Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Historic Preservation Commission (92)       *AMENDED (06/04/2021, 2:00 PM) AGENDA TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION JUNE 7, 2021 ONLINE ZOOM MEETING CLICK HERE Phone: (669) 900-6833 Meeting ID: Meeting ID: 915 3764 3989 Passcode: 516879        REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER   ROLL CALL   CALL TO AUDIENCE - at this time, any member of the public is allowed to address the Commission on any issue not listed on today’s agenda. Pursuant to the Arizona open meeting law, individual Commission members may ask Town staff to review the matter, ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda, or respond to criticism made by speakers. However, the Commission may not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during "Call to Audience." In advance requests to speak are preferred and may be sent to Brandon Laue at blaue@orovalleyaz.gov no later than one hour before the meeting begins.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS   PRESENTATIONS   1.Historical Society Update presented by Henry Zipf, President   CONSENT AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 3, 2021 MEETING MINUTES   REGULAR SESSION AGENDA   1.WELCOME NEW MEMBERS      2.*DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 21 AND ASSOCIATED CHAPTERS TO REVISE THE PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN ADOPTION PROCESS   3.DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM THREE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS   4.DISCUSSION REGARDING A FUNDING ORGANIZATION OR 501c3 AND HOW FORMING SUCH AN ORGANIZATION IS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE HPC   5.PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION TOPICS FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS   DEPARTMENT UPDATE   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The Commission may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas. Commission may not discuss, deliberate or take any action on the topics presented pursuant to ARS 38-431.02H   ADJOURNMENT   POSTED: June 1, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. by pp. *AMENDED: June 4, 2021 at 2:00 PM by pp. When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours prior to the Board meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. 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 Board meeting at 229-4700. 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. 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, Via Zoom at https://orovalley.zoom.us/j/91537643989?pwd=eVdQdWl6dXMyYzIzdC9TRUZQdWxxZz09 or may participate telephonically only by dialing Phone: (669) 900-6833 Meeting ID: Meeting ID: 915 3764 3989 Passcode: 516879 prior to or during the posted meeting. 1. If a member of the public would like to speak at either Call to Audience or on a Regular Agenda item, please “raise your hand” during the meeting when the chair announces that it is the appropriate time to do so. For those participating in the meeting through zoom, place your cursor towards the bottom, middle of the page and look for the “raise hand” icon and click on it to “raise your hand” to speak. For those participating via phone only, press *9 to “raise your hand”. 2. 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. 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. 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. 3. If a member of the public would like to submit written comments to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 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. 4. If you have questions, please contact Facility Manager, Brandon Laue, at 520-229-5032 or email at blaue@orovalleyaz.gov. “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 1. Meeting Date:06/07/2021   Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Historical Society Update presented by Henry Zipf, President RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Historical Society provides their updates every quarter, March, June, September, December. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A    Historic Preservation Commission 1. Meeting Date:06/07/2021   Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MAY 3, 2021 MEETING MINUTES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION:  I MOVE to approve (approve with changes) the May 3, 2021 Historic Preservation Commission regular session meeting minutes. Attachments 2021 05 03 Draft Minutes  MINUTES TOWN OF ORO VALLEY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR SESSION MAY 3, 2021            REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 5:00 PM   CALL TO ORDER    Chair Biel called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.   ROLL CALL Present: Puntadeleste Bozeman, Commissioner Steve Hannestad, Commissioner Stephanie Krueger, Vice Chair Michael Wilson, Commissioner Dan Biel, Chair Absent: Staff Present:Tobin Sidles, Legal Services Director Matthew Jankowski, Parks and Recreation Deputy Director Lynanne Dellerman-Silverthorn, Recreation Cultural Services Manager Brandon Laue, Aquatics Manager MaryAnne Tolmie, Senior Office Specialist Attendees: Edgardo Ibarra, University of Arizona Capstone Project Chloe Alexandra Loos, University of Arizona Capstone Project CALL TO AUDIENCE    Chair Biel opened called to audience. No one spoke. Chair Beil closed call to audience.   COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS    Councilmember Solomon was not present.   PRESENTATIONS   1.Presentation to two Master in Public Administration students for their Capstone Project assistance with the Town of Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission's Local Historic Registry project       Ms. Dellerman-Silverthorn thanked Edgardo and Chloe for all of their help regarding the Capstone project, and read the letter going to each of the students. Chair Biel, Vice Chair Krueger, Mr. Jankowski, Commissioner Bozeman and Commissioner Hannestad added their appreciation, thanks and well wishes.   CONSENT AGENDA   1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 5, 2021 MEETING MINUTES       Motion by Chair Dan Biel, seconded by Commissioner Michael Wilson to approve the April 5, 2021 meeting minutes.  Vote: 6 - 0 Carried   REGULAR SESSION AGENDA   1.DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM TWO HISTORIC STEAM PUMP RANCH       Chair Biel recounted the history of repairs and made comments. Ms. Dellerman-Silverthorn added additional comments. Mr. Jankowski added more information. Events and fund-raising were discussed. Vice Chair Krueger and Commissioner Bozeman added to the discussion.   2.PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION TOPICS FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS       Ms. Dellerman-Silverthorn presented the attached. It was noted that in order to be on the National Historic Register the count must be 51% of the neighborhood.   DEPARTMENT UPDATE    Ms. Dellerman-Silverthorn provided her department updates. 30 students participated in the essay contest. The recommended winners will be on the June 19 council meeting. Steam Pump Ranch construction is moving forward. Two people were selected for the commission vacancies, they may be at the next meeting. The Block family residence plaque is being prepared. Please scan and send the article that was printed in the newspaper regarding the Capstone Project. Mr. Jankowski added information on the overall Town budget, including requests made for Steam Pump Ranch.   FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS    Chair Biel asked for future agenda items. Commissioner Wilson asked regarding the Alexander home variance. Chair Biel asked that Vice Chair Krueger's fundraising suggestion should be agendized in the future. Commissioner Hannestad seconded both items.   ADJOURNMENT    Motion by Chair Dan Biel, seconded by Commissioner Puntadeleste Bozeman to adjourn at 5:50 p.m. Vote: 5 - 0 Carried  Vote: 5 - 0 Carried     I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the regular session of the Town of Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 3rd day of May, 2021. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present. ___________________________ MaryAnne Tolmie Senior Office Specialist    Historic Preservation Commission 2. Meeting Date:06/07/2021   Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: *DISCUSSION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 21 AND ASSOCIATED CHAPTERS TO REVISE THE PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN ADOPTION PROCESS RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff will lead this discussion. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A Attachments Planning and Zoning Document     Town Council Regular Session Item # 4. Meeting Date:06/16/2021   Requested by: Bayer Vella, Community and Economic Development  Submitted By:Milini Simms, Community and Economic Development Case Number: 2101017 SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 21 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED CHAPTERS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE TO REVISE THE PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN ADOPTION PROCESS: A. RESOLUTION (R)21-##, DECLARING THE PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 21 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SECTIONS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE IN ATTACHMENT 1 AND FILED WITH THE TOWN CLERK, A PUBLIC RECORD, and   B. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE (O)-## AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 21 AND OTHER ASSOCIATED CHAPTERS OF THE ORO VALLEY ZONING CODE.  RECOMMENDATION: Item A (Attachment 1) is solely an administrative process. Item B (Attachment 2) was recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission by a 5-1 vote.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Item A (Attachment 1) is solely an administrative function declaring the proposed code amendments a public record. Item B (Attachment 2): The purpose of this item is to consider a proposed code amendment to revise the adoption process for the Planning Division Work Plan. The proposed code amendment enables use of the same administrative work plan development process of all other Town departments. By doing so, it removes duplicative reviews of land use related items by the Commissions and Town Council. Rationale for proposed amendment:  Duplicate review of land use related items- The Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and Town Council review the same land use related items twice through the current strategic leadership and work plan processes.  With the ratification of the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan, a strategic leadership plan is adopted by Town Council every two years to establish Town-wide priorities and needs based on outstanding General Plan actions and other current issues. The Planning Division Work Plan is also created every two years in coordination with the Town Council's Strategic Leadership Plan (SLP). In accordance with the General Plan, the work plan further refines the land use related objectives from the SLP to implement within the document's two-year time frame. The work plan is currently considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and Town Council.  Consistency with all other Town department work plan development processes- With the implementation of a formal SLP, the function of the Planning Division Work Plan has evolved, and it is now largely a managerial function. However, it remains the only department/division work plan considered by a commission or Town Council. All other Town departments develop and manage work plans internally under the direction of the Town Manager. The proposed code amendment:   Removes consideration of the work plan from the Commissions' and Council's duties for consistency with other Town department work plan development processes. However, it maintains the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council's ability to initiate code amendments or other land use related projects as needed. Codifies the existing General Plan annual progress reporting process (presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council) as a duty of the Planning and Zoning Administrator. The annual progress report is required by State law and by the General Plan but is not currently in the Zoning Code.  The proposed code amendment was discussed with the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 4 (for minutes, see  Attachment 3) and considered by the Commission on June 1 (for staff report see Attachment 4 and for draft minutes, see  Attachment 5). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (5-1 vote).  BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Prior to the formal establishment of the Town Council Strategic Leadership Plan (SLP), work plans were the primary source for prioritizing department  tasks beyond daily operations. However, the Your Voice, Our Future General Plan (ratified in 2016) established the hierarchy and process for strategic and work plans. Per the General Plan, the SLP sets priorities for all Town departments to address outstanding actions from the General Plan and other current needs. The SLP sets policies to allocate resources and direct staff whereas department work plans are developed under the overall direction of the Town Manager and provide the specific tasks to meet the SLP objectives.  The proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) implements the same administrative work plan process used by all other Town departments. By doing so, the proposed code amendment removes the duplicative review of land use items by the Commissions and Town Council. Additionally, the proposed code amendment codifies the existing General Plan annual reporting process (required by State law) and maintains all other Commission and Town Council duties, which includes initiating code amendments or projects as needed. The following graphic highlights the redundancy (outlined in red) in the current process and depicts the proposed change. More information and specifics about the proposed code amendment are provided below.  DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS 1. Duplicative reviews of land use related items. As established by the General Plan, an SLP is adopted by Town Council every two years to prioritize actions from the General Plan and other identified needs. This year, the Town Council invited all boards/commissions were invited to participate in the SLP development process.  Per the General Plan, this Town-wide policy document is further refined by all Town departments through individual work plans, under the direction of the Town Manager. The redundancy between each plan is purposeful as the work plans are used to specify tasks and allocate resources for implementing the SLP.  However, now the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and Town Council review the same land use related items twice through the strategic leadership plan and work plan processes as depicted below.  The proposed code amendment removes the duplicate review of land use items from the Commissions and Town Council. It intentionally does not update the Commissions' duties to provide input into the strategic leadership plan as that is the responsibility of the Town Council. Additionally, the code only establishes the roles and duties of Planning related boards and commissions. However, the Commissions' may recommend potential goals or objectives to the Town Council at any time.    2. Consistency with all other Town department work plan development processes. The current work plan adoption process was established in the original Zoning Code adopted in 1981. Other than minor changes (inclusion of the Historic Preservation Commission), the process has remained substantially the same. However, the function of the Planning Division Work Plan has evolved with the General Plan's establishment of a formal strategic plan. As intended by the General Plan, it is now largely a managerial function to specify tasks and resources needed to complete applicable SLP items within its two-year term. Currently, the Planning Division Work Plan is the only department/division work plan considered by a Commission or Council. Due to the redundancy and function of the work plans, all other department work plans are developed and managed internally under the overall direction of the Town Manager. Some boards and commissions (e.g. Water Utility Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board) periodically adopt work plans, but these outline annual goals for their respective boards, not the department.  Lastly, to keep all boards/commissions and Council apprised of staff's efforts to implement the General Plan and associated plans (including the SLP), the existing annual progress report is included in the proposed code amendment. The annual report is required by State law and reiterated in the General Plan. Staff has provided a report to the Town Council each year on the Town's efforts to implement the actions from the General Plan, yet it has not been codified. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION The proposed code amendment was discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission on May 4, 2021 (for minutes, see  Attachment 3) to gather feedback only. Three points of concern were voiced by the Commission, which include: 1) timing and establishment of a formal approach to include boards/commissions in future strategic planning processes, 2) other boards/commissions roles in the strategic planning process, and 3) prioritization of the SLP items. The Planning and Zoning Commission's concerns were discussed during their meeting on June 1, 2021 (for staff report, see  Attachment 4 and for draft minutes, see Attachment 5). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval by a 5-1 vote.  PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: Public Notice has been provided as follows:  All HOAs in Town were notified of this hearing Public hearing notices were posted:  In the Territorial Newspaper At Town Hall On the Town website  SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION In summary, the proposed code amendment (Attachment 2) revises the Planning Division Work Plan adoption process. The existing process was established prior to implementation of a formal strategic leadership planning process and includes review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and Town Council. The Your Voice, Our Future established the strategic planning process, which recently included input from all Town boards/commissions. The Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission and Town Council now review the same land use items twice (through the strategic plan and work plan process).  In accordance with the General Plan, the function of the Planning Division Work Plan has evolved to largely a managerial function. It is used to specify tasks and allocate resources for implementing the SLP, under the direction and guidance of the Town Manager. Therefore, the proposed code amendment enables use of the same administrative work plan development process used by all other Town departments. By doing so, it removes the duplicate reviews of land use items by the Commissions and Town Council. Lastly, the proposed code amendment codifies the existing General Plan annual reporting process required by State law.  