ARIZONA
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN UPDATE 2014

A rizonA
S tate ParkS
S T A T EHISTORIC
H IS T O RIC PRESERVATION
PRE S E RV A T IO N OFFICE
O F F IC E
STATE

Arizona
State
Parks___________________________________________State
Historic
Preservation
Plan
Update
A RIZO N
A S TA
TE PA RKS
S tate H istoric
Preservation
Plan
U pdate2014
2014

Arizona State Parks Board
Chair
Alan Everett
Sedona
Walter D. Armer, Jr.
Vail
R.J. Cardin
Phoenix
Mark Brnovich
Phoenix
Kay Daggett
Sierra Vista
Larry Landry
Phoenix
Vanessa Hickman
State Land Commissioner

Executive Director
Bryan Martyn
This document was published under the authority of the Arizona State Parks Board

ARIZONA
Historic Preservation Plan
UPDATE 2014

State Historic Preservation Office

Arizona State Parks
Bryan Martyn, Executive Director
James Garrison, State Historic Preservation Officer

i

Adopted by the Arizona State Parks Board, 21 May 2014
Approved by the National Park Service, 20 March 2014
State Historic Preservation Office
Arizona State Parks
1300 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Tel/TTY: 602.542.4174
http://azstateparks.com

This publication has been financed in part with federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the
Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by
the Department of the Interior. This program receives federal financial assistance for identification and protection of
historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and
the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the
basis of race, color, national origin, or disability or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been
discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information,
please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37227, Washington, DC 20013.
The creation of this publication has been partially funded by a grant from the Arizona Heritage Fund administered by
the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office / Arizona State Parks Board.
All rights reserved. No part of this book is to be reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission
from Arizona State Parks Board. Written copy and pictures Copyright 2014 by Arizona State Parks Board. Individuals
with disabilities may request special accommodations such as alternative formats or assistance with physical
accessibility.

ii

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Preface

iv

Appendix A: SHPO Five-Year Action Plan

1

Executive Summary

Appendix B: Historic Designation and Residential Property
Values
57

3

Historic Preservation in a Time of Uncertainty
Dedication to the Mission

Appendix D: Public Survey
11

Arizona’s Historic Resources
The Preservation Network

Appendix C: Synopsis of SHPO Planning

5

9

Preservation and Conservation

13
19

Planning Methods and Findings

27

Current Historic Preservation Trends and Outside
Influences 31
State Property Tax Reclassification Program
Arizona Main Street Program

Issues, Goals and Objectives

38

39

Inventory of Historic Arizona Cemeteries

Selected Bibliography

51

40

41

47

iii

81

65

David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist/Archaeology
Robert Frankeberger, Architect/CLG Coordinator
Vivia Strang, National Register Coordinator
Erick Laurila, Compliance Specialist/Archaeology
Kris Dobschuetz, Compliance Specialist/Archaeology
Mary-Ellen Walsh, Compliance Specialist/Archaeology
Joseph Roth, Administrative Secretary III
Mary Robinson, Administrative Secretary III

Acknowledgements
Editor
William Collins
Photographs
Eric Vondy
The Arizona Historic Preservation Plan was produced by the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), a section of
Arizona State Parks. It could not have been completed without
the help of all those listed below:

Additional thanks to everyone who participated in public
surveys and meetings, and those who provided comments on
draft versions of the plan.

The Arizona State Parks Board
Alan Everett, Chair
Walter D. Armer, Jr.
R.J. Cardin
Mark Brnovich
Kay Daggett
Larry Landry
Vanessa Hickman, State Land Commissioner
Arizona State Parks Staff
Bryan Martyn, Executive Director
Kent Ennis, Assistant Director
State Historic Preservation Office
James Garrison, State Historic Preservation Officer
Ann Howard, Deputy Historic Preservation Officer
William Collins, Deputy Historic Preservation Officer
Eric Vondy, Tax Incentives and Main Street Program
Coordinator
James Cogswell, Compliance Specialist/Archaeology

iv

Preface
The centennial of Arizona’s admission to the union of states in
2012 offered a time for reflection on our contribution to the
continuing American story. It occurred while we were
simultaneously witnessing profound changes in our economy, our
demography, our culture, and our relative position among the
nations of the world. At the time of this writing, the worst of the
economic panic and recession appears to have passed, although a
great deal of uncertainty remains. Arizona in particular has been
slow to recover, a symptom of its reliance upon population growth
and new housing construction to fuel its economy. Far too much
depends on national and international events to accurately predict
when, if ever, anything resembling the economy prior to the 2006
peak of the housing boom ever returns.

places have been recognized and protected. Still, much remains to
be done. The loss of historic resources is the loss of our heritage. It
is also a waste of materials and energy that our nation can ill afford.
Plan Now; Act Now
The immediate future presents challenges great enough to lead us
to despair unless we apply that most basic element of American
character, optimism. American optimism is the force that
transforms challenge into opportunity, the vision that sees risk as a
chance for enterprise, the determination to proceed even if
prospects appear gloomy.
The Arizona Historic Preservation Plan Update 2014 takes
confidence from the successes of our previous efforts and finds
reassurance in the support of an ever-increasing portion of the
state’s citizenry. With faith in the public value of preservation and
dedication to the mission the preservation community has been
entrusted to further, the Plan Update offers goals and objectives
crafted to advance the tasks necessary to ensure that Arizona
remains a prosperous and fulfilling place to the individuals and
families who now and in the future will make it their home.

Preservation + Conservation + Rehabilitation = Regeneration
A few definitions: Historic preservation is the protection of
tangible elements from the past such as buildings, structures, and
archaeological sites for the benefit of future generations.
Conservation is the wise use of scarce resources to ensure their
maximum social benefit. Rehabilitation is the investment in and
adaptation of existing properties to assure continued or new use.
Together, these three activities can help rejuvenate our economy,
our community, and our national spirit. The full regeneration of the
American spirit can only come about when the places and objects
tied to the American experience have been preserved. Can we
expect a new generation to appreciate the American Ideal if we’ve
allowed our mutual history to be trampled by the false imperatives
of the transitory present?

The Plan Update describes a number of principles that will guide
the activities of the State Historic Preservation Office and are
offered to our current and potential partners as means of achieving
mutually beneficial outcomes:
Dedication to the public value of our mission
Fortitude in the face of challenges
Optimism despite setbacks
Perseverance despite a seemingly overwhelming task
Joy taken in past and present success
Gratitude for the help we receive and the friendships we
establish
• Satisfaction from the process as well as the outcomes of our
work
•
•
•
•
•
•

How fortunate we are that many people, past and present, have had
the foresight to take action to preserve, conserve, and rehabilitate
historic buildings and places, keeping them as the vital resources on
which our society has been able to regenerate its most important
principles. National and state parks and monuments, historic
landmarks, historic districts and thousands of individual historic

1

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

2

Executive Summary
• 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 the 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 Arizona Historic Preservation Plan Update 2014 is the result of
more than a year’s effort by the State Historic Preservation Office
(SHPO), a section of Arizona State Parks, in conjunction with
Arizona’s preservation professionals, advocates, and concerned
citizens. It will guide the actions of the SHPO and its partners into
the second decade of the twenty-first century.
The Plan builds upon the foundation of successes achieved by
earlier planning efforts, most notably the 1996 plan, which was the
first comprehensive plan developed for Arizona. While the specific
objectives and tasks outlined in this document reflect the situation
and demands facing the SHPO and its partners today, we have
found that the fundamental goals first described in the 1996 plan
remain relevant. Although it will guide activities of the SHPO, the
Plan continues the shift in emphasis begun in 1996 toward
strengthening its role as clearinghouse and enabler within the larger
preservation network. In creating the Plan, the SHPO recognizes
that heritage conservation cannot be successful on a statewide basis
unless strong partnerships are built between governmental
agencies, advocacy organizations, and citizens.

