest seasons? Which plants are harvested
or planted when? If it’s March, what kind of fresh
vegetable would you have eaten in 1880 or 1940?
How large was the ranch, how many acres are
required to support one head of cattle? What kind
of pest control / fertilizer was used in 1940? Where
did it come from?
Native and introduced plants: Where, when and
how did the introduced plants become established
on the site? What other plants were brought to
the site, by whom and when? Desert trees don’t
usually grow in straight rows, so why is there a
row of mesquites in the 1880 area? What were
native plants used for in 1880 and 1940? Did cattle
ranchers regard native plants differently than the
tourists? What kind of plants would have lined
the wash in the two eras? How did the landscape
create economic value for the ranch and how did
the ranch help Tucson prosper?
Native animals: What animals use the washes for
travel, food or habitat? Which ones may have lived
at the steam pump site?
Domesticated animals: What domesticated animals
would have been on the site in 1880 or 1940? How
would they have interacted with the native animals
and plants? What do cattle eat in the desert?
Materials: What are alternative paving options
that promote long-term sustainability and
environmental stewardship? How does water
harvesting work? What are some easy water
harvesting techniques that can be incorporated
into residential landscapes? What are alternative
lighting options that use sustainable resources?
Gardens are important to understanding the seasonal differences in
our climate and the role of food production historically on the ranch.
Pathway and parking lot designs should incorporate environmentally
sensitive materials and passive water harvesting. Preservation
strategies throughout the site should provide examples of water and
energy conservation techniques for residents.
Just how many mesquite trees were on site when Pusch and
Zellweger used the site in the 1870s and 1880s?
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report28
Proposed Opening Phase Uses of Existing Buildings
The following section provides a detailed overview
of the proposed uses for the existing buildings
on site. Proposed treatments for the individual
buildings are guided by the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation.
A summary of the Standards is included in the
Appendix of this report. The following building
plans should assist in the development of
interpretive exhibits and programs and amenities
for visitors to the site.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 29
Building Legend
A
B
C
Pump House1
C Blacksmith 410 SF
A Pump Room 254 SF
B Engine Room 131 SF
North0 1 2 4 8 Ft
Dashed lines indicate the
proposed footprint of the
Pump House based on a
restoration to the late 19th
Century.
Solidly filled walls represent
the extent of existing walls.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report30
Interpretation: (A) Exhibits on the
historical use of the pump building.
Consider displaying pumps and creating a
“working” pump. Focus on importance of
reliable water source to regional ranching
operations. (B) Engine Room display. At
a location at or near pump house a display
should discuss historic preservation /
restoration rationale.
Demonstration: (C) Blacksmith’s
shop and equipment. Consider special
demonstration days by groups such as the
Arizona Artist Blacksmith Association.
Pump House 1
Pump House looking from the northeast to the southwest. Date is
circa 1923. Courtesy Arizona Historical Society.
View of the Pump House from the southeast. Date unknown.
Courtesy of the Arizona Historical Society
The Pump House is located adjacent to Oracle
Road near the southern property line. It is probably
the oldest and is the most significant structure on
the site, believed to have been built by Pusch and
Zellweger in the 1870s to feed and fatten cattle
in-route to market via the railroad. It has been
reported that the Steam Pump could draw up to
50 gallons per hour or roughly 300-400 gallons of
water per day.
The structure is currently a ruin, with only several
original adobe walls still intact. The master
planning process determined that it was desirable
to restore the structure. The restored building has
the potential to serve as an icon for the site and
to provide a context for interpretation on historic
building techniques and the changing technology
used to provide water to the site.
Keyplan
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 31
Pusch Ranch House2
AB C
DE F
North0 1 2 4 8 Ft
G
G
To Parking
Building
Entry
Building Legend
Entry 219 SFA
D Rotating Exhibits 219 SF
C Research Library 232 SF
B Meeting Room 219 SF
F Office Space 232 SF
E Pusch / Ranching Exhibits 216 SF
G Open Porch
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report32
West elevation circa 1900. Image courtesy of the AHS - Tucson.
Pusch Ranch House 2
Interpretation: (D) Exhibits on Pusch-
Zellweger settlement in the region,
founding of SPR and connection of SPR to
the local economy. (E) Rotating exhibits
focused on the Pusch family and ranching,
including china, baskets, trunk, organ, and
related items, (subject to availability).
Meeting / Research: (B) Meeting space
for small groups (10 people). (C) Research
library starting with documents from the
George Pusch Collection of historical
documents. Open specific days / times.
Both spaces include exhibits on the walls
and in display cases.
Entry / Orientation: (A) Room serves as a
transition space to the building and exhibit
rooms. Display cases and wall exhibits.
May include a desk for a volunteer.
Offices / Archive: (F) Office space and
climatically controlled space for archival
materials.
The Pusch Ranch House was probably built
within a few years of the Pump House, circa 1880,
as a retreat on the ranch for the Pusch family.
The building is a good example of a transitional
Sonoran-style building, consisting of high-walled,
thick adobe core with a timber framed hipped roof.
Porches were enclosed and small shed additions
were attached to original six room core over time.
The Master Plan proposes removing later additions
and restoring and rehabilitating the building to
its appearance during the late 19th Century. A
thorough review of building features is included
in Harris Sobin’s Building Condition Assessment
Report completed in 2004. This report is an
excellent resource for understanding the age of
individual features.
View of Pusch Ranch House in 2007 from the Southeast
Keyplan
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 33
Bunk Houses3
Building Legend
Men’s Restroom 136 SF A
D Bunkroom 104 SF
C Covered Storage 933 SF
B Women’s Restroom 128 SF
F Bunkroom 110 SF
E Shared Bathroom 42 SF
AB
C
D
E
F
North
0 1 2 4 8 Ft
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report34
Restrooms: Rehabilitate existing bunk
house as accessible restrooms.
Demonstration: Antique ranch equipment
/vehicles under restored ramada. Consider
storage of equipment for use by park
maintenance staff.
Interpretation: Cowboy house museum
with period furnishings and memorabilia.
These small adobe buildings measure 24’ x 13’
and are believed to have been built by the 1940s
for worker housing upon the transfer of the ranch
to John Procter. This simple structures exhibit the
typology and construction techniques of vernacular
dwellings commonly built on ranches in the area.
The east building maintains a high degree of
integrity with many original materials and possibly
its original spatial layout. The interior layout
of this building consists of two sleeping rooms
separated by core consisting of closets and a shared
bathroom. The east building will be preserved and
used as a cowboy house museum that showcases
the life of a ranch worker during the middle
decades of the 20th century.
The interior of the west building appears to have
been modified in recent decades. As proposed in
the Master Plan, this building will be rehabilitated
for modern restrooms.
The covered ramada that once spanned between
the two bunk house will be restored. Under this
protective covering, antique ranch equipment and
vehicles can be displayed.
Bunkhouses viewed from the southwest
Bunk Houses 3
Keyplan
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 35
Garage / Workers’ Housing4
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Proposed
Opening
North0 1 2 4 8 Ft
Building Legend
Entry / Exhibits 208 SF A
D Classroom / Western Movies 526 SF
C Restroom / Storage 66 SF
B Small Kitchen 97 SF
F Building Storage / Utility 110 SF
E Native American Exhibits 179 SF
G Natural History Exhibits 173 SF
H Site Storage 135 SF
Hatched walls indicate
what are believed to be
later additions to the central
core.
Solidly filled walls represent
what is believed to have
been the original core of
the building.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report36
Garage / Worker’s Housing 4
Restroom / Kitchen: (B) Small kitchen
with sink / ref. for service during functions
in building and surrounding areas. (C)
Rehabilitate existing restroom and closet.
Classroom / Meeting Space: (D) Multi-use
space with potential to host classes, western
movies, school groups, meetings. Capacity
20-25 seated.
Interpretation: (E) Exhibits on Native
American history including influence of
Apache on Early-Anglo settlement of
the region and SPR. (G) Natural history
exhibits on local flora and fauna, changing
ecological conditions and relationship
of site to CDO and Catalina Mountains.
Additional outdoor space adjacent to this
room would be desirable.
Entry / Orientation: (A) Transition space
with potential for hosting exhibits and
visitor orientation to site and building.
Storage: (F) Building storage and utilities.
(H) Storage for site furnishing and
equipment.
View of Garage / Workers’ Housing from the southwest
The former garage and workers’ housing showcases the additive nature of vernacular building forms on the site. Typical of this ranch typology, the building was constructed in stages, presumably starting in the late 1930s - early 1940s, with additions added to the north, south and west over the ensuing two decades.
The building will be preserved and rehabilitated, with proposed use for exhibits, meeting space and storage.
Keyplan
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 37
Procter / Leiber Residence5
This Spanish Colonial / Mission Revival Style
residence was built for John Procter and his family
after their acquisition of the property in 1933.
The building appears to have originally consisted
of two equal wings separated by a central living
room and a covered porch. The porch may have
been fully enclosed shortly after construction. In
the early 1970s, Procter’s grandson, John Leiber,
and his wife, Cheryl, moved into the house. Since
that time, there have been a number of significant
changes, including the renovation of the kitchen
area, a second-story addition above the living
room, and the addition of a master bedroom suite
at the eastern side of the building.
The Master Plan proposes removing the post-
1970 additions and rehabiliting the core of the
building. The strong connection that exists between
the formal living room, sunporch and outdoor
courtyard should be preserved. The courtyard is
an important outdoor space that can be used for
special events and receptions.
View from the north. Note second story addition, added in the mid-
1980s, at the center of the photo. The stairs are original.
View of south facade, including sun porch and second story
addition.
View of Procter / Leiber Residence from the southeast.The vegetated patio south of the Procter / Leiber House has great
potential to be used for outdoor events and receptions.
Procter / Leiber Residence 5
Sunporch: (G) Restore open-air porch for
gathering and for use in conjunction with
events held in the adjacent courtyard.
Interpretation: (C) Displays on baseball
star Hank Leiber and his family. (E)
Restored to mid 1940s with period furniture
and art. Exhibits on Procter Period ranch,
including connection of SPR to Pioneer
Hotel and the ranch’s role in providing
provisions for the hotel. (F) Possible
OVHS exhibits including: Jim Kreigh
meteorite collection, barbwire collection,
Arizona Highways Magazine Collection,
Photographic Collection, Rattlesnake
collection.
Accessible Restroom: (B) Rehabilitate
existing pantry for accessible restroom (D)
Service area and counter for food service.
Entry Porch: (A) Restored exterior porch
for entry and gathering
Offices / Archive: (H) Office space and
climatically controlled space for archival
materials.
North0 1 2 4 8 Ft
A
B
C
D
E
F
H
G
Building Legend
Entry Porch 126 SF A
D Food Service 226 SF
C Hank Leiber Displays* 441 SF
B Accessible Restroom 47 SF
F Exhibit Room 343 SF
E Procter Displays 566 SF
G Sun Porch 703 SF
H Office / Archive 373 SF
* Alternate Gift Shop location if not
located in #7, Orientation and Entry Bldg.Keyplan
38
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report39
This page is blank
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 40
6
North0 1 2 4 8 Ft
Outdoor BBQ Pavilion
(Speculative design - Additional research required)
Small Kitchen 93 SF
Building Legend
A
B
C
D Restroom 184 SF
Storage / Utility 85 SF
BBQ / Gathering Space 370 SF
A
B
C
D
Carlos’ House /Former Barbecue Pavilion
This building was originally an open barbecue
shed (see picture) before being enclosed and
enlarged to serve as a residence over the last 40
years. It currently consists of a large central room,
containing the original stone fireplace, flanked by a
kitchen and laundry room. Bedrooms extend north
and west of this central area with a enclosed porch,
closet and bathroom occupying the eastern side of
the building. The core of the building is adobe with
wood windows.
The proposed use calls for it to be returned to
its earlier use as an outdoor barbecue shed and
gathering area. The recently discovered image of
the building as a barbecue can be used to guide the
rehabilitation. The area between the barbecue and
the Procter - Leiber Residence is proposed as a
lawn where special events and gatherings can take
place.
The stone fireplace originally served as an open barbecue shed
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report41
Service: (A) Small kitchen with sink / ref.
for service during functions at BBQ and
adjacent outdoor spaces. (D) Restroom.
BBQ /Gathering (B) Multi-use space with
potential for hosting events.
Utility / Storage: (C) Storage for chairs,
tables, equipment. Utility space for site and
building utilities.
Photo of structure as outdoor barbecue, looking north. Date of photo unknown. Courtesy of Carlos Rivera
Keyplan
Carlos’ House / Former Barbecue Pavilion 6
Small Kitchen 93 SF
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 42
Orientation Film / Visitor Center /
Meeting Room: (C) Meeting place for
guided tours, self-guided equipment rental,
orientation video, seating for 30. (B) Gift
shop.
Site Entry (A) Open air entry area with
displays and interpretive exhibits. Covered
seating for small groups and tour meeting
point.
Utility / Storage: (D) Building and site
storage and utility.
Orientation / Visitor Information 640 SF
Building Legend
A
C
Utility / Storage 111 SF
Orientation / Visitor Center /
Meeting Space 500 SF
Entry Orientation Panels
B Gift Shop* 210 SF
D
* Gift shop may be in Building #5
The sheds and storage barn are modern structures,
likely constructed in the last few decades. It is
possible that the sheds and utility barn replaced a
series of chicken coops similar to those further to
the northeast.
The proposed use of these structures is the new
orientation and entry building. Located convenient
to the proposed organized parking areas along the
berm, these low-key buildings will be the primary
orientation node for visitors. The western shed-like
portion of the building may function as an open-air
orientation room where visitors can learn about the
site from interpretive displays. The larger eastern
portion of the building is well-suited for showing
an orientation film and for flexible seating and
displays. The gift shop may also be located in this
space.
Upon leaving the building, visitors will follow a
path south towards the historic core of the site.
Interpretive ramadas and signage will further
describe the importance of the site.
Looking south from the orientation building towards the historic core
and Santa Catalina Mountains
Orientation / Entry Building7
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report43
A B
C
Pathway to
Historic Core
Screen
Orientation / Entry Building 7
D
North0 1 2 4 8 Ft
KeyplanView of the Utility Building from the south
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 44
Keyplan
Former Chicken Coop Structures8 Caretaker’s Residence 9
View of proposed caretaker’s residence from the northView of the former chicken coops from the southeast
Many chicken coop structures were constructed
after 1933, when Jack Procter used his ranch to
supply the Pioneer Hotel with produce and eggs.
The remaining coops are severely dilapidated but
could be preserved during the Opening Phase for
site storage or other compatible uses. For the Full
Build-Out Phase, the coops could be rehabilitated
for possible use by a 4-H type of program for local
youth.
The former tack building, located in the panhandle
of the site, is proposed as a caretaker’s residence
during the Opening Phase of the project. The
location of the building, near the site’s main
driveway, is advantageous for providing security
and protection to the resources on the site. If a new
multi-purpose event center is constructed on site, a
new caretaker’s residence is proposed for the site
adjacent to the proposed equestrian building. The
existing non-historic stables building has no future
as determined by the Master Plan.
Keyplan
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report45
Keyplan
New Restrooms for Park Use10
Keyplan
Ramada
Examples of interpretive ramada from natural areas in So. Arizona.
Example of restrooms sensitively placed in an existing historic
structure at Sahuaro Ranch in Glendale, Arizona.
Two new restroom buildings are proposed during
the Opening Phase. The restroom buildings are
located at the southern edge of the parking area.
The design should be compatible with the historic
buildings on the site by being similar in material
and scale. The size and massing of the former
chicken coops is appropriate for the restroom
buildings.
Ramada can be used for interpretive exhibits
and docent-led programs, as well as, to
provide space for recreational activities like
picnicking. Ramada should be consistent
with the overall character of the site
and designs should be prepared in
conjunction with the interpretive
program developed during the
Pre-Opening Phase.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report 46
This page is blank
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Market Analysis and
Operating Plan for Steam
Pump Ranch
Prepared by:
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Prepared for:
Poster Frost Associates
Town of Oro Valley
May 2008
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY AND ASSUMPTIONS...................... I-1
II EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL CONTEXT....................................... II-1
III MARKET SEGMENTS........................................................................... III-1
IV INDUSTRY PROFILE OF RANCH-RELATED HERITAGE SITES... IV-1
V OPERATING PLAN FOR STEAM PUMP RANCH............................. V-1
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch ii
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
III-1 Resident Market Estimated 2006 and Projected 2011 Population Steam
Pump Ranch............................................................................................. III-4
III-2 Resident Market Estimated 2006 Age Distribution Steam Pump Ranch III-4
III-3 Median Household Income and Household Income Ranges by Percent
to Total Population Estimated 2006 Resident Markets Steam Pump
Ranch....................................................................................................... III-5
III-4 Selected Tucson and Tucson-Area Attractions Ranked by Attendance .. III-8
V-1 Pre-Opening Phase Staffing Profile Steam Pump Ranch ........................ V-5
V-2 Pre-Opening Phase Operating Expense Profile in Current Dollars Steam
Pump Ranch............................................................................................. V-6
V-3 Opening Phase Operating Staffing Profile Steam Pump Ranch.............. V-8
V-4 Opening Phase Operating Expense Profile in Current Dollars Steam
Pump Ranch............................................................................................. V-9
V-5 Full Build-Out Phase Staffing Profile Steam Pump Ranch..................... V-11
V-6 Full Build-Out Phase Operating Expense Profile in Current Dollars
Steam Pump Ranch.................................................................................. V-12
V-7 Pro Forma Operating Assumptions in Current Dollars for All Phases
Steam Pump Ranch.................................................................................. V-15
V-8 Stable Year Earned Revenue Potential of All Phases in Current Dollars
Steam Pump Ranch ................................................................................ V-17
V-9 Multi-Year Revenue and Expense Pro Forma Steam Pump Ranch......... V-19
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Page
Figure II-1 Street Map of Tucson Metropolitan Area II-2
Figure II-2 Map of Location of Steam Pump Ranch II-3
Figure II-3 Aerial Photograph of Steam Pump Ranch Site II-4
Figure III-1 Map of Resident Market Area for Steam Pump Ranch III-2
Figure III-2 Map of Resident Market Area for Steam Pump Ranch III-3
Figure IV-1 Southern Arizona Dude Ranch Locations IV-2
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch I-1
Section I
INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY AND ASSUMPTIONS
ConsultEcon, Inc. was retained by Poster Frost Associates to provide economic and management
consulting services for the Steam Pump Ranch master plan sponsored by the Town of Oro Valley.
Throughout the planning and in an iterative process, ConsultEcon, Inc. supplied economic research
data and input and analysis regarding proposed land uses and project elements being considered for
the Steam Pump Ranch master plan potential as a public heritage attraction.
Summary
This report presents a market analysis and operating plan for developing a ranch-related heritage
attraction at Steam Pump Ranch based on the master plan for the site completed by Poster Frost
Associates. The master plan lays out a multi-phase schedule for site development that are reflected
in the operating plan. For the purposes of this plan, operating expenses are divided into one of two
functional categories: “site costs” and “program costs.” Site costs are the core costs associated with
ongoing maintenance of the grounds and buildings and administration and oversight. Program costs
are associated with the programs and activities related to the site as a heritage and educational
attraction. From an analytical perspective, site costs reflect a baseline ongoing investment by the
Town of Oro Valley to enable public entry and safety of Steam Pump Ranch and the basic
stabilization and conservation of the historic fabric onsite. Program costs reflect site heritage and
educational benefits that enhance public use and add attractiveness to the private sector for their
possible investment in the site and operating of tenant businesses onsite.
Steam Pump Ranch has the ability to earn revenue associated with both the site and program costs.
Earned revenue falls into one of two categories: program revenue and non-program revenue.
Program revenue is driven by the heritage and educational activities onsite and is supported by
associated program costs as detailed in the operating expense plan. Non-program revenue is derived
from outside use of the structures included in the master plan and rental to concessionaries. Such
use is supported by the site-related operating costs. As with almost all publicly-accessible parks,
not-for-profit museums and historic sites nationwide, Steam Pump Ranch will have to supplement
earned revenues with non-earned or contributed revenues. This is true for both site-related costs and
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch I-2
for program-related costs. Overall, the market and operating analysis indicates that there is a
considerable opportunity for the initial and ongoing investment in infrastructure and operations to
create a substantial and well-used community asset that enhances the quality of life in Oro Valley
and contributes to the local economy.
The purpose of this operating plan is to provide information for the planning and development
process. As project planning moves forward (including physical and interpretive programs) the
project timing, operations, and financial plans will be refined.
Report Overview
This report incorporates baseline market information in Sections II through IV and an operating
plan in Section V. Section I is this introductory section. Section II evaluates the location and site
from a market perspective and provides a brief overview of the master plan elements. Section III
documents research into resident and tourist markets available to Steam Pump Ranch. Section IV
provides an industry profile of ranch-related heritage attractions. Section V presents an operating
plan for Steam Pump Ranch.
Assumptions
In preparing this report, the following assumptions were made. This study is qualified in its entirety
by these assumptions.
1. The size and design of the Steam Pump Ranch will serve to create a high quality,
stimulating attraction with broad-based audience appeal and a distinctive image. The Steam
Pump Ranch will be a unique attraction in the region and the nation. This distinction will
give it further visibility as a “must-see” attraction. The entrances to the site will be highly
visible and well signed. Additional land on the site will be used in a manner advantageous
to the success of the project.
2. The facility will be competently and effectively managed. An aggressive promotional
campaign will be developed and implemented. This program will be targeted to prime
visitor markets. The admission price for the elements of the facility will be consistent with
the entertainment and educational value offered, and with current attraction admissions
prices for other comparable visitor attractions.
3. There will be no physical constraints to impede visitors to the Steam Pump Ranch, such as
major construction activity. Changes in economic conditions such as a major recession or
major environmental problems that would negatively affect operations and visitation will
not occur in the near future.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch I-3
4. Every reasonable effort has been made in order that the data contained in this study reflect
the most accurate and timely information possible, and it is believed to be reliable. This
study is based on estimates, assumptions and other information developed by ConsultEcon,
Inc. from its independent research efforts, general knowledge of the industry, and
consultations with the client and Poster Frost Associates. No responsibility is assumed for
inaccuracies in reporting by the client, its agents and representatives, or any other data
source used in the preparation of this study. No warranty or representation is made that any
of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved. Usually,
there will be differences between forecasted or projected results and actual results because
events and circumstances usually do not occur as expected. Other factors not considered in
the study may influence actual results.
5. Possession of this report does not carry with it the right of publication. This report will be
presented to third parties in its entirety and no abstracting of the report will be made without
first obtaining permission of ConsultEcon, Inc., which consent will not be unreasonably
withheld.
6. This report may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it was prepared.
Neither all nor any part of the contents of this study shall be disseminated to the public
through advertising media, news media or any other public means of communication
without the prior consent of ConsultEcon, Inc.
7. Outputs of computer models used in this report are rounded. These outputs may therefore
slightly affect totals and summaries.
8. This report was prepared during the period November 2007 through April 2008. It
represents data available at that time.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch II-1
Section II
EVALUATION OF THE LOCAL CONTEXT
This section reviews the Steam Pump Ranch site from a market perspective. Essential aspects of
the market potential of a visitor attraction are its location, accessibility, visibility, adjacent uses,
and site size and quality. Following is a summary of these factors as they relate to the Steam
Pump Ranch.
Regional Context
Steam Pump Ranch is located in the Town of Oro Valley, a town in the Tucson Metropolitan
Area in southern Arizona. Tucson is the second largest city in Arizona, with an estimated
population that exceeds 500,000. The estimated Tucson Metropolitan Area (Pima County)
population exceeds 1 million people.
Figure II-1 is a street map of the Tucson area. The Tucson area is served by major highways
running east-west and north-south through the middle of Tucson—Interstate 10 and Interstate 19.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch II-2
Figure II-1
Street Map of Tucson Metropolitan Area
Source: Microsoft Virtual Earth.
Location
Figure II-2 provides a street map of the Oro Valley area and shows the location of the Steam
Pump Ranch highlighted with a red pushpin. The Steam Pump Ranch site is situated along
North Oracle Road, a major thoroughfare to and through Oro Valley.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch II-3
Figure II-2
Map of Location of Steam Pump Ranch
Source: Mapquest.com..