In conclusion, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed code amendment on June 1, 2021 and recommended approval by a 5-1 vote.  FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: The Town Council may consider the following motions: Item A: I MOVE to APPROVE Resolution  No.(R)21-##, declaring the proposed code amendment to Chapter 21 and other associated sections of the code in Attachment 1 and filed with the Town Clerk, a public record. Item B: I MOVE to APPROVE Ordinance No. (O)21-##, amending Chapter 21 and other associated chapters of the Oro Valley Zoning Code.  Attachments RESOLUTION (R)21-##  ORDINANCE (O)21-##  ATTACHMENT 3- PZC MINUTES 5.4.2021  ATTACHMENT 4 - PZC STAFF REPORT 6.1.2021  ATTACHMENT 5 - PZC DRAFT MINUTES 6.1.2021     Historic Preservation Commission 3. Meeting Date:06/07/2021   Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM THREE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS   RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: In depth review of historic neighborhoods. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A Attachments Cultural Heritage Preservation Plan  Oro Valley Cultural Heritage Preservation Plan: Developing and Sustaining a Community Sense of Place Revised 2015 Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission Ellen Guyer, Chair Marilyn Lane, Vice Chair Dan Huff Dean Strandskov Jenni Sunshine Eric Thomae Connie Trail Town of Oro Valley Mayor Satish I. Hiremath, D.D.S Vice Mayor Lou Waters Council Member Brendan Burns Council Member William Garner Council Member Joe Hornat Council Member Mary Snider Council Member Mike Zinkin Revised 2014 Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission Ellen Guyer, Chair Dean Strandskov, Vice Chair Ed Hannon Marilyn Lane Eric Thomae Connie Trail Town of Oro Valley Mayor Satish I. Hiremath, D.D.S Vice Mayor Lou Waters Council Member Brendan Burns Council Member William Garner Council Member Joe Hornat Council Member Mary Snider Council Member Mike Zinkin Originally Prepared in 2011 Prepared by John C. Ravesloot, Ph.D., Scott O’Mack, M.A., and Patricia Spoerl, Ph.D. Submitted by John C. Ravesloot, Ph.D. Principal Investigator Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission Daniel Zwiener, Chair Lois Nagy, Vice Chair Barbara Campbell Ellen Guyer Ed Hannon Sam McClung, Ph.D. Valerie Pullara Town of Oro Valley Mayor Satish Hiremath Vice Mayor Mary Snider Council Member Bill Garner Council Member Barry Gillaspie Council Member Joe Hornat Council Member Steve Solomon Council Member Lou Waters WSA Technical Report No. 2011-18 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 A Guide for Implementation: Oro Valley Cultural Heritage Preservation Planning ........................ 2 1. Public Participation and Heritage Education .......................................................................... 2 2. Historic Steam Pump Ranch .................................................................................................... 3 3. Historic Neighborhoods .......................................................................................................... 3 4. Town History Records and Reports ....................................................................................... 4 5. Undeveloped Areas of the Town .......................................................................................................... 5 6. Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve ............................................................................ 5 Appendix A: The Legal Context for Historic Preservation ............................................................... 7 National Legislation, Guidance, and Support for Preservation Planning .................................... 7 State of Arizona Preservation Planning ....................................................................................... 8 Category 1, Toward Effective Management of Historic Resources ......................................... 9 Category 2, Toward an Informed and Supportive Constituency ............................................. 9 Local Preservation Planning ........................................................................................................ 10 Appendix B: Status of Oro Valley Cultural Resources and Tools for their Management ............... 12 Archaeological Inventories ............................................................................................................ 12 Residential Neighborhood Surveys ........................................................................................... 13 National Register Nominations ................................................................................................. 16 Protection of Historic Properties............................................................................................... 17 Preservation Incentives ............................................................................................................. 17 Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Program ........................................................................................ 17 State Historic Property Tax Reclassification (SPT) for Owner-Occupied Homes .................... 18 Appendix C: References for Oro Valley Cultural Heritage Preservation Planning........................... 19 Appendix D: Helpful Online Historic Preservation References ...................................................... 20 This page intentionally left blank 1 INTRODUCTION Among the most important aspects of historic preservation today is ensuring that it is relevant to a community and will attract visitors—to learn about special places of the past, and to contribute to the overall economic sustainability of a community. Oro Valley holds unique and authentic cultural resources that can make places of the past come alive. In collaboration with partners, the Town can develop an exceptional cultural heritage program. This is a plan for preserving the special historic places of Oro Valley, and for maintaining an awareness and appreciation of its heritage within the community. This plan is a statement of the community’s goals for its historic properties and programs, and provides guidance to reach those goals. This plan provides a guide for moving forward in developing and maintaining historic properties and programs. Six components are identified, each of which contains suggested action items. The components are: public participation and heritage education; Historic Steam Pump Ranch; historic neighborhoods, Town history and records, undeveloped areas of the Town, and Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve. This plan emphasizes the importance of having preservation programs that are educational, operate at maximum efficiency, and take advantage of diverse funding and volunteer opportunities. A preservation plan is most effective when it is integrated with related local and regional plans and policies. This plan is flexible in bringing together citizens, interest groups, and local government to collaborate in preserving their shared heritage. The key to successful implementation is having informed policy makers who integrate Oro Valley’s cultural heritage in its social and economic development. 2 A GUIDE FOR IMPLEMENTATION: ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLANNING The context for implementing this cultural heritage program plan includes six major components. It also incorporates the goals of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan described in Appendix A. Residential neighborhood surveys and future preservation incentives are included below because they apply directly to residents. As with all plans, this one should be seen as a flexible document that can be updated as warranted based on recommendations and involvement of the historic preservation commission, Town staff, Town council, and citizens. The six components are: public participation and heritage education; historic Steam Pump Ranch; historic neighborhoods, Town history and records, undeveloped areas of the town, and Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve. General responsibilities are identified below as Town staff (includes the Parks & Recreation Department, Development and Infrastructure Services, Communications Department, and the Town Manager’s staff), Historic Preservation Commission (seven member volunteer advisory board), and volunteers (individuals and organizations). These responsibilities may shift among staff and volunteers depending upon a specific program or project and are intended here only to provide general guidelines for implementation. The Historic Preservation Commission should review this plan annually. Based on this review, the Commission may make recommendations to Town staff and will coordinate this plan with the annual Historic Preservation Commission work plan. Town staff can review the plan and the commission’s recommendations and provide a summary to the Town Council. Many of the following components can be implemented in phases within the overall context of the Town’s cultural heritage program. Most are designed to require minimal expenditure of funds and maximum potential for partnerships. 1. Public Participation and Heritage Education Ongoing preservation education among a wide variety of audiences is essential to a successful historic preservation program and can be integrated and implemented, in most cases, with limited funds, into the Town’s existing programs and facilities. Literature describing the Town’s cultural resources in the form of a brochure has been designed and distributed to inform Oro Valley residents of the Town’s inventory and to encourage public participation in preservation. Information has also been made available on the Town’s website, which should be continuously updated. Public outreach should be considered as well and could include a lecture series, classroom curricula, special events and submission of stories in various publications. On site tours of Steam Pump Ranch are currently available and plan to continue. Public tours of Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve, the Cañada Del Oro trail and historic neighborhoods should be developed. A special collections section of the Town’s historic documents, records and reports, made available at the Pima County Public Library – Oro Valley Branch could also be considered. 3 The Historic Preservation Commission should work diligently to establish and foster relationships with the Oro Valley Historical Society, consultants, educators and other historic preservation organizations throughout southern Arizona to implement strategies to increase public participation and heritage education. 2. Historic Steam Pump Ranch The historic Steam Pump Ranch is an important part of the Town’s heritage. It is recognized nationally through a listing in the National Register of Historic Places; it is recognized locally in that Pima County voters approved expenditure in 2004 of $5 million for its acquisition for historic preservation and public use. Successful development of the Ranch is dependent on the citizens of Oro Valley becoming aware of and supporting the vital role the site can play in the community with an emphasis on local involvement and public access. The property provides an excellent locale for developing a “sense of place” for Oro Valley and holds economic viability as an educational facility, special event venue and heritage park. Partnerships will be a key element in maintenance of the property and providing public access. Documents pertaining to preservation and maintenance of the property include the Intergovernmental Agreement between Pima County and the Town of Oro Valley for Implementation of the 2004 Bond Issue Project for the Steam Pump Ranch Acquisition (2006), Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan (2007), and the Deed of Preservation Easement between the Town of Oro Valley and Pima County (2008) (all in Appendix C). Of primary concern in the future is the protection of the historic core (as noted in the Master Plan) at the ranch. Town staff will coordinate with the Historic Preservation Commission to ensure that the integrity of the historic core is preserved at all times in accordance with state and national guidelines. Town staff should review the Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan periodically to ensure that it reflects current planning and should annually review the progress made on carrying out the recommendations in the Master Plan and report to the Town Council and the Historic Preservation Commission. Town staff will annually review the progress being made on carrying out the recommendations of the Master Plan and report to the Town Council and Historic Preservation Commission. 3. Historic Neighborhoods The Town of Oro Valley was incorporated in 1974. The first subdivision was platted in 1930. Construction of residential neighborhoods generally did not occur until the late 1950’s. Nineteen subdivisions were platted before 1974. (Actual development is not always associated with the plat date). Subdivisions that have reached or will be reaching the 50 year old threshold for consideration as historically significant are identified in Rock Art, Ranch and Residence. Individual buildings with possible historical significance are also noted. The Oro Valley Historic Preservation Ordinance (Article 6-10) outlines the process for local landmarks and neighborhood district designations. 4 A. The Historic Preservation Commission will concentrate some of its’ educational outreach on the Town’s historic neighborhoods. These neighborhoods include, but are not limited to, Oro Valley estates, Suffolk Hills, Campo Bello, and Shadow Mountain Estates. B. The Historic Preservation Commission and Town staff will participate in outreach to highlight historic districts, neighborhood and individual properties and explain the process/benefits of designation. The Commission and Town, including the Planning and Zoning department, will encourage Oro Valley residents to contact them regarding properties they may own or have knowledge of that need to be preserved. C. The Historic Preservation Commission (and other interested community members) will pursue inventory of neighborhood historic districts/structures as identified in Rock Art, Ranch and Residence. “Windshield surveys” could be a first step in identifying such districts/structures. D. Town staff, the Historic Preservation Commission, volunteers and consultants (as appropriate) should consider developing tours of historic neighborhoods/areas of the Town to focus attention on community heritage. An example would be walking tours of James D. Kriegh Park, Canyon Del Oro High School or Catalina Shadows development and their role in establishing the Town of Oro Valley. E. The Town will consider financial incentives related to historic preservation, heritage tourism and education as part of the annual budget process. 4. Town History Records and Reports A Town’s archives contain primary source documents that have accumulated over the course of time and are kept to show the function of the town. Archives are records that have been naturally and necessarily generated as a product of regular legal, commercial, administrative or social activities. Archives provide a basis for the proper understanding of the past that is important to inform as the town develops. Archives are a special resource for dealing with the social memory of the town. Town Historian Marjorie Kriegh maintained records of the Town’s incorporation in 1974 through 1977. These records reflect the fight for annexation and Oro Valley’s ultimate success. The Oro Valley Historic Preservation Commission encourages development and maintenance of a record archive. All documented history is now being housed at Town facilities. A centralized archive for cultural resources reports and maps acquired from individual development projects that are currently scattered in specific project files should be created. Due to sensitive site information, this archive may only be made available for public use only on a case‐by case basis. The Historic Preservation Commission with the assistance of Town staff should prepare an annual report on accomplishments for the prior year to be included in the archive. This report should also serve as the required annual report to the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office to maintain certified local government status. As part of the archive maintenance process, the Historic Preservation Commission should update the Town’s inventory on a yearly basis. 5 The Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance states that the Historic Preservation Commission shall maintain a list of known significant cultural resources for consideration in planning of current and future development. The Town was to develop this list, based on the Cultural Resources Inventory, in 2012. The Historic Preservation Commission, as part of the centralized archive, must ensure that the list was developed and is being maintained. In cooperation with the Historic Preservation Commission, the Town needs to develop and maintain a list based on the Cultural Resources Inventory. 5. Undeveloped Areas of the Town The Town’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance applies to cultural resources in undeveloped areas and to all developments that require a rezoning, preliminary plat, development plan or amendment to these items. It provides for the conservation of significant cultural resources in concert with other sensitive resources. Some areas available for development contain known archaeological sites as identified in Rock Art, Ranch and Residence. The ordinance provides a sound basis for identification, evaluation, and treatment of known sites as well as ones that may be discovered in the future. Using the standard cultural review process, Town of Oro Valley staff should review existing cultural resources data compiled in the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Inventory report to provide a preliminary knowledge base when stipulations are proposed for future developments. The Town will review cultural resources information obtained during the process of future site development within Town boundaries to determine the potential for public interpretation and education. The Town will also consider the value of prehistoric and historic resources in potential annexations. The Historic Preservation Commission may review cultural resources reports and may provide information and recommendations to Town staff. 6. Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve The 13-acre Honey Bee Village Archeological preserve was donated to Pima County in 2008 with the intent it be transferred to the Town when an agreement on management is reached. At publication Pima County was the owner of this property. The Preserve was part of the 2004 Pima County Bond. The main area of this Hohokam site is to be preserved for public use. The Tohono O’odham Nation and Oro Valley funded construction of a protective wall around the Preserve. The area remains inaccessible and unused for walking, education and observation of past cultural traditions. A. In cooperation with Pima County, the Town will maintain a regular program of inspection of the Preserve by Arizona Site Stewards. B. The Historic Preservation Commission will monitor ongoing developments at Honey Bee Village Archeological Preserve. C. Future actions at the Preserve will include ongoing clean-up of the site by the appropriate responsible entities. 