These findings are consistent with the results of earlier research and
confirm the continuing value of the eight goals crafted in the 1996
plan and its 2000 and 2009 updates. These goals can be grouped
under two categories: 1) goals related to the identification and
management of resources; and 2) goals related to preservation
professionals, interested members of the public, and elected and
appointed officials involved in making decisions affecting the
future of historic resources. Although the eight plan goals are
numbered, they are actually equal in priority because of their
interdependence. The two categories and eight goals are:

The vision, goals, and objectives that set the agenda for this plan
are the result of a series of activities that sought the participation of
those who affect and are affected by historic preservation in the
state. The general public was engaged in the planning process
through a sampling of public opinion via a telephone survey.
Another questionnaire was directed specifically towards partner
agencies. Additional input was gained at a planning meeting
conducted at the 2013 statewide historic preservation conference
and from the many comments received from interested parties who
reviewed the draft (see Planning Methods and Findings, p. 3).

Toward the Effective Management of Historic Resources
Goal 1: Better Resource Management
Goal 2: Effective Information Management
Goal 3: Maximized Funding
Goal 4: Integrated Preservation Planning
Toward An Informed and Supportive Constituency
Goal 5: Proactive Partnerships
Goal 6: Public Support
Goal 7: Policy Maker Support
Goal 8: Informed Professionals

Participants in the planning process identified four principal needs
to further the cause of preservation in Arizona:
3

Each of the eight goals relates to a specific vision statement, which
can be found in detail in the section “Issues, Goals, and
Objectives,” (p. 41). To achieve these goals, the plan outlines a
number of specific objectives. These are divided between
objectives most appropriate for the preservation community, the
SHPO specifically, and citizens at large (See “The Preservation
Network,” p. 19).
No plan can fully predict and shape the future. Since the 2009 plan
update, two major changes affecting SHPO programs occurred that
were not anticipated. The first was the elimination of the Arizona
Heritage Fund grant program for historic properties. For nearly
twenty years, this grant fund assisted local communities leverage
local resources to make the acquisition and rehabilitation of historic
properties feasible. Lost as a result of the budget crisis facing the
State during the worst days of the Great Recession, it appears
unlikely that it or something similar will be reactivated in the near
future. On a more positive note, the Arizona Main Street Program,
previously managed by the Arizona Department of Commerce, has
now been transferred to Arizona State Parks under the SHPO. This
addition, currently without additional funding, presents its own
challenges and opportunities to the office.

Bisbee Historic District

4

Historic Preservation in a Time of Uncertainty
proposed merger of US Airways into American Airlines may result
in a loss of jobs in the Phoenix area. On the other hand, positive
developments can be found around the state, such as in new solar
energy facilities and expansion of light rail public transportation
systems in Phoenix and Tucson.

New Problems; New Thinking
The fundamental premises that we have taken for granted to define
our work in the past must be modified to accommodate the new
reality facing Arizona in the next decade. These premises have
assumed that the trajectory of American economic and political
development prior to the economic crisis of 2008-09 will
eventually be restored and we can continue in the future as we have
in the past. They include the assumption that an energy-intensive
economy based on inexpensive petroleum products is sustainable,
that a job system reliant on new housing construction will continue
to provide general prosperity and that despite profound
demographic change, the traditional culture and constitutional order
of our political society will remain intact.

We may expect certain trends to endure, perhaps for as long as this
Plan Update remains in effect. These include relatively high
unemployment, sluggish new investment from the private sector,
and constrained budgets at all levels of government. Unfortunately,
political debate, on which much else depends, may contribute to
continuing instability as conflicting agendas battle for electoral
dominance. While the results of the 2012 election seem to imply
the continuance of the status quo, unexpected events and shifts in
trends will likely occur. Flexibility in the face of the unexpected
will be as important as laying out goals and objectives if we wish
for a preservation-friendly future.

These premises were shattered by an economic crisis of
international proportions that threatened not only our prosperity,
but also our cultural solidarity to a degree not seen since the Great
Depression. Historic preservation in Arizona received a major
setback when the Arizona Heritage Fund grant program was
eliminated as a result of state budget imperatives. Although the
Main Street Program was saved following reorganization of the
Department of Commerce, the program’s grant funding from the
Arizona Lottery could not be transferred. Revival of these grants
programs would require positive action by either the Legislature or
the citizenry. In the case of the Arizona Heritage Fund, the Heritage
Alliance (p. 25) is reviewing its options on the question of reviving
the Heritage Fund through a voter initiative in 2016.

Here are merely a few of the challenges awaiting preservationists:
! Sprawl, a serious threat to historic, and especially prehistoric
resources, remains a subdued force, but only as long as the
housing market remains weak. Despite warnings about
overreliance on the new housing market, all too many civic
leaders seem to see it as the panacea for Arizona’s economic
problems. The exurbs of the Phoenix metro area appear ready
to spread wider as the economy improves.
! Economic growth in the urban core, where public infrastructure
and transportation are most efficient, appears to be growing
stronger. New housing and commercial development will be
relatively high density and along available lines of public
transportation, which, fortunately, continue to expand.
! Small town and rural Arizona will continue to suffer relative
economic stagnation compared to the metro areas.

The recovery of Arizona’s economy has been no faster than that of
the country as a whole. As of this writing, foreclosed houses remain
a drag on a weakened resale home market. Business headlines
dwell more on possible threats to the future of the state’s economy
than promise improvements in the future. For example, the
5

!

!

!

!

!

Improvement in the tourist sector will depend on both national
recovery and on the avoidance of fuel price spikes.
Even with continued improvement in the state and national
economies it appears unlikely that we will again see major
public sector initiatives to stimulate the economy. While major
freeway development continues to occur in both Tucson and
the Phoenix area, these reflect the completion of previous
plans. Future government investment will likely be more in the
category of maintenance and repair rather than new
construction.
Arizona continues to face challenges in making itself a leading
center for new economic development and innovation. The
potential loss of prized corporate headquarters and sports teams
may lead to desperate attempts to use public subsidy to retain
such prizes or to engage in competition with other states to
attract new big-ticket corporate entities. Such attempts would
distract from preservation-oriented alternatives.
Trains will be running through the state in numbers previously
unimagined. Improved high-speed railroad passenger service
between Phoenix and Tucson as well as between Phoenix and
Los Angeles are distinct possibilities, though ones still at a
distance in the future. This will further encourage the
reorientation of economic development along efficient
transportation lines.
Technological developments are creating new paradigms for
many types of work. The traditional office work environment is
clearly headed towards obsolescence. The SHPO will in many
ways cease to be an actual office, which people travel to, spend
eight hours at, and then return home. SHPO will become a
virtual statewide office where staff can communicate and work
with partners without the necessity of wasteful travel.
Unfortunately, with limited government funding, this process
may lag well behind developments in the private sector.
Arizonans will adjust to the depressed economy by working
harder (usually for less) and stretching their incomes for
maximum efficiency. This means that the mantra of the three

Rs—Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle—will become basic ways of
living. Arizonans will reduce wasteful consumption as they are
forced to pay more for the fundamentals of life. They will reuse
and repair goods and materials when they can no longer afford
the cost of throwing the old away and buying new. They will
make a virtual cult of recycling in order to conserve energy and
other natural resources.
! Demographic trends are bringing an end to the concept of
ethnic majorities and minorities, although a legacy of income
inequality will linger long among Native Americans, African
Americans and Latinos. Few wish to admit it, but it is a fact
that the historic preservation movement arose from a middleclass Anglo culture largely concerned with the preservation of
its own heritage. Native Americans, African Americans and
Latinos have generally been pressed by more urgent social and
economic concerns, and in any case they have observed a
definite tendency for traditional historic preservation to
concentrate on properties representative of the white and the
elite. While much progress has been made to expand the social
scope of historic preservation, much more must be done.
Historic preservationists can be at the forefront of the adjustment to
the new economy if we have the vision, initiative, and work ethic
required to lead. We must stay one step ahead of these imminent
changes if we are not to be dismissed in the future as we too often
are today as standing in the way of progress. We will have to alter
our way of thinking just as everyone else will, looking for ways to
adjust to the end of the age of cheap energy. How can historic
preservation make a major difference in how our economy
functions, in whether our communities are enriching, both
economically and socially? How can historic preservation make us
happier?
As conditions change, so must our thinking. The generation that
enacted the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 has passed.
And though their legacy remains important, historic preservation