Figure II-3 is an aerial view of the Steam Pump Ranch site on North Oracle Road.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch II-4
Figure II-3
Aerial Photograph of Steam Pump Ranch Site
Source: Google Earth and ConsultEcon, Inc.
Accessibility
The site is accessible by vehicle from North Oracle Road. Downtown Tucson is approximately 13
miles away, about a 30-minute drive. Steam Pump Ranch is approximately 8 miles from Interstate
10. This would indicate that the site would be easily accessible by vehicle to residents from the
Tucson area, as well as visitors from outside the region who may be less familiar with the area.
Visibility
The site is visible from North Oracle Road. According to traffic data from the Arizona Department
of Transportation, average annual daily traffic (AADT) along North Oracle Road between North 1st
Avenue and East Tangerine Road has decreased since 2003. In the roadway segment, AADT
decreased 65 percent from 49,800 to 30,100 between 2003 and 2006. Steam Pump Ranch will be
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch II-5
able to heighten its visibility among through-travelers with adequate signage on North Oracle Road
and on local highways and interstates.
Adjacent Uses
As a major north-south thoroughfare, North Oracle Road is populated by a variety of commercial
uses. Southwest of the Steam Pump Ranch are large retailers, including a Home Depot. To the
northeast is a new mixed-use development that will include retail, restaurant, office and hotel uses.
Northwest of the site is a wash and connection to a multi-purpose recreational trail that extends
south to other trails and north into Catalina State Park. To the southwest across North Oracle Road
are commercial and industrial uses.
Master Plan and Proposed Project Components
The site size and quality are sufficient to warrant the development of a heritage ranch attraction on
site. The Steam Pump master plan provides an extensive overview of the current site and building
conditions and lays out a number of project components, which are assessed in this report.
Summary
Essential aspects of the market potential of a visitor attraction are its location, accessibility,
visibility, adjacent uses, and site size and quality. Steam Pump Ranch is located in the Town of Oro
Valley, a town in the Tucson Metropolitan Area in southern Arizona. The Steam Pump Ranch site
is situated along North Oracle Road, a major thoroughfare to and through Oro Valley, and visible to
passers-by. Downtown Tucson is approximately 13 miles away, about a 30-minute drive. Steam
Pump Ranch is approximately 8 miles from Interstate 10. This would indicate that the site would be
easily accessible by vehicle to residents from the Tucson area, as well as visitors from outside the
region who may be less familiar with the area. As a major north-south thoroughfare, North Oracle
Road is populated by a variety of commercial uses. Steam Pump Ranch will be able to heighten its
visibility among through-travelers and adjacent users with adequate signage on North Oracle Road
and on local highways and interstates. The site size and quality are sufficient to warrant the
development of a heritage ranch attraction on site. The Steam Pump Ranch master plan provides an
extensive overview of the current site and building conditions and lays out a number of project
components, which are assessed in this report.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-1
Section III
MARKET SEGMENTS
This section reviews the market segments available to Steam Pump Ranch.
Resident Market Overview
While Steam Pump Ranch has the potential to draw on tourist markets, resident markets will be a
primary source of visitation. The geographic reach and available resident markets for a project
depend on the size and quality of the attraction, its accessibility and location, the presence of other
nearby attractions, regional transportation networks, and marketing and promotional efforts.
The resident markets for an attraction such as Steam Pump Ranch are defined as the area whose
residents would visit the attraction as a day-trip. Persons in this Resident Market Area often have
repeat visitation patterns, or become members of the institution. Visiting the Steam Pump Ranch
would be a primary purpose or important part of a day-trip. Resident markets are analyzed within a
“gravity model” context; the closer residents live to the attraction, the more likely they are to visit it.
Depending on the individual market’s circumstances, resident markets can extend up to 100 or more
miles, or be as narrow as 50 miles. On its periphery, the resident markets change over to the visitor
(or tourist) market.
Definition of Resident Market Area
The Resident Market Area for Steam Pump Ranch is the Tucson Metropolitan Area (Pima County).
Within this overall Resident Market Area, Primary and Secondary Resident Market segments are
defined as follows:
♦ Primary Resident Market: Census tracts with parts in the Town of Oro Valley (0046.19,
0046.20, 0046.22, 0046.32, 0046.33, 0047.13, 0046.34, 0046.35, 0046.36, 0046.37, and
0047.16).
♦ Secondary Resident Market: Remainder of the Tucson Metropolitan Area (Pima County).
♦ Tertiary Resident Market: Census tracts in Pinal County, close in to the Town of Oro
Valley (0021.00, 0008.00, 0006.01, 0006.02, and 0007.00).
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-2
Figure III-1 and Figure III-2 show maps of the extent the Resident Market Area and its
component submarkets, as well as the boundaries of the Town of Oro Valley.
Figure III-1
Map of Resident Market Area for Steam Pump Ranch
Source: ESRI, TeleAtlas, and ConsultEcon, Inc.
Territories
Town of Oro Valley Boundaries
Primary Resident Market
Secondary Resident Market
Tertiary Resident Market
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-3
Figure III-2
Map of Resident Market Area for Steam Pump Ranch
Source: ESRI, TeleAtlas, and ConsultEcon, Inc.
Population
Data in Table III-1 show the estimated 2006 population in the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary
Resident Markets and projections for the population in those markets in 2011.
Territories
Town of Oro Valley Boundaries
Primary Resident Market
Secondary Resident Market
Tertiary Resident Market
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-4
Table III-1
Resident Market Estimated 2006 and Projected 2011 Population
Steam Pump Ranch
2006 Estimated
Population
2011 Projected
Population
% Change
2006 to 2011
Primary Resident Market 49,699 54,849 10.4%
Secondary Resident Market 904,998 1,000,552 10.6%
Tertiary Resident Market 41,171 47,428 15.2%
Total Resident Market Area 995,868 1,102,829 10.7%
Source: ESRI and ConsultEcon, Inc.
The Primary Resident Market Area population was 49,699 in 2006, and is projected to be 54,849 in
2011, an increase of 10.4 percent. The Secondary Resident Market Area population was 904,998 in
2006, projected to increase to 1,000,552, an increase of 10.6 percent by 2011. The Tertiary Resident
Market Area population was 41,171 in 2006, projected to increase to 47,428, an increase of 15.2
percent by 2011. The overall Resident Market Area population is therefore projected to increase by
10.7 percent, from 995,868 to 1,102,829 over the period from 2006 to 2011.
Age Profile
As an attraction primarily focused on cultural history and heritage, Steam Pump Ranch will likely
have broad appeal to multiple age segments including school-age children, families with children,
and older adults. Data in Table III-3 show the population by age group in the Resident Market
Area in 2006.
Table III-2
Resident Market Estimated 2006 Age Distribution
Steam Pump Ranch
0-19 20-29 30-49 49-64 65+
Primary Resident Market 22.1% 8.1% 23.5% 22.8% 23.4%
Secondary Resident Market 26.8% 15.3% 26.4% 17.2% 14.2%
Tertiary Resident Market 17.6% 13.0% 27.1% 18.2% 24.1%
Total Resident Market Area 26.2% 14.9% 26.3% 17.6% 15.1%
Source: ESRI and ConsultEcon, Inc.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-5
Important audiences for attractions such as the proposed Steam Pump Ranch are adults in their
mid 20’s through 40’s with children, and adults in their 40’s and 50’s who have more time and
disposable income for recreational activities of this type. The Primary and Tertiary Resident
Market populations have an age profile that is somewhat older than that of the Secondary
Resident Market, particularly in the 50 to 64 and 65+ age categories.
These data are supportive of the development of the proposed project, as people in these older
age groups are often retirees (and grandparents), with disposable time and income, an important
component of the audience for this type of attraction.
Household Income
Higher incomes are associated with visitation to cultural and educational attractions such as Steam
Pump Ranch, both in terms of ability to visit (disposable income, available transportation, and
leisure time) and the desire to visit, as higher incomes frequently reflect higher educational
attainment. Data in Table III-3 profile household income groups for the Resident Market Area.
Table III-3
Estimated Number of Resident Market Households and Household Income Ranges
by Percent to Total Households, 2006
Steam Pump Ranch
Number of
Households,
2006
Less than
$25,000
$25,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999 $100,000 +
Primary Resident Market 20,497 9.3% 19.1% 20.9% 20.3% 30.4%
Secondary Resident Market 355,014 26.3% 28.9% 19.4% 11.1% 14.2%
Tertiary Resident Market 13,863 21.0% 27.2% 21.7% 13.3% 16.9%
Total Resident Market Area 389,374 25.2% 28.4% 19.6% 11.7% 15.2%
Source: ESRI and ConsultEcon, Inc.
The above data show that 46.5 percent of households in the total Resident Market Area have
incomes greater than $50,000. However, in the Primary Resident Market Area, an estimated
71.6 percent of households are in the $50,000+ category. These income data are supportive of
the Steam Pump Ranch, in that they show that a significant percentage of the population in the
Resident Market Area has the economic means to attend educational attractions such as the
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-6
proposed project. Nevertheless, care should be taken in planning ticket price ranges to be
affordable to all economic levels in the Resident Market Areas.
Resident Market Area Summary
The population in the overall Resident Market Area is projected to increase 10.7 percent, from
995,868 to 1,102,829 over the period from 2006 to 2011. This growth trend will increase the size of
the markets available for the proposed Steam Pump Ranch. The demographic characteristics of the
Resident Market Areas include moderately high-income levels. While approximately 71.6 percent
of households in the Primary Resident Market Area had incomes over $50,000, in the overall
Resident Market Area, 46.5 percent of households were estimated in that category. Overall, these
population and income level data are good indicators for Resident Market visitation to the proposed
Steam Pump Ranch; however, care should be taken in planning ticket price ranges to be affordable
to all economic levels in the Resident Market Areas.
Overview of Tourist Market in Tucson Metropolitan Area
Tourists may be an important market segment for the proposed Steam Pump Ranch in Oro
Valley. Arizona is a popular travel destination, with an estimated 33.7 million overnight trips to
or within the state in 2006. Domestic overnight leisure visitors comprise 72 percent of these
trips. An estimated 17.6 percent of Arizona domestic overnight leisure trips were taken in the
Tucson and Southern area of Arizona (approximately 4.3 million trips). Overnight leisure travel in
Arizona is strongest in the winter months, especially in Southern Arizona. Approximately 36
percent of overnight leisure visitors traveled to the Tucson and Southern area in January,
February and March, while October, November and December accounted for another 26 percent
of these visitors. The average length of stay in Tucson and Southern is 3.5 days. 1
Travel to the Tucson Metropolitan Area is growing. According to the Metropolitan Tucson
Convention and Visitors Bureau, Tucson draws an estimated 3.5 million overnight visitors
annually. Of these, about 72 percent are leisure travelers. The impact of day-trip tourism (not
counted in these estimates) should also be considered. With Mexico 80 miles away, and Phoenix
100 miles away, there is significant day-trip visitation potential to the Tucson area. Visitors to
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-7
Tucson visit historical places/ museums at rates higher than the State of Arizona or U.S. as a
whole. This indicates a market predisposed to historical and cultural topics.
Steam Pump Ranch is located approximately 14 miles from downtown Tucson. As most visitors to
Tucson have access to an automobile, it is close enough to warrant a day-trip or a half day-trip by a
visitor to Tucson. In fact, many tourist attractions are located outside of the city. For example, the
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum (460,000 annual visitors) is located 20 miles from downtown.
Steam Pump Ranch would compliment these historic and ranching attractions located in Tucson and
Southern Arizona, creating more critical mass in the region as a destination for historic sites.
Local Tucson Area Attractions for Steam Pump Ranch
Tucson offers many popular attractions, major shopping malls, a growing accommodations base,
and cultural offerings that include museums, festivals and events, and professional sports teams
that play year-round. In addition to leisure travel, Tucson is also an active business locale that
draws a number of business travelers. The Tucson Convention Center is a focal point for many
business travelers, who may visit Steam Pump Ranch in their spare time.
In addition to the recreational destinations, the Tucson area has a diverse offering of local attractions
that includes cultural museums, educational attractions, national parks, and major historic sites such
as the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum, Saguaro National Park, Pima Air and Space Museum,
Tohono Chul Park, Flandrau Science Center and Planetarium, and Reid Park Zoo, among others.
The nature of these attractions, their attendance, and pricing levels inform the assessment of
attendance potential at Steam Pump Ranch. In general, there are many popular outdoor recreational
destinations, and many mid-sized and smaller attractions. Data in Table III-4 show selected
Tucson and regional attractions and provide a summary of attendance, ticket prices, and
descriptions.
1 Arizona 2006 Tourism Facts: Year-end Summary, Arizona Office of Tourism.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-8
Table III-4
Selected Tucson and Tucson-Area Attractions
Ranked by Attendance
Attraction and
Location
2005
Attendance Admission Price & Family
Membership Price (2006)
Description
Saguaro National Park
Tucson, AZ
727,208 $10.00/private car - 7 Days
$5.00/individual - 7 Days
$25.00 - Annual pass
Features Saguaro cacti, scenic drives through Upper Sonoran
Desert, 150 miles of hiking and walking trails, and two visitor
centers featuring bookstores with a large selection of books on
the Sonoran Desert.
Arizona-Sonora Desert
Museum
Tucson, AZ
459,031 Adults $9.00 ($12.00 Sept - May)
Children (6-12) $2.00 ($4.00
Sept- May)
Family membership $50.00
Located on Pima County land, this museum of the Sonoran
Desert includes natural history exhibits, a zoo, and botanical
garden, featuring reptiles and invertebrates, mountain woodlands,
desert grasslands, mammals, cave dwellers and habitats, an
aviary and cactus garden. Includes meeting facilities, gift shop
and food service.
Reid Park Zoo
Tucson, AZ
445,117 Adults $6.00
Seniors (62+) $4.00
Children (2-14) $2.00
Family membership $48.00
This city-owned and operated 17-acre zoo features over 200
different species of birds, fish, amphibians, mammals & reptiles.
AZA accredited.
Old Tucson Studios
Tucson, AZ
300,000
(estimated)
Adults $14.95 (12 & over)
Children $9.45 (4-11)
Annual pass $39.95
Built in 1939 as a replica of Tucson for movie Arizona. Also
was location for filming many Hollywood westerns. Now it is a
family theme park, movie, and television location and hosts live
entertainment.
Kartchner Caverns
State Park
Benson, AZ
179,129 $5.00 per car (2 adults, $2.00 each
additional adult)
$22.00 per night camping fee
Cave Tours Rotunda/Throne
Room:
$21.95 adult*
$12.95 7-13 years* (free under 7)
Cave Tours Big Room:
$25.95 adult*
$15.95 7-13 years* (free under 7)
*includes $3 reservation fee
Includes Discovery Center (museum with interpretive displays,
theater, gift shop & food vendors), guided cave tours, 62
camping sites and hiking and walking trails.
Tohono Chul Park
Tucson, AZ
175,238 Adults $5.00
Seniors (62+) $4.00
Students w/ID $3.00
Children 5-12: $2.50
Family membership $40.00
Nature trails featuring native plants; gardens; art exhibits in a
renovated historic home; research library; café and gift shop.
Tucson Museum of Art
& Historic Block
Tucson, AZ
160,000 Adults $8.00
Seniors (60+) $6.00
Students (13+) $3.00
Family membership $50.00
The museum features Pre-Columbian, Spanish Colonial, Post
Colonial and Latin American Folk Art featured in five separate
historic houses that form the historic block.
Pima Air & Space
Museum
Tucson, AZ
and Titan Missile
Museum
Green Valley, AZ
138,226 at
PASM
47,747 at
TMM
Pima Air Museum:
Adults $9.75 ($11.75 Nov.-May);
Seniors $8.75 ($9.75 Nov.-May),
Children (7-12) $6.00 ($8.00
Nov.-May)
Titan Missile:
Adults $8.50
Seniors: $7.50
Children (7-12): $5.00
Combo ticket:
$16.00 ($18.00 Nov.-May)
Family membership $60.00
The Pima Air & Space Museum is the largest privately funded
aerospace museum in the world. More than four dozen
interpretive exhibits are housed in nearly a 100,000 square feet of
galleries covering all aspects of aviation history, technology, and
science. There are 250 aircrafts covering 80 acres.
The Titan Missile Museum opened in May 1986, and in April of
1994, the missile site was designated a National Historic
Landmark. In November of 2003, the museum opened the Count
Ferdinand von Galen Education and Research Center. The
Center houses an expanded exhibits gallery, a classroom for
educational programming, and a state-of-the art archival area
devoted to the historical documents and artifacts of the Titan II
program.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-9
Table III-4
Selected Tucson and Tucson-Area Attractions
Ranked by Attendance
Attraction and
Location
2005
Attendance Admission Price & Family
Membership Price (2006)
Description
Catalina State Park
Tucson, AZ
130,088 $6.00 per vehicle (1-4 adults)
($3.00 May-Sept)
$2.00 individual/bicycle
$12-$22/night camping
Scenic desert park offering camping, hiking, picnicking,
bicycling, horseback riding, plant, wildlife, and an archaeological
site. The Park contains 5,493 acres at elevations near 3,000 feet.
International Wildlife
Museum
Tucson, AZ
100,000
(estimated)
Adults $7.00
Seniors (62+)
Students (w/ID) $5.50
Children (4-12) $2.50
Family membership $40.00
A natural history museum including displays of donated
wildlife from around the world including birds of paradise,
wooly mammoth tusks, and animals hunted by Theodore
Roosevelt on his African expeditions. Also includes a 98-seat
theater that plays nature films. Gift shop & restaurant on-site.
Tucson Botanical
Gardens
Tucson, AZ
100,000
(estimated)
Adults $5.00
Children (6-12) $2.50
Family membership $40.00
A five-acre collection of 16 specialty gardens including a
historical garden, an herb garden, a butterfly garden, a cactus and
succulent garden, and others. The collection consists of over
4,200 individual plants. There is also a café and a gift shop.
Casa Grande Ruinas
National Monument
Coolidge, AZ
97,214 $5.00 per person, good for 7 days.
Children 15 and under admitted
free.
Casa Grande, or "Big House," is one of the largest prehistoric
structures ever built in North America. Casa Grande Ruins, the
nation's first archeological preserve, protects the Casa Grande &
other archeological sites within its boundaries.
Boyce Thompson
Arboretum
Superior, AZ
85,000
(estimated)
Adults $7.50
Children (5-12) $3.00
Family membership $60.00
The Arboretum brings together plants from the Earth's many and
varied deserts and dry lands and displays them alongside
unspoiled examples of the native Sonoran Desert vegetation.
Fort Huachuca Museum
Fort Huachuca, AZ
70,000 No charge The Fort Huachuca Historical Museum the colorful history of the
Southwest and the prominent part played by the U.S. Army.
Tucson Children’s
Museum
Tucson, AZ
69,000 Adults $5.50
Seniors $4.50
Children 2-16 $3.50
Family membership $50.00
Exhibits feature a dinosaur world, ocean discovery center, the
human body, music & culture, a firehouse, electricity, and a
mock television studio.
Kitt Peak National
Observatory
Tucson, AZ
60,000
(estimated)
Adult $2.00
Children 6-12 $1.00
Visitors to the Observatory during the day have the opportunity
to tour the facility. There is a nighttime observing program
available.
Chiricahua National
Monument
Willcox, AZ
60,224 $5.00 per person, 16 and under
admitted free. Good for 7 days.
Unusual rock spires and formations, as well as the Faraway
Ranch, a pioneer homestead and later a working cattle and guest
ranch. The house is furnished with historic artifacts tracing the
development of technology during the first half of the twentieth
century.
Tumacácori National
Historical Park
Tumacácori, AZ
44,020 $3.00 per person, 16 and under
admitted free. Good for 7 days.
$10.00 - Annual pass
Tumacácori Mission is one of the oldest missions in Arizona
dating to 1691. The present church was built in the early 1800’s
and abandoned in 1848. It is the best preserved (restored) of the
three missions and consists of garden, church, and museum with
artifacts. The grounds include ruins of the cemetery, convento,
granary, courtyard, lime kiln, and irrigation ditch. The ticket
office, book store, and administration and maintenance offices
are located at the Tumacácori site.
Tubac Presidio State
Historic Park
Tubac, AZ
16,500 Adult $3.00 ($2.00 May-Sept)
Children free (under 14)
Tubac is the oldest state park in Arizona and has national
significance as the beginning of the Anza Trail. The park
contains a museum, archeology display, gift shop, and a number
of historic buildings, including a schoolhouse, Otero Hall, Rojas
House, and Sanchez House.
Sources: Facilities profiled, Arizona Office of Tourism: Arizona 2005 Tourism Facts, Association of Zoos and Aquariums: Member Directory
2007, American Association of Museums: Official Museum Directory 2006, National Park Service Public Use Statistics Office: 2005 Statistical
Abstract, Association of Children’s Museums 2006 Membership Directory, and ConsultEcon, Inc.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch III-10
Local Attractions Summary
Tucson offers many popular attractions, major shopping malls, a growing accommodations base,
and cultural offerings that include museums, festivals and events, and professional sports teams
that play year-round. In addition to leisure travel, Tucson is also an active business locale that
draws a number of business travelers. In addition to popular recreational destinations, Tucson
has a diverse offering of local attractions that includes cultural museums, educational attractions,
national parks, and major historic sites such as the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum, Saguaro
National Park, Pima Air and Space Museum, Tohono Chul Park and Reid Park Zoo, among
others. Attendance at these top attractions ranges from 69,000 at the Children’s Museum to over
700,000 at the Saguaro National Park. These major attractions generally have annual attendance
in the 100,000 to 400,000 range, although there are also a number of smaller museums and
attractions. Adult ticket prices at the top attractions range from $14.95 at Old Tucson Studios to
$2.00 at Kitt Peak National Observatory. Most attractions fall in the $5.00 to $10.00 range.
Tourist Market Summary
Tourists may be an important market segment for the proposed Steam Pump Ranch in Oro Valley.
According to the Metropolitan Tucson Convention and Visitors Bureau, Tucson draws an estimated
3.5 million overnight visitors annually. Of these, about 72 percent are leisure travelers. Steam
Pump Ranch is located approximately 13 miles from downtown Tucson. As most visitors to
Tucson have access to an automobile, it is close enough to warrant a day-trip or a half day-trip by a
visitor to Tucson.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-1
Section IV
INDUSTRY PROFILE OF RANCH-RELATED HERITAGE SITES
This section discusses the concepts, visitor experience, and operations of several notable attractions
that are comparable to Steam Pump Ranch. This section provides an overview of the interpretive
themes, programs, visitor markets, and operating economics of such facilities. Steam Pump Ranch
will provide opportunities for heritage education with a focus on ranching history, cultural history,
and nature while offering outdoor activities. Case studies of relevant facilities that can be
considered comparable to Steam Pump Ranch help to inform planning parameters for the project
such as attendance potential, operating budgets, staff composition, and provide a general sense of
varying types of programs and operating models. It should be noted that there are no “perfect”
comparable projects to Steam Pump Ranch, as each site will have its own unique circumstances.
As America entered the 21st century and left many of its rural traditions behind, there has been a
demand among the public for experiences that authentically reflect the history, atmosphere, and
lifestyle of prior times and historic ways of life. This has resulted in the development of ‘living
history’ museums; the preservation of historic farms and ranches; and the procurement of open
spaces for the public benefit. The benefits of these measures have been evident in a number of
facets; the education provided to local school children, tourists, and the general public about these
regions or localities; the enhancement to tourism and economic development provided by
educational attractions; the preservation of scenic and environmentally sensitive landscapes; and the
inherent benefit of preserving and interpreting culture. There are a number of examples of these
types of sites which are profiled in the following section, most of which relate to the historic
ranching industry.
Types of Ranching Attractions
Arizona is one of the hubs of ranching history in the U.S. Due to its scenery and its many authentic
working ranches and guest ranches, it is a national and worldwide destination for visitors seeking to
experience life in the ‘Old West.’ The Tucson area and Southern Arizona have numerous choices
of ranching and cowboy related attractions for visitors to the area. Due to the interest in ranching
related tourism and the wealth of ranches in the area, there has been considerable effort to develop
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-2
this type of tourism. There have been a considerable number of ranches which have shifted their
economic focus from livestock and agriculture to tourism. Following are descriptions of the
governance and characteristics of ranch-related heritage education sites or historic sites including
private sector models, government-operated sites, and non-profit operated sites.
