HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Historic Preservation Commission (94)
AGENDA
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
OCTOBER 4, 2021
11000 N LA CANADA DRIVE
HOPI ROOM
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 order to speak during "Call to Audience",
please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.
COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS
PRESENTATIONS
1.PRESENTATION OF THE PLAQUE OF HISTORICAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE BLOCK
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 101 W SUFFOLK DRIVE
CONSENT AGENDA
1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
1.DISCUSSION REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION INFORMATION ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE
2.DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM
SIX HONEYBEE VILLAGE ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVE
3.DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO STAFF THAT THEY
CREATE AN HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT SCAVENGER HUNT FOR YOUTH IN ORO VALLEY
DEPARTMENT UPDATE
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS - The Commission may bring forth general topics for future meeting agendas.
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: 09/27/2021 at 5:00 p.m. by pp
When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at least 24 hours
prior to the Commission meeting in the Town Clerk's Office between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability
needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk’s Office at least five days prior to the Commission
meeting at 229-4700.
In accordance with the Pima County Health Department’s most recent health advisory, the Town respectfully asks
all in-person meeting attendees, regardless of vaccination status, to please wear a mask while indoors. COVID-19
remains a fluid situation, and the Town will adjust its safety guidelines in accordance with any future health
advisories from the Health Department.
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 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.
If you wish to address the Commission on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a blue speaker card located
on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Recording Secretary. Please indicate on the
speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or if you wish to speak during “Call to
Audience,” please specify what you wish to discuss when completing the blue speaker card.
Please step forward to the podium when the Chair announces the item(s) on the agenda which you are interested
in addressing.
For the record, please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident.1.
Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by the Commission. Please organize your speech, you
will only be allowed to address the Commission once regarding the topic being discussed.
2.
Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.3.
During “Call to Audience”, you may address the Commission on any issue you wish.4.
Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those present.5.
Thank you for your cooperation.
“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:10/04/2021
Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT:
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 7, 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 September 7, 2021 meeting minutes of the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Attachments
2021 09 07 DRAFT MINUTES
D R A F T
MINUTES
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR SESSION
September 21, 2021
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CAÑADA DRIVE
REGULAR SESSION AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Clark called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Joseph Coyle, Vice Chair
Antonia Landau, Member
Ronald Odell, Member
Gary Temple, Member
Matthew Wood, Member
Anna Clark, Chair
Absent: Philip Saletta, Member
Staff Present:Joe Andrews, Deputy Town Attorney
Kristy Diaz-Trahan, Parks and Recreation Director
MaryAnne Tolmie, Senior Office Specialist
Attendees: Joyce Jones-Ivey, Council Member
CALL TO AUDIENCE
Chair Clark opened Call to Audience.
No one wished to speak.
Chair Clark closed Call to Audience.
COUNCIL LIAISON COMMENTS
Council Member Jones-Ivey thanked everyone for the hard work that went into the Master Plan. She
asked for volunteers for CDO Grad Night, they are in great need.
REGULAR SESSION AGENDA
1.REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 20, 2021 REGULAR SESSION MEETING MINUTES
Motion by Chair Anna Clark, seconded by Member Matthew Wood to approve the April 20, 2021
regular session meeting minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.
Vote: 6 - 0 Carried
2.PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON THE $25M PARKS AND RECREATION BOND PROJECTS
Ms. Diaz-Trahan presented the attached PowerPoint. Mr. Wood asked the type of concrete for the
replacement of the tennis courts at the Community Center. Mr. Temple asked about the vacant lot next
to the parking lot at the CRC. There was discussion regarding Pickle Ball courts at Naranja Park. Chair
Clark asked how the original concept plans might be changed. A project manager has been hired for
Naranja Park who reports directly to Public Works. Mrs. Diaz-Trahan will update the Board at future
meetings as the projects progress.
3.PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2021/2022 PARKS AND RECREATION
CIP PROJECTS
Ms. Diaz-Trahan presented the attached PowerPoint. These projects are above and beyond the Bond
projects and should be completed by June 30, 2022. She will update the Board as progress is made.
DEPARTMENT REPORT
Ms. Diaz-Trahan reported the following:
Summer camp was successful, over 1,600 kids between 6 and 12 participated in the camps,
she relayed some fun statistics,
Upcoming events are plentiful, encouraged everyone to visit the Town’s website for additional
details,
JDK Park mural is nearly finished,
She is a speaker at the Arizona Parks and Recreation Association conference in November.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
No future agenda items were requested.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Chair Anna Clark, seconded by Member Ronald Odell to adjorn at 6:45 p.m.
Vote: 6 - 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 Parks and Recreation Advisory Board of Oro Valley, Arizona held on the 21st day of
September, 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 1.
Meeting Date:10/04/2021
Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION REGARDING HISTORIC PRESERVATION INFORMATION ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the September 7, 2021 meeting, Motion by Chair Dan Biel, seconded by Commissioner Nicole Casaus to have
commissioner Lee report on the Town's website at the next meeting.
BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION:
Commissioner Lee volunteered to provide a report regarding his findings and suggestions as to how the Town's
Website can provide greater exposure and a positive appearance. Additional assignments for commissioners to
research historic sections of communities of comparable size and report at a future meeting may be discussed.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
Historic Preservation Commission 2.
Meeting Date:10/04/2021
Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ORO VALLEY CULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION PLAN ITEM SIX
HONEYBEE VILLAGE ARCHEOLOGICAL PRESERVE
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
N/A
BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION:
Staff will lead this discussion
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 3.
Meeting Date:10/04/2021
Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT:
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO STAFF THAT THEY CREATE AN
HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT SCAVENGER HUNT FOR YOUTH IN ORO VALLEY
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the September 7, 2021 meeting a Motion by Commissioner Nicole Casaus, seconded by Vice Chair Stephanie
Krueger to propose the idea of creating a historically significant scavenger hunt for youth in Oro Valley.
BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION:
Commissioner Casaus and Vice Chair Krueger to lead this discussion.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A
Historic Preservation Commission
Meeting Date:10/04/2021
Submitted By:MaryAnne Tolmie, Parks and Recreation
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION:
N/A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
N/A
BACKGROUND OR DETAILED INFORMATION:
Staff will provide the department update. Reminder: The next Commission Meeting date of Monday, November 1,
2021 will need to be postponed or canceled due to staff attending the Annual APRA Conference in Phoenix.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A
SUGGESTED MOTION:
N/A