6

cannot mean in 2015 what it did in 1970. Throughout the Seventies
and Eighties, historic preservationists struggled for relevancy. By
the Nineties they had made remarkable progress, especially in the
area of conserving historic residential neighborhoods. This success
was in large part based on favorable property tax treatment
afforded historic neighborhoods by the State of Arizona, and
passage of protective zoning ordinance by several cities, most
notably Phoenix and Tucson. Unfortunately, in many other places,
historic preservation has had fewer successes. Neglect remains as
much an ally of preservation as positive action. In the eyes of many
public and private planners, preservation is still backward looking
and doesn't affect the trajectory of our social and economic
development into the future.

because it became clear that nature is a gigantic organism whose
individual parts are not only complexly intertwined, but
inextricably linked to human activities and development as well. It
has only been recently that a consensus has emerged that the world
is facing long term climatic shifts, whose repercussions may be
catastrophic for some. Major environmental organizations like The
Nature Conservancy now have a global perspective and stretch
their efforts in a wide arc, trying to grapple with problems more
holistically. The National Trust for Historic Preservation also
recognizes similar social interconnectivity and is working to
expand partnerships and programs to ensure that preservation has a
place at every discussion of future development. Historic
preservationists have learned that to succeed, preservation must be
linked to larger efforts to plan, sustain and grow communities. It is
not about saving the past, but using our legacy of historic resources
to plan for a better future.

Local preservation programs suffered a severe setback with voter
approval of Proposition 207. This law, enacted to protect private
property owners from potential adverse economic effects of local
government regulations, has had the indirect effect of halting
virtually all activity by local governments to expand their local
registers of historic properties. The law requires compensation
should a state or local regulation or action result in lower private
property values. Despite evidence that historic preservation tends to
enhance rather than diminish property values (Appendix A), fear of
lawsuits by local officials demonstrate that preservationists have
failed to be persuasive in their assertions. After nearly half a
century of marketing historic preservation, the false impression that
historic preservation is anti-progress, anti-private property, and an
expensive luxury, remains current among many of the decisionmakers who matter most. As an economic development strategy,
historic preservation remains an afterthought to urban planners
more interested in big-ticket items like sports arenas, civic centers,
biotech facilities, and other industries of the moment.

Historic Preservation and Sustainability
Sustainable development has become one of the top goals in
modern urban planning theory and practice. Long driven by
national energy policy concerns, the concept of sustainable
development has increased in importance as the public and policy
makers see climate change as a problem demanding immediate
action. Like most public policy issues, this one presents both
challenges and opportunities for historic preservation. If great
storms like hurricanes Katrina in 2005 and Sandy in 2012 are
harbingers of things to come, the need for new thinking is
imperative if we are not to see similar devastation in the future.
The increasing popularity of the Green Building, that is, one that
among other things minimizes the use of energy in both its
construction and in its use, initially favored new construction over
old. The first Green Buildings often took advantage of modern
materials and computerized utility systems to achieve energy
savings and to minimize the building’s so-called “carbon

The same was once true of the Environmental Movement.
Environmental preservation was once about saving a few special
species or turning grandly scenic areas into parks. That didn’t work

7

footprint.” Standards for sustainable architectural design, such as
LEED®, were intended, initially for new construction and their
rapid rise in popularity created a bias against older buildings.

Administration (FEMA) oversee a program in which agencies
identify means to preserve records, support staff, and otherwise
remain in operation during a critical event such as a natural
disaster. The second action has been to been to place increasing
stress on the role preservation can play in building a future in
which the built environment operates with energy efficiency. While
historic preservation will not reverse the causes of climate change,
it should be recognized as a necessary complement to a broader
conservation strategy (see “Issues, Goals and Objectives,” p. 44).

Historic preservationists have responded rapidly to the challenge of
this latest version of the old “newer is better” mindset. They
quickly pointed out that existing buildings already embody a
considerable energy investment that need not be wasted in the
movement to “go Green.” They also debunked some of the energysavings claims of those promoting the replacement of historic
materials, such as windows.
Taking the initiative, the National Trust for Historic Preservation
established the Preservation Green Lab in 2009 to advance research
on methods and materials to improve energy efficiency and reduce
the carbon impact of rehabilitation of older buildings. The Trust has
published a great deal of material that preservationists can use both
for rehabilitation planning and for public advocacy. The SHPO can
potentially play a useful role in promoting awareness of this
technical information.
Although Arizona does not face the kind of storm threats that have
affected America’s eastern and gulf coast regions, it is threatened
by another possible symptom of climate change, the drought that
has devastated large areas of the continental interior, including
Arizona. Energy conservation concerns are just as real in our 100degree-plus summer season as deep cold is in other parts of the
country. Arizona’s rural communities and economy are most
vulnerable to the threat of drought, at least initially, and many
historic properties may face uncertain futures. Sustainability in a
land of limited water is one of our special challenges.
The SHPO has addressed sustainability through two activities. The
first is specific action as a state agency to participate in disaster
preparedness training and planning. The state’s Department of
Emergency Management and the Federal Emergency Management

8

Dedication to the Mission
As a public agency, the SHPO’s mission is defined by the
legislation that created it. The SHPO implements programs created
by both Congress and the Arizona Legislature, principally in the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Arizona
Preservation Act of 1981. These laws contain similar expressions
of public purpose from which we are inspired to envision a future
made better through of our dedication to advancing our state’s
progress in both the realms of private enterprise and public service.

The Vision of Public Purpose for Historic Preservation
In the belief that the spirit and direction of our Communities,
our Tribes, our State and our Nation are founded upon and
reflected in their historic heritage, and that these historical
and cultural foundations should be preserved as a living part
of our community life and development in order to give a
sense of orientation to the American people, we envision
conditions fostering a productive harmony between modern
society and prehistoric and historic resources in which the
social, economic, and other requirements of present and
future generations are satisfied by the cultural, educational,
aesthetic, inspirational, economic, and energy benefits of
historic preservation.

These statements of vision and mission are drawn from the very
words of federal and state law. They are not an arbitrary manifesto
developed by staff to relate what we think the SHPO should do.
They are an accurate, legitimate statement of the legislative intent.
The key advantage of a clear, accurate statement of the vision of
public purpose for historic preservation is that it applies to all
potential partners in the preservation community, from individual
citizens to the federal government. It is broad in its scope, yet
provides specific directions for programs and actions. The scope of
benefits—cultural, educational, aesthetic, inspirational, economic,
and energy-related—demonstrates that preservation is far from the
antiquarianism that some suspect underlay its principles.

Mission of the State Historic Preservation Office
Furthermore, perceiving these conditions arising out of a
partnership between the Federal Government, the State, local
governments, Indian Tribes, and private organizations and
individuals, we plan historic preservation programs and
activities to encourage public and private preservation and
utilization of all usable elements of Arizona's historic built
environment and act to give maximum encouragement to
organizations and individuals undertaking preservation by
private means.

Unfortunately, the preservation vision and mission are too often
obscured by the imperatives of daily responsibilities. Almost any
partnership or Section 106 relationship can become adversarial
with a new project or change of personnel, requiring staff to
dedicate their time to maintaining successful working relationships
with their counterparts in other agencies and with private
consultants. That task is virtually a full-time responsibility for
many staff members, who often have insufficient time to consider
fully integrated preservation planning. Without the guidance of a
dedicated leadership, staff can become bureaucratized. SHPO
dedication to a proactive mission is a must.