Private Sector “Dude Ranches”
Dude ranches are a private sector model by which ranches have been used for the enjoyment of
tourists in an economically viable way. They are typically operated by families or companies, for
profit, and usually offer accommodations, guided horseback rides, and other leisure activities. Dude
ranches are found throughout the Southwest and are popular with families. They serve many
markets, including international tourists. The Arizona Dude Ranch Association (ADRA) has 13
members whose ranches and facilities are diverse in size, quality, and visitor activities/amenities.
Nine of the dude ranches are found near Tucson or south of Tucson. Dude ranches primarily cater
to overnight visitors; though some offer facilities for ‘day-riders.’ The for-profit status of most
dude-ranches requires relatively high lodging rates — many with meals and rides inclusive. This
contrasts to Steam Pump Ranch which has been primarily considered a potential resource for the
general public. However, the already-established market for overnight accommodation and horse-
riding at dude ranches, and the position this region holds in satisfying that market, suggests that
such uses could be considered at Steam Pump Ranch as part of its program, or as an ‘alternative’
use. Figure IV-1 shows the general location of dude ranches that are members of the ADRA in the
region, indicated by large blue dots.
Figure IV-1
Southern Arizona Dude Ranch Locations
Source: Arizona Dude Ranch Association.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-3
Federal Government Managed Ranch Attractions
The Federal government is the proprietor of several significant historic ranches that are preserved
and interpreted for the public benefit. These ranches are managed under a number of different
arrangements. Some are designated National Parks or National Monuments. Some ranches are
operated by the Bureau of Land Management. One such facility is the Empire Ranch, located
southeast of Tucson in Santa Cruz County. Descriptions of several federally-managed historic
ranches follow.
Empire Ranch
Located on a remote section of Highway 83 north of Sonoita, the Empire Ranch is early in the
process of developing into an historical education center around its ranching history. Access is
fairly inconvenient; a long, bumpy gravel road leads from the highway to the main site. The Empire
Ranch House is a 22-room adobe and wood frame building dating to 1870.
The ranch is operated by the Bureau of Land Management and is part of the 42,000-acre Las
Cienegas National Conservation Area. The Empire Ranch House was designated an Official Project
of the White House Save America's Treasures initiative in 1999, and was awarded a Millennium
Grant for preservation work. Successfully raising $95,000 in matching funds for the grant was a
major Foundation achievement in 1999-2000. Other funding sources for preservation have come
from member support, partnership grants and cost-share grants from BLM, as well as grants from
private foundations. Over the next five years, once stabilization is assured, a master plan jointly
prepared by the Foundation and the BLM envisions development of the Empire Ranch Western
Heritage Site and Education Center, with interdependent programs for:
♦ Restoration of the ranch house as a historic house museum;
♦ Establishment of a self-guided Heritage Trail linking the historic buildings, natural
landscape and ecology of the ranch; and
♦ Development of educational programs for all ages, especially programs for children to
augment classroom learning about the natural and cultural history of the region.
The Empire Ranch, as a tourist attraction, is relatively early in the development process. Currently,
it is unknown if the site would charge an admission price, or what it might be. When the
preservation work has progressed, there will be more attention paid to the programmatic planning
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-4
elements. There has already been some planning and physical construction of a trail system around
the ranch property.
Chiricahua National Monument/ Faraway Ranch
Located northwest of Douglas, Arizona the 12,000-acre National Monument is popular for hikers
and bird-watchers. Of historic interest is the Faraway Ranch, a pioneer homestead and later a
working cattle and guest ranch. It is a significant example of human transformation of the western
frontier from wilderness to the present settlement. Faraway Ranch offers glimpses into the lives of
Swedish immigrants Neil and Emma Erickson and their children. The house is furnished
historically, but also traces the development of technology during the first half of the twentieth
century. The Chiricahua National Monument drew 58,200 visitors in 2005, though not all of these
visitors necessarily went to the Faraway Ranch buildings.
Grant-Kohrs National Historic Site
Located 50 miles from Helena, Montana this National Historic Site was established by Canadian fur
trader John Grant, and expanded by cattle baron Conrad Kohrs. Grant-Kohrs Ranch National
Historic Site commemorates the Western cattle industry from its 1850s inception through recent
times. The park was created in 1972, and embraces 1,500-acres and 90 structures. The site is
maintained today as a working ranch. Periodic events include house tours, wagon rides,
blacksmithing, and children's crafts and activities. The Grant-Kohrs National Historic Site drew
17,500 visitors in 2005.
State Ranches
A number of state parks in Arizona, and throughout the U.S., have origins as ranches. Most are
family ranches (and farmsteads) that have been ceded to - or acquired by - the state for use as
public parks, which make use of both their open space and historic qualities for the visitor’s benefit.
Donated or acquired ranches have been converted into state parks in many places across the West.
Following is a discussion of state parks in Arizona and New Mexico that have formerly been
ranches.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-5
Dead Horse Ranch State Park
This 423-acre park was once a cattle ranch, acquired by the Arizona State Parks in 1973. The Park
features group camping amenities, trails for hiking, biking, equestrian use, and horse corrals
available for overnight use with advance arrangements. It is adjacent to the Verde River Greenway
Natural Area, and the Coconino National Forest. There are not any historic structures in the Park.
There were approximately 99,000 visitors to Dead Horse Ranch State Park in 2004.
New Mexico Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum
The New Mexico Farm and Ranch Heritage Museum is a 47-acre site that brings to life long
history of farming and ranching in New Mexico. A large main building contains more than
24,000 square feet of exhibit space, along with a restaurant, gift shop and 150-seat indoor theater
for special productions, presentations, and lectures. An outdoor amphitheater seats 250 people
for plays and outdoor programs. Visitors to the museum can watch a cow being milked, stroll
along corrals filled with livestock, enjoy several gardens, or drop by the blacksmith shop or
another venue to watch one of the demonstrations. Cooking classes are offered throughout the
year. Live animals on-site include burros, sheep, goats, horses, and cattle. There is also a crop
demonstration plot, a pond, irrigation ditch, and stalls for milking cows. Annual attendance
ranges from 42,000 to 45,000 and the price of adult admission is $3.00.
Oracle State Park Center for Environmental Education
Ranging from 3,500 to 4,500 feet in elevation, the nearly 4,000-acre park consists of oak grassland,
riparian woodland, and mesquite scrub habitats which contain a diversity of wildlife and plant
species. Once home to 1,100 head of cattle, the ranch was donated to the Defenders of Wildlife in
1976; they later transferred the property to the State Parks Board. Today the park provides
environmental education programming, tours of a historic ranch house, and 15 miles of hiking trails.
It is located approximately 45-minutes north of Tucson in the Santa Catalina Mountains. There
were approximately 8,300 visitors to Oracle State Park in 2004. The town of Oracle, nearby, is also
home to the Acadia Ranch Museum, a historic site that is open for several hours on Saturdays or by
appointment.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-6
San Raphael Ranch State Park (in planning phase)
This property features a historic pre-territorial ranch house with surround-house porches, barns,
and windmills. The present land base of the ranch includes over 20,000 acres. The historic
ranch house was built in 1900 by cattle rancher Colin Cameron. Near the house are the barn,
corrals and blacksmith shop with an assortment of tools associated with ranch work. While the
Nature Conservancy has purchased a conservation easement for most of the property, Arizona
State Parks has purchased 3,550 acres of land on the lower section of the Ranch. The property
will protect the habitat for the many rare and unique native plants and animals. The Park is not
yet open to the public, but plans are under way for nature walks, an historic house tour, and other
activities to be offered to the public on the portion of the property owned by Arizona State Parks.
Spring Mountain Ranch
Spring Mountain Ranch is located within the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.
This 520-acre state park was once a combination working ranch and luxurious retreat by a string
of owners who have given the area a long and colorful history, including millionaire Howard
Hughes. For 30 years the Park has hosted a Super Summer Theatre, a theatrical organization that
performs nightly during the summer in an outdoor theater. Semi-annual living history events at
the Park include costumed role playing, demonstrations and re-enactments of historic events.
Demonstrations of pioneering skills are also presented, and visitors are encouraged to participate.
In addition to the living history aspects of the Park, there are two hiking trails, nature interpretive
walks, and picnic tables. Overall Park attendance is approximately 200,000 annually.
Admission is $5.00 per car.
Local Government Ranches
Cities and counties can also be owners and/or operators of historic ranches; for example Pima
County’s own Roy P. Drachman-Agua Caliente Regional Park. This 101-acre Pima County park
surrounds a perennial warm spring flowing into three large ponds. Interpretive signs explaining the
geology and history of the warm spring and the natural and human history of the site are installed
throughout the park. Several historic ranch buildings on the site have been preserved and restored.
It is located on the far east-side of Tucson. It was opened by the County in 1985 and the historic
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-7
Ranch House and Rose Cottage were restored in 2004. There is no admission fee to the Park, and
no known visitor count.
Sahuaro Ranch Park
The historic Sahuaro Ranch is located in a residential neighborhood of Glendale, Arizona, and is
part of a greater park complex that features the historic ranch, recreational fields, playgrounds, and
picnic pavilions. Within its 17 acres, the historic area features a rose garden, historic orchards,
agriculture demonstration field, barnyard, and 13 original buildings. The city manages the park,
including running events and educational programs on site, and there are two full-time and two part-
time city employees located on site. Site and building maintenance is also taken care of by the city.
The facility is available for rentals and the barn can accommodate large groups. Community events
are held throughout the year. The city partners with other organizations, including the Glendale
Arizona Historical Society, which holds guided tours of the house during fall, winter, and spring for
a donation, the Arizona Artist Blacksmith Association, the Arizona Beef Council, and the Arizona
Early Day Gas Engine and Tractor Association. It is estimated that 50,000 people visit the park
annually, with half of the visitation derived from community events held onsite and educational
programs.
Non-profit Ranches
There are quite a few historic ranches or heritage education sites operated by non-profit
organizations; one of the most common management forms. Several examples in Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas and Colorado include the following:
El Rancho de la Golondrianas
El Rancho de la Golondrianas is a living history museum located on 200 acres in a rural farming
valley 16 miles south of Santa Fe. It is dedicated to the heritage and culture of Spanish Colonial
New Mexico. Original colonial buildings on the site date from the early 18th century and 19th
century. In addition, historic buildings from other parts of northern New Mexico have been
reconstructed at Las Golondrinas. Docents and interpreters clothed in the styles of the times
show how life was lived in early New Mexico in buildings such as a hacienda, a village store, a
schoolhouse, and several chapels and kitchens. There's also a working molasses mill,
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-8
wheelwright and blacksmith shops, shearing and weaving rooms, a threshing ground, a winery
and vineyard, and four water mills, as well as dozens of farm animals. Attendance in 2005 was
49,000 and the adult admission price is $5.00.
La Posta Quemada
This working ranch is located 25-miles southwest of Tucson and is part of Colossal Cave
Mountain Park. The ranch portion of the site features a museum, research library, a gift shop,
and open-air café serving Mexican food. The Ranch Headquarters House on La Posta Quemada
Ranch was built in 1967 (the original adobe Ranch house burned to the ground in 1965). Today
it houses a museum with two focuses: the human history and the natural history of the caves and
the Cienega region. Colossal Cave Mountain Park is owned by Pima County. Pima County
holds an administration agreement with a charitable corporation, the Pima County Parklands
Foundation. The Foundation, in turn, holds a management contract with private operators, who
oversee the day-to-day management of the Park.
George Ranch Historical Park
This 23,000-acre working ranch located in Richmond, Texas has 480 acres dedicated to a non-profit
historical park. The park places emphasis on depicting authentic locations, historic homes, and
costumed presenters that tell a story of that reflects Texas’s history through a number of historical
periods. The park is self-guided and there are costumed interpreters stationed at the exhibit sites that
demonstrate and discuss their daily routines. Live animals can be found on the site; additionally the
park offers opportunities for bird watching and alligator viewing. A visitor center/gift shop/cafe is
the entry point for the historical park. The admission price of $9.00 is at the high end of historical
ranches. Attendance was 91,000 in 2005. Most of attendance is drawn from site rentals and events.
MacGregor Ranch
The 1,200-acre MacGregor Ranch is the last remaining working cattle ranch in Estes Park and one
of the few sites operating as both a working ranch (110 head) and youth education center in the
northern Colorado area. The 1896 house museum has been in operation since 1973. The
MacGregor Ranch Historic District is home to 43 buildings. Twenty-eight of the buildings are
listed on The National Register of Historic Places. The Muriel L. MacGregor Charitable Trust, a
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-9
private, non-profit operating foundation, funds and manages all Ranch activities, the museum and
all educational programs. The MacGregor Trust relies heavily on donations, grants and investments
to operate the historic Ranch. Annual attendance ranges from 8,000 to 10,000 visitors annually.
Adult admission is $3.00.
Slaughter Ranch
Located in Douglas, Arizona, Slaughter Ranch is now the Johnson Historical Museum of the
Southwest. This National Historic Landmark, with an old adobe ranch house, has been restored
along with the ice house, wash house, granary, commissary, and car shed to give the feeling of what
ranch life was at the turn of the century. This non-profit historical attraction draws approximately
4,000 annually.
Summary
Following is a summary of characteristics of profiled ranch related heritage education sites,
relevant trends, and lessons learned from research into such attractions.
♦ Mission and Programs – The historic ranches profiled have unique missions and
programs. Education, preservation, and programming about heritage are parts of the
primary mission of these sites. Several regularly feature costumed interpreters
demonstrating life and industry as it was in historic periods. Agriculture and cattle
ranching is a primary interpretive theme as well. Another common mission is to simply
preserve historic structures and teach the general public about them. Additionally,
preservation of open-space is a common goal; ranch sites can encompass up to and
exceeding 1,000 acres of land.
♦ Governance – Heritage education sites potentially can be operated by a number of types
of organizations including local or state government, non-profit organizations, or in some
cases such as dude ranches, by private companies. The profiled attractions are typically
non-profit or government operated. While non-profit organizations don’t pay income
taxes on revenue, they often raise a substantial portion of their revenue from unearned
sources (gifts, grants etc) to carry out their mission. Government operated facilities, as
well as non-profit organizations have unique sets of challenges, many of which are
related to consistent funding for programs and operations. Often the facilities that are
linked to county, state, or even federal government have access to resources that are not
usually available to stand alone non-profits. For example, a state or county run site may
be able to borrow special equipment at no extra cost, or it might have access to technical
expertise in the administrative offices. It is important that the governance established
reflect the goals of the facility, its needs, and its viability.
♦ Historic Sites and Interpretation – Due to the unique history of the site and buildings
found on the site, Steam Pump Ranch will certainly be an historic site with opportunities
for interpretation of a number of historic and cultural themes. Most of the profiled ranch-
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-10
related attractions have historic structures on site, which serve as a central point of
interest. The living history concept is one that has been used extensively at historic sites
(real or re-created). This generally implies programs re-enacting life (cooking, farming,
craft making etc) as it was during the historic period being interpreted.
While one museum director called living history a ‘dying industry’ it still remains one of
the best formats for teaching the general public (especially children) about past lifestyles.
Nationwide, living history attractions have experienced stagnant attendance and often
high operating costs. Such attractions generally require a large personnel staff, which is
usually the most costly budget expense. The high cost of operating living history sites
results in high operating expenses, and therefore results in admission fees that are often
uncompetitive with other local attractions, thus a deterrent to visitation. Some sites have
maintained living history on a special event basis (war reenactments, cultural festivities,
holiday programs, weekend programs etc) to maintain visitor interest but without the day-
to-day costs personnel costs of living history. Increasingly, the benefits of drawing the
visitor into active participation (rather than passive ‘watching’) have become evident.
♦ Tourist and Resident Markets – In several instances, historic ranches are located outside
of major population centers and therefore do not have direct access to significant resident
and tourist markets. Unlike these more remote ranches, Steam Pump Ranch is located close
to downtown Tucson. Most of these attractions benefit from both tourist and resident
markets. However, due to the educational orientation (especially for school-children) of
these attractions, they tend to draw more from local residents. Therefore, the need for new
programming to draw repeat visitors is very important. Good visibility is needed for
significant tourist visitation.
♦ Attendance – Annual attendance at the profiled ranch related attractions ranges from
4,000 to 200,000 visitors. Ranches in the high range of attendance were those located in
large parks where attendance to the ranches is a subset of attendance to the overall park.
♦ Price – Adult admissions prices for historic ranches range from free to $9.00 per adult.
Some state parks charge per vehicle rather than per person. The average adult admission
price among the profiled ranches is $5.00. Generally, compared to many ‘attractions’
these profiled facilities are modestly priced. Admission prices should be set to be
affordable for families living in the region, and should be competitive with other local
attractions, while at the same time being high enough to help support the budget through
earned revenue.
♦ Operations and Budget – The size of an operating budget is dependent on a number of
factors including facility size and number of visitors, sources of funding, and the mission
of the organization. More complex operations might include extensive programming and
marketing, as well as facility rentals and catering. Some facilities operate on a more
minimalist approach, in particular some state and county parks. More pared-down
operations, such as that sometimes found in state and county parks, may include minimal
staffing and maintenance costs. Often operations such as state or local parks are
supported by larger administrations that provide value to the park or attraction in terms of
expertise, business planning, maintenance, equipment use, and other services that may
not be immediately apparent in the operating budget of the particular entity. These
support structures and shared costs contrast to the non-profit model in which an
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch IV-11
organization often must support itself entirely both in terms of operating revenue as well
as other types of support (operating expertise, political support, maintenance costs,
bookkeeping etc).
♦ Personnel – Personnel costs often make up the majority of budget expenses at historic
ranch parks. Living history attractions require larger staff sizes, as do other
programming-heavy attractions, and thus are more expensive to operate than the smaller,
less ‘attraction’ oriented sites. Some of the more minimalist operations are historic sites
or parks where the emphasis is on self-guided tours, especially outdoor touring. The type
of attraction and organization envisioned has much to do with the site’s personnel profile.
The importance of volunteers at the facilities profiled must be stressed. If properly
organized, docents can replace personnel at certain positions, thus saving salary expenses,
which could result in a more economically viable operation.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-1
Section V
OPERATING PLAN FOR STEAM PUMP RANCH
This section describes the operating parameters for Steam Pump Ranch as envisioned in the master
plan developed by the consultant team and the town plan committee; and analyzes Steam Pump
Ranch’s economic potential under the master plan. Visitor and operating assumptions used in the
analysis are based on the market analysis for the project, the planned project size and master plan
description, and additional research on operating factors that would be associated with a facility of
the profile being considered.
The purpose of this operating plan is to provide information for the planning and development
process. As project planning moves forward (including physical and interpretive programs) the
project timing, operations, and financial plans will be refined.
Project Phasing
Under the master plan, Steam Pump Ranch would be developed over the course of three phases.
The first or “Pre-Opening Phase” begins on May 1, 2008 with the Town of Oro Valley assuming
complete control of Steam Pump Ranch. During the Pre-Opening Phase, existing capital funds will
be used to rehabilitate and restore one building on site. During this phase, interpretive visits will be
limited in scope to docent-led visits by appointment only. In addition, the town will work to secure
capital improvement funds through a bond vote likely to occur in November 2009. During the Pre-
Opening Phase, it is recommended that the town sponsor an interpretive plan for Steam Pump
Ranch, which will make the ranch more competitive for capital improvement funds. Such work
would be needed in any event to move the master plan forward. Once capital funds have been
secured, building and construction can proceed, with a targeted completion date of early 2012 in
time for the Arizona’s centennial on February 14.
The opening of the second phase, or “Opening Phase,” is targeted for February 14, 2012 when
Steam Pump Ranch would open to the general public after the completion of an interpretive plan
and capital funds have been secured to renovate existing buildings, construct new buildings, install
interpretive elements and exhibits, and install required infrastructure and landscaping. The targeted
opening would coincide with Arizona’s centennial celebration of its admission to the union.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-2
The third phase, or “Full Build-Out Phase,” would occur at an as-yet determined time after the
Opening Phase. This phase incorporates other public and commercial uses not developed onsite
during the Opening Phase. It should be noted that individual components of the Full Build-Out
Phase could be developed over time rather than all at once. In addition, some of the Full Build-Out
Phase components might be developed earlier as part of the Opening Phase. The Full Build-Out
components are intended to require additional and substantial cost-benefit analysis, prior to
implementation. The Full Build-Out elements are “placeholders” for these potential uses.
Operations Management
Steam Pump Ranch would operate under the norms for ranch attractions nationally, adjusted for
local conditions. Steam Pump Ranch will be operated by the Town of Oro Valley. The Parks and
Recreation Department will be the lead operating department, responsible for the activities and
programs planned for the ranch and maintenance and upkeep of the grounds. The Public Works
Department would be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the buildings on site. In
addition, the Parks and Recreation Department may contract with non-profit organizations,
commercial contractors and concessionaires to manage activities onsite or to operate onsite.
For the purposes of this analysis, the activities within the ranch that are operated by concessionaires
will provide additional revenue to support ranch operations without affecting the ranch’s (town)
expense profile. Therefore, expenses incurred by concessionaires are not included in this analysis,
and town revenues from concessionaires are expressed as “net” revenues to the town.
In addition, the Oro Valley Historical Society, Greater Oro Valley Arts Council, a potential “Friends
of Steam Pump Ranch” support group, and other non-profit organizations may have an important
role in coordinating volunteers, developing educational programs, sponsoring events onsite and
raising supportive funds. Regardless of any group’s current and future capacity to run programs and
raise funds, the Town of Oro Valley will have to provide operating support in order to maintain the
ranch operation. As is the case in every ranch attraction profiled in this report and virtually every
heritage attraction across the country, Steam Pump Ranch will need ongoing operational support
from local government and other contributing organizations and individuals.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-3
Site Operating Expenses
Parks and educational attractions like Steam Pump Ranch are largely fixed cost operations. These
fixed costs include insurance, utilities and exterior maintenance, personnel, exhibit maintenance,
basic marketing, facility maintenance, etc. There is some variability in expenses based on
attendance levels such as visitor services, education programs, marketing, and so forth. The
analysis of operating expenses is based on the size of the facility, an analysis of existing park
operations and maintenance budgets in the Town of Oro Valley, as well as the operating experience
of other attractions of this type. This operating profile assumes an efficiently run organization with
a “bottom line” mentality.
For the purposes of this plan, operating expenses are divided into one of two functional categories:
“site costs” and “program costs.” Site costs are the core costs associated with ongoing maintenance
of the grounds and buildings and administration and oversight. Program costs are associated with
the programs and activities related to the site as a heritage and educational attraction. From an
analytical perspective, site costs reflect a baseline ongoing investment by the Town of Oro Valley to
enable public entry and safety of Steam Pump Ranch and the basic stabilization and conservation of
the historic fabric onsite. Program costs reflect site heritage and educational benefits that enhance
public use and add attractiveness to the private sector for their possible investment in the site and
operating of tenant businesses onsite.
Operating expenses for each phase of Steam Pump Ranch will change according to the phase of
development. A staff profile has been developed for each phase as an input to the overall
operating expenses for each phase. The staffing of Steam Pump Ranch is anticipated to change
with each new phase and according to the level of activities planned for the site.
In addition to salaries and fringe benefits, operating expenditures are assigned for a number of
categories, including marketing, insurance, utilities, and staff overhead costs. Budget categories
for this plan use the budget categories for existing parks in the Town of Oro Valley. Following
is a discussion of selected expense items that are applicable to all of the phases.
♦ Utilities – Utility costs are estimated based on the experience of other parks in the Town
of Oro Valley and include energy, water and sewer, and waste disposal. Natural gas and
electricity is estimated at $3.00 per square foot of building area. This estimate will vary
depending on the systems installed in the buildings, outdoor energy use, levels of activity,
and future energy costs.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-4
♦ Outside Professional Services – Expense category for various outside contractors, such as
pest control, sign installation, tree removal and other contract services.
♦ Administrative Supplies & Materials – Includes maintenance, janitorial and operating
supplies, office supplies and materials, and general business and miscellaneous expenses for
the buildings.