6 Linking tourism and preservation can do more for local economies, tourism and preservation than promoting them separately. Heritage tourism saves and preserves your heritage. Share it with visitors and reap the economic benefits. As noted in the introduction, Oro Valley holds unique and authentic cultural resources which make places of the past come alive. This Guide for Implementation sets the stage to make Oro Valley’s history “come alive”. 7 APPENDIX A: THE LEGAL CONTEXT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION National Legislation, Guidance, and Support for Preservation Planning The National Historic Preservation Act (Act) of 1966, as amended, is the basis of historic preservation in the United States. The Act established the value of historic properties to the public. Its major provisions apply at the local, state, tribal, and national levels and guide historic preservation and cultural resources management today. The Act encouraged the establishment of state historic preservation offices (SHPOs) in each state, and partnerships among federal, tribal, state, and local governments. Today all 50 states have a state historic preservation office that serves as the primary contact for local governments and through which federal funding for state and local partnerships passes. The Act established a Certified Local Government (CLG) program. The main purpose was to provide a mechanism for local governments to carry out the purposes of the Act. Certification is delegated to the SHPOs along with the responsibility for transferring federal and state grant funds to local certified governments. The Town of Oro Valley (Town) was granted CLG status by the Arizona SHPO and U.S. Department of Interior in May 2009. To obtain, and retain, CLG status a local government must meet specific requirements including: an ordinance to ensure that there is local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties; a qualified historic preservation commission; maintenance of a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties in accordance with the Act; and provisions for public participation in the local historic preservation program. The Act established a consultation process (Section 106) whereby federal agencies, and other entities using federal funds, must consult with SHPOs on the potential impacts to historic properties and their significance before any federal undertaking. This process is standard at all levels of government and is clearly articulated at the state and national levels. It is described in various ways at the local level. In Oro Valley the process is acknowledged in zoning codes and the recently passed Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. The Act also created the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. As an independent federal agency, the Advisory Council deals with federal properties or those impacted by federally funded projects. It also carries out the Preserve America initiative whereby local communities can apply for funds for historic sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Perhaps the best-known provision of the Act was the establishment of the National Register of Historic Places as the official list of the nation’s historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The National Park Service administers National Register listings. In 2011, almost 87,000 properties are listed in the National Register. Nominations can be made by individuals, organizations, local governments, state governments, or the federal government. The criteria of significance for National Register nominations (specified in the Act) are the basis for determining the importance of historic properties at all levels of government and management. 8 The State of Arizona adopted the National Register criteria for evaluating cultural resources in Arizona, and the Town includes consideration of these criteria in the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. The criteria of significance are: A. association with historic events or activities; B. association with an important person in history; C. distinctive design or physical character; and D. potential to provide important information about prehistory or history. Significant properties must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association as defined in the Act, and generally be at least 50 years old. Determinations of significance are made by archaeologists, historians, historic architects, or other preservation professionals depending upon the nature of the property being evaluated. Determinations of historic significance do not necessarily dictate future treatment of cultural resources and they are distinct from the decision-making processes for treatment at the local, state, and national levels. Determining a course of action regarding historic properties frequently involves consideration of treatments ranging from preservation in place (preferred) to the mitigation of adverse impacts. State of Arizona Preservation Planning The Arizona SHPO prepared a comprehensive preservation plan for the state in 1996. The Plan was updated in 2000, 2009 and again in 2014 with the involvement of agencies, special interest groups, and citizens (Appendix C). Participants in the planning process identified, and have validated in updates, four principal needs to further the cause of preservation in Arizona: -- A need to strengthen partnerships between government agencies, advocacy groups, businesses, and the public. -- A need for Arizona’s citizens to become more aware of the value of our history and opportunities for historic preservation. -- A need for appropriate information about Arizona’s historic resources to be available to those making decisions about the future. -- A need for the public to continue to be engaged on questions regarding the identification, nomination, and protection of historic resources. The initial plan identified eight goals for historic preservation in Arizona that have been confirmed in the updates. The goals are grouped into two general categories: those related to the identification and management of cultural resources, and those related to preservation professionals, interested members of the public, and elected and appointed officials involved in historic preservation decision-making. The plan identifies objectives for each goal: (1) the preservation community; (2) the SHPO; and, (3) citizens at large. These are not repeated here but are an excellent reference as they relate to the action plan developed in Appendix B. The Arizona state goals are: 9 Category 1, Toward Effective Management of Historic Resources Goal 1: Better Resource Management Vision: Having a partnership of public and private programs that work together to identify, evaluate, nominate, and treat historic properties in an interdisciplinary and professional manner; and to use historic properties to meet contemporary needs and/or inform citizens with regard to history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Goal 2: Effective Information Management Vision: Having a cooperative data management system that efficiently compiles and tracks information regarding historic properties, preservation methods and programs, projects and opportunities; and provides the means to make this information readily available to appropriate users. Goal 3: Maximized Funding Vision: Having preservation programs that operate at maximum efficiency and support networks that take advantage of diverse funding and volunteer opportunities. Goal 4: Integrated Preservation Planning Vision: Having preservation principles and priorities fully integrated into broader planning efforts of state and federal agencies, local governments, and private development to help achieve the goals of historic preservation, including sustainable economic and community development. Category 2, Toward an Informed and Supportive Constituency Goal 5: Proactive Partnerships Vision: Having a strong preservation network of agency, tribal, county, community, and advocate partners that communicate preservation values and share preservation programs with the broader Arizona community, its institutions, and individuals. Goal 6: Public Support Vision: Having an educated and informed public that embraces Arizona’s unique history, places, and cultures, and is motivated to help preserve the state’s historical patrimony. Goal 7: Policy Maker Support Vision: Having informed policy makers that appreciate the importance of historic properties to the economic, social, historical, and cultural development of the state, counties, and communities. Goal 8: Informed Professionals Vision: Having a full range of educational programs that are available to both established and new preservation professionals to ensure that the highest standards of treatment and identification are applied to the state’s historic properties. 10 Familiarity with these goals and the Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan Update 2009 is essential for Oro Valley in order to provide a broader framework for planning consistent with state priorities. Local Preservation Planning 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. (Purpose. Historic Preservation Ordinance Article 6-10). Oro Valley is a relatively young town, created in response to the city of Tucson plans to annex much of northern Pima County along the Canada del Oro. At the time of its incorporation in 1974 the Town encompassed 2.5 square miles and was home to about 800 residents. Today, the Town encompasses more than 36 square miles and has a population of over 44,000. Ranching and homesteading traditions still exist in this modern dynamic community that provides full public services. The Town currently has guidance for cultural resources and preservation planning in the Town’s General Plan Focus 2020 (2005), the Town of Oro Valley Historic Preservation Ordinance, several zoning ordinances, and the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance. These policies and direction are integrated into the preservation plan and are available in Appendix C. One of the most important elements in relation to preservation planning is the identification of local community criteria to be applied in evaluations of cultural resources as well as use of the National Register criteria. Cultural resources are significant locally “if the resource is preserved in a condition of scientific integrity and the property or resources contribute to: a) the unique identity of the community; or b) the enhancement of community economic, educational, or recreational needs; or c) the understanding of the unique religious, mythological, or social character of a discrete population within or outside the community” (Oro Valley Town Code, Chapter 27 - General Development Standards, Section 27.10 – Environmentally Sensitive Lands (e(v)2(ii)). Current Oro Valley preservation planning is based on the report from the Oro Valley Cultural Resources Inventory, Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence: Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley and Its Planning Area, approved by the Town Council in May 2010 (Appendix C). The inventory consolidates available information on cultural resources, includes a review of archival records, and provides substantial data about prehistoric sites, historic neighborhoods, and general 11 historic patterns of occupation and use in the area. A series of historic contexts are defined for evaluating the significance of cultural resources in the Oro Valley area. The Town endorses the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (Town Council approval 2008) and has participated in planning for the proposed Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area designation currently being considered by Congress. The Town lies within Pima County and coordinates as needed on historic preservation matters. The County’s bond program has been instrumental in the Town’s acquisition of the historic Steam Pump Ranch and in preserving a portion of the Honey Bee Village archaeological site in public ownership. Restoration of historic ranching sites and preservation of irreplaceable at-risk archaeological sites are priorities for County efforts to preserve the heritage of Pima County and southern Arizona. Appendix B builds on the legal context for historic preservation by providing cultural resources strategies for effective management and action items for the local community. The underlying themes are an attempt to foster a community-wide commitment to preserving important places of our past, developing a comprehensive toolbox to engage and educate residents, and highlighting opportunities for sustainable cultural resources management. 12 APPENDIX B: STATUS OF ORO VALLEY CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TOOLS FOR THEIR MANAGEMENT AS OF 2015 Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence: Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley and Its Planning Area is a useful summary of previous efforts to document cultural resources in the Town and its planning area, but it also shows the substantial gaps in our knowledge of these resources. As an important example, only about 35 percent of the Oro Valley Planning Area has been systematically surveyed for archaeological sites, and much of that work took place more than 10 years ago. Because the Arizona SHPO considers any archaeological survey more than 10 years old to be inadequate for evaluating the current archaeological potential of a location (and this is echoed in the Town’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance), the actual total survey coverage in the Oro Valley Planning Area should be considered substantially less than 35 percent. Although many previously surveyed areas are now fully developed for residential or commercial use, which means they are unlikely to require archaeological survey in the future, a significant portion of the Town and its planning area remain archaeologically unstudied. Another obvious gap in our knowledge of Oro Valley’s cultural resources is the general lack of information about potentially historic residential architecture in the Town. Although Oro Valley did not incorporate until 1974, its land base has a significant amount of residential architecture that is at least 50 years old and is therefore potentially historic. Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence included preliminary examination of seven of the earliest residential developments in the Town, four of which are considered potential candidates for nomination to the National Register as residential historic districts. Field documentation of these neighborhoods, along with more historical research, will be required to pursue formal evaluations of historical significance and possible nomination, but it is clear from the initial work that these (and soon other) early residential developments in Oro Valley are potentially valuable parts of the community’s heritage. Oro Valley can build on previous efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect cultural resources in the Town by using five basic tools: (1) archaeological inventories; (2) residential neighborhood surveys; (3) National Register nominations; (4) protection of historic properties; and (5) preservation incentives. Each of these tools is discussed briefly below. Further discussion of the ways these tools can be applied in Oro Valley is provided in Appendix B, along with a list of specific preservation priorities in the Town. Archaeological Inventories To avoid unanticipated damage to archaeological resources, proposed ground-disturbing projects in Oro Valley should be preceded by an evaluation of the archaeological potential of the affected parcel by an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior standards. The principal basis of an evaluation is an inventory of the archaeological sites either previously recorded or newly recorded in a survey conducted for the proposed project. In some cases, the inventory will be limited to a search of the records of previous archaeological surveys and previously recorded archaeological sites, along with a consideration of previous disturbances to the parcel. In other cases, the inventory will require a walking survey of the affected parcel. Archival research may also be necessary to evaluate the possibility that historic-period archaeological features are present on the parcel. 13 Archaeological evaluation is necessary both for projects on previously undeveloped parcels and for projects where the parcel has already seen development. In many cases, a previous development project, such as the construction of a building or a set of buildings, will have greatly reduced or eliminated the archaeological potential of a parcel, but even on parcels where the original ground surface has been completely altered or obscured, intact archaeological features may still exist below the level of construction impacts. While the Town is often limited to evaluating the potential impacts of individual, relatively small development projects on archaeological resources, a more cost-effective way to ensure that significant resources are not compromised is to carry out a systematic archaeological inventory of a large area. Oro Valley and its planning area still hold substantial areas of undeveloped land which are likely to become the focus of plans for large residential or commercial developments. The development of such areas presents an opportunity both to document an extensive area archaeologically and to incorporate a plan for the protection and interpretation of significant cultural resources into the overall plan of development. In all cases, inventory and evaluation of archaeological and historic resources should include consideration of the historic contexts identified for Oro Valley in Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence. For prehistoric sites the contexts are cultural affiliation and interaction, chronology, diet and subsistence, and community organization. For historic sites the contexts include early transportation routes and the Canada del Oro crossing, cattle ranching and homesteading in the Canada del Oro area (1869–1962), and early residential development in the Cañada del Oro area (1945–1974). Residential Neighborhood Surveys The initial survey of residential architecture carried out for Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence showed that four of the earliest subdivisions in the Town are potentially eligible for nomination to the National Register as residential historic districts and should be considered for historic district designation, consistent with the Town’s historic preservation ordinance. They are: Oro Valley Estates, Suffolk Hills, Campo Bello, and Shadow Mountain Estates. The report recommended that the Town consider nominating each of the four subdivisions to the National Register, with the consent and cooperation of the residents. Because of the preliminary nature of the inventory survey, it is not certain that the SHPO will agree that any of the four subdivisions is appropriate for a National Register nomination. Before deciding to pursue a nomination, which can be a significant expense, a determination of eligibility should be made for a selected subdivision by the SHPO. Obtaining a determination of eligibility involves contacting the SHPO, providing a minimal level of documentation about the selected subdivision, and arranging for the SHPO staff to visit and tour the subdivision. If the SHPO determines that the subdivision is eligible for listing in the National Register, a nomination is warranted. Local designations may also be pursued at this time. The number of subdivisions in Oro Valley that are potentially eligible for listing in the National Register will only rise as other neighborhoods reach the minimum requirement for district 14 eligibility—when at least 50 percent of the houses are at least 50 years old. Determining the National Register eligibility of a neighborhood beyond the simple age requirement requires a survey by an architectural historian, or by non-historians under the direction of an architectural historian. 