9

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

10

been increasingly recognized as stabilizing influences in
community development and even engines of economic growth.
More recently, reoccurring energy crises and growing concern over
the environment-altering effects from our modern way of life have
highlighted the value of conservation, not only of direct energy
resources like oil, but also of embodied energy in the form of
existing buildings. “The greenest building is one that already
exists” is a powerful new slogan that counters the naïve view that
energy efficiency can be achieved only by new construction
following standards such as LEED®. To put it directly, we cannot
build our way out of our energy problems. We should be
conserving our built resources, recognizing that in many instances
older methods of design and construction (wide porches, window
awnings, storm windows) were more energy efficient that many
later techniques. It is even becoming clear that seemingly positive
developments such as energy-efficient windows can have net
negative value when their full cost, factoring in their limited life
span, is calculated against their actual energy savings. It is more or
less a truism—which means its true—that in the long run it is
cheaper to properly maintain a building’s materials and systems,
than it is to replace or build anew. Furthermore, even when it
appears to an individual property owner’s financial benefit to
discard existing materials or whole buildings, that calculation
usually neglects what economists refer to as negative externalities,
which are costs imposed on others. These include wastage such as
demolition debris that must be landfilled or the loss to the
community of a treasured landmark.

Preservation and Conservation
There is a contradiction within the preservation movement that
hinders accomplishment of the vision. This contradiction arises out
of the definition embodied in the National Register of Historic
Places program that properties worthy of preservation are those that
have a significant association with important aspects of history or
prehistory. This definition was codified in the National Register’s
Criteria of Eligibility and reflects the point of view that the Register
should be highly selective. It is generally held that historic
preservation is not about saving everything that is old, but rather
about identifying and maintaining those places that are truly
important to the maintenance of our culture and heritage. To
achieve this goal of selectivity, registration involves a complex
procedure by which properties nominated for listing in the National
Register are accepted only after a lengthy process of professional
review and public validation. This selectivity is an ideological
inheritance from an earlier era when preservation advocacy
revolved around landmark historic sites such as George
Washington’s Mount Vernon home or notable battlefields like
Gettysburg.
Archaeological sites generally derive their significance under
criterion D, the demonstrated or potential ability to contribute
important information about history or prehistory. Because it is
impossible to accurately predict what will constitute important
information for future researchers, archaeological compliance of
necessity must take a more liberal approach to assessing
significance as well as integrity of the cultural deposits.

The designation standards upheld by the National Register make it
difficult for many preservation programs to address this modern
energy and environmental concern in the larger built environment.
In many instances, only properties eligible for or actually listed in
the National Register qualify for consideration under Section 106
or for grants, tax incentives, or other programs that encourage
preservation. Because the National Register is intentionally
selective, most old properties are simply left to the mercies of the

The preservation movement’s success has allowed interest to
expand beyond iconic national historic sites to places of local
importance. By the Sixties, many people observed that neglect and
intentional destruction of many older, often poorer neighborhoods
and commercial districts were degrading our communities and our
sense of place. Where maintained or enhanced, historic areas have
11

real estate market. Yet the preservation mission statement explicitly
includes economic and energy benefits among the public goods we
want to obtain. It is the SHPO’s mission, under the law, to promote
the “preservation and utilization of all usable elements” of our
historic heritage. “All usable elements” does not mean just those
eligible for the National Register.

The term conservation is already prevalent in Europe where reuse
is more of a norm. Americans have shied away from conservation,
with its implication of ultimate use and consumption, preferring the
idea of preservation, which implies keeping something in
perpetuity. This preference is easy enough to understand; we can
readily appreciate the preference to preserve forever places like the
battlefields at Lexington and Concord, or, nearer to home, the
Spanish mission of San Xavier del Bac. While no one advocates for
the preservation or restoration of every building over fifty years of
age, we should be able to see the value in conserving them for as
long as practicable.

The way to reconcile this contradiction is to pursue a two-prong
strategy that distinguishes between distinct, yet mutually
reinforcing goals. Without making major changes to the legal
structure of preservation embodied in current federal, state, and
local legislation, we can make our strategy fairly clear with a slight
change in terminology. By ‘historic preservation’ we should
continue to mean the identification and protection of those
distinctive places that have a significant association with our
history. That term should embrace the still current and popular idea
that we should maintain the landmarks that anchor our sense of
place and cultural heritage. It is useful to narrow the term historic
preservation because our designated resources are, in reality,
insufficient even for this limited task.

A higher emphasis on conservation is fully in line with the
increasing public awareness of the need to build sustainable
communities. The phrase “The greenest building is one already
built” is worth repeating over and over to emphasize the point that
energy efficiency is not necessarily the result of building new.
Older buildings represent an enormous investment in energy in
their materials and construction that must be counted as a negative
if they are lost in the process of building even the most energyefficient new structure. Historic rehabilitations now routinely
consider modern methods of energy conservation. The National
Trust for Historic Preservation has made the merger of historic
preservation and sustainability one of its major initiatives.

The second strategy is to embrace the concept of ‘building
conservation,’ or ‘conservation of our built resources,’ or similar
term that emphasizes the idea of conserving what we have in order
to avoid needless waste of money, energy, and other natural
resources. We should encourage a legal and financial environment
that directs the private real estate market to place a higher value on
reuse of existing buildings over new construction. This can be
achieved by—to name a few goals—modifying building codes to
remove any biases against older buildings, imposing regulator fees
on new construction that accurately take into account its full social
cost, amendment to urban development plans to maintain public
attention to the goal of reuse, redirection of public housing and
urban development funds to repair and rehabilitation, and
alterations to tax code provisions that over-subsidize new
construction (See Goal 7, Objective 3, p. 44).

If maintenance and rehabilitation of older buildings becomes the
norm in American real estate development, we will have achieved
most of what we desire more narrowly through historic
preservation. The limited resources available for historic
preservation can then be used over and above this foundation of
conservation incentives to ensure that we do not lose those
treasured places that we most value. We should, therefore, use the
terms ‘preservation’ and ‘conservation’ distinctly, but in parallel,
understanding that they can work together to achieve the full scope
of our vision.

12

This most recent wave of growth has drastically changed our
environment. Looking around Arizona, we see a landscape
dominated by the new; most of the built environment dates no
farther back than the Second World War, a watershed event in our
history. Yet we live with the legacy of ancient lives. The founders
of Phoenix laid out their nineteenth century townsite over the
remains of canal works nearly a thousand years old. We have roads
following paths walked by ancient people, villages that have been
continuously occupied for almost a thousand years, towns built on
plans guided by religious inspiration, and buildings whose
designers range from world-renowned architects to everyday folks.

Arizona’s Historic Resources
This state has witnessed an incredible range of human experience.
Twelve thousand years before it was called Arizona, people were
here carving out a rugged existence through hunting game and
gathering wild plants. In only the last 2,000 years, the Mogollon,
Hohokam and Anasazi rose to cultural dominance, and then
retreated before the onslaught of a harsh environment and
competition with newcomers. Again, this pattern of environmental
and social competition would be repeated with the Spanish,
Mexican, and later American settlers.

Historic preservation works to conserve these physical remnants of
our past that not only continue to provide useful functions, but also
serve to educate, inspire, and connect us to our communities.
Whether a preserved property represents an example of high-style
architecture, or is the place where an important event occurred, it
can provide continuity and stability in a society where change can
seem an overwhelming force. Historic preservation is about
building a better future through a wise use of the present, guided by
knowledge of the past.