♦ Grounds Repair & Maintenance – Includes maintenance costs, operating supplies, and
miscellaneous expenses for the ranch grounds.
♦ Building Repairs & Maintenance – Expenses related to maintaining building systems,
janitorial and general building functions.
♦ Advertising – Includes advertising; printing and publications design, production and
distribution expenses for advertising; and other printed matter as well as in-house
produced promotional materials. Steam Pump Ranch should participate in co-op
marketing to the extent possible.
♦ Printing & Publications – Includes printing costs for brochures, visitor guides, office
stationary and letterhead, press release packages, educational kits, and possibly a newsletter.
♦ Exhibit Reinvestment – Costs associated with maintaining and updating exhibits.
♦ Miscellaneous & Contingency – Other small expenditure items not covered in prior
categories.
A moderate capital repairs fund, which is estimated at 3 percent of operating expenses, is included
for small-scale capital repairs and improvements. It should be noted that this operating budget item
does not include funds for major capital repairs (which would be addressed through capital
budgets), nor does it include funds for exhibit renewal. These major capital items would be paid for
through outside gift and grant funds and/or special town budget requests. Expenses were developed
to reflect the program as conceived in the Steam Pump Ranch master plan and the experience of
comparable visitor attractions.
Pre-Opening Phase: Staffing and Operating Expense Profiles
Data in Table V-1 present a staffing profile for Steam Pump Ranch based on facility size and the
activities planned for the site during the pre-opening phase. The staffing profile includes one part-
time recreation manager, one overnight caretaker, and two part-time maintenance workers. This
staffing profile represents the minimum required to maintain a presence on the site and to stabilize
and maintain the grounds and buildings before the Opening Phase. The wage and salary figures are
for illustrative purposes only and in no way are meant to represent actual or recommended salaries
by position or position type. However, as a whole, these estimates are representative of salary
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-5
levels in the Town of Oro Valley, and are illustrative of salary requirements for the facility as
conceived.
In total, a payroll of $40,600 is estimated for the Pre-Opening Phase. A 40 percent fringe rate was
utilized based on the current Town fringe rate. The total payroll for Steam Pump Ranch, based on
this staffing profile, is estimated at $56,900. Personnel salaries and wages as projected are
approximately 57 percent of total expenses at the facility in this phase. All of the personnel and
personnel expenses are site costs in this phase.
Table V-1
Pre-Opening Phase Staffing Profile
Steam Pump Ranch
Personnel Schedule
Annual
Salaries
(FTE)
Number of
Full Time
Positions
Number of
Part Time
Positions
Site Salary
Budget
Program
Salary
Budget
Administration 1/
Recreation Manager (Site Manager) $50,471 1 $25,236
Assistant Recreation Manager 32,360 -
(Programs and Events Coordinator)
Heritage Museum and Gift Shop 2/
Educator/Volunteer Coordinator 35,000 -
Concessions 20,000 -
Operations 1/
Caretaker 3/- 1 -
Park Maintenance Worker 30,802 1 15,401
Public Works Maintenance Worker 30,802 -
Intermittent Workers 20,000 -
(Interns, Seasonal/Event Support)
Site and Program Salaries 1 2 $40,637 $0
$16,255 $0
Site and Program Salaries & Benefits Budget $56,891 $0
Total Salaries
Total Salaries & Benefits Budget
Site Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE'S)2.00
Program Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE'S)0.00
Total Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE'S)2.00
NOTE: Part Time Employees at 50% FTE.
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
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 industry knowledge.
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 sundown and sunup.
$56,891
Taxes, Fringe & Benefits (@ 40% of salary)
Taxes, Fringe & Benefits (@ 40% of salary)
$40,637
$16,255
Data in Table V-2 provide an operating expense profile for Steam Pump Ranch for the Pre-Opening
Phase based on Town of Oro Valley park budgets and typical site operating costs. In the Pre-
Opening Phase, operating expenses for all fixed amount categories are estimated to be 25 percent of
those estimated for the Opening Phase due to the limited activities planned for the site. In total, an
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-6
operating budget of about $104,400 is anticipated for the Pre-Opening Phase. These are mostly site
rather than program costs.
Table V-2
Pre-Opening Phase Operating Expense Profile in Current Dollars
Steam Pump Ranch
Project Parameters
Heritage Attendance 0
Acres 17
Building Interiors Square Footage (SF)1,337 Poster Frost Associates
Employees (FTEs)2.00 See Staff Profile
Detailed Budgetary Analysis Annual Amount Expense Factors 1/
Site Costs
Site Personnel Salaries (FTE, PTE)$40,637 See Staff Profile
Fringe & Benefits $16,255 See Staff Profile
Outside Professional Services $12,500 Fixed Amount
Natural Gas and Electricity $4,011 @ $3.00 per Building Square Foot
Water and Sewer $10,625 Fixed Amount
Waste Disposal Fees $1,750 Fixed Amount
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance $188 Fixed Amount
Equipment Repair and Maintenance $188 Fixed Amount
Grounds Repair and Maintenance $1,250 Fixed Amount
Buildings Repair and Maintenance $1,250 Fixed Amount
Rentals $250 Fixed Amount
Postage $188 Fixed Amount
Telecommunications $375 Fixed Amount
Gasoline and Oil $375 Fixed Amount
Non-Capitalized Equipment $250 Fixed Amount
Field Supplies $500 Fixed Amount
Uniforms $250 Fixed Amount
Subtotal Site Costs $90,840
Program Costs
Program Personnel Salaries (FTE, PTE)$0 See Staff Profile
Fringe & Benefits $0 See Staff Profile
Advertising $0 @ $0.25 per Attendee
Printing & Publications $0 @ $0.25 per Attendee
Travel and Training $75 Fixed Amount
Memberships and Subscriptions $50 Fixed Amount
Special Events $5,000 Fixed Amount
Educational Programs $5,000 Fixed Amount
Exhibit Reinvestment $0 @ $0.50 per Attendee
Miscellaneous & Contingency $400 @ $200 Per FTE
Subtotal Program Costs $10,525
Subtotal Operating Expenses $101,365
Capital Reserves 2/$3,041 3% Of Total Op. Expenses
Total Operating Expenses $104,406
Operating Expense Per SF $78.09
Operating Expense Per FTE $52,203
Operating Expense Per Acre $6,142
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
1/ Site Costs are determined to be core costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of the site by
the Town of Oro Valley. Program Costs are associated with the operation of the facility as a public
attraction and community facility and may be attributed to another non-profit or governmental agency .
Cost exstimates are based on analysis of Parks and Recreation Department budgets for other Oro
Valley parks, conversations with Town of Oro Valley employees in the Parks and Recreation and
Public Works Departments, and general industry knowledge. "Fixed Amount" Pre-Opening Phase
expenses are estimated at 25% of Opening Phase expenses.
2/ Capital Reserves include funds for equipment replacements and minor capital for building
improvements.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-7
Opening Phase: Staffing and Operating Expense Profiles
Data in Table V-3 present a staffing profile for Steam Pump Ranch during the Opening Phase based
on facility size, projected attendance patterns, and the experience of comparable ranch attractions.
The staffing profile includes one full-time recreation manager, a full-time educator and volunteer
coordinator, one full-time concessions worker, one overnight caretaker, and two full-time
maintenance workers. A strong cadre of volunteer docents, who would have educational and
interpretive duties as well as assisting with special projects and other important functions, will be
vital to the successful operation of the facility. The wage and salary figures are for illustrative
purposes only and in no way are meant to represent actual or recommended salaries by position or
position type. However, as a whole, these estimates are representative of salary levels in the Town
of Oro Valley, and are illustrative of salary requirements for the facility as conceived.
In total, a payroll of $141,700 is estimated for the Opening Phase. A 40 percent fringe rate was
utilized based on the current Town fringe rate. The total payroll for Steam Pump Ranch, based on
this staffing profile, is estimated at $198,300. Personnel salaries and wages as projected are
approximately 45 percent of total expenses at the facility in this phase.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-8
Table V-3
Opening Phase Operating Staffing Profile
Steam Pump Ranch
Personnel Schedule
Annual
Salaries
(FTE)
Number of
Full Time
Positions
Number of
Part Time
Positions
Site Salary
Budget
Program
Salary
Budget
Administration 1/
Recreation Manager (Site Manager)$50,471 1 $50,471
Assistant Recreation Manager 32,360 -
(Programs and Events Coordinator)
Heritage Museum and Gift Shop 2/
Educator/Volunteer Coordinator 35,000 1 35,000
Concessions 20,000 1 10,000
Operations 1/
Caretaker 3/- 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)
Site and Program Salaries 4 2 $96,674 $45,000
$38,670 $18,000
Site and Program Salaries & Benefits Budget $135,344 $63,000
Total Salaries
Total Salaries & Benefits Budget
Site Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE'S)3.50
Program Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE'S)1.50
Total Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE'S)5.00
NOTE: Part Time Employees at 50% FTE.
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
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 industry knowledge.
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.
Taxes, Fringe & Benefits (@ 40% of salary)
Taxes, Fringe & Benefits (@ 40% of salary)
$141,674
$56,670
$198,344
Data in Table V-4 provide an operating expense profile for Steam Pump Ranch for the Opening
Phase based on Town of Oro Valley park budgets and typical site operating costs. In total, an
operating budget of about $439,800 is anticipated for the Opening Phase. This includes about
$312,500 for site costs, $114,500 for program costs and $12,800 for capital reserves.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-9
Table V-4
Opening Phase Operating Expense Profile in Current Dollars
Steam Pump Ranch
Project Parameters
Heritage Attendance 1/10,000
Acres 17
Building Interiors Square Footage (SF) 19,124 Poster Frost Associates
Employees (FTEs) 5.00 See Staff Profile
Detailed Budgetary Analysis Annual Amount Expense Factors 2/
Site Costs
Site Personnel Salaries (FTE, PTE)$96,674 See Staff Profile
Fringe & Benefits $38,670 See Staff Profile
Outside Professional Services $50,000 Fixed Amount
Natural Gas and Electricity $57,372 @ $3.00 per Building Square Foot
Water and Sewer $42,500 Fixed Amount
Waste Disposal Fees $7,000 Fixed Amount
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance $750 Fixed Amount
Equipment Repair and Maintenance $750 Fixed Amount
Grounds Repair and Maintenance $5,000 Fixed Amount
Buildings Repair and Maintenance $5,000 Fixed Amount
Rentals $1,000 Fixed Amount
Postage $750 Fixed Amount
Telecommunications $1,500 Fixed Amount
Gasoline and Oil $1,500 Fixed Amount
Non-Capitalized Equipment $1,000 Fixed Amount
Field Supplies $2,000 Fixed Amount
Uniforms $1,000 Fixed Amount
Subtotal Site Costs $312,466
Program Costs
Program Personnel Salaries (FTE, PTE)$45,000 See Staff Profile
Fringe & Benefits $18,000 See Staff Profile
Advertising $2,500 @ $0.25 per Attendee
Printing & Publications $2,500 @ $0.25 per Attendee
Travel and Training $300 Fixed Amount
Memberships and Subscriptions $200 Fixed Amount
Special Events $20,000 Fixed Amount
Educational Programs $20,000 Fixed Amount
Exhibit Reinvestment $5,000 @ $0.50 per Attendee
Miscellaneous & Contingency $1,000 @ $200 Per FTE
Subtotal Program Costs $114,500
Subtotal Operating Expenses $426,966
Capital Reserves 3/$12,809 3% Of Total Op. Expenses
Total Operating Expenses $439,775
Operating Expense Per SF $23.00
Operating Expense Per FTE $87,955
Operating Expense Per Acre $25,869
1/ Midpoint of estimated range between 5,000 and 15,000 visitors annually.
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
2/ Site Costs are determined to be core costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of the site by the
Town of Oro Valley. Program Costs are associated with the operation of the facility as a public
attraction and community facility and may be attributed to another non-profit or governmental agency .
Cost exstimates are based on analysis of Parks and Recreation Department budgets for other Oro Valley
parks, conversations with Town of Oro Valley employees in the Parks and Recreation and Public Works
Departments, and general industry knowledge.
3/ Capital Reserves include funds for equipment replacements and minor capital for building
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-10
Full Build-Out Phase: Staffing and Operating Expense Profiles
Data in Table V-5 present a staffing profile for Steam Pump Ranch during the Full Build-Out Phase
based on facility size, projected attendance patterns, and the experience of comparable ranch
attractions. The staffing profile includes one full-time recreation manager, a part-time assistant
recreation manager, a full-time educator and volunteer coordinator, one part-time concessions
worker, one overnight caretaker, and two full-time and one part-time maintenance workers, as well
as an allowance for intermittent workers that could be interns working on special projects or
temporary help for special events. A strong cadre of volunteer docents, who would have
educational and interpretive duties as well as assisting with special projects and other important
functions, will be vital to the successful operation of the facility. The wage and salary figures are
for illustrative purposes only and are not meant to represent actual or recommended salaries by
position or position type. However, as a whole, these estimates are representative of salary levels in
the Town of Oro Valley, and are illustrative of salary requirements for the facility as conceived.
In total, a payroll of $208,700 is estimated for the Full Build-Out Phase. A 40 percent fringe rate
was utilized based on the current Town fringe rate. The total payroll for Steam Pump Ranch, based
on this staffing profile, is estimated at $292,100. Personnel salaries and wages as projected are
approximately 51 percent of total expenses at the facility in this phase.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-11
Table V-5
Full Build-Out Phase Staffing Profile
Steam Pump Ranch
Personnel Schedule
Annual
Salaries
(FTE)
Number of
Full Time
Positions
Number of
Part Time
Positions
Total
Salary
Budget
Administration 1/
Recreation Manager (Site Manager)$50,471 1 $50,471
Assistant Recreation Manager 32,360 1 16,180
(Programs and Events Coordinator)
Heritage Museum and Gift Shop 2/
Educator/Volunteer Coordinator 35,000 1 35,000
Concessions 20,000 1 10,000
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 2 20,000
(Interns, Seasonal/Event Support)
Site and Program Salaries 5 5 $127,476 $81,180
$50,990 $32,472
Site and Program Salaries & Benefits Budget $178,466 $113,652
Total Salaries
Total Salaries & Benefits Budget
Site Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE'S)4.50
Program Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE'S)3.00
Total Full Time Equivalent Positions (FTE'S)7.50
NOTE: Part Time Employees at 50% FTE.
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
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 industry knowledge.
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.
$208,656
$83,462
$292,118
Taxes, Fringe & Benefits (@ 40% of salary)
Taxes, Fringe & Benefits (@ 40% of salary)
Data in Table V-6 provide an operating expense profile for Steam Pump Ranch for the Full Build-
Out Phase based on Town of Oro Valley park budgets and typical site operating costs. In the Full
Build-Out Phase, operating expenses for all fixed amount categories are estimated to be 110 percent
of those estimated for the Opening Phase. In total, an operating budget of about $567,400 is
anticipated for the Full Build-Out Phase. This includes about $376,200 for site costs, $174,700 for
program costs and $16,500 for capital reserves.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-12
Table V-6
Full Build-Out Phase Operating Expense Profile in Current Dollars
Steam Pump Ranch
Project Parameters
Heritage Attendance 1/15,000
Acres 17
Building Interiors Square Footage (SF) 22,000 Poster Frost Associates
Employees (FTEs) 7.50 See Staff Profile
Detailed Budgetary Analysis Annual Amount Expense Factors 2/
Site Costs
Site Personnel Salaries (FTE, PTE)$127,476 See Staff Profile
Fringe & Benefits $50,990 See Staff Profile
Outside Professional Services $55,000 Fixed Amount
Natural Gas and Electricity $66,000 $3.00 per Building Square Foot
Water and Sewer $46,750 Fixed Amount
Waste Disposal Fees $7,700 Fixed Amount
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance $825 Fixed Amount
Equipment Repair and Maintenance $825 Fixed Amount
Grounds Repair and Maintenance $5,500 Fixed Amount
Buildings Repair and Maintenance $5,500 Fixed Amount
Rentals $1,100 Fixed Amount
Postage $825 Fixed Amount
Telecommunications $1,650 Fixed Amount
Gasoline and Oil $1,650 Fixed Amount
Non-Capitalized Equipment $1,100 Fixed Amount
Field Supplies $2,200 Fixed Amount
Uniforms $1,100 Fixed Amount
Subtotal Site Costs $376,191
Program Costs
Program Personnel Salaries (FTE, PTE) $81,180 See Staff Profile
Fringe & Benefits $32,472 See Staff Profile
Advertising $3,750 @ $0.25 per Attendee
Printing & Publications $3,750 @ $0.25 per Attendee
Travel and Training $330 Fixed Amount
Memberships and Subscriptions $220 Fixed Amount
Special Events $22,000 Fixed Amount
Educational Programs $22,000 Fixed Amount
Exhibit Reinvestment $7,500 @ $0.50 per Attendee
Miscellaneous & Contingency $1,500 @ $200 Per FTE
Subtotal Program Costs $174,702
Subtotal Operating Expenses $550,893
Capital Reserves 3/$16,527 3% Of Total Op. Expenses
Total Operating Expenses $567,420
Operating Expense Per SF $25.79
Operating Expense Per FTE $75,656
Operating Expense Per Acre $33,378
1/ Midpoint of estimated range between 10,000 and 20,000 visitors annually.
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
3/ Capital Reserves include funds for equipment replacements and minor capital for building
improvements.
2/ Site Costs are determined to be core costs associated with the ongoing maintenance of the site by
the Town of Oro Valley. Program Costs are associated with the operation of the facility as a public
attraction and community facility and may be attributed to another non-profit or governmental agency .
Cost exstimates are based on analysis of Parks and Recreation Department budgets for other Oro
Valley parks, conversations with Town of Oro Valley employees in the Parks and Recreation and
Public Works Departments, and general industry knowledge. "Fixed Amount" Full Build-Out Phase
expenses are estimated at 110% of Opening Phase expenses.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-13
Revenue Potential
Steam Pump Ranch will derive revenue from earned revenue and non-earned revenue sources.
As with most parks, Steam Pump Ranch will have to supplement its earned revenues with non-
earned sources because earned revenues will not support all of the operational expenses. Since
the ranch will be owned and operated by the Town of Oro Valley, it is assumed that in lieu of
other funds from other sources, the town will provide an annual contribution to support ranch
“site” operations, either from general funds or from a fund set up specifically for Steam Pump
Ranch. Earned revenues can cover much of the “program costs” of the site. This analysis
assumes a “breakeven” operation: the amount of non-earned revenue required is the difference
between the revenue earned and the total operating expense. Non-earned revenues cited in this
report should be considered a minimum as additional non-earned revenues will enhance park
operations, potentially leading to a better visitor experience.
Operating and Revenue Assumptions
Important operating and revenue assumptions for Steam Pump Ranch include:
♦ Hours and Admission – Steam Pump Ranch will not be open to the public during the
Pre-Opening Phase, except during special events and programs. During the Opening
Phase, it is assumed that Steam Pump Ranch will be open seven days per week from
sunrise until sundown, or in accordance with the policies of other parks in the Town of
Oro Valley. Steam Pump Ranch would be open as needed for evening events. The gift
shop and food service would be open and guided tours are assumed to be available 4 days
per week, Thursday through Sunday, from 10 am until 4 pm throughout the year.
♦ Admission Fee – Steam Pump Ranch will not have an admission fee. The general public
will be allowed access to Steam Pump Ranch grounds, much like a public park, without
charge. Docent-led tours of the grounds and of interior exhibit areas will be available 4
days per week throughout the year. The assumed fee for volunteer, docent-led tours of
grounds and house exhibits is $5.00 in current dollars. The Pre-Opening Phase does not
have potential for paid tours.
♦ Attendance – The pre-opening phase has modest attendance potential and no earned
revenue potential from visitation. The heritage-related visitor potential for Opening Phase
tours is 10,000, the mid-point of a 5,000 to 15,000 range. During the Opening Phase of
Steam Pump Ranch, including public park, events and heritage-related visitation, is
estimated to have 30,000 visitors. The Full Build-Out Phase heritage-related visitation
potential is 15,000, the mid-point of a 10,000 to 20,000 range. Total Full Build-Out phase
visitation is estimated at 65,000.
♦ Retail – A gift shop with appropriate and varied merchandise can be an important part of
the visitor experience, as well as an important revenue source. This element is assumed to
perform at industry norms for moderately scaled historical educational attractions, and to
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-14
generate $1.00 per visitor in retail sales. The cost of goods sold is estimated to be 52
percent of retail sales.
♦ Food Service – The Steam Pump Ranch program includes the potential for food service.
During the Opening and Full Build-Out Phases, food service is assumed to be modest in
scale, with vending machines onsite and a kiosk in Building 5 offering snacks and
beverages. Limited seating should be available, with the possibility of outdoor seating to
supplement indoor areas. There is an estimated $1.50 per visitor (heritage and other
attendees) for onsite food service. The Town is assumed to use a concessionaire to manage
the food service, with an estimated 15 percent of gross food service revenue to the Town.
There is the potential to offer a greater array of food service options onsite; however, the
food service would need to be of a sufficient size and menu diversity required to augment
sales from onsite visitors with offsite audiences. It is reasonable to expect that food service
provision could be combined with catering planned for the site to create a more attractive
business opportunity and a stronger onsite tenant.
♦ Room and Outdoor Area Rentals – Many visitor attractions make their facilities available
for private events and facility rentals. These might include receptions, meetings, and events.
As a part of the Steam Pump Ranch master plan, there are two small indoor rooms and three
outdoor spaces that can accommodate rentals. As such, Steam Pump Ranch will have an
opportunity to earn revenues from this source. The terms for rental and the extent of rentals
vary considerably among institutions. This analysis includes assumptions for the number of
events held annually in each location and the revenue per event rental in both the Opening
and Full Build-Out Phases.
♦ Educational Programs and Special Events – It is anticipated that Steam Pump Ranch will
be used for educational programs, such as lectures, demonstration activities and school
programs, and special events, such an arts and crafts fairs and town celebrations. Programs
and events will be important for generating regular activity onsite, as well as contributing to
site visitation. Under the master plan, programs and events are assumed either to breakeven
or to have a modest cost; therefore, they would not generate earned revenue for the Town of
Oro Valley.
♦ Full Build-Out Phase Components – The Full Build-Out Phase for Steam Pump Ranch
includes two components that have earned revenue potential: a multi-purpose event building
and an equestrian building. The multi-purpose event building as proposed would be large
enough to handle events for up to 250 people, and would include a catering kitchen. This
facility would transform the site’s ability to hold events and an entirely different type and
size of events would be possible. The event building is assumed to be operated by a
concessionaire, with 12 percent of gross event fees returning to the Town as rent. The
equestrian building is assumed to be used by a horse trail riding operation, which had been a
use onsite in the recent past. The equestrian building is assumed to be operated by a
concessionaire, with 12 percent of gross fees returning to the Town as rent. Even before the
construction of permanent equestrian building and corrals, an equestrian operator could set
up temporary structures onsite to establish a baseline trailing riding operation. Given the
opportunity to start equestrian use on the site with relatively low investment, it is possible
that equestrian use could begin earlier than the Full Build-Out Phase.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-15
♦ Inflation Assumption – The financial pro forma analysis uses the 2008 value of the dollar
for the first year (FY2008-2009) of the projection, with following years at an assumed 3
percent inflation rate.
Data in Table V-7 summarize the assumptions underlying the financial analysis for Steam Pump
Ranch.