15 16 The survey for determining eligibility can consist of a “windshield” survey, or a preliminary pass to establish the range of architectural styles and landscape features present in the neighborhood as well as the general degree of integrity of both the architecture and the original subdivision plan. National Register Nominations There are a number of reasons for the Town to encourage the nomination of historic properties to the National Register, whether the property is an archaeological site, a historic district, or an individual building. First, when a historic property is listed in the National Register, it achieves a special recognition as a place of importance in local, state, or national history, thus strengthening the community’s awareness of, and pride in, its unique heritage. Second, properties i n the National Register are granted a degree of protection from impacts by federally funded or permitted projects, because all such impacts are subject to review and comment by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Finally, there are significant tax incentives for the owners of properties listed in the National Register. It is important to emphasize that listing a property in the National Register does not prevent the owner of the property from remodeling, repairing, altering, selling, or even demolishing the property, provided that the action does not involve federal or state funding or permitting. Neither is the owner obligated to make repairs or improvements to the property. It is equally important to emphasize that listing in the National Register does not ensure that a federal or state project will not adversely affect the listed property under every circumstance. It only ensures that any project with a potentially adverse effect, and that receives federal or state funding or permitting, will receive a federal- or state-level review. Currently, only one property in Oro Valley is listed in the National Register—Steam Pump Ranch, a historic ranch complex established in the 1870s. Other properties have been determined eligible for listing (e.g., the Honey Bee Village archaeological site), and others have been identified as most likely eligible. As Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence made clear, this small number of listed properties belies the number of important archaeological and historic sites previously recorded in the Town and its planning area. Of the 185 previously recorded sites in the planning area, six others have been determined eligible for listing and another 29 have been recommended eligible for listing by their recorders. Many of the recorded sites have never been evaluated, and some have probably been destroyed by development since they were recorded. But there is little question that other sites in the Town and its planning area, both previously recorded sites and sites yet to be discovered, are eligible for listing in the National Register. In the Oro Valley Cultural Resources Inventory, four neighborhoods in the Town were recommended for nomination to the National Register as residential historic districts, provided that the SHPO gave a determination of eligibility to each neighborhood. Given a determination of eligibility, the Town should approach the neighborhood association for the subdivision, or the residents themselves, and recommend that a nomination be prepared. The nomination process, which includes writing a detailed historic context for the subdivision and preparing SHPO historic building inventory forms for all of the houses, could be funded directly by the Town, by contributions from the neighborhood residents, or by a combination of these sources. When each resident 17 contributes a portion of the nomination cost, individual contributions are usually smaller when the neighborhood is large, because much of the expense of a nomination is in the historic context, which is generally the same for any size of neighborhood. In other words, the per-house cost of a nomination declines as the number of houses increases. There are also individual buildings in Oro Valley worthy of nomination. Two architect-designed residences—the Countess of Suffolk Forest Lodge and the Joseph E. McAdams house—predate planned developments in the Town and are important as individual architectural properties. Both residences merit nomination to the National Register. This would require the consent and cooperation of the separate private owners but would benefit the larger community by drawing attention to the presence of important historic architecture in the Town. The Town can also make an effort to identify and nominate other individual properties of distinction. Protection of Historic Properties Archaeological sites are the historic properties most vulnerable to unintentional damage through development or natural processes, or through intentional damage by vandalism. It is fortunate that Honey Bee Village, a major prehistoric site, is protected in public ownership and by physical barriers to access, but other important prehistoric and historic sites exist in the Town that also need protection. An important first step in protecting these sites would be to assess the potential threats to each site and establish a priority list for taking protective measures that can be made with the consent and cooperation of the property owners. Historic architecture, especially if left unoccupied or unused for any length of time, is also subject to damage through natural processes and vandalism. As with archaeological sites, the Town can identify individual buildings that are or may soon be historic, assess the possible threats to the historic integrity of the buildings, and establish a priority list for taking protective measures, again with the consent and cooperation of the property owners. In some cases, property owners are unaware of the historic value of buildings when making decisions about modifications. Community education is important to reduce this risk. Preservation Incentives State and federal tax incentives are available for the owners of National Register–listed properties that meet certain criteria. Full information about the state and federal programs behind these incentives is available from the SHPO, but the main features are described in the following paragraphs adapted from the SHPO website (http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/tax.html). Investment Tax Credit (ITC) Program The ITC program permits owners and some lessees of historic buildings to take a 20 percent federal income tax credit on the cost of rehabilitating such buildings for industrial, commercial, or rental purposes. This program also permits depreciation of such improvements over 27.5 years for a rental residential property and 31.5 years for commercial property. The rehabilitated building 18 must be a certified historic structure that is subject to depreciation, and the rehabilitation must be certified as meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, established by the National Park Service (NPS). Only projects involving certified historic structures are eligible for tax credits. According to program rules, a certified historic structure is: a structure individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or; a structure certified by NPS as contributing to a registered district. A registered district is a designated area listed in the National Register, or listed under a state or local statute certified as substantially meeting the requirements for listing of districts in the National Register. State Historic Property Tax Reclassification (SPT) for Owner-Occupied Homes The State Historic Property Tax (SPT) program offers a substantial reduction in the state property tax assessment for eligible owners. This 15-year agreement requires maintenance of the property according to federal and Arizona State Parks Board standards and is limited to property used for non-income-producing activities. In order to qualify for the SPT program, the property must be listed in the National Register, either individually or as a contributor to a historic district. The program is managed by the SHPO in conjunction with Arizona’s county assessor’s offices. The SHPO determines program eligibility and monitors property maintenance, and the county assessor enacts tax classification changes, manages issues of property value, and tax calculation. Properties must meet the minimum maintenance standards established by the Arizona State Parks Board. Achieving the goals of the Oro Valley historic preservation planning will require a sustained and systematic effort on the part of the Town to identify and evaluate its known and yet to be recorded cultural resources. The above items provide the broad parameters within which specific actions, described in Appendix A, can be carried out. 19 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES FOR ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLANNING (DOCUMENTS INCLUDED ON CD) 1. Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence: Cultural Resources in the Town of Oro Valley and its Planning Area. Prepared by Scott O’Mack. William Self Associates Technical Report No. 2009-51, January 2010. --Recommend inclusion on Town of Oro Valley website for Cultural Resources (excluding site listing tables). 2. Oro Valley Historic Preservation Ordinance—Historic Preservation Code (06/20) Article 6-10. Adopted 10/04/2006. --http://www.codepublishing.com/az/orovalley/ 3. Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance, Section 27.10 --http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Assets/_assets/DIS/Planning/pdf/ESL+Final+Draft.pdf 4. Focus 2020, The Future In Balance, Town of Oro Valley General Plan, 2005 --http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=4955 5. Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan --http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Assets/_assets/parks_rec/PDF/SPR_Draft_April+7.pdf 6. Deed of Preservation Easement between the Town of Oro Valley, a municipal corporation (Grantor), and Pima County, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona (Grantee) for the Steam Pump Ranch property. 2008. --Recommend adding Easement to Town’s cultural resources website (18 pages). 7. 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. 2006. --Recommend adding to Town’s cultural resources website (16 pages) 8. National Register of Historic Places National Register Nomination. 9. Honey Bee Village Archaeological Preserve Implementation Plan. February 2007 --http://www.orovalleyaz.gov/Assets/_assets/residents/Culture_and_History/pdf/ honeybee-plan.pdf 10. Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan. Update 2009. --http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/downloads/SHPO_Plan_2009_Final.pdf APPENDIX D: HELPFUL ONLINE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REFERENCES 20 Note. References on prehistory and history of the Oro Valley area can be found in Rock Art, Ranch, and Residence (2010). 1. Historical Archaeology Research Guide. Compiled by James E. Ayres, Carol Griffith, and Teresita Majewski with contributions by the SHPO Advisory Committee on Historical Archaeology. http://azstateparks.com/publications/downloads/SHPO_2008_Historical_Archy_Guide.pdf 2. Arizona Heritage Preservation Education Materials. By Carol J. Ellick: An annotated bibliography of archaeological, architectural, and preservation education materials relating to Arizona for grades K–12. http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/downloads/SHPO_Biblio_AHP.pdf 3. Arizona Historical Society educational materials. http://www.arizonahistoricalsociety.org/education/educators/t_resources/ 4. Arizona Memory Project. http://azmemory.lib.az.us/ 5. Arizona State Historic Preservation Office http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html 6. Historic Context Study Guides: These publications compile research and evaluation of several topics that are key to understanding Arizona history, prehistory, and resources. Topics include Homesteading, Commerce in Phoenix, Gold and Silver Mining, the Chinese in Arizona, the United States Military in Arizona, Transcontinental Railroading, Prehistoric Rock Art, Historic Trails, Prehistoric to Historic Transition Period, Paleoindian and Archaic Sites, and Prehistoric Water Utilization and Technology in Arizona. The guides are available from the SHPO. (http://azstateparks.com/SHPO/index.html) 7. National Register of Historic Places General Information. http://www.nps.gov/nr/ 8. National Register listings and nomination procedures. http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/ 9. National Register information bulletins. http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/#bulletins Historic preservation laws and regulations. http://www.nps.gov/history/laws.htm 10. Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan www.pima.gov/CMO/SDCP/    Historic Preservation Commission 4. Meeting Date:06/07/2021   Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: DISCUSSION REGARDING A FUNDING ORGANIZATION OR 501c3 AND HOW FORMING SUCH AN ORGANIZATION IS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE HPC RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: Agenda item added at the request of Chair Biel and Vice Chair Krueger. As mentioned in the Original Master plan Market Analysis and Operating Plan for Steam Pump Ranch Pgs 92 & 108 as well as the Adaptive Reuse Feasibility Report for Steam Pump Ranch Pg 7, 35 & 40. Both reports were created by ConsultEcon Inc. and are attached. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A Attachments Adaptive Reuse  Master Plan  ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Adaptive Reuse Feasibility Report for Steam Pump Ranch FINAL REPORT Prepared by: ConsultEcon, Inc. Prepared for: Town of Oro Valley, Arizona September 2020 ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page TABLE OF CONTENTS i LIST OF TABLES ii LIST OF FIGURES ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Section I INTRODUCTION AND ASSUMPTIONS I-1 Section II OPPORTUNITIES TO RETAIN HISTORICAL FEATURES II-1 Section III SITE AND BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS III-1 Section IV MARKET CONSIDERATIONS IV-1 Section V ADAPTIVE REUSE OPPORTUNITIES V-1 Section VI ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT VI-1 ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch ii LIST OF TABLES Table Page Table II-1 Opportunities to Retain Historical Features II-2 Table III-1 Site and Building Opportunities and Constraints III-2 Table IV-1 Resident Market Area Population, 2010, 2020, 2025 IV-4 Table IV-2 Resident Market Area Age Profile, 2020 IV-5 Table IV-3 Resident Market Area Household Profile, 2020 IV-5 Table IV-4 Resident Market Area Income Profile, 2019 IV-6 Table IV-5 Local Attractions, 2020 Ranked by Annual Attendance IV-10 Table IV-6 Retail and Office Spaces Available for Rent in Oro Valley, May 2020 IV-13 Table V-1 Evaluation Criteria for Proposed Building Reuse V-5 Table VI-1 Economic Feasibility Assessment VI-1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page Figure 1 Site Map with Three Zones 2 Figure IV-1 Resident Market Area with Town of Oro Valley IV-2 Figure IV-2 Regional Context of Resident Market Area with Tucson MSA IV-3 Figure IV-3 Map of Tucson & Southern Arizona Tourism Region, 2020 IV-9 Figure V-1 Site Map with Three Zones V-2 ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Town of Oro Valley, AZ retained ConsultEcon, Inc. to evaluate the feasibility of adaptive reuse opportunities at Steam Pump Ranch (SPR). SPR has evolved over time organically, without investment in the buildings to make them modern and useable, and become, at the same time, the most popular park in the Town’s system. The current uses and the activities at the site have spurred the Town to revisit how the buildings are used and then adjust the master plan as needed. Site and Building Opportunities The historic structures and buildings create a unique sense of place and preserving these features is important to the character and identity of SPR. All uses identified by the Town offer opportunities to retain historical features and to offer interpretive panels and signage; wayfinding; and orientation onsite through both guided and unguided visitor experiences. As historic structures however, there are certain constraints for uses. ♦ Adaptive reuse requires matching uses to available spaces rather than traditional development process where spaces are developed for specific uses. ♦ Existing buildings and interior rooms are small and have inefficient configurations to create a critical mass of any one of the potential uses within the available space within the existing buildings at Steam Pump Ranch. Given these constraints, the strategy of identifying the appropriate mix of uses that build SPR as a community destination is more important than simply targeting particular single uses. Among the uses identified by the Town, several small scale uses associated with supporting and expanding cultural and recreational activities onsite are the most feasible option because they build on existing uses and reinforce existing visitation patterns. In addition, providing regular food service through a café or restaurant or catering option onsite is desired by the Town because it complements the existing activity and supports renting Steam Pump Ranch for facility rentals and events. In addition, because many of SPR’s recreational and education programs, events, programs, and receptions occur outdoors, the interior building areas can take on the role of supporting the outdoor events, programs, and receptions. Market Considerations SPR will draw visitation from nearby resident and tourist markets. With its location in suburban Oro Valley and the programming offered by the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department, visitation will primarily come from the resident market with additional visiting friends and family and area tourists. SPR’s activity is driven by the farmers market, recreation programs and events, heritage ranch programs, general park, and recreational trail use. Improving facilities and enhancing ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch 2 programming onsite will deliver a better visitor experience that will translate to increased public use. In addition to activity at SPR, there are nearby attractions, such as the children’s museum, that are supportive of commercial and programmatic uses of the targeted buildings. The real estate market for retail and office space at SPR is influenced by other available spaces in Oro Valley and the Tucson region as well as the site’s unique and historic use and characteristics. Retail rents range from $17 to $18 per square foot and office rents range from $19 to $26 per square foot for available listings in Oro Valley. (Table IV-6 shows a list of spaces available for rent in the area). Adaptive Reuse Opportunities Adaptive reuse opportunities for each building were evaluated for compatibility with surrounding uses, suitability for proposed uses, market support, historic preservation opportunities, operational funding, capital funding and community benefits/impacts. In addition, the overall site use and activity informs recommendations for adaptive reuse of the buildings. Generalized zones of site activity include the marketplace, the food/community events area, and the heritage ranch, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 Site Map with Three Zones Source: Google Earth and ConsultEcon, Inc. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch 3 Economic Feasibility Assessment Economic feasibility criteria include potential for generating earned revenue, private grants and contributions, and government support; rehabilitation and redevelopment costs; operating costs; and potential staffing. Operating Revenue Public parks and historic attractions typically do not earn enough revenue to cover operating costs. Most revenue for public park operations is provided by government agencies. Heritage attractions also receive private philanthropy and earned revenue such as admissions. SPR’s operations are supported by the Town’s general fund. SPR generated $46,000 in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2020, mostly through programming and internal special events, as well as external rentals and concessions/vendors. Based on the identified building adaptive reuse opportunities, there is potential to increase all sources of earned revenue because the facilities will be more functional, useable, and marketable. ♦ The Town’s Parks and Recreation Department can increase earned revenue through expanding its schedule of programs and events and offering facility rentals. ♦ A new source of earned revenue the Town should pursue is lease income from rent or commissions from a restaurant or other food service onsite and/or complementary small businesses or non-profit organizations. ♦ A third source of operating revenue and capital funds could be new and expanded public-private partnerships. SPR public-private partnerships have already contributed to the growth in use and development of SPR over time. Operating Costs To increase SPR use and earned revenue requires commensurate investments in operating budgets and potentially Town staff. The Town currently provides basic site and building maintenance and operations which are largely fixed costs. It also delivers programming and internal special events that are variable costs but also have the potential to generate revenue; and with the plan, increased revenue. Private partner operating costs onsite are currently variable based on site use. If private partners establish permanent onsite presence they will provide for their own operations (staffing and program costs) and maintenance and operations for the buildings and site they lease. Staffing The Town of Oro Valley will provide most staff. Locating parks and recreation staff at SPR will help to increase efficiency and delivery of public programming and internal special events and coordinate with facility renters and vendors. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch 4 Future Operating Options Moving forward, other partners or expanded Town operations will be needed to further activate SPR. Overall, the Town of Oro Valley should leverage existing and new private partners to generate programming activity at SPR, to garner greater public benefits and additional Town revenue. Several approaches are possible: ♦ There is an opportunity for a private operator to reuse the Proctor-Lieber House for food service and/or small business or a non-profit organization that can generate Town revenue from rent or sales commissions. This may enable the Town to pass through the costs of operating and maintaining not only the building but a portion of the site. A private operator with a viable business plan will be important to establishing the economic basis for the capital improvements to the Proctor-Lieber House and other areas of the site that may need improvements. The business plan will also identify any need for Town capital improvement program expenditures or other expenditures. ♦ Alternatively, the Town could undertake adaptive reuse of the Proctor-Lieber House itself. A Town-led project would require a different development program and operation geared towards enabling outside caterers, food services, or other compatible uses. If the focus is on public use of the facilities on a daily or lease basis, the capital cost would likely be lower with downscaled kitchen facilities. ♦ A non-profit organization, a “friends group,” may be established to raise funds for SPR preservation, rehabilitation, and development because they can access different sources of funding compared to the Town. This group in turn could be an operator or support the Town as it creates public-private commercial relationships. Capital Funding Adaptive reuse of historic buildings often does not create financial returns sufficient for initial capital investment without public subsidy to fill the “financing gap.” Because of their unique nature and historic significance, federal, state, and local government policies support designation of historic properties for protection and create subsidies for adaptive reuse projects. Prior Town building assessments have indicated that SPR’s historic buildings and structures will be costly to rehabilitate. The buildings contain a suboptimal amount and type of space to create a critical mass of any single use. The project’s underlying economic feasibility is largely dependent upon the Town allocating or attracting sufficient capital funds and increasing its parks and recreation budget to accommodate the growth in SPR site use and programming. However, there may be opportunities to attract private grants and contributions and other governmental support to contribute to capital costs. Ultimately, the Town will need to be responsible for identifying the vision for the site that will galvanize the community to support the adaptive reuse of the buildings. SPR’s growth and ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch 5 popularity has created momentum that will facilitate the implementation of the proposed site improvements and the adaptive reuse of the buildings within its historic core. Implementation/Next Steps Based on the findings and analysis in the report, the following are the recommended next steps for the Town to take to implement the adaptive reuse of Steam Pump Ranch buildings. The needs or priorities identified below are not in a specific order. ♦ Open parks and recreation offices onsite in the Garage (the Oro Valley Town Council approved CIP funding for the Garage building at SPR for an office for the Recreation and Cultural Services division for FY 21).  Expand calendar of community recreational programming and use of site for events and facility rentals.  Use new experience gained with programs and events onsite to prioritize facility improvements and increase staff resources as needed. ♦ Identify and survey potential restaurant/café/catering operators/ or other compatible small businesses or not-for-profit organization about their interest in locating at Steam Pump Ranch in the Proctor-Lieber House and the location and facility requirements. ♦ Prepare and issue a request for proposals, if appropriate, for food service operators or other compatible small business. ♦ Develop strategy and implementation plans for exterior SPR spaces that will most effectively support the proposed building reuses.  Community events and rental facilities  Motorized and non-motorized circulation  Parking  Interpretive/visitor experience  Wayfinding/Signage ♦ Research and identify potential funding sources for the project, including sources related to parks and recreation development, historic preservation, economic and cultural development. ♦ Convene community partners and stakeholders to explore establishing the non-profit “friends” group as a conduit for funding Steam Pump Ranch. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch I-1 Section I INTRODUCTION AND ASSUMPTIONS The Town of Oro Valley, AZ retained ConsultEcon, Inc. to evaluate the feasibility of adaptive reuse opportunities at Steam Pump Ranch (SPR). SPR is a heritage park listed on the National Registry of Historic Places for its local significance. It is owned and operated by the Town of Oro Valley and was founded in the late 19th century as an early Anglo settlement in the area. The site contains numerous historic buildings and structures from throughout different eras of its history, including the Pusch era ranch house and steam pump, which is a ruin today. The Town has operated SPR as a community park, with a weekly farmers market, community events, recreation, and a trailhead to the regional trail network. The building and site uses envisioned in the original and subsequent updates to the master plan have not materialized without the investments necessary to make the buildings useable. Instead, SPR has become the most popular park in Oro Valley through intentional programming by the Towns Parks and Recreation Department. This programming brings more individuals to the ranch and creates a sense of community. The current uses and activities at the site have spurred the town to revisit how the buildings are used and then adjust the master plan accordingly. This feasibility report focuses on the market, economic, and operational implications presented by various types of uses (identified in detail in Section II) that inform the potential adaptive reuse opportunities onsite. Assumptions In preparing this report, the following assumptions were made. This study is qualified in its entirety by these assumptions. 1. 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. 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. There will usually 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. 2. 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 ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch I-2 made without first obtaining permission of ConsultEcon, Inc., which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. 3. 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. 4. This report was prepared during April through August 2020. It represents data available at that time. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch II-1 Section II OPPORTUNITIES TO RETAIN HISTORICAL FEATURES This section identifies opportunities to retain historical features at Steam Pump Ranch (SPR) based on various types of uses. Priority in the planning is given to the most significant historical features. These features can be highlighted as site interpretive elements. Some historical features however may be compromised or covered up by certain uses due to the need to modernize the buildings for future use. Depending on the intensity of user activity, some historical features may be at risk of deterioration due to wear and tear. Therefore, consideration of the appropriate uses for the historic features is important to retaining its historical integrity. The Historic Register nomination for SPR identifies eight buildings and five structures that are contributing features of the historic district. The matrix shown in Table II-1 identifies seven of the historical structures and identifies reuse opportunities to retain historical features for the uses proposed for SPR. SPR is already used for retail and food services through the farmers market, and public and private events. These uses are seasonal and episodic, which has enabled the site to accommodate market demand on an ongoing basis. These temporary uses occur for the most part outdoors and therefore retaining historical structures and buildings is straightforward. They provide a backdrop for activity. Historic uses such as food manufacture (chickens) and cooking (BBQ) can be reintroduced to the site, adapting the historic facilities for modern use, and establishing a connection to historical uses. Permanent year-round retail may occur within existing buildings (or in new buildings or structures not contemplated in this building reuse study). The spatial organization of the historical features and the future use and activity onsite inform which historical features may be retained. Some contributing structures, such as the pump house, will not be useable but can function as interpretive opportunities onsite. It is assumed that historic and other educational interpretation will continue to be offered by Oro Valley and its partners. Interpretive signage, wayfinding, and the delineation of program areas for educational offerings will support interpretive programming onsite that will highlight the historical features, including buildings, structures, and outdoor areas. The reuse types include: ♦ Retail ♦ Hospitality ♦ Cultural ♦ Studio ♦ Offices ♦ Education ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch II-2 Table II-1 Opportunities to Retain Historical Features Use Steam Pump Building (ruin) and Water Tanks Pusch Ranch House East and West Bunk Houses Proctor-Lieber House Retail Not Applicable Retail use would enable the retention of historical features. Retail use would enable the retention of historical features. Retail use would enable the retention of historical features. Hospitality Not Applicable Hospitality use would enable the retention of historical features. Hospitality use would enable the retention of historical features. Hospitality use would enable the retention of historical features. Cultural Outdoor museum use Cultural use would enable the retention of historical features. Cultural use would enable the retention of historical features. Cultural use would enable the retention of historical features. Studio Not Applicable Studio use would enable the retention of historical features. Studio use would enable the retention of historical features. Studio use would enable the retention of historical features. Offices Not Applicable Office use would enable the retention of historical features. Office use would enable the retention of historical features. Office use would enable the retention of historical features. Education Not Applicable Educational use would enable the retention of historical features. Educational use would enable the retention of historical features. Educational use would enable the retention of historical features. Discussion As a ruin, the Steam Pump Building is a feature of the heritage park and can be interpreted as a part of a museum program. The Pusch House is the second largest building onsite with 1,337 SF. Any of the proposed uses would offer the retention of this historic resource. The bunk houses offer approx. 465 SF of space each. Any of the proposed uses would offer the retention of this historic resource. The largest building in the best condition at SPR, centrally located, with 4,690 SF. Any of the proposed uses would offer the retention of this historic resource. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch II-3 Table II-1 (continued) Opportunities to Retain Historical Features Reuse Chicken Coops Garage Carlos’ House Retail Not Applicable Retail use would enable the retention of historical features. Retail use would enable the retention of historical features. Hospitality Not Applicable Not Applicable Hospitality use would enable the retention of historical features. Cultural 4-H use/chicken coops and/or other agricultural activity Cultural use would enable the retention of historical features. Cultural use would enable the retention of historical features. Studio Not Applicable Studio use would enable the retention of historical features. Studio use would enable the retention of historical features. Offices Not Applicable Office use would enable the retention of historical features. Office use would enable the retention of historical features. Education Not Applicable Educational use would enable the retention of historical features. Educational use would enable the retention of historical features. Discussion This open-air structure is not suitable for uses that require indoor space. The Chicken coops can be retained as ruins or improved to accommodate chickens or other agricultural activity and retain the historic resource. The garage is centrally located with 1,494 SF. Any of the proposed uses would offer the retention of this historic resource. It is noted that hospitality is an unlikely reuse for this structure. Carlos’ House offers over 732 SF. Any of the proposed uses would offer the retention of this historic resource. Source: ConsultEcon, Inc. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch III-1 Section III SITE AND BUILDING OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS This section evaluates the site opportunities and constraints including current building conditions impacting the preliminary list of proposed uses. Please refer to the prior section Opportunities to Retain Historical Features for a list of proposed uses. Existing buildings and most interior rooms are too small and have inefficient configurations for many of the proposed uses. Adaptive reuse requires matching uses to available spaces rather than traditional development process where spaces are developed for specific uses. Many of the site and building opportunities and constraints apply to all of the potential uses. Creating modern facilities within an adaptive use context can be a challenge due to the size, condition and configuration of buildings and available spaces. Air conditioning, utilities, and Wi-Fi will be required in buildings for all proposed reuses. Therefore, the capital investment required often makes obtaining an adequate return on investment infeasible. Data in Table III-1 identify site and buildings opportunities and constraints specific to each of the proposed use types. The six use types can be summarized into three groups—Cultural and Studio Use, Retail and Office Use, and Education and Hospitality Uses—in order from most to least appropriate for the available SPR site and building areas. Culture and Studio Uses - Cultural and studio uses can be accommodated within indoor spaces at SPR and in the case of performing arts, in outdoor areas. Moreover, these uses are complimentary to the existing use of SPR focused on recreation, community events, and the farmers market. Having a multi-purpose meeting space or studio would support the Town’s recreation programming and offer a facility that is rentable, thereby increasing earned revenue opportunities. Retail and Office Uses - The buildings at SPR are inadequately scaled to provide sufficient space for a critical mass of office or retail use, that would make for profitable development. The configuration too is not suitable for modern retail and office space. However, small scale retail uses, restaurant or a café, and office uses at SPR can support existing activity onsite, by the Town’s Parks and Recreation Department and its partners. 