By 1863, when Arizona Territory was established, the stage was set
for the terrible conflicts and cycles of boom and bust that would
mark the years before statehood. By that time, the Spanish had been
in the Southwest for over 300 years, and the city of Tucson was
approaching its centennial. Within a short time the railroads
arrived, connecting Arizona to the rest of the country. This marked
the first great explosion of population growth in our history, with
an influx of ranchers and miners, and the rapid growth of towns
like Tombstone, Bisbee, and Jerome. By Statehood in 1912, the
untamed years were mostly behind, and Arizona was on the verge
of its agricultural heyday. During this time, major irrigation and
reclamation projects allowed the desert to bloom with cotton and
citrus—the Salt River Valley became the state’s center of business
activity, and for the next several decades people flocked to Arizona
for its clean air, natural beauty, and economic opportunities.

Historic Preservation—How Does it Work?
Important reminders from the past are all around us. Often they are
obvious because of their physical beauty, high quality of
workmanship, or the sense of connection they inspire. At other
times they may be obscured, for example, archaeological sites with
below ground features. It is the process of learning about
significance that enhances our experience. Specifically, historic
preservation is about the identification, recognition, and
preservation of significant historic properties. The application of
these three activities creates the foundation for all levels of
preservation planning.

Since 1950, our population has grown from 750,000 residents to
over 6.4 million. Recent economic turmoil, however, has altered
this pattern with growth during 2008 at a slow rate of only 1.8
percent, the lowest rate in nearly twenty years. Fast growth is
unlikely to return unless international efforts to stabilize and restore
prosperity succeed. And, as stated earlier, the end of the cheap
energy era is likely to result in slower growth in the long term.

The framework for identifying, recognizing, and preserving historic
properties was established by the National Historic Preservation

13

Act of 1966. This Act created the national preservation partnership
involving federal, tribal, state, and local governments, and set the
standards for the survey and identification of historic resources
utilized by these partners. The Act also established the National
Park Service as the lead agency for historic preservation, which
oversees the National Register of Historic Places, and sets the
standards by which historic resources are identified and treated.

designation. To be considered for listing in the National Register, a
property must meet three broad qualifiers: first, it must be at least
fifty years old (although rare exceptions are made); second, it must
have significance, or documented importance; and third, the
property must retain historic integrity—its important historic
features are present and recognizable.
While the qualifier of age is self-explanatory, the other two are not
as straightforward. In order to be significant, a property must
demonstrate a relationship to important events or people, merit
related to its construction or design, or the potential to reveal
important information about the past. These criteria for significance
are called the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.

What is a Historic Property?
Throughout this document the term “historic property” is used
interchangeably with historic resource, cultural resource, and
heritage resource.* These terms refers to the variety of property
types that span some 12,000 years of human history in Arizona, and
may be archaeological (prehistoric and historic), architectural,
engineering, historical, or cultural in nature. Historic properties can
be buildings such as houses, factories and schools, or structures like
bridges, dams, railroads and other properties designed for purposes
beyond basic shelter. Historic properties can also be objects that are
primarily artistic in nature such as monuments and fountains, or
they may be sites of battles, ceremonies, or where people once
lived. A district is another type of historic property, one which
contains a concentration of buildings, structures, sites, and/or
objects. Historic districts demonstrate a unity of historic properties
that together tell a story greater than any of its individual parts.
Examples of historic districts include commercial and residential
areas, prehistoric settlement complexes, and large farms or ranches.

The final condition a property must meet for National Register
listing is that it has integrity, which is the ability of a property to
convey its significance. In determining integrity, the National
Register examines seven aspects of a property’s makeup and
environment to determine if it conveys its significance: location,
design, setting, materials, workmanship, association, and feeling.
As change is a part of any property’s history, the National Register
acknowledges that very few historic properties retain all their
original historic features—but in order to be historic, a property
must retain the essential aspects of integrity that convey its historic
identity.
Who Decides What is Historic?
The Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places ultimately
determines what is historic. Knowledgeable professionals and
citizens make this determination through a public process of review
and validation. Any individual, group, or agency may nominate
properties to the National Register, but in any case, nominations are
reviewed at the state and federal level to ensure that properties meet
the criteria for listing described above.

What Makes a Property Historic?
As the official listing of historic properties worthy of preservation,
the National Register of Historic Places sets the criteria for historic
*In other usages, particularly in the context of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act and its regulations, “historic property” is more
narrowly defined as properties eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places.

14

Apache
36
(136)

Coconino
146
(912)

Navajo
45
(188)

Mohave
81
(206)
Yavapai
119
(1878)

La Paz
10
(17)

Gila
52
(2)

Maricopa
367
(7133)

Greelee
11
(54)

Pinal
85
(484)

Yuma
63
(158)

Pima
182
(8014)

Cochise
75 (1472)
Santa Cruz
51 (248)

State and National Register of Historic Places
Listings by County
Individual (District Contributors)
15

Graham
33
(3)

December 2012

The National Register is not just a list of properties of interest to
the entire country. The Register also recognizes properties that are
significant to the history of smaller geographic areas such as a state
or community. In addition to the National Register, the State of
Arizona maintains its own register of Historic Places, as do many
of Arizona’s cities and towns. All these registers use criteria of age,
significance, and integrity similar to those used at the national
level.

while at the same time serving as an attraction for tourists.
Preservation of historic districts can enlighten residents, as they
come to understand how their communities were created. All of
these activities: rehabilitation, restoration, interpretation,
acquisition, and education fall under the definition of historic
preservation. In contrast to a common misunderstanding, historic
preservation is not about setting aside static representations of the
past, but rather the active use of historic resources to improve our
quality of life in the present and for the future.

Whatever the level of designation, historic registers are created so
that significant historic resources may be recognized and,
hopefully, protected and preserved. Properties eligible for listing in
the National and State Registers are afforded consideration to
identify and possibly avoid or mitigate adverse actions by
government agencies. And at the local level, historic designation is
used as a means of protecting the important visual and historic
characteristics that create a sense of place. Listing in historical
registers can also provide incentives for property owners to
preserve their resources. These incentives usually come in the form
of grants or special tax considerations.

Heritage Tourism and Archaeology
Unlike historic buildings and structures, which offer recognizable
energy and rehabilitation possibilities, the potential contribution of
archaeological sites towards meeting current public needs is not
always readily apparent. Yet archaeological sites have substantial
economic and education benefits if properly protected and
developed, in addition to their acknowledged contribution to our
understanding of the past.
The federal, state, and even some local communities have
developed archaeological sites as educational venues that also have
the additional benefit of promoting tourism, one of Arizona’s
largest economic sectors. The National Park Service manages
several national monuments containing some of the most important
and spectacular archaeological sites in the United States, including
Navajo, Tonto, Walnut Canyon, and Casa Grande Ruins national
monuments. The state manages archaeological sites at Homolovi,
near Winslow, Lyman Lake near St. Johns, and Tubac in the
southern sector of the state as state parks. Cities and towns such as
Phoenix, Mesa, Globe, and Springerville protect major
archaeological sites and provide extensive educational
opportunities.

Preserving Historic Resources
While the identification and nomination of historic properties may
be done at the federal, tribal, state, or local level of governmental
agencies, advocacy organizations, neighborhood groups, or
individuals—the intention for recognition is all the same. For all
these entities, the purpose of nominating a historic resource is to
provide for the planning of its continued use and enjoyment.
Having understood what it takes to recognize a property as historic,
the next question is—what does it mean to preserve it?
Preservation can mean many things, and there may be any number
of reasons to save and use a property. A building may be
rehabilitated and updated as a business opportunity, or it may be
restored to a particular time period and used as a museum. An
archaeological site may be interpreted for its educational value,

By far the greatest portion of preserved and interpreted
archaeological sites are prehistoric and represent the major artifacts
of cultures that existed in Arizona prior to the entry of Europeans.

16

But, in fact, many of these sites have layers of history and include
components representing historic eras of Native American,
Hispanic, and Anglo culture. Tubac State Park, for example, has
been set aside to protect the archaeological remains of this once
important Spanish military post on the far northern outskirts of its
North American realm.