Table V-7
Pro Forma Operating Assumptions in Current Dollars for All Phases
Steam Pump Ranch
Assumptions
Pre-Opening
Phase Opening Phase
Full Build-Out
Phase
Heritage Attendance 0 10,000 15,000
Programs, Events and Rental Attendance 1,000 7,500 20,000
Park Attendance 0 12,500 25,000
Total Attendance 1,000 30,000 60,000
General
Guided Tour Per Capita Fee $5.00 $5.00
Inflation Rate (applied to revenues and expenses)3.0%3.0%
Office Rent for OVHS and other non-profit users $0 $0
Per Capita Gross Gift Shop Sales $1.00 $1.00
Cost of Goods Sold as a % of Gift Shop Sales 52%52%
Per Capita Food Service Sales $1.50 $1.50
Owner's Fee on Food Service Sales 15%15%
Room and Outdoor Areas Rental Fees per Use
Building 2 Meeting Room $50 $50
Building 4 Meeting Room $50 $50
Area b/t Buildings 2 and 3 $250 $250
Porch/Patio (Building 5)$250 $250
Outdoor Barbecue/Gathering Space $250 $250
Room and Outdoor Areas Rental Annual Use
Building 2 Meeting Room 100 150
Building 4 Meeting Room 100 150
Area b/t Buildings 2 and 3 50 75
Porch/Patio (Building 5)50 75
Outdoor Barbecue/Gathering Space 50 75
Multi-Purpose Event Building
Gross Fees per Use $5,000
Number of Uses per Year 100
Owner's Fee on Event Sales 12%
Equestrian Center
Estimated Number of Trail Rides 10,000
Average Price of Trail Ride $40.00
Owner's Fee on Equestrian Sales 12%
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
Gift Shop and Food Service 1/
1/ Food service includes both vending machines located onsite and an area for snacks and beverages located in Building 5.
The Owner's Fee may vary be different for vending machines and a snack and beverage kiosk.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-16
Earned Revenue Potential
A variety of onsite consumer offerings and opportunities to attract concessionaire tenants will
enable Steam Pump Ranch to earn operating revenues. The Pre-Opening Phase does not include
opportunities for earned revenue. In the Opening Phase, the major sources of earned revenue
will come from ticket and rental fees. Food service and a gift shop will provide additional
revenue opportunities. In the Full Build-Out Phase, other revenue will be derived from activities
operated by concessionaires, including the multi-purpose event building and an equestrian
center.
Earned revenue falls into one of two categories: program revenue and non-program revenue.
Program revenue is driven by the heritage and educational activities onsite and is supported by
associated program costs as detailed in the operating expense plan. Non-program revenue is derived
from outside use of the structures included in the master plan and rental to concessionaries. Such
use is supported by the site-related operating costs.
Data in Table V-8 show the estimated earned revenue potential of Steam Pump Ranch for the
master plan phases. These are provided for a “stable” year of operations in current dollars for
comparative purposes. The Table V-8 analysis then shows operating expenses by phase. The net
income from earned revenue then indicates the outside support needed by phase.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-17
Table V-8
Stable Year Earned Revenue Potential of All Phases in Current Dollars
Steam Pump Ranch
Revenue Category
Pre-Opening
Phase
Opening
Phase
Full Build-
Out Phase
Program Revenue
Office Rent (OVHS, GOVAC, etc.)$0 $0 $0
Heritage Tickets 0 50,000 75,000
Gift Shop Sales 0 15,600 31,200
Café Sales 0 6,750 13,500
Subtotal Program Revenue $0 $72,350 $119,700
Non-Program Revenue
Room Rental Fees
Building 2 $0 $5,000 $7,500
Building 4 0 5,000 7,500
Outdoor Rental Fees
Area b/t Buildings 2 and 3 0 12,500 18,750
Porch/Patio (Building 5)0 12,500 18,750
Outdoor Barbecue/Gathering Space 0 12,500 18,750
Equestrian Center Rent 0 0 48,000
Event Center Rent 0 0 60,000
Subtotal Non-Program Revenue $0 $47,500 $179,250
Total Earned Revenue $0 $119,850 $298,950
Operating Expenses $104,406 $439,775 $567,420
Net Operating Income from Earned Revenue ($104,406) ($319,925) ($268,470)
Required Non-Earned Revenue $104,406 $319,925 $268,470
% Earned Revenue to Expenses 0.0% 27.3% 52.7%
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
Non-Earned Revenue Requirement
As with almost all publicly accessible parks, not-for-profit museums and historic sites nationwide,
Steam Pump Ranch will have to supplement earned revenues with non-earned or contributed
revenues. Nationwide, virtually all public sector and private not-for-profit visitor attractions receive
a substantial share of revenues from non-earned sources. In the case of parks, these are generally
supported by municipal budgets. For historical and educational attractions, non-earned revenues
include endowment earnings, gifts, grants, fundraising events, corporate support, government grants
and in-kind donations. This report establishes a baseline amount or requirement of non-earned
revenues to maintain basic operations. Higher levels of non-earned revenue would enhance
operations and increase public benefits.
The sources and amounts of non-earned revenues vary between institutions based on their
individual circumstances. Following is a discussion of possible sources of non-earned revenues at
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-18
Steam Pump Ranch. The best strategy is to tap a wide variety of sources of contributed revenues so
that the revenue goals can be met or exceeded. Contributed revenue sources to support ongoing
operations funding should be secured at the same time as capital funding prior to construction.
♦ Public Subsidies and Contributions – Since Steam Pump Ranch is to be managed by
Town of Oro Valley, the town will no doubt contribute unearned revenues to support
operations as it does for all of its parks. Such facilities are generally considered community
assets that contribute to the quality of life for area residents while supporting the local
economic base in terms of jobs and the importation of dollars into the local economy. On an
ongoing basis, many educational and cultural attractions rely on an annual budget
appropriation from state and/or local governmental sources. Sharing proceeds from local
taxation districts is also a common source of annual funding.
♦ Not-for-Profit Support Group – During the planning of Steam Pump Ranch, several
participants expressed interest in creating a 501(c)3 support group. Many visitor attractions
have affiliated support groups that raise funds, organize volunteers, and generally support
operations.
♦ Endowment – A targeted campaign to create an endowment for Steam Pump Ranch should
begin in the project’s early planning stages. Support from an endowment can substantially
assist successful operations. Endowment contributions can be either general in nature, or
specifically allocated to an exhibit, task, or position. For instance, the amount to endow a
particular exhibit would be formulaically derived, and would carry with it formal signed
recognition in the facility, as well as recognition in facility publications and visitor guides.
Other endowment could be raised on a more traditional philanthropic basis.
♦ Corporate Sponsorships – Corporations are increasingly viewing sponsorship of first rate
cultural and educational institutions as a way to meet their charitable obligations, while
gaining positive publicity and public recognition. In the case of Steam Pump Ranch, there
are a number of corporations that have a strong local presence which would be good
prospects to become ongoing donors and /or sponsors of the Ranch. The tying of specific
exhibits or programs to their sponsors allows the sponsor to have on-site recognition. This
approach has yielded significant results for many museums and educational attractions.
♦ Gifts In-Kind – Some of the inputs to the operation of Steam Pump Ranch lend themselves
to support through gifts in-kind. Other basic supplies and inputs might also be purchased
under special arrangements, such as reduced profit margins or even as pure donations.
These might range from paper products and printing to professional services.
♦ Grants – There are a wide-variety of grants available from government bodies and from
foundations. Many museums and educational attractions receive substantial portions of
their annual budgets from such sources. These will be especially useful in funding special
educational programs, exhibit reinvestment, and other focused activities. The extent to
which such sources of funds are tapped will be based on the ability for the institution to
prepare and submit grant applications, and the persuasiveness and targeting of the individual
requests.
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-19
♦ Annual Events – An annual event is often a way to meet multiple organizational objectives.
These include membership development, community recognition, corporate support
development, and fund development.
♦ Annual Gifts – A targeted development campaign should focus on regional individuals and
foundations. This fundraising task may be undertaken by a Friends group that is affiliated
with Steam Pump Ranch.
In summary, virtually all public parks, museums and educational attractions rely on non-earned
sources of funds to supplement earned revenues. The amounts that can be gained from these
sources will vary based on the individual circumstances of the institution, the support it receives in
the community, and the personnel and resources that can be focused on attracting these sources of
funds.
Multi-Year Operating Scenario
This analysis is of a small ranch attraction operating with a modest attendance estimate and a robust
schedule of community and private events. A preliminary financial pro forma summary for Steam
Pump Ranch is presented in Table V-9. For the purposes of this analysis, the Full Build-Out Phase
is assumed to occur in FY2014-2015, but the exact timing of this phase has yet to be determined.
Table V-9
Multi-Year Revenue and Expense Pro Forma
Steam Pump Ranch
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 1/Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 2/
Project Phases Pre-Opening Opening Full Build-Out
Potential Number of Users 1,000 1,000 1,000 15,500 30,000 30,000 60,000
Fiscal Year (July-June) 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Program Revenue $0 $0 $0 $39,529 $81,431 $83,873 $142,928
Non-Program Revenue $0 $0 $0 $25,952 $53,462 $55,066 $214,034
Non-Earned Revenue $104,406 $107,538 $110,764 $271,368 $441,508 $454,754 $463,496
Total Revenue $104,406 $107,538 $110,764 $297,320 $494,970 $509,819 $677,529
Site Expenses $90,840 $93,565 $96,372 $220,351 $351,683 $362,233 $449,192
Program Expenses $10,525 $10,841 $11,166 $68,309 $128,871 $132,737 $208,603
Capital Reserves $3,041 $3,132 $3,226 $8,660 $14,417 $14,849 $19,734
Total Operating Expenses $104,406 $107,538 $110,764 $297,320 $494,970 $509,819 $677,529
Net Operating Income $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Source: ConsultEcon, Inc.
1/ Steam Pump Ranch is planned to open on February 14, 2012, about halfway through the fiscal year. Therefore, estimated revenues and expenses
for fiscal year 2011-2012 are the total of 50% of estimated Pre-Opening Phase revenues and expenses and estimated Opening Phase revenue and
expenses, adjusted for inflation.
2/ The Full Build-Out Phase will occur at a to-be-determined point after the Opening Phase. For the purposes of this analysis, this phase is
assumed in Year 7, adjusted for inflation. It could be in a different year. Alternatively, individual component
ConsultEcon, Inc.
Economic Research and Management Consultants May 29, 2008
Steam Pump Ranch V-20
Analysis of Operating Scenario and Phasing
The multi-year operating scenario reflects three different revenue and expense estimates for each
phase of development. One way to assess the public support (non-earned revenues) required for the
site is on a per capita basis. The first three years of operation of Steam Pump Ranch will have very
limited public access, but still have carrying costs of around $100,000 to be funded by the Town.
Therefore, the cost per user would be very high. Despite the limited usage, this period offers the
Town of Oro Valley and its partners the opportunity to establish a detailed interpretive plan for the
site through the development of exhibits, programs, events and other activities at Steam Pump
Ranch. When the site is open to the public in 2012, the cost per user is expected to fall into line
with the experience of other parks and heritage attractions.
Summary
There is a good opportunity to create a major benefit for citizens of Oro Valley. In addition, this
project would benefit business community through a favorable amenity and improve the town as a
place to live, work and play. Overall, the market and operating analysis indicates that there is a
considerable opportunity for the initial and ongoing investment in infrastructure and operations to
create a substantial and well-used community asset that enhances the quality of life in Oro Valley
and contributes to the local economy.
Construction Cost Consulting
5923 East Pima Street
Tucson, Arizona 85712
520•882•4044 voice
520•323•0544 fax
Statement of Probable Cost
Steam Pump Ranch
Master Plan
Oro Valley, Arizona
by Compusult
April 4, 2008
Compusult applies diligence and judgment in locating and using reliable sources of
information. This Statement of Probable Cost is made on Compusult’s knowledge of the
project and experience. Compusult has no control over the costs of labor, equipment or
materials or over the contractor’s method of pricing. Compusult makes no warranty
expressed or implied as to the accuracy of such opinions as compared to the bid or actual
costs.
_______________________
Harold H. McGrath III, CPE
Compusult
Budget Estimate
of
Steam Pump Ranch
Master Plan
for
Poster Frost Associates
by
Compusult, Inc.
Summary of Costs
Landscaping (Per SAGE)$2,073,900
Civil (Per Stantec)$458,600
Pump House $264,000
Pusch Ranch House $421,200
Bunk Houses & Covered Storage $219,400
Garage/Workers' Housing $359,500
Procter/Leiber Residence $463,200
Carlos' House $158,700
Orientation Building $65,000
Restroom Buidlings (2)$300,000
Tack Building $80,000
Chicken Coops $36,000
Construction Costs w/o Escalation $4,899,500
Escalation to 3/2011 (5%/Year)$734,900
CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL $5,634,400
Note: This estimate is based on current market conditions and excludes asbestos and lead abatement, furniture, fixtures and equipment.
Compusult, Inc. Page 1 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Master Planning Estimate Last Update-----4/4/2008
April 4, 2008 Final Cost---------$263,960
Building Area--------975 Cost / Sq. Ft.-----$270.73
Pump House/Blacksmith/Interpretive Exhibits
Description Quantity/Unit Final Cost/
of Sub Items Amount Price Units Subtotal Cost Sq. Ft.
Site Grading/Drainage 2,400 $2.46
Regrade @ Foundation 1 1500 Allow.1500
Splash Block/Rip Rap 2 450 $/unit 900
Foundations 9,750 $10.00
Underpin/New Footings 975 5.5 $/sq. ft.5363
New/Patch Slab-on-grade 975 4.5 $/sq. ft.4388
Exterior Walls 72,000 $73.85
Repair/Stabilize Existing 1 15000 Allow.15000
New Dbl. Adobe Walls 1900 30 $/sq. ft.57000
Exterior Doors 14,500 $14.87
Barn Door 1 4200 $/unit 4200
Single Door 4 1700 $/unit 6800
Door Hardware 4 750 $/unit 3000
Finish Door 4 125 $/unit 500
Exterior Windows 4,350 $4.46
Window 3 1200 $/unit 3600
Finish Window 3 250 $/unit 750
Roof Framing 11,164 $11.45
Roof Framing 795 7.5 $/sq. ft.5963
Loft Framing 402 6.5 $/sq. ft.2613
Roof Sheathing 795 2.25 $/sq. ft.1789
Paint/Finish Eve 1 800 Allow.800
Roofing 5,916 $6.07
Rolled Roof/Corgtd. Metal 1024 3.5 $/sq. ft.3584
Flashing 128 6.5 $/ln. ft.832
Vent/Chimney 1 1500 $/unit 1500
Interior Walls 20,700 $21.23
Dbl. Adobe Demising Wall 660 30 $/sq. ft.19800
Adobe "Column"1 900 Allow.900
Interior Doors 800 $0.82
"Belt" Window 1 800 $/unit 800
Flooring 926 $0.95
Seal/Finish Slabs 975 0.95 $/sq. ft.926
Compusult, Inc. Page 2 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Ceilings 2,925 $3.00
Finish Wood Ceiling 975 3 $/sq. ft.2925
Fire Protection 4,388 $4.50
Fire Sprinkler System 975 4.5 $/sq. ft.4388
Electrical 13,000 $13.33
New Service 1 2500 Allow.2500
New Lighting 1 3500 Allow.3500
New Power 1 3000 Allow.3000
FA/Security 1 4000 Allow.4000
Contingency 162,819 20.00%32564 32,564 $33.40
Subtotal $195,383
General Conditions 15.00%$29,307
Contractor Fee 6.00%$13,481
Bonds & Insurance 4.00%$9,527
Sales Tax 6.57%$16,261
Total Pump House, Blacksmith/Interpretive Exhibits w/o Escalation $263,960
Master Planning Estimate Last Update-----4/4/2008
April 4, 2008 Final Cost---------$421,206
Building Area--------1,770 Cost / Sq. Ft.-----$237.97
Pusch Ranch House
Description Quantity/Unit Final Cost/
of Sub Items Amount Price Units Subtotal Cost Sq. Ft.
Site Grading/Drainage 3,800 $2.15
Regrade @ Foundation 1 2000 Allow.2000
Splash Block/Rip Rap 4 450 $/unit 1800
Demolition 10,000 $5.65
Demolish Exist. Additions 1 7500 Allow.7500
Demolish Interior 1 2500 Allow.2500
Foundations 17,809 $10.06
Patch Exist. Slab 1770 2.5 $/sq. ft.4425
Porch Slab 1038 5.5 $/sq. ft.5709
Porch Post Footing 10 550 $/unit 5500
Turn-down @ Porch 145 15 $/ln. ft.2175
Compusult, Inc. Page 3 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Exterior Walls 47,145 $26.64
Repair/Stabilize Existing 1 35000 Allow.35000
Stucco Patch 2076 5 $/sq. ft.10380
Paint Stucco 2076 0.85 $/sq. ft.1765
Exterior Doors 15,600 $8.81
Single Door 6 1700 $/unit 10200
Door Hardware 6 750 $/unit 4500
Finish Door 6 150 $/unit 900
Exterior Windows 14,500 $8.19
Window 10 1200 $/unit 12000
Finish Window 10 250 $/unit 2500
Roof Framing 26,773 $15.13
Upgrade Roof Framing 1859 5.5 $/sq. ft.10225
Rework Dormer 2 650 $/unit 1300
Porch Framing 1090 3.5 $/sq. ft.3815
Porch Posts 10 300 $/unit 3000
Roof Sheathing 2948 2.25 $/sq. ft.6633
Paint/Finish Eve/Porch 1 1800 Allow.1800
Roofing 25,834 $14.60
Rolled Roof/Corgtd. Metal 2948 3.5 $/sq. ft.10318
Roof Insulation 1859 1.15 $/sq. ft.2138
Flashing 212 6.5 $/ln. ft.1378
Rework Chimney 6 2000 $/unit 12000
Interior Walls 7,785 $4.40
Patch Walls 1 5500 Allow.5500
Paint Walls 2688 0.85 $/sq. ft.2285
Interior Doors 9,990 $5.64
Single Door 6 1200 $/unit 7200
Door Hardware 6 350 $/unit 2100
Finish Door 6 115 $/unit 690
Flooring 11,793 $6.66
Wood Flooring 1170 8.5 $/sq. ft.9945
Wood Base 336 5.5 $/ln. ft.1848
Ceilings 6,260 $3.54
Patch Ceiling 1170 4.5 $/sq. ft.5265
Paint Ceiling 1170 0.85 $/sq. ft.995
Specialties 2,500 $1.41
Tackboard/DMB/Proj. Scr.1 2500 Allow.2500
Fire Protection 6,638 $6.81
Fire Sprinkler System 1770 3.75 $/sq. ft.6638
HVAC 23,693 $13.39
AC/Gas Heat 1770 13 $/sq. ft.23010
Climate Control Archive 195 3.5 $/sq. ft.683
Compusult, Inc. Page 4 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Electrical 29,696 $16.78
Upgrade Service 1 3500 Allow.3500
New Lighting 1770 3.5 $/sq. ft.6195
New Power 1770 2.5 $/sq. ft.4425
Motor Conn./Power 1770 2.75 $/sq. ft.4868
Telecomm. R/I 1770 1.8 $/sq. ft.3186
FA/Security 1770 4.25 $/sq. ft.7523
Contingency 259,813 20.00%51963 51,963 $29.36
Subtotal $311,776
General Conditions 15.00%$46,766
Contractor Fee 6.00%$21,513
Bonds & Insurance 4.00%$15,202
Sales Tax 6.57%$25,949
Total Pusch Ranch House w/o Escalation $421,206
Master Planning Estimate Last Update-----4/4/2008
April 4, 2008 Final Cost---------$219,411
Building Area--------679 Cost / Sq. Ft.-----$323.14
Bunk Houses and Covered Storage
Description Quantity/Unit Final Cost/
of Sub Items Amount Price Units Subtotal Cost Sq. Ft.
Site Grading/Drainage 2,400 $1.36
Regrade @ Foundation 1 1500 Allow.1500
Splash Block/Rip Rap 2 450 $/unit 900
Demolition 3,060 $1.73
Demo Slab for Plumbing 312 2.5 $/sq. ft.780
Demo Slab @ Cover 912 2.5 $/sq. ft.2280
Foundations 3,612 $2.04
Patch Exist. E Slab 341 2.5 $/sq. ft.853
New W Slab 338 5.5 $/sq. ft.1859
Post Footing 2 450 $/unit 900
Compusult, Inc. Page 5 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Exterior Walls 23,658 $13.37
Repair/Stabilize Existing 1 15000 Allow.15000
Stucco Patch 1480 5 $/sq. ft.7400
Paint Stucco 1480 0.85 $/sq. ft.1258
Exterior Doors 10,400 $5.88
Single Door 4 1700 $/unit 6800
Door Hardware 4 750 $/unit 3000
Finish Door 4 150 $/unit 600
Exterior Windows 4,200 $2.37
Repair Exist. Window 7 350 $/unit 2450
Finish Window 7 250 $/unit 1750
Roof Framing 12,180 $6.88
Upgrade Roof Framing 624 5.5 $/sq. ft.3432
Covered Storage Framing 912 3.5 $/sq. ft.3192
Covered Storage Posts 2 300 $/unit 600
Roof Sheathing 1536 2.25 $/sq. ft.3456
Paint/Finish Storage 1 1500 Allow.1500
Roofing 7,533 $4.26
Rolled Roof/Corgtd. Metal 1613 3.5 $/sq. ft.5646
Roof Insulation 624 1.15 $/sq. ft.718
Flashing 180 6.5 $/ln. ft.1170
Interior Walls 3,984 $2.25
Patch Walls 1 2500 Allow.2500
Paint Walls 1746 0.85 $/sq. ft.1484
Interior Doors 5,110 $2.89
Single Door 3 1200 $/unit 3600
Door Hardware 3 350 $/unit 1050
Finish Door 4 115 $/unit 460
Flooring 645 $0.36
Seal Concrete 679 0.95 $/sq. ft.645
Ceilings 2,472 $1.40
Patch Ceiling 462 4.5 $/sq. ft.2079
Paint Ceiling 462 0.85 $/sq. ft.393
Specialties 5,065 $2.86
HC Toilet Partition 2 550 $/unit 1100
Reg. Toilet Partition 1 450 $/unit 450
Bath Accessories 1 3200 Allow.3200
Vanity Top 7 45 $/ln. ft.315
Plumbing 22,400 $12.66
Fixture 8 2800 $/unit 22400
Fire Protection 7,245 $7.43
Fire Sprinkler System 1610 4.5 $/sq. ft.7245
Compusult, Inc. Page 6 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
HVAC 8,827 $4.99
AC/Gas Heat 679 13 $/sq. ft.8827
Electrical 12,549 $7.09
Upgrade Service 1 2500 Allow.2500
New Lighting 679 3.5 $/sq. ft.2377
New Power 679 2.5 $/sq. ft.1698
Motor Conn./Power 679 2.75 $/sq. ft.1867
Telecomm. R/I 679 1.8 $/sq. ft.1222
FA/Security 679 4.25 $/sq. ft.2886
Contingency 135,340 20.00%27068 27,068 $15.29
Subtotal $162,408
General Conditions 15.00%$24,361
Contractor Fee 6.00%$11,206
Bonds & Insurance 4.00%$7,919
Sales Tax 6.57%$13,517
Total Bunk Houses & Covered Storage w/o Escalation $219,411
Master Planning Estimate Last Update-----4/4/2008
April 4, 2008 Final Cost---------$359,536
Building Area--------1,885 Cost / Sq. Ft.-----$190.74
Garage and Workers' Housing
Description Quantity/Unit Final Cost/
of Sub Items Amount Price Units Subtotal Cost Sq. Ft.