1 Due to the small amount of available space, it is reasonable to assume that the Town can attract a single office user or retail business to the site. Office users might include community oriented non-profit organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce. A single retailer may not be economically viable without being a strong destination. Unlike product based retail uses, food service uses, such as a café, restaurant or catering operation, are more viable at SPR because a restaurant (in the Proctor-Lieber House, the only suitable building) can be a destination, is complementary to existing uses onsite, and can support the growth of events and rentals and create additional revenue for the business. Other retail onsite could be encouraged through 1 It should be noted that during the study period, the Town of Oro Valley decided to move parks and recreation staff to SPR. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch III-2 “pop up” stores, carts, food trucks and other temporary vendors synced with public events and other high visitation days. “Pop up” stores also have the added benefit of being low cost and implementable within a short period of time. Education and Hospitality Uses - Available buildings at SPR are inadequate for long-term, daily educational and hospitality uses because they do not offer sufficient space for the type of use. The exception is event and reception use of building areas to support the use of outdoor areas for receptions and events. The event and reception activity would support the growth of existing community events and facility rentals. Improvements to the site and the buildings can make the events spaces more functional, efficient, and functional thereby improving the visitor experience, enhancing community events, and generating additional facility rental and event revenue. Table III-1 Site and Building Opportunities and Constraints Site/Building Opportunities Constraints Site Interpretation throughout the site and incorporation of building ruins in visitor experience. Outdoor areas for community events and performances, and facility rentals, including picnic pavilions and other areas for more formal affairs, New recreation facilities, such as nature play area, and enhancement of Steam Pump Ranch as a trailhead and key node in the regional trail system. Vehicular access, circulation and parking are challenging. The Town is addressing this issue, but future reuse of buildings may require additional improvements in access, circulation, and parking with changes to the site’s use. Steam Pump Building (ruin) and Water Tanks Historical ruin, key interpretive feature of the site, subject of heritage site tour and educational programming. Delicate historic resource that needs to be preserved. Pusch Ranch House A museum could support site orientation and education. Alternatively, community art galleries or studios or meeting room are also appropriate for the building. Museum use can be expensive to develop and operate, requiring substantial support for regular operations. East and West Bunk Houses Master planned for at least one restroom building, ideally with dressing rooms to support events and facility rentals. The restrooms could be themed, with historically appropriate artifacts and pictures. These buildings could also include vending machines that offer snacks and beverages or a photo booth. Small spaces limit the range of uses, so supportive visitor amenities are most appropriate. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch III-3 Table III-1 (continued) Site and Building Opportunities and Constraints Site/Building Opportunities Constraints Proctor-Lieber House Because of its size and current condition, the Proctor-Lieber house, restaurant, coffee shop, tasting room, tearoom or other food service business is complementary use, supportive of recreational activity and may offer catering onsite, a benefit for events and facility rentals. Other small boutique, retail or compatible small business would also be appropriate to rent the facility. Small office spaces could support other activity on the site. Centrally located and therefore impacts other uses onsite. Locating a private business here may not be acceptable to some in the community because SPR is a public park. Garage The garage has been slated for reuse as Town Parks and Recreation office and program space, which will support the expansion of activity. Not applicable with planned Town use. Carlos’ House Given its size and location, this building has good potential to be classroom/rentable space. The building can be configured to add year-round use of larger covered space in front of BBQ for use during summer or rain. Storage and a small sink/washing area can support activities and any food prep. Small spaces and condition impact the potential reuse. Source: ConsultEcon, Inc. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-1 Section IV MARKET CONSIDERATIONS This section reviews the characteristics of the resident and tourist markets for Steam Pump Ranch (SPR). Due to its location in Oro Valley, a suburb of Tucson, and the programs offered by the Town of Oro Valley at SPR, visitation will primarily draw from the resident market, though some tourism may spill over from the Tucson area. People in the resident market, who are more likely to be repeat visitors, may also bring visiting friends and relatives to SPR to experience the local culture. RESIDENT MARKET The Resident Market Area for SPR is defined as the area in which residents would visit the park as a primary purpose or as an important part of a day trip. Resident markets for heritage and recreational attractions like SPR are defined using a “gravity model” approach, where those living closer to an attraction are more likely to visit than those living farther away. On its periphery, the resident market changes over into the tourist market. For the purposes of this analysis, the Resident Market Area is defined as the area within a 45-minute driving distance from the project site. The Resident Market is further segmented as follows: ♦ The Primary Market Area – the area within a 15-minute drive of the site. ♦ The Secondary Market Area – the area within a 15- to 30-minute drive of the site. ♦ The Tertiary Market Area – the area within a 30- to 45-minute drive of the site. Figure IV-1 is a map of the Resident Market Area with the outline of the town of Oro Valley and Figure IV-2 shows the regional context of the Resident Market Area in relation to the Tucson Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-2 Figure IV-1 Resident Market Area with Town of Oro Valley Source: ESRI ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-3 Figure IV-2 Regional Context of Resident Market Area with Tucson MSA Source: ESRI Resident Market Characteristics The following sections describe characteristics of the population in the Resident Market Area, including population projections, age groups, household types, and household income cohorts. Population Trend Data in Table IV-1 show the population of the Resident Market Area, based on 2010 census data with population estimates for 2020 and projections for 2025. In 2020 the Resident Market Area had a population of about 970,000, which is projected to grow 4.6 percent, to approximately 1.0 million, by 2025. The Resident Market Area is growing slower than the Town of Oro Valley and faster than the Tucson MSA. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-4 Table IV-1 Resident Market Area Population, 2010, 2020, 2025 Population Near SPR SPR is proximate to several apartment buildings and is walkable for nearby residents. ESRI reports about 600 residents live within a 20 min walk. Most SPR users would drive to the site. Age Profile As an attraction focused primarily on cultural history and heritage, SPR will likely have broad appeal to multiple age groups including school groups, families with children, and older adults. Data in Table IV-2 show the age profile for the Resident Market Area population in the year 2020. This population had a median age of 38.6, significantly younger than that of the town and younger than that of the MSA. Important audiences for SPR are adults in their mid-20s through 40s with children and adults in their 40s and 50s who have more time and disposable income for recreational activities. The population in the Primary Market Area was slightly older on average, and the median age for the town of Oro Valley was 54.0 years old, showing that the immediate resident market fits into that older age group. The farthest parts of the Resident Market, in the 30 to 45-minute driving range, have a higher percentage of residents between ages 0 and 17 in comparison to the Primary Market Area. Market Area 2010 2020 2025 Percent Change, 2020 - 2025 Primary Market Area 119,712 132,734 138,912 4.7% Secondary Market Area 376,522 408,054 429,642 5.3% Tertiary Market Area 400,114 427,982 445,245 4.0% Total Resident Market Area 896,348 968,770 1,013,799 4.6% Town of Oro Valley 41,040 46,556 49,032 5.3% Tucson MSA 980,263 1,066,136 1,112,948 4.4% Sources: ESRI and ConsultEcon, Inc. Note: The Resident Market Area is defined as the area within a 45-minute drive time of the Steam Pump Ranch site. The Primary Market Area includes residents that live within a 15- minute drive of the site, the Secondary Market Area includes residents that live between 15 and 30 minutes from the site and the Tertiary Market Area includes residents that live between 30 and 45 minutes from the site. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-5 Table IV-2 Resident Market Area Age Profile, 2020 Households Families make up an important part of visiting parties to cultural and education attractions like SPR, as families are often looking for entertaining and educational activities to do together. Data in Table IV-3 summarize the household characterization of the population of the Resident Market Area in 2020. Family households made up about 61 percent of households in the Resident Market Area, compared to 70 percent of the town of Oro Valley and 62 percent of the Tucson MSA. The average household size for the total Resident Market Area was 2.45, higher than that of the town and about the same as that of the MSA. Table IV-3 Resident Market Area Household Profile, 2020 Market Area Median Age 0 - 17 18 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 54 55+ Primary Market Area 48.7 17%7%11%22%42% Secondary Market Area 37.6 20%12%15%22%31% Tertiary Market Area 36.5 24%9%15%23%29% Total Resident Market Area 38.6 21%10%14%23%32% Town of Oro Valley 54.0 16%6%8%22%48% Tucson MSA 39.2 21%10%14%23%32% Sources: ESRI and ConsultEcon, Inc. Market Area Estimated Number of Households Estimated Number of Family Households Percent of Families to Total Households Average Household Size Primary Market Area 57,108 37,132 65.0%2.31 Secondary Market Area 171,866 92,677 53.9%2.28 Tertiary Market Area 157,540 107,521 68.2%2.68 Total Resident Market Area 386,514 237,330 61.4%2.45 Town of Oro Valley 20,354 14,283 70.2%2.28 Tucson MSA 423,733 262,622 62.0%2.46 Sources: ESRI and ConsultEcon, Inc. Note: Family households are defined by ESRI as households in which one or more persons in the household are related to the head of household by birth, marriage, or adoption. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-6 Household Income The amount of income that a household has may indicate a household’s ability, both regarding the amount of disposable income and time inclination to visit attractions such as SPR. Further, higher incomes may also indicate a higher level of education, and, therefore, an interest in visiting educational attractions. Data in Table IV-4 summarize the income characteristics of households in the Resident Market Area. The median household income is $53,700, which is less than that of the town of Oro Valley and the Tucson MSA. Households in the Primary Market Area are more affluent than those in the Secondary and Tertiary Market Areas. Table IV-4 Resident Market Area Income Profile, 2019 Participation in Recreational Activities The popularity and level of participation in different recreational activities in the Resident Market Area give an idea of what reasons visitors might have for coming to SPR as well as an idea of what kinds of programming may be popular at the site. With SPR’s location along popular walking and biking trails, residents participating in activities like road biking, jogging/running, and walking for exercise on those trails would have a higher chance of interacting with programs and activities at SPR. In the Resident Market Area, about 10 percent of residents participated in road biking, about 12 percent in jogging/running, and 23 percent in walking for exercise over the past 12 months.2 Programming opportunities for community recreation in adaptive reuse spaces at SPR include fitness classes like yoga or Pilates, which are less popular than walking, jogging, and biking but would provide a complimentary option to those activities, as well as other community programming like adult education classes. Other reuse opportunities for the historic buildings and spaces at SPR include cultural uses such as an art gallery or museum and live music performances (which are already popular on site) and theatre performance. People living in the Resident Market Area have demonstrated interest in such cultural activities, with about 8 percent visiting an 2 ESRI. Market Area Median Household Income Less than $25,000 $25,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000+ Primary Market Area $72,033 12%20%20%14%35% Secondary Market Area $48,262 26%24%17%10%22% Tertiary Market Area $52,893 20%26%21%13%20% Total Resident Market Area $53,662 21%25%19%12%23% Town of Oro Valley $86,386 9%18%16%14%44% Tucson MSA $54,382 21%24%19%12%24% Sources: ESRI and ConsultEcon, Inc. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-7 art gallery and about 15 percent visiting a museum in the past 12 months.3 Some types of music performances were more popular than others, with more residents attending rock and country performances than classical music and opera performances, and about 12 percent of residents attended a live theater performance in the past 12 months. One of the potential uses for the Proctor-Lieber House is a small restaurant or café. About 50 percent of the Resident Market Area, nearly half a million people, said they dined out in the last 12 months. With SPRs connection to walking trails and other recreational activities onsite, a small coffee shop or café could appeal to many visitors.4 Resident Market Summary The Resident Market Area for SPR is defined as the area within a 45-minute drive time from the site. Within the Resident Market Area, the markets are further broken out into the Primary Market Area (the area within a 15-minute drive), the Secondary Market Area (the area within a 15 to 30-minute drive), and the Tertiary Market Area (the area within a 30 to 45-minute drive). This Resident Market Area had the following characteristics in 2019: ♦ An estimated population of about 970,000, which is projected to grow 4.6 percent by 2025, to 1.0 million. The population is growing slower than that of the town of Oro Valley and faster than that of the Tucson MSA. ♦ A median age of 38.6, younger than the population of Oro Valley and older than that of the Tucson MSA. ♦ An average household size of 2.45 persons, larger than households in Oro Valley and about the same as households in the Tucson MSA. Approximately 61 percent of households were family households, less than that of Oro Valley and more than that of the Tucson MSA. ♦ A median household income of approximately $53,700, lower than in Oro Valley and in the Tucson MSA. The most affluent population lives in the Primary Market Area. ♦ Interest in recreational activities that relate to opportunities for adaptive reuse of spaces at SPR, such as outdoor activities on the area’s trail system like walking, jogging, and biking, community recreation activities like fitness classes and adult education classes, and cultural activities like art galleries, museums, and live music and theatre performances, give an idea of what kind of programming and/or tenants might appeal to area residents. There is also an interest in eating at restaurants, which would also compliment any recreational activities at SPR. According to the Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan – Phase One 2020 Report, key market considerations in the area include:  a need for increased parks and recreation services as the population grows; 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-8  a need for programming geared towards various age groups;  an ability to generate revenue through unique and high service level amenities from the affluent population in the surrounding area; and,  an aging population in the area that is in or is approaching retirement and therefore has additional leisure time to spend. The same report included key inputs from the community regarding the potential for development, investment, preservation, advocacy, and earned revenue opportunities at SPR. The community expressed their desire for reinvestment and development at SPR as well as enhanced economic opportunities for the town through festivals and community events. SPR is an attractive venue for festivals and community events. Other opportunities supported by the community include meeting the recreational needs of community organizations such as the school district, the further development of a connected and accessible trail system, and the importance of continuing to secure funding through earned revenue opportunities and grants for park development. These considerations support adaptive reuse opportunities at SPR that include programming geared towards the specific needs and interests of the Resident Market Area as well as small food service or retail businesses on site. TOURIST MARKET Arizona Tourism The state of Arizona received 45.5 million overnight visitors in 2018 with internationally known sites like the Grand Canyon, Saguaro National Park, Monument Valley, and many more.5 About 39.6 million (or 87%) of overnight visitors came from within the United States and 5.9 million came from international origins (13%).6 With their shared international land border, Mexico is by far the largest source of international visitors to Arizona, with 3.8 million overnight trips in 2018.7 Domestic overnight visitation increased 3.4 percent from 38.3 million visitors in 2017. About 84 percent of domestic overnight visitors to the state were traveling on leisure (16% on business) and about 28 percent were in-state visitors (72% out of state). Tucson Area Tourism SPR in Oro Valley is within the Tucson Metropolitan Statistical Area, 14 miles north of downtown Tucson (30 minutes driving) and about 115 miles southeast of downtown Phoenix (about 2 hours driving).8 The Tucson and Southern Arizona region, as defined by Visit Arizona and shown in Figure IV-3, received 6.8 million domestic overnight visitors in 2018, about 17 percent of total domestic overnight visitation to the state.9 Most domestic overnight visitors 5 Arizona Office of Tourism, Arizona Travel Industry Impacts Interactive Dashboard, https://www.travelstats.com/dashboard?ucode=300. 