Designated NHLs receive special consideration in the Section 106
process. Any federal project involving an NHL automatically calls
for direct review by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
in addition to the SHPO. Also, the SHPO works with the National
Park Service to track current information about the condition of
NHLs in Arizona. Finally, the SHPO has targeted the owners of
NHLs for special sessions at its statewide conference in order to
provide information and motivation to better stewardship of NHLs
in private ownership.

The managers of archaeological sites now regularly consult with
tribes who have cultural affiliations with archaeological sites, both
prehistoric and more recent. Many of these sites continue to serve
traditional cultural values. While respecting the contemporary
needs of Arizona’s many tribal cultures, these sites offer a means to
achieving a better understanding between cultures while at the
same time offering educational attractions for our visitors.
National Historic Landmarks in Arizona
National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) are a special designation of
historic properties that have been identified as having importance to
the nation as a whole. Forty-four properties in Arizona have been
designated National Historic Landmarks. These range from
individual buildings such as the Hubbell Trading Post in Tuba City
on the Navajo Reservation, to entire communities like the old
mining town of Jerome. National Historic Landmarks cover a wide
range of historic themes including prehistory (Pueblo Grande
Ruin), history (Air Force Titan Missile Site), and architecture
(Painted Desert Inn).
Since the 2009 Plan Update, two sites in Arizona have been
designated National Historic Landmarks by the National Park
Service. The Murray Springs Clovis Site marks one of the earliest
known places of human activity in the region now encompassed by
Arizona. The Poston Elementary School Unit 1 is associated with
the World War II era internment of Japanese residents in the West,
in this case on the reservation of the Colorado River Indian Tribes.

17

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

18

The Preservation Network
standards that are national in scope, tasks delegated to the National
Park Service (NPS). Other departments and agencies are involved
in only their own programs and/or land management. For example,
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is responsible for
review of plans and project by federal agencies, a task that is
generally delegated to the SHPOs. The National Park Service also
deals with a limited scope of programs, although with national
extent. These include the definition of the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards, the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP), the federal investment tax credit, Historic American
Building Record/Historic American Engineering Record/Historic
American Landscape Survey (HABS/HAER/HALS), and the
Preservation Institute. In addition, the park units deal with historic
preservation through their individual park mandates and the
NHPA’s sections 106 and 110.

As the basis for planning, the system of preservation of historic
resources relies on the efforts of a varied array of governments,
organizations, groups, and individuals. While one of the purposes
of this plan is to guide the activities of the State Historic
Preservation Office, the SHPO is not the only entity that can obtain
guidance from the Plan. The goals and objectives presented here
represent the desires of a wide range of preservation interests
around the state. As such, the individuals and groups possessing
these interests also play an important part in seeing that the Plan’s
objectives are achieved. One of the primary roles of the SHPO as
the state’s leading preservation agency is to coordinate the actions
of all the groups that have a stake in the preservation of the past.
And just as most everyone within this diverse preservation network
shares common goals, participating in the enactment of this plan
should serve to establish stronger links between them.

The SHPO also participates with these agencies and programs as
well as with state legislation, property tax programs, and grants.
Just about the only activity the SHPO does not take part in is direct
property ownership, but even there it administers easements held
by Arizona State Parks. It also does not engage in lobbying that
affects public policy, this activity being reserved for the private
sector. Its only role is to provide technical assistance, often through
annual reports, of things that might be relevant to legislators, etc,
and to speak to them and answer questions.

The following is a listing of the major participants in the
preservation network and a brief discussion of their roles and
responsibilities. The Arizona SHPO is discussed most extensively
so that its strategic position within the network may be better
understood.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
The Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, a division of
Arizona State Parks, is a focal point in many historic preservation
programs that makes its roles as facilitator, administrator, and
advocate important to the fulfillment of the historic preservation
goals of federal, state, and local agencies, Tribes, and private
organizations and citizens. The SHPO holds a unique position in
the historic preservation network. It is the only agency that is
involved with virtually every other preservation organization,
agency, private individual, and tribe. Under the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), the Secretary of the Interior is
authorized to establish and administer programs and to establish

In defining our desired strategic position, we recognize the ways in
which we touch upon so many historic preservation activities by so
many other parties. It would be a mistake to perceive SHPO as,
therefore, the "center" of historic preservation if this implies it is
the most important part of the historic preservation partnership
network. The role of SHPO is to foster conditions that give
maximum encouragement and advice to historic preservation by
those who directly control the fate of historic resources.

19

SHPO program areas are summarized below:

their preservation planning through the CLG and Main Street
Programs.

Survey and Inventory
The SHPO conducts an ongoing architectural survey program and
oversees archaeological surveys to identify, evaluate, and plan for
the management of these resources. The SHPO conducts
geographic and thematic based surveys, and provides technical and
financial assistance for local surveys.

Local Government Assistance
Municipal governments that develop comprehensive preservation
programs may apply to the SHPO to become Certified Local
Governments (CLGs). To be certified the government entity must
have a historic district ordinance, a preservation commission, and
an ongoing program to survey heritage resources within its
jurisdiction. Once certified, these government entities are eligible
for specialized assistance and funds for developing local
preservation programs and projects.

State and National Register of Historic Places
The SHPO guides and oversees the nomination of significant
properties to both registers. The National Register of Historic
Places is the nation’s official list of properties considered worthy of
preservation, while the Arizona Register of Historic Places contains
properties that are particularly significant in Arizona history.
Criteria for listing to these registers are discussed in the previous
chapter.

Historic Preservation Grants
Since the demise of the Arizona Heritage Fund, the SHPO has been
left with only a single matching grant-in-aid program available to
assist with the preservation of heritage resources in Arizona—the
federal Historic Preservation Fund. Federal Historic Preservation
Grant Funds are appropriated annually to fund the SHPO programs
and assist with the management of Certified Local Government
programs. Not all grants programs, however, have been eliminated.
For example, the federal Route 66 Corridor Preservation Program
continues to make grants to assist in the preservation of historic
properties along that historic highway.

Review and Compliance
The review and compliance program advises and assists federal,
state, and local agencies and tribal governments to meet their
preservation responsibilities as defined by law. Through this
program, the SHPO tries to ensure that the possible impacts of
federal and state undertakings on register eligible properties are
considered at the earliest stage of project planning.

Preservation Tax Incentives
Owners of National Register-listed properties are eligible for
special tax incentives. The SHPO administers a state and federal
tax benefit program by evaluating the eligibility of properties, and
reviewing construction documents to ensure project compliance
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
(http://www.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab_standards.htm
).

Preservation Planning
To ensure the property management and preservation of Arizona’s
historic resources, the SHPO develops a comprehensive State Plan
for Arizona’s cultural resources. State and federal agencies, cities
and towns, nonprofit and for-profit organizations, tribal
governments, and individual citizens participate in and contribute
to the development of the plan. The State Plan assists the SHPO in
making management decisions and setting priorities for
preservation grant funding. The SHPO also assists local entities in

20

Certified Local Governments
City/Town
Certified
Benson
Bisbee
Casa Grande
Clifton
Coolidge
Flagstaff
Florence
Glendale
Globe
Holbrook
Kingman
Mesa
Nogales
Oro Valley
Payson
Peoria
Phoenix
Pima County
Prescott
Scottsdale
Sedona
Taylor
Tempe
Tucson
Willcox
Williams
Winslow
Yuma

Public Programs
The SHPO participates in a variety of public programs related to
archaeology and historic preservation, including conferences,
workshops, lectures, and school programs. The most important
event coordinated by the SHPO is the Arizona Archaeology and
Heritage Awareness Month. This annual celebration encourages
public stewardship of Arizona’s heritage resources.