Site Grading/Drainage 5,200 $2.94
Regrade @ Foundation 1 2500 Allow.2500
Splash Block/Rip Rap 6 450 $/unit 2700
Demolition 3,800 $2.15
Demo Slab for Plumbing 120 2.5 $/sq. ft.300
Demo New Opening 1 3500 Allow.3500
Foundations 660 $0.37
Patch Slab @ Plumbing 120 5.5 $/sq. ft.660
Compusult, Inc. Page 7 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Exterior Walls 42,035 $23.75
Repair/Stabilize Existing 1 25000 Allow.25000
Stucco Patch 2912 5 $/sq. ft.14560
Paint Stucco 2912 0.85 $/sq. ft.2475
Exterior Doors 14,000 $7.91
Single Door 4 1700 $/unit 6800
Door Hardware 6 750 $/unit 4500
Finish Door 6 150 $/unit 900
Garage Door 2 900 $/unit 1800
Exterior Windows 15,950 $9.01
Window 11 1200 $/unit 13200
Finish Window 11 250 $/unit 2750
Roof Framing 16,837 $9.51
Upgrade Roof Framing 1979 5.5 $/sq. ft.10885
Roof Sheathing 1979 2.25 $/sq. ft.4453
Paint/Finish Soffit 1 1500 Allow.1500
Roofing 10,117 $5.72
Built-up/Membrane 1885 3.5 $/sq. ft.6598
Roof Insulation 1885 1.15 $/sq. ft.2168
Flashing 208 6.5 $/ln. ft.1352
Interior Walls 7,187 $4.06
Patch Walls 1 3500 Allow.3500
Paint Walls 4338 0.85 $/sq. ft.3687
Interior Doors 5,225 $2.95
Single Door 3 1200 $/unit 3600
Door Hardware 3 350 $/unit 1050
Finish Door 5 115 $/unit 575
Flooring 9,601 $5.42
Seal Concrete 1477 6.5 $/sq. ft.9601
Ceilings 9,379 $5.30
Patch Ceiling 1477 5.5 $/sq. ft.8124
Paint Ceiling 1477 0.85 $/sq. ft.1255
Specialties 7,110 $4.02
Tackboard/DMB/Proj. Scr.1 2500 $/unit 2500
Bath Accessories 1 2000 Allow.2000
Lower 10 185 $/ln. ft.1850
Upper 7 85 $/ln. ft.595
Shelving 3 55 $/ln. ft.165
Equipment 3,000 $1.69
Residential Kitchen Equip.1 3000 Allow.3000
Plumbing 8,400 $4.75
Fixture 3 2800 $/unit 8400
Compusult, Inc. Page 8 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Fire Protection 7,069 $7.25
Fire Sprinkler System 1885 3.75 $/sq. ft.7069
HVAC 24,505 $13.84
AC/Gas Heat 1885 13 $/sq. ft.24505
Electrical 31,698 $17.91
Upgrade Service 1 3800 Allow.3800
New Lighting 1885 3.5 $/sq. ft.6598
New Power 1885 2.5 $/sq. ft.4713
Motor Conn./Power 1885 2.75 $/sq. ft.5184
Telecomm. R/I 1885 1.8 $/sq. ft.3393
FA/Security 1885 4.25 $/sq. ft.8011
Contingency 221,773 20.00%44355 44,355 $25.06
Subtotal $266,128
General Conditions 15.00%$39,919
Contractor Fee 6.00%$18,363
Bonds & Insurance 4.00%$12,976
Sales Tax 6.57%$22,149
Total Garage & Workers' Housing w/o Escalation $359,536
Master Planning Estimate Last Update-----4/4/2008
April 4, 2008 Final Cost---------$463,212
Building Area--------2,617 Cost / Sq. Ft.-----$177.00
Procter/Leiber Residence
Description Quantity/Unit Final Cost/
of Sub Items Amount Price Units Subtotal Cost Sq. Ft.
Site Grading/Drainage 8,000 $4.52
Regrade @ Foundation 1 3500 Allow.3500
Splash Block/Rip Rap 10 450 $/unit 4500
Demolition 13,926 $7.87
Demo 2nd Floor 1 6500 Allow.6500
Demo Porch Enclosures 1 3500 Allow.3500
Interior Demolition 2617 1.5 $/sq. ft.3926
Compusult, Inc. Page 9 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Foundations 4,580 $2.59
Patch Slab 2617 1.75 $/sq. ft.4580
Exterior Walls 32,938 $18.61
Repair/Stabilize Existing 1 15000 Allow.15000
Restore Porches 1 7500 Allow.7500
Stucco Patch 1 5000 $/sq. ft.5000
Paint Stucco 6398 0.85 $/sq. ft.5438
Exterior Doors 13,150 $7.43
Single Door 5 1700 $/unit 8500
Door Hardware 5 750 $/unit 3750
Finish Door 6 150 $/unit 900
Exterior Windows 25,400 $14.35
Window 8 1200 $/unit 9600
Repair Exist. Window 23 350 $/unit 8050
Finish Window 31 250 $/unit 7750
Roof Framing 15,941 $9.01
Upgrade Roof Framing 2617 3.5 $/sq. ft.9160
Roof Sheathing 2617 2.25 $/sq. ft.5888
Paint/Finish Porches 940 0.95 $/sq. ft.893
Roofing 18,449 $10.42
Built-up/Membrane 3557 3.5 $/sq. ft.12450
Roof Insulation 2617 1.15 $/sq. ft.3010
Flashing 460 6.5 $/ln. ft.2990
Interior Walls 9,466 $5.35
Patch Walls 1 4500 Allow.4500
Paint Walls 5843 0.85 $/sq. ft.4966
Interior Doors 4,020 $2.27
Single Door 2 1200 $/unit 2400
Door Hardware 2 350 $/unit 700
Finish Door 8 115 $/unit 920
Flooring 18,591 $10.50
Flooring 2030 6.5 $/sq. ft.13195
Seal/Color Porch Concrete 895 2.25 $/sq. ft.2014
Wood Base 615 5.5 $/ln. ft.3383
Ceilings 6,801 $3.84
Patch Ceiling 2030 2.5 $/sq. ft.5075
Paint Ceiling 2030 0.85 $/sq. ft.1726
Specialties 6,000 $3.39
Bath Accessories 1 2000 Allow.2000
Lower 14 185 $/ln. ft.2590
Upper 14 85 $/ln. ft.1190
Shelving 4 55 $/ln. ft.220
Compusult, Inc. Page 10 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Equipment 10,000 $5.65
Residential Kitchen Equip.1 10000 Allow.10000
Plumbing 8,400 $4.75
Fixture 3 2800 $/unit 8400
Fire Protection 13,106 $13.44
Fire Sprinkler System 3495 3.75 $/sq. ft.13106
HVAC 34,832 $19.68
AC/Gas Heat 2576 13 $/sq. ft.33488
Climate Control Archive 384 3.5 $/sq. ft.1344
Electrical 42,125 $23.80
Upgrade Service 1 4000 Allow.4000
New Lighting 2576 3.5 $/sq. ft.9016
New Power 2576 2.5 $/sq. ft.6440
Motor Conn./Power 2576 2.75 $/sq. ft.7084
Telecomm. R/I 2576 1.8 $/sq. ft.4637
FA/Security 2576 4.25 $/sq. ft.10948
Contingency 285,724 20.00%57145 57,145 $32.29
Subtotal $342,869
General Conditions 15.00%$51,430
Contractor Fee 6.00%$23,658
Bonds & Insurance 4.00%$16,718
Sales Tax 6.57%$28,536
Total Procter/Leiber Residence w/o Escalation $463,212
Master Planning Estimate Last Update-----4/4/2008
April 4, 2008 Final Cost---------$158,694
Building Area--------501 Cost / Sq. Ft.-----$316.75
Carlos' House
Description Quantity/Unit Final Cost/
of Sub Items Amount Price Units Subtotal Cost Sq. Ft.
Site Grading/Drainage 1,900 $1.07
Regrade @ Foundation 1 1000 Allow.1000
Splash Block/Rip Rap 2 450 $/unit 900
Compusult, Inc. Page 11 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Demolition 3,885 $2.19
Demo Porch Enclosure 1 2500 Allow.2500
Interior Demolition 923 1.5 $/sq. ft.1385
Foundations 1,615 $0.91
Patch Cracked Slab 923 1.75 $/sq. ft.1615
Exterior Walls 14,683 $8.30
Repair/Stabilize Existing 1 7000 Allow.7000
Clean/Rehab BBQ 1 3500 Allow.3500
Stucco Patch 1 2000 $/sq. ft.2000
Paint Stucco 2568 0.85 $/sq. ft.2183
Exterior Doors 7,800 $4.41
Single Door 3 1700 $/unit 5100
Door Hardware 3 750 $/unit 2250
Finish Door 3 150 $/unit 450
Exterior Windows 5,650 $3.19
Window 1 1200 $/unit 1200
Repair Exist. Window 7 350 $/unit 2450
Finish Window 8 250 $/unit 2000
Roof Framing 5,713 $3.23
Upgrade Roof Framing 923 3.5 $/sq. ft.3231
Roof Sheathing 923 2.25 $/sq. ft.2077
Paint/Finish Porches 427 0.95 $/sq. ft.406
Roofing 4,962 $2.80
Rolled Roof/Corgtd. Metal 969 3.5 $/sq. ft.3392
Roof Insulation 501 1.15 $/sq. ft.576
Flashing 153 6.5 $/ln. ft.995
Interior Walls 3,066 $1.73
Patch Walls 1 2000 Allow.2000
Paint Walls 1254 0.85 $/sq. ft.1066
Flooring 3,161 $1.79
Flooring 360 6.5 $/sq. ft.2340
Seal/Color BBQ Concrete 365 2.25 $/sq. ft.821
Ceilings 1,206 $0.68
Patch Ceiling 360 2.5 $/sq. ft.900
Paint Ceiling 360 0.85 $/sq. ft.306
Specialties 5,710 $3.23
Bath Accessories 1 1000 Allow.1000
Lower 15 185 $/ln. ft.2775
Upper 15 85 $/ln. ft.1275
Shelving 12 55 $/ln. ft.660
Equipment 4,000 $2.26
Residential Kitchen Equip.1 4000 Allow.4000
Compusult, Inc. Page 12 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Plumbing 8,400 $4.75
Fixture 3 2800 $/unit 8400
Fire Protection 3,428 $3.52
Fire Sprinkler System 914 3.75 $/sq. ft.3428
HVAC 6,682 $3.78
AC/Gas Heat 514 13 $/sq. ft.6682
Electrical 16,027 $9.05
Upgrade Service 1 2500 Allow.2500
New Lighting 914 3.5 $/sq. ft.3199
New Power 914 2.5 $/sq. ft.2285
Motor Conn./Power 914 2.75 $/sq. ft.2514
Telecomm. R/I 914 1.8 $/sq. ft.1645
FA/Security 914 4.25 $/sq. ft.3885
Contingency 97,887 20.00%19577 19,577 $11.06
Subtotal $117,465
General Conditions 15.00%$17,620
Contractor Fee 6.00%$8,105
Bonds & Insurance 4.00%$5,728
Sales Tax 6.57%$9,776
Total Carlos' House w/o Escalation $158,694
Compusult, Inc. Page 13 of 13 Steam Pump Ranch
Construction Costs Parameters:
Historic Park gross area of approx.. 15.5 acres
Public onsite sanitary sewer and water system
Onsite grading and drainage improvements
Units Unit
Category Description Quantity Type Price Total
Onsite
Mobilization Mobilization 1 LS 35,861.75$ 35,862$
Subtotal 35,862$
Demolition Demolition of Buildings * 1 LS 10,800.00$ 10,800$
Removal of Debris from Site * 1 LS 14,500.00$ 14,500$
Septic System Demolition 1 LS 2,000.00$ 2,000$
Subtotal 27,300$
Earthwork Entry Roadway Grading 800 CY 5.25$ 4,200$
Onsite Grading 1,500 CY 4.50$ 6,750$
Subtotal 10,950$
Public Sewer 8" SDR-35 Main 890 LF 33.50$ 29,815$
4' Diameter Manhole 5 EA 3,200.00$ 16,000$
4" HCS 410 EA 22.50$ 9,225$
Subtotal 55,040$
Public Water (Potable)8" PVC 1,980 LF 29.50$ 58,410$
8" Valve, B&C 5 EA 885.00$ 4,425$
1" Private Serive Line 630 EA 8.50$ 5,355$
1" Irrigation Service 2 EA 800.00$ 1,600$
1" Service 5 EA 800.00$ 4,000$
Subtotal 73,790$
Public Water (Fire)6" D.I.P. 60 LF 45.00$ 2,700$
4" Fire Service 535 LF 22.00$ 11,770$
6" Valve, B&C 3 EA 675.00$ 2,025$
Fire Hydrant 3 EA 2,400.00$ 7,200$
Subtotal 23,695$
Utilities Trench (Joint) * 2,970 LF 3.50$ 10,395$
Backfill * 2,970 LF 3.50$ 10,395$
Dirt Transformer Pads * 1 EA 300.00$ 300$
Subtotal 21,090$
Drainage Drainage Channel (North) 570 LF 3.25$ 1,853$
Drainage Channel (South) 1,200 LF 3.75$ 4,500$
Dumped Rock Riprap, 6", 1' Thick 70 CY 235.00$ 16,450$
1' x 3' Toedown 400 LF 130.00$ 52,000$
4' Headwall 100 LF 235.00$ 23,500$
24 Inch RCP 510 LF 95.00$ 48,450$
Subtotal 146,753$
Date: 03/19/2008
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
Project : Steam Pump Historic Park
Stantec Project No: 185622836
Prepared by: BSH
Page 1 of 2 T:\Admin\0405704\costest.xls
Date: 03/19/2008
PRELIMINARY CONSTRUCTION OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTS
Project : Steam Pump Historic Park
Stantec Project No: 185622836
Prepared by: BSH
Summary
Onsite Mobilization 35,862$
Demolition 27,300$
Earthwork 10,950$
Public Sewer 55,040$
Public Water (Potable)73,790$
Public Water (Fire)23,695$
Utilities 21,090$
Drainage 146,753$
Subtotal 358,618$
Contingency 20% 71,724$
Total 430,341$
Sales Tax 6.57% 28,273$
Total 458,614$
Note: This is a opinion of probable costs based upon a conceptual site layout, before review and approval by local review
agencies. Items excluded from this estimate include but are not limited to environmental remediation,
rock excavation, street lights, perimeter walls, and landscape and irrigation concerns. This estimate
should not be construed as an exact value estimate. Stantec Consulting does not guarantee that
eventual proposals, bids or actual construction costs/quantities will not vary from this estimate.
* Item quantity is assumed due to lack of information.
Assumptions: Existing utilities are assumed to be abandoned in place. Onsite power poles are
assumed to be removed by TEP and not included in cost estimate.
Grading for landscape features are not included in the cost estimate.
Page 2 of 2 T:\Admin\0405704\costest.xls
STEAM PUMP RANCH MASTER PLAN
PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE COST ESTIMATE
Based on 04/08 plan
04/04/08
LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS
(Materials & Installation)
ESTIMATED
AREA /
QUANTITY
ESTIMATED
COST PER UNIT
ESTIMATED
COST IN
DOLLARS
PLANTING *
520,400 SF 0.75 $390,300
IRRIGATION **
520,400 SF 0.75 $390,300
ACCESS LANES/CORRAL/OVERFLOW 79,705 SF
Stabilized Soil 0.15 $11,956
OPEN GROUND/PATHWAYS 200,475 SF
Stabilized Soil 0.15 $30,071
DRIVE LANES 50,375 SF
GravelPave2 4.40 $221,650
PARKING 12,155 SF
GravelPave2 4.40 $53,482
ENTRY GATE & SIGN 1 LS 55,000.00 $55,000
CORRAL
2' thick retaque 630 LF 96.25 $60,638
SITE FENCING - DECORATIVE 3000 LF 50.00 $150,000
SITE FENCING - SECURITY 1000 LF 25.00 $25,000
SITE FURNISHING BUDGET *** Lump Sum 55,000.00 $55,000
INTERPRETIVE & STANDARD RAMADA OR
SHADE STRUCTURE
no electric, w/ pad 6 EA 25,000.00 $150,000
SITE LIGHTING & OUTLETS
parking, night use & security Lump Sum 145,000.00 $145,000
WATER HARVESTING BUDGET Lump Sum 30,000.00 $30,000
CROPS / COMMUNITY GARDEN
grading, irrigation, soil prep, initial seed 1 AC 35,000.00 $35,000
CONTRACTOR FEES, OVERHEAD, TAXES,
CONTINGENCY, etc. Lump Sum 270,509.48 $270,509.48
TOTAL $2,073,906
* Includes: 12 acres of plants, seeding, fine grading, turf & mulch
*** Includes: benches, picnic tables, trash receptacles, bike racks,
grills, park signs, & water fountains
** Includes: 12 acres of new irrigation
H:\1Sage\Steam Pump Ranch\Cost Estimates\Landscape cost estimate 040408.xls
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA1
Appendix
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation
National Register of Historic Places Criteria
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Public Meeting Comments
Interviews
Historical Drawing
Existing Building Plans
Existing Plant Inventory
Pusch and Procter Era Plants
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A2
PRESERVATION
PRESERVATION is defined as the act or process
of applying measures necessary to sustain the
existing form, integrity, and materials of an
historic property. Work, including preliminary
measures to protect and stabilize the property,
generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance
and repair of historic materials and features rather
than extensive replacement and new construction.
New exterior additions are not within the scope of
this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive
upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing
systems and other code-required work to make
properties functional is appropriate within a
preservation project.
Preservation should be used as a treatment:
when the property’s distinctive materials, •
features, and spaces are essentially intact and
thus convey the historic significance without
extensive repair or replacement
when depiction at a particular period of time is •
not appropriate
when a continuing or new use does not require •
additions or extensive alterations
•
Basic Principles of Preservation
1. A property will be used as it was historically, or
be given a new use that maximizes the retention of
distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial
relationships. Where a treatment and use have not
been identified, a property will be protected and, if
necessary, stabilized until additional work may be
undertaken.
2. The historic character of a property will be
retained and preserved. The replacement of intact
or repairable historic materials or alteration of
features, spaces, and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical
record of its time, place, and use. Work needed
to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing
historic materials and features will be physically
and visually compatible, identifiable upon close
inspection, and properly documented for future
research.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired
historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes,
and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be
preserved.
6. The existing condition of historic features will
be evaluated to determine the appropriate level
of intervention needed. Where the severity of
deterioration requires repair or limited replacement
of a distinctive feature, the new material will match
the old in composition, design, color, and texture.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate,
will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic
materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected
and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
REHABILITATION
REHABILITATION is defined as the act or process
of making possible a compatible use for a property
through repair, alterations, and additions while
preserving those portions or features which convey
its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
Rehabilitation may be considered as a Treatment:
when repair and replacement of deteriorated •
features are necessary
when alterations or additions to the property •
are planned for a new or continued use
when its depiction at a particular period of time •
is not appropriate
Basic Principles of Rehabilitation
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose
or be placed in a new use that requires minimal
change to the defining characteristics of the
building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be
retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA3
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical
record of its time, place, and use. Changes that
create a false sense of historical development,
such as adding conjectural features or architectural
elements from other buildings, shall not be
undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those
changes that have acquired historic significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction
techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired
rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive
feature, the new feature shall match the old in
design, color, texture, and other visual qualities
and, where possible, materials. Replacement
of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as
sandblasting, that cause damage to historic
materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of
structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using
the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by
a project shall be protected and preserved. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures
shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related
new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and
shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,
and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new
construction shall be undertaken in such a manner
that if removed in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
RESTORATION
RESTORATION is defined as the act or process
of accurately depicting the form, features, and
character of a property as it appeared at a particular
period of time by means of the removal of features
from other periods in its history and reconstruction
of missing features from the restoration period.
The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-
required work to make properties functional is
appropriate within a restoration project.
Restoration may be considered as a treatment
(Prior to undertaking work, a particular period
of time, i.e., the restoration period, should be
selected and justified, and a documentation plan for
Restoration developed.)
when the property’s distinctive materials, •
features, and spaces are
when the property’s design, architectural, •
or historical significance during a particular
period of time outweighs the potential loss of
extant materials, features, spaces, and finishes
that characterize other historical periods
when there is substantial physical and •
documentary evidence for the work
when contemporary alterations and additions •
are not planned
Basic Principles of Restoration
1. A property will be used as it was historically
or be given a new use which reflects the property’s
restoration period.
2. Materials and features from the restoration
period will be retained and preserved. The removal
of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and
spatial relationships that characterize the period
will not be undertaken.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical
record of its time, place, and use. Work needed
to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials
and features from the restoration period will be
physically and visually compatible, identifiable
upon close inspection, and properly documented
for future research.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A4
4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.
7. Replacement of missing features from the
restoration period will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence. A false sense
of history will not be created by adding conjectural
features, features from other properties, or by
combining features that never existed together
historically.
8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate,
will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic
materials will not be used.
9. Archeological resources affected by a project
will be protected and preserved in place. If such
resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures
will be undertaken.
10. Designs that were never executed historically
will not be constructed.
RECONSTRUCTION
RECONSTRUCTION is defined as the act
or process of depicting, by means of new
construction, the form, features, and detailing
of a non-surviving site, landscape, building,
structure, or object for the purpose of replicating
its appearance at a specific period of time and in its
historic location.
Reconstruction may be considered as a Treatment
when a contemporary depiction is required to •
understand and interpret a property’s historic
value (including the re-creation of missing
components in a historic district or site )
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
when no other property with the same • associative value has survivedand when sufficient historical documentation • exists to ensure an accurate reproduction
Basic Principles of Reconstruction1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. 2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts
which are essential to an accurate reconstruction.
If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation
measures will be undertaken.
3. Reconstruction will include measures to
preserve any remaining historic materials, features,
and spatial relationships.
4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate
duplication of historic features and elements
substantiated by documentary or physical
evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the
availability of different features from other historic
properties. A reconstructed property will re-create
the appearance of the non-surviving historic
property in materials, design, color, and texture.
5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a
contemporary re-creation.
6. Designs that were never executed historically
will not be constructed.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA5
National Register of Historic Places Criteria
There are three components or criteria typically
used to evaluate a historic building and for
nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places: Significance, Integrity, and Condition.
1. Significance is essentially the meaning or
value we ascribe to a building. Buildings gain
significance through their association with
certain historic contexts.
A. Event - Specific events or a pattern
of events
B. Person - Properties associated with
an important person or persons,
significant to our past
C. Design/Construction – Distinctive
characteristics of a period and/or
methods of construction and/or high
artistic value and/or the work of a
master and/or an integral part of a
whole that is distinctive.
D. Potential – If they have yielded or
are likely to yield important
historical information.
2. Integrity is the ability of the property to
convey its historic significance. A good test
for integrity is if the building would be
recognized today by someone from its
historical period. Properties need to represent
several or most of the aspects listed below:
• Location – the connection between its
property and its location. Moving destroys
integrity.
• Design – the combination of elements that
create form, plan, space, structure and style.
• Setting – the character of the physical
environment of the property; built or
natural, especially landscape, topography
and open space.
• Materials – materials used in a particular
period to form the historic property; not a
re-creation.
• Workmanship – physical evidence of the
craft of the people or culture that built it.
• Feeling – the property’s aesthetic or
historic expression of a period of time.
• Association – the direct link between the
person or event and the historic property
3. Condition refers to the physical condition of
the building elements including how well they
have been maintained. Integrity and condition
are interrelated, but distinct attributes. A
building can have high integrity but be in
poor condition. Likewise, a building can
have low integrity, with lots of changes to its
historic characteristics, but be in good physical
condition.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A6
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA7
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A8
VISIONING EXERCISE
1. Why is Steam Pump Ranch significant to you? What period of significance is most important to you?Steam Pump is from a past time in
our place. Its role in the history of SoAZ is greater than just that of Oro
Valley, but it's located in Oro Vallley, so OV should take advantage of that
fact and create in SPR either a snapshot or an album of snaps of its past.
Alternative approaches to restoration/renovation/recreation are the
"Williamsburg" model (recreate everything to its condition at one date) or
the "Monticello" model (recreate each building to the date of its new, most
useful condition).
A more basic question is whether to renovate to a state of architectural
stability or to recreate to the point that the steam pump is operational. or
someplace in between. I think that we will need to settle that question
before we can apply to the National Register.
2. When the Steam Pump Ranch site is open to the public, describe
what the experience will be for a first time visitor.The first time (and
subsequent) visitors will need to be guided. Signage, docents in period
costume, printed handouts and trails are among the possibilities. I like the
idea of docents where possible, because the person-to-person contact is very
valuable in conveying a welcoming atmosphere.
3. How would you encourage repeat visitors? Programs, programs,
programs. There are all kinds of programs available, particularly for school-
age kids.
4. What types of activities and land uses are appropriate at the Steam
Pump ranch? How should the Master Plan integrate with the surrounding land uses? Or should it? Programs. Historically related
programs, community programs, and museum activities. I'm not
experienced in the master planning process, so I have no opinion on the last
questions.
5. Who should the future site represent? Who are potential partners
for the project? Who should manage the property? SPR should
represent SPR. We should avoid like the plague efforts to make it represent
more than it is. The list of potential partners is limited only by the amount
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA9
of money they're willing to invest. Parks and Recreation should oversee the
property, involving the OV Historical Society as much as possible. OVHS
and P&R working together have a great potential for producing interesting
programs of well-maintained property.