6 Arizona Office of Tourism, Arizona Domestic Overnight Visitor Profile, 2018. 7 Visit Tucson, 2018-19 Annual Report and 2019-20 Marketing Plan, 2019. 8 Google maps. 9 Arizona Office of Tourism, Arizona vs. Tucson and Southern Region Domestic Overnight Visitor Profile, 2018. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-9 were traveling on leisure (84%) and came from out of state (59%). The average length of stay was 3.1 nights and the most popular activities for visitors were shopping, national and state parks, landmarks and historic sights, and hiking/backpacking. State and national parks in the southern half of the state received 3.5 billion visits in 2019, with 428.3 million visits to parks in the historical category (the other categories are scenic and water-based).10 SPR would also benefit greatly from day trip visitors to Tucson, with just under 6.5 million residents within a 3-hour drive of the ranch.11 The site is about 80 miles and 1.5 hours driving from the nearest border crossing into Nogales, Mexico. Figure IV-3 Map of Tucson & Southern Arizona Tourism Region, 2020 Source: Visit Arizona. 10 University of Arizona Economic and Business Research Center, Arizona State and National Park Visitation, 2015 – 2019, 2020. 11 ESRI. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-10 LOCAL ATTRACTIONS Data in Table IV-5 present a list of 25 attractions in the Tucson area with their annual attendance, admission and membership pricing, and short descriptions of each. Many of the most popular attractions are nature-based, such as Saguaro National Park, the Sabino Canyon Recreation Area, and the Reid Park Zoo, as well as several other indoor-outdoor attractions and history and heritage-based attractions. Attractions in the Tucson area are spread out and most visitors and residents in the region use cars as their primary mode of transportation. Table IV-5 Local Attractions, 2020 Ranked by Annual Attendance Name and Location Annual Attendance Admission and Family Membership Pricing Description Saguaro National Park Around Tucson, AZ 1,020,226 1/ Weekly park entrance pass costs $25 per vehicle or $15 per individual National park named for the large native Saguaro cactus. Sabino Canyon Recreation Area Tucson, AZ 1,000,000 2/ Entrance fee of $8 per vehicle Located within the Coronado National Forest with hiking, wildlife viewing, and a tram that runs throughout. Reid Park Zoo Tucson, AZ 525,000 Adults - $10.50 Youth (2-14) - $6.50 Children (Under 2) – Free Family Membership - $80 24-acre city zoo with more than 500 animals. Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum Tucson, AZ 378,489 Adults - $21.95 Youth (3-12) - $9.95 Children (under 3) – Free Family Membership - $125 Nationally recognized museum that provides a fusion experience with a zoo, botanical garden, art gallery, natural history museum, and aquarium. Catalina State Park Tucson, AZ 254,953 3/ Park entrance fee of $7 per vehicle or $3 per individual State park with 5,500 acres of foothills, canyons, and streams. Tucson Museum of Art & Historic Block Tucson, AZ 237,000 Adult - $10 Youth (13-17) - $7 Children (under 13) – Free Family Membership - $60 Art museum and education center. Kartchner Caverns State Park Benson, AZ 176, 464 3/ Park entrance fee of $7.00 per vehicle or $3.00 per individual State park featuring a cave with 2.4 miles of passages. Pima Air & Space Museum Tucson, AZ 175,000 Adults - $16.50 Junior (5-12) - $10 Child (Under 5) – Free Family Membership - $80 Museum dedicated to aviation history with several decommissioned military aircraft. 1/ National Park Service, https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/. 2/ National Forest Service, https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/coronado/recreation/recarea/?recid=80532. 3/ Arizona Office of Tourism, https://tourism.az.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/State-Parks-December-2019.pdf. Sources: Official Museum Directory; Facility Websites; and ConsultEcon, Inc. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-11 Table IV-5 (continued) Local Attractions, 2020 Ranked by Annual Attendance Name and Location Annual Attendance Admission and Family Membership Pricing Description Tohono Chul Park Tucson, AZ 170,000 Adult - $15 Youth (5-12) - $6 Children (under 5) – Free Family Membership - $65 49-acre desert botanical gardens and art exhibits. Children’s Museum Tucson Tucson, AZ 161,798 Adult - $9 Children (under 1) – Free Children’s museum. Tucson Botanical Gardens Tucson, AZ 100,000 Adults - $15 Youth (4-17) - $8 Children (under 4) – Free Family Membership - $70 Sixteen residentially scaled urban gardens on 5.5 acres. Boyce Thompson Arboretum Superior, AZ 85,000 Adults - $15 Children (5-12) - $5 Family Membership - $85 Oldest and largest botanical garden in the state of Arizona. Fort Huachuca Museum Fort Huachuca, AZ 70,000 No entrance fee Museum on site of army camp from 19th century. Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Coolidge, AZ 68,379 1/ No entrance fee Ruins of Ancestral Sonoran Desert farming community. Kitt Peak National Observatory Tucson, AZ 60,000 No entrance fee Most diverse collection of astronomical observatories on earth. Flandrau Science Center and Planetarium Tucson, AZ 50,000 Adult - $16 Youth (4-17) - $12 Children (under 4) – Free Family Membership - $105 Science museum and planetarium at the University of Arizona. Titan Missile Museum Green Valley, AZ 50,000 Adults $13.50; Seniors & Groups $12.50; Juniors (5-12) $10 Museum dedicated to a formerly operational Titan missile site from the Cold War. DeGrazia Gallery in the Sun Museum Tucson, AZ 50,000 Adults - $8 Youth (12-18) - $5 Children (under 12) – Free Family Membership - $55 National Historic District built by Arizona artist Ted DeGrazia in the 1950s. International Wildlife Museum Tucson, AZ 48,119 Adult - $10 Youth (4-12) - $5 Children (under 4) – Free Family Membership - $60 Museum with collections of insects, mammals and birds from around the world. 1/ National Park Service, https://irma.nps.gov/STATS/. Sources: Official Museum Directory; Facility Websites; and ConsultEcon, Inc. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-12 Table IV-5 (continued) Local Attractions, 2020 Ranked by Attendance Name and Location Annual Attendance Admission and Family Membership Pricing Description Arizona State Museum Tucson, AZ 34,847 Adult - $8 Children (under 18) – Free Family Membership - $75 Anthropological research museum that conducts all archaeological activity on state lands. Oracle State Park Oracle, AZ 14,401 3/ Park entrance fee of $7.00 per vehicle or $3.00 per individual 4,000-acre wildlife refuge located in the foothills of the Santa Catalina Mountains. San Xavier del Bac Mission Tucson, AZ 2,000 No entrance fee National Historic Landmark of Spanish Catholic mission on the Tohono O’odham reservation. Old Tucson Studios Tucson, AZ Not available Adults - $19.95 Youth (4-11) - $10.95 Children (under 4) - Free Former movie studio and current theme park. Sentinel Peak Mountain Tucson, AZ Not available No entrance fee Prominent landmark, hiking trail, and park. Children’s Museum Oro Valley Oro Valley, AZ Not available Adult - $7 Children (under 1) – Free Satellite children’s museum to the Children’s Museum Tucson. 3/ Arizona Office of Tourism, https://tourism.az.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/State-Parks-December-2019.pdf. Sources: Official Museum Directory; Facility Websites; and ConsultEcon, Inc. Real Estate Market Some of the uses considered for SPR such as retail and office space are available in other spaces in Oro Valley and the Tucson region. Therefore, potential site users have options for retail and office space in the region. Because of the historic use and characteristics of the site and buildings, they do not offer efficient or functional space for large amounts of retail and office use. Therefore, the most likely retail or office tenants are those that have a reason to locate at SPR due to the existing activity that is occurring there. Potential retail or office tenants may include but are not limited to the Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department, additional town department or divisions, and other appropriate partners of the Town of Oro Valley. Other potential tenants could include vendors affiliated with the farmers market. Based on a review of the available retail and office listings in the Town of Oro Valley, retail rents range from $17 to $18 per square foot and office rents range from $19 to $26 per square foot. Data in Table IV-6 show the retail and office spaces available for rent in Oro Valley as of May 22, 2020, with the total square footage, annual rental cost, and location. There were six office spaces available for rent and five retail spaces. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-13 Table IV-6 Retail and Office Spaces Available for Rent in Oro Valley, May 2020 Description Retail or Office Total Square Feet Rent (per SF per year) 7440 N Oracle Rd Building 4 Office 1,361 SF $21.00 6875 N Oracle Rd Plaza Campana Office 2,567 – 17,653 SF $20.75 - $22.75 6840 N Oracle Rd Office 6,209 – 10,183 SF $25.75 7445 N Oracle Rd Sun Professional Center Office 2,148 SF $21.00 190 W Magee Rd Ridge View Plaza Office 547 – 6,192 SF $19.50 180 W Magee Rd Ridge View Plaza Office 1,241 SF $19.50 7250 – 7356 N Oracle Rd Cottonwood Plaza Retail 4,325 SF $18.00 7951 N Oracle Rd Entrada De Oro Shopping Center Retail 1,130 – 8,206 SF $18.00 12925 – 13005 N Oracle Rd Rancho Vistoso Center Retail 1,435 – 38,211 SF Upon request 7001 – 7153 N Oracle Rd Casas Adobes Plaza Retail 1,017 – 10,132 SF Upon request 10370 N La Canada Dr La Canada Building Retail 1,333 – 6,333 SF $17.00 Sources: LoopNet.com and ConsultEcon, Inc. Summary SPR will draw visitation from resident and tourist markets. With its location in suburban Oro Valley and the programming offered by SPR, visitation will primarily come from the resident market, though some tourism may spill over from Tucson. The Resident Market Area for SPR is defined as the area within a 45-minute drive time from the site and had a population of about 970,000 in 2020. The population is growing slower than that of the town of Oro Valley and faster than that of the Tucson MSA, with a projected 5-year growth rate of 4.6 percent. The average household size was 2.45 persons, and approximately 61 percent of households were family households. SPR is about 14 miles north of downtown Tucson, about 30 minutes driving. Interest in recreational activities that relate to opportunities for adaptive reuse of spaces at SPR, such as outdoor activities on the area’s trail system like walking, jogging, and biking, community recreation activities like fitness classes and adult education classes, and cultural activities like art galleries, museums, and live music and theatre performances, give an idea of what kind of programming and/or tenants might be successful at SPR. There is also interest in eating at restaurants, which would also compliment any recreational activities at SPR. The Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Master Plan report for Phase 1 included key market considerations and inputs from the community regarding development and investments at SPR. These findings support many of the adaptive reuse opportunities at SPR, including ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch IV-14 community recreation activities and programming and economic growth opportunities from dedicating space to food service, retail, or office businesses on site. The Tucson and Southern Arizona region of the state, as defined by Visit Arizona, received 6.8 million domestic overnight visitors in 2018, about 17 percent of total domestic overnight visitation to the state. Most visitors were traveling on leisure (84%) and came from out of state (59%). SPR would also benefit from day trip visitors to Tucson, with just under 6.5 million residents within a 3-hour drive of the ranch. Many of the most popular local attractions in the Tucson area are nature based, in addition to several indoor-outdoor attractions and history and heritage-based attractions. Attractions in the area are spread out and most visitors and residents use cars as their primary mode of transportation. The real estate market for retail and office space at SPR is influenced by other available spaces in Oro Valley and the Tucson region as well as the site’s unique and historic use and characteristics. The most likely retail or office tenants are those with related activities, such as the Town of Oro Valley Parks and Recreation Department, additional town departments or divisions, and other appropriate partner organizations Retail rents range from $17 to $18 per square foot and office rents range from $19 to $26 per square foot for available listings in Oro Valley (Table IV-6 shows a list of spaces available for rent in the area). ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch V-1 Section V ADAPTIVE REUSE OPPORTUNITIES This section evaluates the adaptive reuse opportunities based on a list of criteria, prepared in conjunction with the Parks and Recreation Department staff, that builds off of the prior analyses of opportunities to retain historical features; site and building opportunities and constraints; and market considerations. Reuse Opportunity Citizen surveys conducted for the Town’s Parks and Recreation master plan indicate that Steam Pump Ranch (SPR) has become a popular signature park in the Town’s park system. The popularity of recreational uses, the farmers market, and community events is growing, and the existing facilities that support these uses can be improved to support future growth. As time goes by, the need for investment in SPR infrastructure—its historical buildings and the site as a whole—to support future use becomes more critical. The existing site activity has the potential to grow with targeted investments to the farmers market; community events and recreation; and heritage ranch activities onsite. Existing uses and activity patterns of the site should inform potential demand for building space moving forward. Adaptive reuse of buildings should be supportive of the potential future uses of the site. The overall site use and activity will inform this study of the adaptive reuse of the buildings. Generalized zones of site activity include the marketplace, the food/community events area, and the heritage ranch, as shown in Figure V-1. Building use should be geared to support the events and activities in these general zones. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch V-2 Figure V-1 Site Map with Three Zones Source: Google Earth and ConsultEcon, Inc. Site Plans Impacting Building Use Future uses of the buildings will be dependent upon the plans for SPR’s exterior areas. Some of the plans that will impact future building use include: ♦ Motorized and non-motorized circulation plan – Because of the various types of activities in each zone, there are multiple circulation patterns that support site use and activity. Buildings will be activated in different ways at different times of day, during different times of week, and seasons of the year. The circulation plans should address the needs of all types of site users to accommodate the range of activity that will occur at the site. ♦ Parking plan – In conjunction with the circulation plan, the amount and location of parking will be critical for visibility and accessibility, especially if a private business is to be located on the site as they will require or prefer convenient parking in order to make their business viable. The parking plan should address how the site will be configured for regular in and out of season use and scheduled event and program related use. ♦ Interpretive/visitor experience plan – This plan is critical to the successful integration of historic resources and heritage education onsite. The historic character of the site helps to create a unique sense of place that is different from most development in Oro Valley. SPR’s market, event and recreational use creates an opportunity to educate a broader public about the history of the site than if the site were a heritage ranch alone. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch V-3 ♦ Wayfinding/Signage plan – People will need to understand how to enter and exit the site via multiple modes of transportation (e.g. walk, bike, vehicle, bus, horse trailer, etc.). The wayfinding and signage plan will help people enter and exit SPR and circulate the site internally efficiently The plans listed above are not mutually exclusive but overlapping. Overall, the SPR site needs to be designed in such a way to maximize the accessibility and functionality of activity zones and to diversify and improve the overall SPR visitor experience. Adaptive Reuse Opportunities for Buildings in the Historic Core Site use and activities will drive the reuse of the buildings. The buildings provide supportive space including public and non-public areas to maximize the use and activity on site focused on community recreation, farmers market expansion, and facility rentals. As described in prior sections, there is a small amount of area in historic buildings, and so available space is at a premium. New construction may be warranted to support new visitor infrastructure onsite. The new Town Parks and Recreation offices in the garage will support more efficient operations and more community use of the site. Of the historic resources, the heritage ranch buildings are an important component of SPR’s identity, but it is not the primary driver of site use. The heritage attraction is challenged by economic feasibility and may require more support from the Town than originally thought. Many interpretive and educational goals of SPR could be accomplished through interpretive exhibit panels and outdoor gathering areas for tours and educational activities as opposed to within an indoor museum space. Following are the adaptive reuse opportunities identified for the buildings at the historic core of SPR. ♦ Pusch Ranch House – This is a small house that can accommodate exhibits, orientation, and other public and non-public space for indoor museum exhibits that would be a part of the heritage ranch experience. The Oro Valley Historical Society offers tours of the site current and is a natural partner. The museum could work in conjunction with the outdoor heritage visitor experience and interpretive plan encompassing the entire site. ♦ Pump House - Ruins are associated with the heritage ranch and museum experience. The namesake pump is arguably the most historic asset and can be a centerpiece of the visitor experience and interpretative plan for the entire site. ♦ Bunk Houses – The building works in conjunction with the garage and Proctor-Lieber House to provide community recreation and events support spaces, such as green room/bridal suite, catering, back of house, studio, etc. This space is master planned for restrooms and with its location within event spaces especially with outdoor activities, it is needed as such. Museum items could be incorporated. Dressing rooms would also be a needed addition for any living museum activities on site or outdoor performances. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch V-4 ♦ Proctor-Lieber House – This building is the largest building with the two largest rooms onsite (566 and 703 square feet). It is the most modern building, and presumably, the most readily renovated for future use. Depending on the structural requirements, walls may need to be reconfigured for modernization and creating public and back of house facilities that support the growth of the site’s events and facility rentals. Permanent catering or commercial kitchen facilities are a good opportunity to create food service offerings onsite for events, rentals, and perhaps even on a day to day basis, depending on the type of food service offering. Other compatible uses are also possible. The house could work in conjunction with the garage and the bunk house to provide community recreation and events support spaces, such as green room/bridal suite, back of house, meeting rooms, classrooms, studio, etc. The configuration of the house and the walled yard create opportunities for indoor and outdoor experiences, such as indoor/outdoor events space or restaurant dining area. Other small compatible businesses and/or not-for-profit may also work well in this limited space. ♦ Garage – The Town’s Parks and Recreation offices are planned to be located onsite, providing community recreation and events support spaces. ♦ Carlos’ House – This building can become a rentable BBQ pavilion and multi-purpose meeting room, contributing to the overall use and activity of the park and creating new revenue opportunity. ♦ Chicken Coops – The chicken coops can be agricultural displays linked to the 4-H Club or other agricultural clubs. The chicken coops have limited reuse potential, but they contribute to the overall heritage park experience and become the setting for community driven programming. Data in Table V-1 present an evaluation of the proposed building uses listed above, based on criteria developed in conjunction with the Town. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch V-5 Table V-1 Evaluation Criteria for Proposed Building Reuse Evaluation Criteria Steam Pump Building (ruin) Pusch Ranch House East and West Bunk Houses Proctor-Lieber House Compatibility with Surrounding Uses Compatible with Heritage Ranch. A ghosted structure/ramada was added in 2017 to protect the ruin from the elements. Compatible with Heritage Ranch. Compatible with community events and recreation and heritage interpretation if themed. Compatible with community events and recreation and heritage interpretation if themed. Suitability of proposed uses for buildings Heritage Ranch use is suitable. Heritage Ranch use is suitable. Community events and recreation are suitable uses. Community events and recreation, including food service facility, are suitable uses. Market Support Small amount of visitation compared to park and recreation visitation. Small amount of visitation compared to park and recreation visitation. Market support indicated by existing level of park activity and community support for the park. Market support indicated by existing level of park activity and community support for the park. The Town can test the market support for redeveloping the Proctor-Lieber House by issuing an RFI or RFP. Historic preservation opportunities This use preserves the historic ruin. This use preserves the historic building. This use preserves the historic building. This use preserves the historic building. Operational funding Funding through the Town and through non-profit operating partners. Funding through the Town and through non-profit operating partners. Funding through the Town. Potential to attract a private operator that would fund operations through revenue generation onsite Capital funding Funding through the Town and through non-profit operating partners. Funding through the Town and through non-profit operating partner, partners. Funding through the Town. Funding through the Town. Community benefits/impacts Informal education, tourism development, community pride. Informal education, tourism development, community pride. Health and wellness, community cohesion and social capital. Economic development, community cohesion and social capital. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch V-6 Table V-1(continued) Evaluation Criteria for Proposed Building Reuse Evaluation Criteria Chicken Coops Garage Carlos’ House Compatibility with Surrounding Uses Compatible with community events and recreation. Compatible with community events and recreation. Compatible with community events and recreation. Suitability of proposed uses for buildings/site The proposed community use is suitable. Community events and recreation and Town offices are suitable uses. Community events and recreation are suitable uses. Market Support Market support indicated by existing level of park activity and community support for the park Market support indicated by existing level of park activity and community support for the park Market support indicated by existing level of park activity and community support for the park Historic preservation opportunities This use preserves the historic building. This use preserves the historic building. This use preserves the historic building. Operational funding Funding through the Town. Funding through the Town. Funding through the Town. Capital funding Funding through the Town. Funding through the Town. Funding through the Town. Community benefits/impacts Informal education, community pride, community cohesion and social capital. Health and wellness, community cohesion and social capital. Health and wellness, community cohesion and social capital. Source: ConsultEcon, Inc. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch VI-1 Section VI ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT This section provides a qualitative evaluation of the economic feasibility of the adaptive reuse opportunities identified in the prior section. Aspects of economic feasibility of adaptive reuse for operating revenue, including earned revenue contributions, and government support; costs associated with rehabilitation and redevelopment; operating costs; and potential staffing. Data in Table VI-1 show the economic feasibility assessment of each of the buildings. Table VI-1 Economic Feasibility Assessment Aspect of Feasibility Steam Pump Building (ruin) Pusch Ranch House East and West Bunk Houses Proctor-Lieber House Earned Revenue Not applicable Program fees to Oro Valley Historical Society External rentals, programming, internal special events. Vending machines, such as snacks and beverages or photo booth. Concessions, external rentals, programming, internal special events Private Support for Operations Oro Valley Historical Society Not applicable Support for operations would occur if it were rented or leased. Town Support for Operations Yes Yes Yes Yes, if operated by Town Staffing Needs None As needed by Oro Valley Historical Society Parks and Rec. Dept. for cleaning and maintenance. Concessionaire maintains vending. Private Operator or Parks and Rec. Dept. Operating Costs Needs Maintenance Maintenance and building utilities; program costs Maintenance and building utilities; program costs Maintenance and building utilities; program costs Capital Funding Opportunities Completed through a grant and CIP funds in 2017. Town capital improvement program and private partners, the Oro Valley Historical Society or other fundraising entity. Town capital improvement program. Town capital improvement program and private partner, food service operator. Historic tax credits and other historic preservation funds may apply. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch VI-2 Table V-1 (continued) Economic Feasibility Assessment Aspect of Feasibility Chicken Coops Garage Carlos’ House Earned Revenue Not applicable External rentals, programming, internal special events External rentals, programming, internal special events Private Support for Operations 4-H club or other community organization Not applicable Not applicable Town Support for Operations Yes Yes Yes Staffing Needs None Parks and Rec. Dept. Parks and Rec. Dept. Operating Costs Needs Maintenance Maintenance and building utilities; program costs Maintenance and building utilities; program costs Capital Funding Opportunities Town capital improvement program. Town capital improvement program. Town capital improvement program. Source: ConsultEcon, Inc. While SPR buildings may be rehabilitated and renovated individually, their economic feasibility is interconnected and driven by the uses and programming occurring throughout the site. Following is an assessment of key aspects of feasibility for the project as whole. Operating Revenue Public parks and historic attractions typically do not earn enough revenue to cover the cost of operations. In the case of public parks, the revenue for operations is provided by government agencies, and in the case of private, non-profit heritage attractions, by private philanthropy. SPR is both a public park and a heritage attraction and so can leverage both public funds as well as private philanthropic dollars. The governance of SPR has direct implications for funding operations because of the different sources of revenue available to government and to private non-profit operations. The public-private partnership has an array of project partners that have contributed to the growth in use and development of SPR over time. The Town provides revenue from Town budget for ongoing maintenance and operations and for recreational programming and events onsite. Heirloom Farmers Market is a non-profit that relies on market vendor fees as well as private grants and contributions. The Oro Valley Historical Society is a volunteer run organization with limited funds. SPR generates earned revenue for the Town currently—$46,000 in fiscal year ending June 30, 2020—mostly through programming and internal special events, as well as external rentals and concessions/vendors. Based on the identified building adaptive reuse opportunities, there is potential to increase all sources of earned revenue because the improvements will be more functional, useable, and marketable. ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch VI-3 Operating Costs To increase earned revenue requires a commensurate investment in operations with potentially more Town staff and higher levels of fixed and variable costs. The Town provides for basic site and buildings maintenance and operations, largely fixed costs, and will continue to do so in the future. It also delivers programming and internal special events that are variable costs but also have the potential to generate revenue and offset new costs. The Town investment in operations at SPR will be contingent upon community needs, political support, and Town budget priorities. Private partner operating costs onsite are currently variable according to the amount they use the site to deliver programming. If private partners establish a permanent onsite presence, occupying dedicated space year-round, then they will need to provide for their own operations (staffing and program costs) as well as the fixed costs of site and building maintenance and operations. Staffing Staffing on the site will be provided by the Town of Oro Valley. Locating parks and recreation staff at SPR will help to increase efficiency and delivery of public programming and internal special events and coordinate with facility renters and vendors. Therefore, there will be increased capacity to grow the use and activity of the site. The Town may then take measured steps to increase staff on site as the programming evolves and the capital improvements are made to the facilities onsite. Public-Private Partnership Development Moving forward, the Town of Oro Valley should leverage existing and new private partners, to generate programming activity at SPR and fund operations of that activity. The Town should seek private operator for reuse of the Proctor-Lieber House focused on establishing a business that can generate additional revenue to the Town in the form of rent. This type of relationship also may enable the Town to pass through the costs of operating and maintaining not only the building but a portion of the site. Securing a private operator with a viable business plan will be important to establishing a sound economic basis for the capital improvements to the Proctor-Lieber House. It will also help to identify how much subsidy the Town will be required to provide through its capital improvement program or other sources of funds. If a private operator cannot be identified, then the Town will have to work to activate the building itself. A Town led project would require a different development program and operation geared towards enabling outside caterers, food services, compatible small business, and the public to use the facilities. The cost of the project would likely be lower with downscaled kitchen facilities. Capital Funding Adaptive use of historic buildings often requires public subsidy to fill a financing gap in redevelopment and to justify the investment in rehabilitating buildings for modern use. In other words, adaptive reuse of historic buildings offers an inadequate “market rate” return on investment. Because of their unique nature and historic significance, federal, state, and local ConsultEcon, Inc. Management & Economic Insight September 3, 2020 Steam Pump Ranch VI-4 government policies support designation of historic properties and subsidies to fund adaptive reuse projects. SPR’s historic buildings and structures are costly to rehabilitate. Prior Town building assessments have indicated the level of investment needed for reuse of SPR’s historic buildings. As detailed in prior sections, most of the buildings contain a suboptimal amount and type of space. Therefore, the Town will need to provide some if not all the funds for capital improvements. Some of this capital cost may be defrayed by attracting private grants and contributions and other governmental support. A non-profit organization, a “friends’ group,” may be established to raise funds for SPR preservation, rehabilitation, and development because they can access different sources of funding compared to the Town. Nonetheless, the project’s underlying economic feasibility is largely dependent upon the Town allocating or attracting sufficient capital funds and increasing its parks and recreation budget to accommodate the growth in SPR site use and programming. Ultimately, the Town will need to be responsible for identifying the vision for the site that will galvanize the community to support the adaptive reuse of the buildings. SPR’s growth and popularity has created momentum that will facilitate the implementation of the proposed site improvements and the adaptive reuse of the buildings within its historic core. 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    Historic Preservation Commission 5. Meeting Date:06/07/2021   Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION TOPICS FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS RECOMMENDATION: N/A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff will present a review of key items from past presentations for the new commissioners. BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A SUGGESTED MOTION: N/A Attachments 2021 06 07 Benefit of Historic Preservation  Community Benefits of Preservation HISTORIC PRESERVATION TOPICS FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Our role in Historic Preservation Oro Valley's Historic Preservation Commission The Town of Oro Valley's Historic Preservation Commission's charge involves the safeguarding of the Town's cultural and historical identity (quoted in the preamble of the HPC's Rules) Incentives for Historic Preservation Tax Savings As tangible links to its past, a community's historic buildings reflect the unique character of its neighborhoods, businesses, and gathering places. Various federal and state laws have been enacted to support the preservation of these places through tax reductions, grants, and other financial incentives. Arizona's historic property owners can benefit from these programs if their properties meet certain criteria. 4 W GREENOCK DR –circa 1959 The Investment Tax Credit Program (ITC) Federal Tax Incentives The ITC program permits owners and some lessees of historic buildings to take a 20 percent income tax credit on the cost of rehabilitating such buildings for industrial, commercial, or rental purposes. This program also permits depreciation of such improvements over 27.5 years for a rental residential property and 31.5 years for commercial property. The rehabilitated building must be a certified historic structure that is subject to depreciation, and the rehabilitation must be certified as meeting The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, established by the National Park Service (NPS). FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES STATE HISTORIC PROPERTY TAX RECLASSIFICATION (SPT) This program offers a substantial reduction in the state property tax assessment for eligible owners. The SPT program reduces the property taxes between 35-45 percent. The exact figure is dependent on special assessments which are specific to your area. A fifteen-year agreement: Requires maintenance of the property according to federal and Arizona State Parks Board standards Is limited to property used for non-income producing activities. The property must be listed on the National Register of Historic Places either individually or as a contributor to a historic district. •The program is managed by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) •In conjunction with Arizona's county assessor's offices. •SHPO determines program eligibility and monitors property maintenance •The county assessor enacts tax classification changes, manages issues of property value, and tax calculation.•Properties must meet standards established by the Arizona State Parks Board.•The SPT program is governed by ARS §42-12101 and ARS §42-12102 through §42-12108 •and is operated according to rules established in the Arizona Administrative Code (12-8-306). Increased Property Values Houses often represent our largest economic asset, and we all want this asset to improve in value. Historic district designation and the use of design review guidelines help to ensure that our investment in a historic area will be protected —from inappropriate new construction, misguided remodeling, or demolition. Studies have shown that over time, property valuation in historic districts tends to increase, sometimes dramatically. No evidence suggests that historic designation and the use of design guidelines lowers property values. Numerous studies across the country have shown that property values in designated National Register or local historic districts generally increase at a more rapid rate than the market. 8902 N Riviera Dr –circa 1964 For Oro Valley's future? Locally designated districts protect the composite or overall economic value of a historic area. Every building or parcel in a historic area is influenced by the actions of its neighbors. Every decision one property owner makes has an impact on the property values of another. Design guidelines provide a level playing field for all property owners because they apply equally to everyone in a historic area. Locally designated districts