Year
1992
1989
1991
1998
2000
1997
1985
1995
1986
1997
1986
1995
2000
2009
2001
2004
1988
2011
1986
2001
2000
2001
1997
1990
1985
1986
1998
1986

Site Steward Program
This unique program, staffed by a statewide network of volunteers,
is designed to discourage vandalism and looting of archaeological
resources through site monitoring and promoting public awareness.
The SHPO works closely with the Governor’s Archaeology
Advisory Commission, federal, state, and local land managers, and
Native American groups in administering the Site Steward
Program.
Inventory of Historic Cemeteries
Special legislation established a program for the identification of
historic cemeteries and gravesites across the state.
Main Street Program
Lodged in the SHPO since 2013, the Main Street program is a
partnership with the National Trust that encourages the
revitalization of local economies through planning and the use of
historic resources.
Advisory Groups to the SHPO
Established in 1985 and appointed by the governor, the Governor’s
Archaeology Advisory Commission (GAAC) advises the SHPO on
archaeological issues of relevance to the state, with a focus on
public archaeology education programs. The 11-member GAAC
has been analyzing the curation crisis and International Border
impact issues in Arizona in consultation with the public and
generated reports on possible solutions. The GAAC has also

21

worked to help preserve and protect threatened state heritage
resources and helps inform the governor on these problems. The
GAAC also monitors SHPO’s public education and advises the
SHPO on the Site Steward Program.

the standards for the preservation of cultural resources, providing
financial and technical support to the state historic preservation
offices, administration of the National Register of Historic Places,
and technical information for the management of historic resources.
Additionally, NPS manages many of Arizona’s most significant
cultural and natural resources within 26 designated national parks,
monuments, historic sites, trails, and heritage areas.

The Historic Sites Review Committee (HSRC), a subcommittee of
the Arizona Historical Advisory Commission, provides advice on
matters of determining historic significance, and reviews
nominations to the State and National Register of Historic Places.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
The Advisory Council is an independent agency composed of 19
members appointed by the President of the United States. The
Council advises the President and Congress on matters pertaining
to the preservation of historic, archaeological, architectural, and
cultural resources. The Advisory Council also administers 36 CFR
Part 800, the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.

The Historic Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC) serves the
Arizona State Parks Board in an advisory role on the expending of
grant funds through the Arizona Heritage Fund for historic
preservation. This committee has not been active since the demise
of the Heritage Fund.

Partners in the Preservation Network

Federal Land Managing and Permitting Agencies
All federal agencies are responsible for identifying and protecting
significant historic resources under their jurisdiction. In Arizona,
partners such as the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest
Service, the Department of Defense, the National Park Service,
and numerous others are important managers of a significant
amount of land and resources within the state.

Federal Government Partners
All federal agencies are responsible for identifying and protecting
significant historic resources under their jurisdiction. In Arizona,
partners such as the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest
Service, National Park Service, and Department of Defense are
managers of large areas of land and many resources within the
state. Many of these land managers have developed Cultural
Resources Management Plans in consultation with the SHPO and
tribes; these plans outline the processes by which the agencies will
protect and manage heritage resources on their lands, as well as
how they will seek public input on their management programs.

Agencies such as the Federal Highways Administration, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Bureau of
Reclamation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and
others, which plan and fund projects throughout the state, are
important partners. In cooperation with the SHPO, these agencies
identify historic properties and consider the impacts their projects
may have on them. Often such consideration leads to programmatic
agreements of wide scope to codify procedures for historic
preservation planning.

National Park Service (NPS)
NPS is the federal agency responsible for the administration and
implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended. NPS is the nation’s lead preservation agency and sets
22

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
The Bureau of Indian Affairs administers assets and lands in trust
for federally recognized tribes. Although this relationship is
changing as tribes assume increasing self-government, the BIA will
continue to be an important player in the management of resources
on tribal lands.

properties.
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (ITCA)
This non-profit organization provides technical assistance,
disseminates information and conducts training to assist Tribal
governments in operating programs that comply with federal
regulations and policies to protect the health and safety of Tribal
members.

Tribal Government Partners
There are 22 federally recognized tribes in Arizona, plus three
additional tribes that have ancestral and cultural ties to Arizona.
Most of these tribes have established cultural preservation
programs within their functions of government, and six tribes have
assumed preservation responsibilities as Tribal Historic
Preservation Offices (THPOs), under the 1992 revisions to the
National Historic Preservation Act. THPO certification has been
granted to the Hualapai Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the San Carlos
Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Gila
River Indian Community. Even as tribal governments assume full
responsibility for the preservation of resources, they will continue
their relationship with the SHPO as partners in preservation,
primarily for resources off tribal land. The tribes and SHPO have
improved communications and understanding toward tribal issues,
especially tribal perspectives on traditional cultural places and the
definition of good faith consultation measures in compliance
processes.

State Government Partners
Arizona Historical Society (AHS)
Through its museums in Tucson, Tempe, Yuma, and Flagstaff, and
its publications division, the Arizona Historical Society is the lead
agency for collecting, preserving, interpreting and disseminating
information on the history of Arizona. AHS also plays an important
role in supporting local historical societies around the state.
Arizona State Museum (ASM)
The Arizona State Museum carries out responsibilities for
archaeological and cultural preservation under state antiquities
laws. Also central to its mission is the enhancement of public
understanding and appreciation of Arizona’s cultural history
through the collecting, preserving, researching, and interpreting of
objects and information with a special focus on indigenous peoples.
ASM is the statewide repository for archaeological site information
(reports, artifacts, etc). ASM also has authority for permitting
archaeological surveys and investigations on state, county and city
lands, as well as administering the state’s burial protection laws for
state and private lands.

National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers
(NATHPO)
This national organization helps to inform and coordinate the
programs of Tribal preservation programs. Its activities include
monitoring the U.S. Congress, the Administration, and state
activities on issues that affect all Tribes and monitoring the
effectiveness of federally mandated compliance reviews and
identification, evaluation, and management of tribal historic

Arizona Lottery
Although the Arizona Lottery no longer provides funding for
historic preservation grants, this agency has been a regular sponsor
of the annual historic preservation conference.

23

Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
As part of its mission to provide the state with a quality
transportation system, ADOT continually makes decisions on how
that system affects important cultural resources. Additionally,
ADOT produces Arizona Highways Magazine, which shares
information about the state and its history, and administers
transportation enhancement funds from the U.S. Department of
Transportation.

Local Government Partners
Certified Local Governments (CLGs)
Twenty-seven cities and one county in Arizona are currently
maintaining certified historic preservation programs, which receive
specialized funding and assistance from the SHPO. CLGs have
established a preservation ordinance and a formalized means of
identifying, registering, and protecting cultural resources within
their boundaries.

Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT)
Among their many responsibilities, AOT works to generate positive
media coverage and promote Arizona to the public. AOT oversees
the creation, production and distribution of the state’s advertising,
an important component of which is promoting heritage resources.

County and City Governments
Many county and city governments work with the SHPO to
recognize the principles embodied in the State Historic
Preservation Act by submitting local projects for review on a
voluntary basis.

Arizona State Land Department (ASLD)
The ASLD administers and manages over 9 million acres of land
and resources held in trust by the state. ASLD also provides
direction, coordination, assistance, and services to those who use
Arizona’s land and natural resources.

National Advocacy Groups
Archaeological Conservancy
The Archaeological Conservancy is a nonprofit organization
working to preserve the nation’s most important archaeological
sites. The Conservancy strives to permanently preserve the remains
of past civilizations by purchasing or receiving lands containing
significant endangered resources and managing them for the benefit
of future generations. With the assistance of acquisition grants from
the Arizona Heritage Fund (administered through Arizona State
Parks, in consultation with the SHPO), the Conservancy has
purchased and protected eight archaeological preserves. The
Archaeological Conservancy manages a total of 26 archaeological
preserves in Arizona.

Arizona State Parks (ASP)
Within its mission of managing and conserving Arizona’s natural,
cultural and recreational resources, ASP manages some of the
state’s most significant resources. Through ASPs Partnerships
division, which includes the SHPO, professional support and
financial assistance is given to preservationists around the state.
Arizona’s Universities and Colleges
Arizona’s universities and community colleges play an important
role in historic preservation most significantly through the research
materials they produce, and the students they train to become
professionals in the fields of anthropology, history, and
architecture.