We should be open to any suggestions of establishing a museum or other
facility on site, but be very wary of every detail of every proposal. This
should be a place of education about our past; our eye should never be taken
off that ball. Living in the real world, however, requires that we consider
any opportunity to increase attendance at SPR.
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A10
Visioning Exercise Steam Pump Ranch Task Force
1.In its present condition, Steam Pump Ranch isn’t important to me. It neither
represents the historical period nor that period’s importance to the area. Assuming
bond dollars are available to restore the existing buildings, including the Pump Building, to a like-new condition, I feel the property will be an important historical asset for Oro Valley. I think we need to have at least a simulation of
what life in the early 1900’s, late 1800’s was like, and restoring the buildings; the
furnishing, photographs, documents from the period will be helpful. Walking
around the property now is like walking around in a slum, blighted area, which is not complementary to the community or flattering to the history the property represents.
2.If the buildings and furnishings are authentic to the period, and staffed by people
conversant with that period; maps, documents authenticating activities, settlements, battles, letters from the period would help the historical experience. If the grounds are neatly groomed and healthy consistent with how they may have
been during the period; the impression on the public will be genuine. I think
people staffing the buildings ought to be dressed in period clothing, and able to
explain the importance of the property, and risks to travelers during the period. It would be a further asset if the Pump was restored to working condition.
3.If all of the above is accomplished, I think repeat visits would occur. To
encourage repeat visits, new exhibits need to be created, and a budget to acquire
additional historical furniture, photographs, attire and even exhibits documenting the importance not just of the Ranch property, but southern Arizona, and western
New Mexico. This budget might be accomplished, in part, by an admission fee to
the property. It might be a serious tourist attraction to create a viewing room
within one of the buildings for clips from early Old Tucson films. My
understanding is that many such films exist. Editing those into short vignettes could extend their novelty for years. A budget for that needs to be created.
Possibly one of the buildings could be restored to a very small bed & breakfast.
An overnight experience for a family could be a repeated experience. Another of
the buildings could be restored into an early simulation of a western burlesque
bar, with a piano, corny, slap stick stand up comic act, poker tables, and dancing girls, of course. No lap dancing! Maybe a brawl could be staged, and other acts to
encourage repeat visits. Sort of like what was done at Rawhide in Scottsdale, and
on the train ride to the Grand Canyon. A stage coach could roam the Village
shopping center with a pitchman for some cure all elixir. Any donations would go
towards the many budgets to maintain the property. Perhaps a horseman could periodically post notices in the Village shopping center promoting the capture &
trial of some outlaw; notice of some meeting with the Indians, some political
debate, appearance. All of which would require some actors and actresses,
perhaps from either the CDO or U of A. I think visits to the property have to be
FUN, and not just educational. The fun part of it can mean income. People are willing to pay to have a good time.
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA11
4.I distinguish between the historical, Steam Pump Ranch property, and the balance
of the property, which is not historical. The activities for the historical portion of
the property containing the buildings I have described in 3. Activities on the non
historical portion of the property, at least initially, ought to be confined to park, recreational uses. Recreational uses constructed consistent with what might have been available to families at the time. I presume swings, teeter tauter, picnic areas
under shelters, sand boxes, and perhaps horse back rides could be offered…for a
fee. I oppose commercializing the non historic part of the property, and believe
this would trash the entire project. I believe the Steam Pump Village wishes to work with the Ranch property, and would allow activities to be cross promoted, as described above in 3. I know there are some who would like to have Town Hall
Council Chambers constructed on the non historic portion of the property. Sounds
good, but the property is not large enough to accommodate the parking, and
would cramp the historical values which must predominate. I would have no objection to a small band shell to accept banjo, guitar, blue grass performers periodically. Simulated political debates would be fun, and rotten tomatoes could
be provided! (for a fee)
5.The Town of Oro Valley owns the property, and should manage the property through the Parks and Recreation Department. I have no doubt that experienced staff needs to be hired for this assignment. That staff would hire, schedule
performers, and create other attractions. The Historical Society would be a key
ingredient for fundraising, and acquiring additional historical exhibits. There
would clearly need to be a substantial volunteer operation with its own coordinator, and supervision within Parks and Recreation. This needs to be a
professional operation, although I believe amateur actors to participate in the
more comic attractions could be arranged locally.
In the final analysis, I don’t see this property having an economic value other than as a tourist attraction, and whatever dollars that may create. I doubt that the dollars would be
anywhere near what is required. So, significant contributions, grants and endowments
will be necessary.
Bill Adler 8/16/07
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A12
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA13
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A14
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA15
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A16
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA17
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A18
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA19
Task Force Visioning Exercise
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A20
Public Meeting Comments
Public Meeting #1
September 6, 2007
Use of property as a stage stop was not mentioned. Stage stop brought people to Oracle and Mt. 1.
View hotel.
Pusch had cowboy boots wth red stars during his time in California. “Py Gott” favorite 2.
expression for Pusch. Pusch had a strong German accent. Develop a play or pageant about the
historical characters. Mine with the Iron Door brought fame to the area. Harold Bell Wright
wrote the book based on the legend.
NRHP needs to be considered with whatever we do. Out east, some properties have become 3.
delisted. How will we handle the NRHP issues? Ranch landscape important – how much context
is going to be required to have this qualify as a rural historic landscape? What happens at the
periphery of the site? Pima County will want us to pursue listing.
What uses are appropriate for the historic buildings?4.
Oro Valley’s Williamsburg. Living history site that we can take pride in. Site that works 5.
and is integrated with the area, for the youth and citizens and visitors. Should take a long-
term approach. Oro valley week for students to come to the site to understand the history.
Reenactments and living history. Stage coaches. Needs to be a site where people can enjoy for
future generations. Might be commercial like at Williamsburg, but it needs to have history and be
authentic. Something special for the citizens and visitors.
Attractive environment could lead to economic sustainability. Organizations have expressed an 6.
interest in the site and buildings. Could put contemporary buildings that look historic on the area
to the south. The town needs to generate revenue from whoever runs the property. Northern Pima
County Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Oro Valley Arts Council are possible tenants.
Keep the site as close to what it used to be. Could fix up pump house and have a blacksmith 7.
demonstration. Stage coach from Oracle, but not Old Tucson approach. Barn dances – period
clothing or a pageant. Empire Ranch has a fall festival and this idea could be replicated at Steam
Pump Ranch.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA21
People are interested in salvaging the chicken coops as rental spaces for artists. Studio spaces are 8.
one possibility.
Keep bringing people back and a continuous effort to establish programs to keep people on the 9.
site. Bus loads of kids or kids who bring parents. Needs to be tied into the Steam Pump Village
and the theatre complex being developed there. They may be starting a series of Western Themed
plays.
Where is the steam pump and can we rebuild the steam pump and well to be operational?10.
Arizona Historical Society has what is believed to be the steam pump.11.
Coop program with U of A to have students in a history program – put students up in the bunk 12.
house and use them as docents or tour workers. Historic preservation commission’s offices and
artifact museum with timeline. Stables could be leased to a vendor. The structures in good shape
should be saved, others are more disposable. Keep entire 15 acres. Like at Marana townsite –
could be location for farmers market in Oro Valley. Vendors at the ranch and special art festivals.
Fund raising district as a way to raise money for a facility. Cost prorated over the community. 13.
Like Augusta Golf Course. Courageous enough to go to the community for money. Desert
Museum as a partner? Educational opportunity for plant-life and fauna.
Introducing new buildings into historic contexts – what is the range of approaches? Louvre 14.
approach of a glass pyramid, clearly contemporary, or more contextual approach where there is
more consistency.
CCC Ranch used to do a cowboy dinner and western show. Might be a draw for winter visitors.15.
Could be an attraction on the Santa Cruz Valley Heritage Area and publicized as part of an 16.
integrated list of heritage attractions throughout the Santa Cruz Valley.
Historic properties for use as event and conference space. Some of the sites visited offer little 17.
support for maintenance /set-up. Could do this easily at Steam Pump with either historic period.
Should use property to inform what has happened on the site and to teach people about the 18.
history. The commercial aspects should be minor. Should use the site to educate the public.
Public Meeting Comments
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A22
Public Meeting #2
November 1, 2007
Scott Scheinbewin commented that he did not see a schedule for coming up with a decision on 1.
the alternatives. In addition, he would like to hear more on the sustainability of the site.
Corky Poster responded that a schedule is complete and available on the internet. The Master 2.
Plan is scheduled to go before Town Council in the spring. The issue of economic sustainability
of these types of sites can be 50-100% sustainability.
Pam Sarpalius commented that the area is too rich in history to limit the plan to one era. She 3.
opined that option C was the best and could be used to bring weddings and events such as this.
Dick Johnson, GOVAC, and Jerry Bustamonte, Chamber of Commerce, preferred Option C 4.
because of the office space possibilities. The space would represent an excellent center for
GOVAC the Chamber of Commerce and the Historical Society. They suggested moving the
equestrian area to the Pima County owned property at the far edge of the site. To buffer sound an
adobe type wall could be added around the site.
Jerry Bustamonte requested an opportunity to make a formal presentation. 5.
Mary Perrili, OV Historical Society, stated they see a great opportunity for partnership. 6.
They would like to see a shift in how the buildings are placed on the site. An activity center
that would lend itself to performing arts should be closer to the historical buildings. Bring in
temporary vendors. Ms. Perrili stated there is concern with mixing food and livestock, and
suggested moving the equestrian center to the far south.
Sybil Needham, representing Bob Shelton, stated that Mr. Shelton would like to donate all of his 7.
collection of western artifacts.
Bob Baughman asked for clarification from Ms. Needham. Mr. Baughman understood that Mr. 8.
Shelton might sell the items to the town. Ms. Needham agreed to get clarification and report
back.
Public Meeting Comments
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA23
Doug McKee, OV resident, stated he was pleased that a working Steam Pump would be on the 9.
site. Mr. McKee asked about the site constraints of having this site made a historical site and
requested economic analysis, including the cost of the bonding.
Corky responded to the National Registry constraints. 10.
Roxy Johnson, OV resident, stated the site would be a wonderful site for caterers to come in and 11.
do parties. A catering kitchen should be a small separate kitchen.
Public Meeting #3
January 10, 2008
Regional Foods festival by the Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area. Slow foods festival 1.
currently in Tucson. Good connection to historical use.
New building for entry is disappointing. Prefers entry through Procter House. Can accomplish 2.
2 things: OVHS will have staff at Procter- no separate staff- no need to build new building. Gift
shop at Procter also.
Does cost estimate include exhibits?3.
If we eliminate entry building, what do we do about restrooms?4.
School groups and curriculum for school groups should start now so ready to hit the ground 5.
when opening day starts. Focus on the importance of primary sources of history, like buildings.
How ca we make it pleasant in the summer for visitors. Evening programs are a good idea.
Get started quickly! Great for the youth.6.
New town well site ties in history of water use. Wouldn’t be opposed to well site. Encourage well 7.
site interpretation and how water has been used over time. “Branding” as a revenue source for
the town through sponsorship of exhibits / paths, etc. Potential uses of site for gaming that people
played back in the day (chess and backgammon events)
Power from the Past. Historic Tractors / Steam Engines / Equipment. Maybe we can have a loan 8.
Public Meeting Comments
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A24
of equipment. Local group for partnering.
Need to have older technology to have people see how tings have changed. What it will be in the 9.
future too. Display of how water issues are important and should be addressed to stop aquifer
depletion.
Important for Tucson. We’re losing our identity and history. Need programs to keep local 10.
people coming back. Events of our local history that could be celebrated. School groups. Family
oriented activities. Volunteers can be involved in helping with the events.
How long for Phase 1 and where is the money coming from?11.
Mine with the Iron Door pageant could be held in the evenings.12.
Hohokam existence in area is important13.
Apache involvement also14.
Turn in and turn out of the site? 15.
Site needs to be self sustaining, including solar panels. To lead by example for the citizens.16.
Traffic noise mitigation? 17.
Will the pump house be reconstructed of adobe?18.
Jack Dobias – author of 1981 sketch19.
Connection of ranch to wash historically and today?20.
New Town Well Site Discussion:
Bothersome. Although need for water, gets away from the historic aspects.•
If decide to put in new pump, a portion goes back to the site for programs as a compromise.•
Can disguise well site lots of different ways. Good site for well.•
Public Meeting Comments
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA25
Proposed Equestrian Element:
Supports if well managed by a private operator.•
What is the purpose behind the equestrian center? Flies could be a problem. •
What is the liability with having equestrian rides? •
Private sector would have to cover liability.•
Horses not compatible with picnic areas. •
Chickens and Livestock:
What are they for? •
If we have horses, we should have chickens to eat the maggots.•
Supports 4H to reconnect young people with food production.•
Restore as an old ranch – need horse and cattle – petting zoo approach. No worry about flies•
Important to bring back historic breeds.•
What is the historic brand for the SPR?•
Markets and Arts:
Should have things that are on the ranch originally, including ranching lifeways and ranching•
Events Center:
Honeywell might use for corporate events•
Likes location near Steam Pump Village. Different groups may want to get off-site for meetings•
Supports facility for conferences and weddings. New building would attract El Conquistador •
hotel and conference guests who would like to get off-site. Plus for the hotel in terms of getting
conferences. Lots of smaller events and concerts that would utilize.
Events center for multiple events like cowboy music, arts, and because there is nothing else like •
it in Oro Valley.
What is the architectural character of the new event center?•
One of the main purposes of the building is for fund raising.•
Should be clear about guidelines for new buildings.
Office Use:
GOVAC – Need to question their existence in the future considering funding from town.•
Supports GOVAC and OVHS offices. Mission Gardens project. Camp Grant Massacre should be •
incorporated. Copper Corridor of Pinal County.
Public Meeting Comments
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A26
Interviews
INTERVIEW WITH HENRY ZIPF
Location: Steam Pump Ranch
DECEMBER 19, 2007
Notes: Helen Walthier
Mr. Zipf provided the following information, which pertains to the Tucson, Oro Valley and surrounding
areas. It is presented here in the same order in which he spoke.
Interestingly, Mr. Zipf is certain that he did not make the drawing of the property that has been attributed
to him. He said he has never seen that drawing and that he could not have made it.
He believes the corrals seen in the 1938 aerial were used only for holding the cattle which arrived to be
watered. It was not a true “working ranch”.
Hank Lieber was a baseball player for the Cubs. He and his wife Betty (whose maiden name was
Procter) added the two porches on the oldest house on the site. Procter bought the property in 1934. The
Cleveland Indians used to play in Tucson in the 1950’s and Hank Leiber hosted many parties for them at
the property. Originally there was a lawn in the back of the house. In the 1950’s Betty added the adobe
wall which is to the west of the house.
About 10-15 years ago Mr. Zipf had an artist paint the Steam Pump building as it looked at that time. He
still has the painting and will let anyone see it if they are interested.
The Procters, Betty’s parents, bought Steam Pump Ranch in 1934. They owned the Pioneer Hotel in
Tucson and built the bigger house at that time. They used the ranch to entertain guests from the Inn.
Procter brought Frances Rooney to the area. Frances owned Cañada del Oro Ranch and other land in the
area.
The Cañada del Oro Ranch was located about where the Oro Valley Ranch area is, and included
buildings just to the west of the Steam Pump site.
Steam Pump Ranch, during the Pusch era, was not a working ranch. He described it repeatedly as a
“Stopping-Off Place”. The Pusch's also owned the Feldman ranch which was larger, and more of a
working ranch. The Feldman ranch had about 1300 head of cattle. It is located near the San Pedro River.
There was a one room school house on the Feldman Ranch, and that is where Mr. Zipf attended 2nd
and 3rd Grade. The Proctor’s main house was in Tucson on Jackson St., and was torn down when the
community center was built.
Mrs. Feldman was Mr. Zipf’s Grandmother. They used a horse and buggy to get to the Willow Springs
area and the Feldman Ranch. They used Steam Pump Ranch as a stopping over place.
Mr. Zipf’s Aunt Roberta married George Pusch, Jr. and they lived on the CDO Ranch. Carlos also said
Pancho ran that ranch. The Pusch's sold it to the Rooneys, who allowed the Pusch Jr. couple, George
and Roberta, to continue living there and care for the property. The house was destroyed when the new
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA27
Interviews
shopping center went in, about 10-15 years ago.
(NOTE: The Rooney’s daughter would probably be a good source of information about the area.)
John Leiber was Hank Leiber’s son, and is an attorney in Tucson. John Leiber and Mr. Zipf shared a law
office on Speedway. The law office building was built in 1916 by William Jennings Bryant, Jr. Mr. Zipf
got all of Hank Leiber’s legal business until John graduated from Law School.
Mr. Zipf’s grandfather Pusch used to cross Antelope Plains on their way to Feldman Ranch near
Arivaipa Canyon. The ranch was only about 1 mile from the Indians who lived in Arivaipa. When the
Pusch’s arrived they had two blond daughters and the Indians would surround them, and stroke the girl’s
hair.
Initially the ranch made money by charging 10 to 15 cents per cow for water. They would come from
Pinal County, stop for water, then go to Red Rock or Tucson for shipping out. Water was close to the
surface here at about 50’ deep, so it was a good place for making the hand-dug well.
Pancho ran cattle along the Pusch Ridge area, and the Forest Service had two catchment tanks for
watering the Big Horn Sheep.
Mr. Zipf only remembers the oldest building at the property. He believes the Procters must have added
the two structures closest to the Pusch house, immediately to the northeast of the original home.
He does not know if Steam Pump Ranch was a Stage Stop, but imagines it was. He thinks it probably
was because people used the ranch as a stopping place. There was nothing else around except a chicken
ranch near what is now Oro Valley Estates.
Before the Procter’s bought the ranch he does not think there were any crops grown, except possibly
hay for horses. It was used as a stopping place only. He does not recall any crops at all. Once Procter
bought the place it was only used to entertain guests of the Pioneer Inn. That is when the fruit trees and
ornamental trees were planted, to provide shade and make a garden place.
Mr. Zipf spent most of his time in the area at the Rooney’s CDO Ranch, not at Steam Pump.
In 1934 the Procter’s paid $10,000 for the ranch. Procter put in most of the trees. Mr. Zipf said ranchers
didn’t plant trees because they use too much water. He guesses Procter planted the Eucalyptus trees,
because ranchers try to save water. Mr. Pusch was influential in Tucson, and had the first Ice House in
Tucson, and a successful Butcher Shop. He lived near Broadway / Stone.
Mr. Zipf lived at 640 N. Stone Ave. when he was growing up. He enjoyed the downtown area and
remembers the Fox and Rialto theatres. Along the railroad he recalls a small hut on stilts located near the
road crossing. A man sat in the hut and hand lowered the cross arm when a train was coming. He also
recalls that his family gave sandwiches to homeless men.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A28
Mr. Zipf offered information about the history of the Oracle area also. Boyd Wilson owned the Falcon
Valley Ranch. He was born on the Linda Vista Ranch. Boyd’s father, George Wilson, came from Illinois
to the area because of his lungs. He developed the Linda Vista Ranch on the CDO River. Mr. Zipf’s
mother knew Harold Bell Wright, who developed part of Tucson near St. Joseph’s Hospital. Mr. Wright
wrote a book “Mine with the Iron Door” about looking for a gold mine in the mountains. That book was
made into a movie, which he insisted be filmed on the Wilson ranch. The Wilson's built several cottages
to house the actors. The film debuted at the Rialto Theatre in Tucson. After the filming, Wilson made the
cottages into the first guest ranch in Arizona, the Linda Vista Guest Ranch. Boyd knew many people in
Hollywood, was a singer, and had many famous people visit the guest ranch.
When asked if there was a “still” at Steam Pump in the 1930’s Mr. Zipf smiled, said he had heard that,
and that it was possibly true, but he never saw it.
He recalled that the cavalry used to go to Steam Pump Ranch from Ft. Lowell. At the flat spot across
Oracle Road from Steam Pump Ranch there were many “Indian relics” and a spring. He does not believe
anyone lived there, but that is was a passing through place for indigenous people.
Joe Frannea of the Oro Valley Historical Society has Mr. Zipf’s personal photos of the ranch. He is
cataloguing them.
Mr. Zipf was in the old house the night before Mr. Leiber died in it. There was an old four poster bed in
the house. The bed came through Guyamas, Mexico, as did much shipping in those days.
Mr. Zipf’s grandfather Pusch started the ranch in 1874 in partnership with Mr. Zellweger. Their cattle
brand was “PZ” for Pusch-Zellweger. Mr. Zellweger eventually split off and moved to Oracle where he
started other ranches. He only knew his grandfather as an old man. After a stroke Mr. Pusch would sit
with a blanket on his legs. Grandmother Pusch was very robust and ran the ranch. She moved to the area
from Germany at about age 14-16 years. She probably came by ship via Guyamas, there was no railroad
to get from there to Tucson. She was encouraged to come here by Tante Sophie, who was married to
Zellweger. Grandmother Pusch married Mr. George Pusch. She was a very strong woman and ran things
after Mr. Pusch’s stroke.
Mr. Zipf’s father ran the Feldman Ranch for a couple years. That is when Mr. Zipf went to the one room
school house there.
Mr. Procter was a friend of the family. Mr. Zipf’s Uncle George was a nice man, but a bad business man.
He lost the Feldman ranch. Mr. Zipf believes Mr. Procter did them a favor in buying the Steam Pump
Ranch for a fair price. There had been a drought, cattle were dying, and water levels were low. Mr.
Zipf’s grandmother sold it after her husband died. They were living in a very nice and large house at 428
S. 4th Ave. in Tucson at the time and it was not a hardship.
Mr. Zipf is 90 years old, and will turn 91 in a couple weeks. He was an attorney, and practiced in
Tucson. His older brother was named Walter. Walter went to the U of A, became a reporter/journalist.
Walter died about ten years ago at age 90. Mr. Zipf and his wife live in Tubac. He drove up to Oro
Valley, and seems to be in pretty good health. He chatted with us outside for a couple of hours.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA29
Historical Drawing
Sketch attributed to Jack Dobias, 1981
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A30
Room 2
Room 1
Room 3
Plan
North
Scale in feet
0 1 2 4 8
Pump House - Existing Plan
974 GSF
131 NSF
245 NSF
410 NSF
Existing Plans
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA31
Pump House - Speculative Elevations
East
South West
North
Pump House - Speculative Section
Looking East
Loft
Well and Pump Engine
Existing Plans
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A32
Pusch Ranch House - Existing
Section Looking ast
Plan
North
Scale in feet
Pusch Ranch House - Existing
First Floor Plan
3,206 GSF (under roof)
dn
340 NSF
219 NSF
219 NSF 225 NSF
465 NSF
232 NSF
78 NSF
387 NSF
93 NSF 158 NSF
37 NSF
81 NSF44 NSF
0 1 2 4 8
Basement
Floor Plan
up
234 NSF
Existing Plans
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA33
Pusch Ranch House
Existing Elevations 0 1 2 4 8 East
South
West
North
Existing Plans
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A34
Bunk Houses - Existing Floor Plan
339 GSF 336 GSF
Area of former roof canopy
Plan
North
Scale in feet
0 1 2 4 8
Garage and Workers’ Housing -
Existing Floor Plan
1,936 GSF
Garage
doors
originally
172 NSF
60 NSF
41 NSF
34 NSF
179 NSF 245 NSF
526 NSF
51 NSF 56 NSF
97 NSF
62 NSF
22 NSF26 NSF
15 NSF
Existing Plans
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA35
Plan
North
Scale in feet
0 1 2 4 8
Utility Building - Existing Floor Plan
1,555 GSF
709 NSF
110 NSF245 NSF387 NSF
PlanNorth
Scale in feet
0 1 2 4 8
Carlos’ House / Former BBQ
1,754 GSF (under roof)
266 NSF
93 NSF 366 NSF 85 NSF 185 NSF
294 NSF 35 NSF 35 NSF
64 NSF 63 NSF
1 Fireplace converted from original barbecue
Keynotes
1
Full 2x Joists Nominal 2x Joists
- possibly a later
addition
2 Porch added, possibly 1970s
3 Room added around 1980
2
3
Existing Plans
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A36
Plan
North
Scale in feet
0 1 2 4 8
Procter / Leiber House- Existing First Floor Plan
4,833 GSF (under roof)
Existing Second Floor Plan
482 GSF (Added in 1985)
703 NSF
347 NSF
112 NSF
226 NSF
460 NSF
62 NSF
242 NSF
389 NSF
93 NSF
255NSF
193 NSF
1 Master bedroom addition
637 GSF (added late
1980s).
Keynotes
2 Settlement below fireplace on
second floor.
3 Porch added in the late
1970s.
1
2
3
4 Possibly an original
carport. Enclosed at an
unknown date.
4
5 Original sun porch.
Enclosed after 1970.
5
Existing Plans
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA37
Plan
North Scale in feet
0 1 2 4 8
Tack Building /
Proposed Caretaker’s Residence
Existing Floor Plan
1,525 GSF (under roof)
272 NSF
680 NSF163 NSF
Existing Plans
ID #Genus & Species Common NameTrunk Caliper (Inches)Height (Feet)# Trunks ViabilityComments (Health, Age, Form, Context, etc.)TransplantabilityMaintenance NotesT-1 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 7 15 2 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form L Keep off roof of buildingT-2 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 12 19 3 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form L Keep off roof of buildingT-3 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 3 18 1 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form M Keep off roof of buildingT-4 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 9 17 4 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form L Keep off roof of buildingT-5 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 8 19 4 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form L Keep off roof of buildingT-6 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 3 15 1 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form M Keep off roof of buildingT-7 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 6 20 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form L Keep off roof of buildingT-8 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 6 20 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form L Keep off roof of buildingT-9 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 8 19 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form L Keep off roof of buildingT-10 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 7 20 H Very close to building; Trimmed to tree form L Keep off roof of buildingT-11 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 6 1 8 L Chopped down to 1 foot; New growth noted LT-12 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 10 1 2 L Chopped down to 1 foot; New growth possible LT-13 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 5 1 5 L Chopped down to 1 foot; New growth noted LT-14 Morus spp. Mulberry 15 16 2 HNear building entry; Small cactus garden with Aloe and Cereus below LT-15 Melia azedarach Chinaberry 8 20 2 H Near building entry LT-16 Morus spp. Mulberry 8 24 1 H Healthy LT-17 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 24 40 1 H Healthy; Lots of suckering; In lawn LT-18 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 18 22 1 L Almost dead; By corrals and new pocket park LT-19 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 26 18 1 M One major branch is dead LT-20 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 7 16 3 M Sucker from old stump LT-21 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 20 20 1 L Half dead LT-22 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 36 20 2 M Low branching; Old L Remove mistletoeT-23 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 9 17 3 M Low branching; Near farm equipment L Remove mistletoeT-24 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 24 35 1 H Healthy; Upright LT-25 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 28 15 3 M Very low hanging branches L Remove mistletoeT-26 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 26 25 1 M Branches at 2 feet L Remove mistletoeT-27 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 36 22 1 M Lots of dead branches; Nice form L Remove mistletoeT-28 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 24 35 1 H Chainlink around trunk; In corral LT-29 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 20 28 1 H Chainlink around trunk; In corral LT-30 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 18 1 HBegins row of mesquite along entry drive; Branches at 2 feet LT-31 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde 9 18 3 M Moderate health LT-32 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 54 6 2 L Poor health; Lots of old wood; Some new growth LT-33 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 15 3 H Good health MT-34 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 4 12 2 H Healthy; Young HT-35 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 2 10 1 H Healthy; Young HT-37 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 20 20 3 M Old; Some dead wood; Against barbed wire fence L Needs trimming; Remove mistletoeT-38 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 6 8 5 MLeaning; Poor form; Low branching; Dead wood; Against barbed wire fence L Remove dead woodT-39 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 6 5 2 M Pruning damage; Leaning; Against barbed wire fence LT-40 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 20 2 M Low branching; Leaning L Needs trimmingT-41 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 36 50 1 H Nice form; Healthy L Needs minor trimmingT-42 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 18 1 M Leaning; Broken limbs; Surface rooting L Remove mistletoeT-43 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 10 1 M Poor form; Leaning; Against fence; Some pruning damage L Needs trimmingT-44 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 48 50 1 H Nice form; Healthy L Needs minor trimmingT-45 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 14 25 1 MLeaning; Pruning damage; Located against foundation of Steam Pump structure LEnsure that roots are not affecting foundationT-46 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde 12 15 1 M Old; Some re-sprouting; Against barbed wire fence LT-47 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 36 25 2 MNice form; Has been pruned; Some die-back is occuring; Located near Steam Pump structure LT-48 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde 4 10 3 H Near old entrance gate; Leaning; Small HT-49 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 3 10 2 H Near hedge along Oracle Road; Young HT-50 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 4 12 1 H Near old entrance gate; Nice form; Young H
ID #Genus & Species Common NameTrunk Caliper (Inches)Height (Feet)# Trunks ViabilityComments (Health, Age, Form, Context, etc.)TransplantabilityMaintenance NotesT-51 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 20 1 MNice upright form; Some pruning damage; Currently has Christmas lights hanging from it MT-52 Fruit tree Fruit tree 8 25 1 HLocated in large hedge along Oracle Road along with Pyracantha, Mesquite, Privet, Fruit trees, Mexican Palo Verde, Yellow Bird of Paradise, and Mulberry LT-53 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde 8 20 3 MLocated in large hedge along Oracle Road; Low branching; Dead wood LT-54 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 14 25 3 MLocated in large hedge along Oracle Road; Low branching; Dead wood L Remove mistletoeT-55 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 20 3 MLocated in large hedge along Oracle Road; Low branching; Tangled with Mexican Palo Verde LT-56 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 48 25 1 MLocated in large hedge along Oracle Road; Low branching; Huge; Leaning; Near Yellow Bird of Paradise L Remove mistletoeT-57 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 20 1 MLocated in large hedge along Oracle Road; Low hanging branches; Leaning LT-58 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde 8 20 2 MLocated in large hedge along Oracle Road; Pruning damage; Dead wood LT-59 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde 10 20 2 MLocated in large hedge along Oracle Road; Dead branches LT-60 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 20 3 MLocated in large hedge along Oracle Road; Leaning; Low branching LT-61 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 20 1 L Tangled in barbed wire fence, Bad shape LT-62 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 14 20 2 M Heavily leaning; Dead wood L Remove mistletoeT-63 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde 8 20 3 H Nice form; Healthy; Adjacent to stone foundation of tank LT-64 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 20 2 M Heavy pruning damage; Leaning; Old; Near tank L Remove mistletoeT-65 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 15 1 M Ok form; Near fence M Remove mistletoe; Needs trimmingT-66 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 14 25 3 M Dead wood L Remove mistletoe; Needs trimmingT-67 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 10 2 L Heavy pruning damage; Bad shape L Remove mistletoe8 10 Multi M L Remove mistletoe8 10 Multi M Low branching L Remove mistletoeT-68 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 24 25 2 M Pruning damage; Dead wood L Remove mistletoeT-69 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 36 25 3 M Low branching; Dead wood; Leaning L Remove mistletoeT-70 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 20 1 LDead wood; Low branching; Broken limbs; Tangled in barbed wire L Remove mistletoeT-71 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 20 3 LDead wood; Low branching; Broken limbs; Tangled in barbed wire L Remove mistletoeT-72 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 20 1 M Dead wood; Leaning; Poor form; Near soil pile and debris LT-73 Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde 8 20 1 M Lots of dead wood; Poor form; Near soil pile and fence LT-74 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 20 2 L Dead wood; Low branching; Poor form L Remove mistletoeT-75 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 20 1 L Terrible shape; Pruned heavily; Top is leaning L Remove mistletoeT-76 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 30 25 1 M Low branching; Dead wood L Needs pruning; Remove mistletoeT-77 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 10 3 M Low branching; Dead wood; Poor form L Remove mistletoeT-78 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 48 25 2 M Dead wood; Ok form L Remove mistletoeT-79 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 20 1 M Bad form; Pruning damage; Leaning LT-80 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 48 25 2 M Ok form LNeeds trimming; Remove mistletoe and wireT-81 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 14 20 3 M Low branching; Lots of dead wood; Heavily leaning LT-82 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 20 2 M Ok health; Heavily leaning L Remove mistletoeT-83 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 14 25 1 M Ok form; Dead wood L Remove mistletoeT-84 Pyracantha spp. Pyracantha 6 20 Multi M Some dead wood; In yard LT-85 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 48 25 3 M Poor form; Dead wood; Low branching L Remove mistletoeT-86 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 36 30 1 M Nice canopy; Dead wood; Upright LT-87 Morus spp. Mulberry 3 15 1 M Ok health; High canopy; By house - on roof MT-88 Carya illinoensis Pecan 30 40 1 H Nice form and canopy; In lawn L Needs trimmingT-89 Punica granatum Pomegranate N/A 10 Multi H Shrubby; Fruiting; In lawn M(Cluster of Mesquites - 3 Total)
ID #Genus & Species Common NameTrunk Caliper (Inches)Height (Feet)# Trunks ViabilityComments (Health, Age, Form, Context, etc.)TransplantabilityMaintenance NotesT-90 Morus spp. Mulberry 8 25 3 H Canopy has been trimmed up; Near structure LT-91 Carya illinoensis Pecan 30 40 1 H Nice form and canopy; In lawn L Needs trimmingT-92 Pinus spp. Pine 24 60 1 H Upright; Healthy; In lawn LT-93 Morus spp. Mulberry 16 25 4 HNice form; Multi-trunk; Healthy; Surrounded by aloe, debris, and African Sumac suckers LT-94 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 18 30 1 MDead wood; Leaning; Surrounded by aloe, debris, and African Sumac suckers L Remove mistletoeT-95 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 48 75 1 H Huge; Upright; Healthy; In lawn LT-96 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 30 30 2 M Dead wood; Pruning damage; Poor form; In yard L Remove mistletoeT-97Pyracantha spp. (Hedge - 4 total) Pyracantha N/A 15 Multi H Along house LT-98 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 30 30 1 M Dead wood; Ok form; Catclaw at base L Remove mistletoeT-99 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 30 1 M Suckering at base L Remove mistletoe; Needs pruningT-100 Carya illinoensis Pecan 24 40 1 H Healthy; Some dead wood; In grassy area L Remove wire around trunkT-101 Carya illinoensis Pecan 18 40 1 H Healthy; Some dead wood; In grassy area LT-102 Carya illinoensis Pecan 18 40 1 H Healthy; Some dead wood; In grassy area LT-103 Morus spp. Mulberry 8 30 1 H Healthy; By chainlink fenceT-104Ligustrum japonicum (Cluster) Privet N/A 10 Multi M In decline; Some damage; By chainlink fence LT-105Ligustrum japonicum (Hedge - 16 total) Privet N/A 15 Multi M Along pool area; Also includes two bougainvilleas LT-106 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 24 30 1 MSome dead wood; Good form; Root damage; Near equipment LT-107 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 30 30 1 M Has been trimmed; Healthy, Near drive LT-108 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 24 30 1 M Trimmed off roof; Near structure LT-109 Carya illinoensis Pecan 14 30 1 H Healthy; In lawn LT-110 Morus spp. Mulberry 18 30 1 H Healthy; Nice form; In lawn; By main house LT-111 Morus spp. Mulberry 12 30 1 H Healthy; Nice form; In lawn; By main house LT-112 Morus spp. Mulberry 12 30 1 H Healthy; Nice form; In lawn; Slightly leaning LT-113 Morus spp. Mulberry 24 30 2 H Low branching; Healthy; Leaning; By main house LT-114 Carya illinoensis Pecan 10 30 1 H Healthy; Nice form; By main house LT-115 Carya illinoensis Pecan 12 25 1 H Healthy; Some dead wood; In grassy area LT-116Ligustrum japonicum (Hedge - 21 total) Privet N/A 10 Multi M By pool LT-117 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 40 70 1 M Some dead wood; Some exposed roots LT-118 Carya illinoensis Pecan 10 40 1 M Some dead wood; In grassy area LT-119 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 30 60 1 M Dead wood; Declining health; Root damage LT-120 Eucalyptus spp. Eucalyptus 30 60 1 M Dead wood; Declining health; Near T-119 LT-121 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 35 1 M Some dead wood; In grassy area LT-122 Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican Palo Verde 8 25 2 M Nice form; In grassy area LT-123 Carya illinoensis Pecan 12 40 1 M Some dead wood; Low hanging branches LT-125 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 30 35 2 M Low branching; Dead wood L Remove mistletoeT-126 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 24 15 1 L Dead LT-127 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 20 1 M Pruning damage; Poor form; In grassy area LT-128 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 24 15 1 L Suckering; Bad shape; Severely cut back LT-129 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 30 35 2 MLow branching; Dead wood; Pruning damage; Exposed roots L Remove mistletoeT-130 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 48 35 2 M Low branching; Dead wood; Pruning damage L Remove mistletoeT-131 Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican Palo Verde 10 15 5 M Low branching; Dead wood L Remove mistletoeT-132 Celtis pallida Desert Hackberry N/A 10 Multi H Mixed in with Desert Broom; Healthy; By corral LT-133 Acacia greggii Catclaw Acacia 4 15 Multi H Some dead wood; By corral L Needs trimmingT-134 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 40 30 1 M Some dead wood L Remove mistletoe; Needs trimmingT-135 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 60 35 2 MHuge; Old; Very low branching; Dead wood; Possible root damage; Stockpile at base L Remove mistletoe; Needs trimmingT-136 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 24 30 3 LLow branching; Dead wood; Leaning; Desert Hackberry tangled within L Remove mistletoe
ID #Genus & Species Common NameTrunk Caliper (Inches)Height (Feet)# Trunks ViabilityComments (Health, Age, Form, Context, etc.)TransplantabilityMaintenance NotesT-137 Morus spp. Mulberry 14 35 1 H Nice form; Some dead wood; In lawn LT-138 Morus spp. Mulberry 12 35 1 M Some suckers; Dead wood; In lawn L Needs pruningT-139 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 50 35 1 M Huge; Old; Moderately low branching; Dead wood L Remove mistletoe; Needs pruningT-140 Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm 24 20 1 H Nice; Healthy; In lawn MT-141 Washingtonia robusta Fan Palm 30 50 1 H Nice; Healthy; In lawn LT-142 Carya illinoensis Pecan 36 40 1 H Some dead wood; Healthy; In lawn LT-143 Olea europaea Olive 10 25 1 H Lots of suckers; Healthy; Against house LT-144 Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm 14 30 1 H Nice form; In lawn MT-145 Washingtonia robusta Fan Palm 20 40 1 H Nice form; In lawn; 4" caliper Mulberry underneath LT-146 Morus spp. Mulberry 6 20 1 H Nice form; Healthy; Against house; Two roses below MT-147 Morus spp. Mulberry 12 25 1 H Nice form; Healthy; Against house LT-148 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 24 30 1 M Huge; Lots of suckers; Dead wood; Against house LT-149 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 24 50 1 H Healthy; Nice form; Near house LT-150 Rosa banksiae Lady Banks Rose N/A 15 Multi H Against house; Nice form; Healthy LT-151 Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm 36 30 1 M Very low branches; By wall; Leaves are browning L Needs trimmingT-152 Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm 8 25 1 M Very low branches; By wall; Leaves are browning L Needs trimmingT-153 Celtis reticulata Netleaf Hackberry N/A 15 Multi L Wilted, Near 4" caliper tree (unknown species) L Increase water; May be diseasedT-154 Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm 24 30 1 H Healthy; Nice form; In yard MT-155 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 36 35 1 MDead wood; Leaning; Against wall; Unknown shrub species below L Remove mistletoeT-156 Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm 14 35 1 M Dead wood; Leaning; Against wall LT-157 Ulmus pumila Siberian Elm 16 30 2 L Low branches; Dying; In bad condition L Possibly removeT-158 Punica granatum Pomegranate N/A 15 Multi L Diseased; Against wall L Possibly removeT-159 Unknown Unknown N/A 20 Multi LLots of dead wood; Against house; Some parts are healthy LT-160 Ligustrum japonicum Privet 8 20 3 LLots of dead wood; Against house; Some parts are healthy LT-161 Populus freemontii Cottonwood 16 40 1 M Dead wood; Declining health; In dirt drive area LT-162 Washingtonia robusta Fan Palm 40 25 1 H Nice form; Healthy; In dirt drive area MT-163 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 16 25 2 MLow branching; Dead wood; Some evidence of pruning; Near chicken coops LT-164 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 20 25 2 MLeaning; Low branching; Some evidence of pruning; Near chicken coops LT-165 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 24 25 2 MLeaning; Low branching; Some evidence of pruning; Near chicken coops LT-166 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 6 15 1 H Nice form; Upright; Healthy; Ocotillo and Cereus below HT-167 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 4 10 1 HSmall; Young; Healthy; Nice form; Ocotillo and Cereus below HT-168 Punica granatum Pomegranate N/A 15 Multi MMostly healthy; By chicken coops; Ocotillo and Cereus below MT-169 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 18 35 1 MLeaning; Dead wood; Possible root damage; Tangled in chicken coop LT-170 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 6 20 1 M Healthy; Some dead wood; Right by building LT-171 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 14 25 2 HVery low branches; Healthy; Desert Hackberry below; In soil drive LT-172 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 36 25 1 MSuckering; Really leaning; Desert Hackberry below; In soil drive L Remove mistletoeT-173 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 16 25 1 M Leaning L Remove mistletoeT-174 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 20 1 M Leaning L Remove mistletoeT-175 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 14 20 2 L Low branches; Dying; Dead wood; Mistletoe infestation L Remove mistletoe; Possibly removeT-176 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 4 10 Multi M Yellowing foliage; Near soil drive MT-177 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 24 25 2 M Dead wood L Remove mistletoeT-178 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 24 30 1 M Severely pruned L Remove mistletoeT-179 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 25 2 M Very low branching; Near shade structure LT-180 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 18 25 2 M Low branching; Some suckering; Potential rotting L
ID #Genus & Species Common NameTrunk Caliper (Inches)Height (Feet)# Trunks ViabilityComments (Health, Age, Form, Context, etc.)TransplantabilityMaintenance NotesT-181 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 20 1 M Leaning; Severe pruning LT-182 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 20 20 3 M Very low branching; Soil piled at base; Some dead wood L Remove mistletoeT-183 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 16 25 2 M Dead wood; Low branching L Remove mistletoeT-184 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 20 1 M Moderate health L Remove mistletoeT-185 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 6 15 1 H Young; Healthy; Very close to building LT-186 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 8 20 1 M Has been trimmed; Leaning; By building LT-187 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 12 25 1 M Moderate health LT-188 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 25 1 M Dead wood; Some leaning branches; In drive area LT-189 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 10 25 1 M Dead wood; Some leaning branches; In drive area LT-190 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 24 25 2 M Dead wood; Some leaning branches; In drive area LT-191 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 6 15 2 H Nice form; In bare area MT-192 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 6 15 3 H Low branching; In bare area LT-193 Prosopis velutina Velvet Mesquite 6 15 3 H Low branching; In bare area LC-1 Carnegiea gigantea Saguaro 8 2 1 L Almost dead; Split top MC-2 Yucca spp. Yucca N/A 11 M Old; Growing into Cottonwood canopy LC-3 Carnegiea gigantea Saguaro 10 5 1 H Healthy HC-4 Cereus spp. Cereus N/A 11 Multi M Some frost damage; By structure MS-1 Ziziphus obtusifolia Graythorn N/A 7 Multi HBelow Palo Verde canopy; Several young Mesquites in area HS-2 UnknownUnknown - Variegated Leaves N/A 3.5 Multi H Near Privet hedge and spa; Three shrubs total H
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA45
Pusch Era PlantsProsopis velutina* Mesquite
Parkinsonia florida* Blue palo verde
Acacia greggii* Catclaw acacia
Chilopsis linearis* Desert willow
Celtis pallida* Desert hackberry
Ziziphus obtusifolia* Greythorn
Carnegiea gigantea* Saguaro
Yucca spp.* Yucca
Ambrosia deltoidea Triangle leaf bursage
Anisacanthus thurberi Desert honeysuckle
Callinadra eriophylla Fairy duster
Encelia farninosa Brittlebush
Ericameria laricifolia Turpentine bush
Larrea tridentata Creosote
Nolina microcarpa Bear grass
Atriplex lentiformis Quail bush
Eriogonum fasciculatum Flat top buckwheat
Simmondsia chinenesis Jojoba
Hyptis emoryi Desert lavender
Baileya multiradiata Desert marigold
Lycium fremontii Fremont wolfberry
Penstemon spp. Penstemon
Sphaeralcea ambigua Globe mallow
Aristida purpurea Purple three awn
Leptochloa dubia Green spangle top
Parthenium incanum Mariola
Sporobolus cryptandrus Sand dropseed
* Species currently on site
Acacia greggii
Flower of the Chilopsis linearis
Encelia farninosa
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A46
Populus fremontii* Cottonwood
Ligustrum lucidum* Privet
Morus alba* Mulberry
Melia azedarach* Chinaberry
Eucalyptus microtheca* Coolibah tree
Carya illinoinensis* Pecan tree
Punica granatum* Pomegranate
Pyracantha* Pyracantha
Pinus sp.* Pine
Olea europaea* Olive
Phoenix dactylifera* Date palm
Washingtonia filifera* California fan palm
Rosa banksiae* Lady Banks rose
Ulmus pumila* Siberian elm
Cereus peruvianus* Peruvian apple
Carissa grandiflora Natal plum
Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple guava
Photinia fraseri Photinia
Raphiolepis indica Indian hawthorn
Thevetia perviana Yellow oleander
Juniperus horizontalis Creeping juniper
Myrtus communis Myrtle
Abelia grandiflora Glossy abelia
Rosmarinus officinalis Rosemary
Nandina domestica Heavenly bamboo
Caesalpinia gilliesii Yellow bird of
paradise
Prunus armeniaca Apricot – ‘Katy’
Ficus carica Edible fig – ‘Brown
Turkey’
Vitis vinifera Table grape –
‘Thompson
Seedless’
* Species currently on site.
Procter Era Plants
Olea europaea
Rosa banksiae
Nandina domestica
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final ReportA47
References
Birnbaum, Charles A., ed. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes.
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1996.
Deed of Preservation Easement between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County. 2008. (Approval
Pending)
Hollengreen, Laura H. and R. Brooks Jeffery, eds. Cross-Cultural Vernacular Landscapes of Southern
Arizona: A Field Guide for the Vernacular Architecture Forum 25th Anniversary Conference.
Tucson, Arizona, 2005.
Humphries, Frank. Steam Pump Ranch. A video recording narrated by Connie Allen Bacon. 1996.
Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley for the Implementation
of the 2004 Pima County Bond Issue Project for the Steam Pump Ranch Acquisition. October 2006.
Marriott, Barbara. Canyon of Gold: Tales of Santa Catalina Pioneers. Tucson, Arizona: Catymatt
Production, 2005.
Poster Frost Associates with SAGE Landscape Architecture and Environmental. Steam Pump Ranch
Building and Landscape Assessments. Tucson, Arizona, August 2007
Thiel, Homer J. Cultural Resources Survey of The Steam Pump Ranch, Oro Valley, Pima County,
Arizona. Tucson, Arizona: Desert Archaeology, Inc, 2007.
Sobin, Harris. Building Condition Assessment Report: Steam Pump Building. Report prepared for OVB
Partners, LLC. Tucson, Arizona, 10 March 2004.
Sobin, Harris. Building Condition Assessment Report: Steam Pump Ranch House. Report prepared for
OVB Partners, LLC. Tucson, Arizona, 11 February 2004.
Stewart, Janet Ann. Arizona Ranch Houses: Southern Territorial Styles, 1867-1900, Tucson: University
of Arizona and Arizona Historical Society, 1987 (orig. 1974).
SWCA Environmental Consultants Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Steam Pump Ranch,
Pima County Arizona. Tucson, Arizona, 2007.
Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstucting
Historic Buildings.Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995.
Western Technologies, Inc. Limited Asbestos & Lead Based Paint Surveys and Laboratory Analysis:
Residential Property, 10901 North Oracle Road. Tucson, Arizona, 2007.
Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
Final Report A48
This page is blank