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
The National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
provides leadership by representing and advocating state historic
preservation programs nationally, and by enhancing the capabilities
and resources of the SHPOs as they operate within each state.

24

National Trust for Historic Preservation
The National Trust is a private, nonprofit membership organization
chartered in 1949 by Congress to preserve historically significant
properties and foster public participation in the preservation of our
Nation’s cultural resources. The Trust provides technical and
advisory support for preservation organizations at the state and
local levels.

designated by Congress. They reflect the crucial role each trail
plays for “re-tracing American history and celebrating the diverse
natural beauty of the United States.” All have significant scenic,
historic, natural, and/or cultural qualities. Arizona has three of
these compelling traffic corridors: The Juan Bautista de Anza NHT
(1992), The Old Spanish NHT (2002), and The Arizona NST
(2010). Together with National Recreation Trails (accessible to
urban areas) and Connecting Trails for access to all the others,
these routes link historic sites, wildlife refuges, national parks,
national forests, wilderness areas, and other public lands with
communities, providing “unique linear corridors for environmental
and historical preservation. All deserve consideration and
protection by governmental agencies, private landowners, and
nonprofit organizations.

Preservation Action
Preservation Action is a national lobbying organization that
promotes historic preservation and neighborhood conservation.
Preservation Action works to increase opportunities for
preservation in communities by advocating improved government
programs, increased funding, and greater awareness of the built
environment.
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA)
The SAA is an association of professional and avocational
archaeologists promoting scholarly communication and greater
public understanding of the importance of preserving the unwritten
histories of the Americas. The SAA publishes two journals, works
with the federal government to improve site protection, and is
active in promoting archaeology as a subject taught in schools.

Statewide Advocacy Groups
Arizona Archaeological Council (AAC)
The AAC is a nonprofit, voluntary association that promotes
cooperation within Arizona’s preservation community by fostering
the conservation of prehistoric and historic resources.

The American Cultural Resources Association (ACRA)
As a trade organization organized in 1995, ACRA promotes the
common interests of cultural resource management firms
nationwide.

Arizona Parks Foundation
This non-profit 501(c)(3) organization allows parks patrons,
visitors and friends to support and strengthen Arizona State Parks
through advocacy, friend building and fund raising.

National Preservation Institute
The Institute provides offers continuing education and professional
training for those involved in cultural resource management.

Arizona Preservation Foundation (APF)
The APF is a private, nonprofit foundation, formed to ensure that
historical, architectural and natural resources are preserved and
protected for future generations. APF is the state’s advocacy voice
for historic preservation, educating developers, officials, and the
public through workshops, grants, and other programs.

The Partnership for the National Trails System
Authorized by the 1968/1978 National Trails System Act, thirty
(30) National Scenic and Historic Trails to date have been

25

Arizona Heritage Alliance, Inc.
The Arizona Heritage Alliance is a partnership of diverse groups
and individuals interested in protecting Arizona’s significant
natural, cultural, and recreational resources. The group was
instrumental in the initial enactment of the Arizona Heritage Fund.
Following the end of that program, the Alliance has sought means
of restoring some sort of grant program, but have not yet
determined on a strategy to do so.

the preservation movement. Their knowledge and expertise
provides the basis for understanding the value of our culture.

Archaeology Southwest (AS)
Archaeology Southwest (formerly the Center for Desert
Archaeology) is a private 501 (c) 3 nonprofit organization
headquartered in Tucson, Arizona. Archaeology Southwest
practices a holistic, conservation-based approach to exploring the
places of the past; they call this “Preservation Archaeology.” AS
works with various partners to educate the public and raise
awareness about the "value and meaning" of non-renewable
heritage resources in the Tucson area.

Property Owners
Individual home, business, and landowners are perhaps the most
important component in the entire network of preservationists.
Without the continued protection and conservation of historic
properties they care for, the physical reminders of our past would
not survive.

Neighborhood Organizations
Neighborhood groups and homeowners associations work to
preserve the continuity and character of their historic districts. They
provide advocacy, education, and a larger voice for the property
owners living within a community.

Volunteers and Volunteer Groups
Most Arizonans do not own historic property or live in historic
neighborhoods, yet they still have a stake in preserving our past.
There are currently a countless number of volunteer groups actively
working to protect and preserve Arizona’s history. Among the
larger ones are the Arizona Site Stewards (see SHPO), the
Southwest Archaeology Team, the Arizona Archeological Society
and the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society.

Local Advocates
Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation
For nearly thirty years, the Foundation has advocated for the
preservation of Tucson’s unique cultural heritage.
Historical Societies and Museums
Aside from being excellent sources of information, local historical
societies and museums often include preservation messages and
activities within their mission of conserving and interpreting local
and regional history.
Preservation Consultants
The professionals (architects, historians, archaeologists) who
perform the research, surveys, documentation, and hands-on
preservation of historic resources are vital to the ongoing success of

26

Planning Methods and Findings

“Strongly Agreed” (5). The mean score of all respondents reveals
where the preponderance of opinion lies.

The 2014 Plan Update builds upon the accomplishments of
previous historic preservation planning efforts over the past half
century (for a synopsis of preservation planning see Appendix C).
The method applied to the development of the first comprehensive
statewide historic preservation plan in 1996 and its subsequent
updates in 2000 and 2009 provided the model for the current
planning process. The results of public input into the 2000 update
largely confirmed the earlier results and provided confidence that
its outline of goals and objectives remained relevant. Public input
into the 2009 plan update was intended to find out if the existing
general outline continued to meet the expressed needs of the
general public, historic preservation professionals, various agencies
and other preservation partners. For 2014 it was important to
discover if the Great Recession had affected public support for
preservation programs and priorities.

The initial set of questions attempted to determine how familiar the
public is with the broad goals of historic preservation and to see
how widespread certain misconceptions might exist. An
overwhelmingly high (mean 4.49) level of agreement exists with
the statement that “historic preservation connects people with the
past.” Of special interest to Arizona and its important Native
American population, the public agrees (mean 4.33) that “historic
preservation helps sustain Native American cultural places and
traditions.” There is also strong agreement (mean 4.08) that
“historic preservation helps sustain the American way of life.” This
last question was included to see if traditional patriotic historic
preservation, as with the old models of Mount Vernon and Colonial
Williamsburg, remains important in the public mind. Overall, the
public agrees that historic preservation is a public good, with a high
level of support (mean 4.08) for the statement that “historic
preservation helps make a better future.”

Public input was gained through a telephone survey conducted by
Arizona State University in October 2013 (See Appendix D: Public
Survey for full report). Government agencies were surveyed
separately through a targeted web-based survey. Additional input
from preservation professionals was gathered during special
sessions at the 2013 statewide historic preservation conference and
from comments received from reviewers of early drafts of this plan.

A common criticism about historic preservation is that it gets in the
way of necessary improvements in our built environment.
Fortunately, the survey revealed that the general public largely does
not agree with these criticisms. More than half the respondents
(mean 2.45) disagreed with the statement that “historic preservation
prevents change.” Even fewer agreed (mean 2.04) with the
statement that “historic preservation obstructs progress.”

General Findings
General Public

With the larger environmental movement’s growing interest in the
concept of sustainability, it was important to know if the public
recognizes a connection between sustainability and historic
preservation. There was a small preponderance of agreement (mean
3.65) that “historic preservation is compatible with recycling and
sustainability.” With these issues of increasing concern to the
public, private business, and government, this result indicates that

The 2013 telephone survey asked respondents a series of questions
intended to gauge public opinion regarding the purposes of historic
preservation and to measure public support for a variety of
preservation programs. The questions were framed to solicit
opinions based on a numeric scale ranging from one to five
measuring whether the respondent “Strongly Disagreed” (1) to

27

historic preservationists need to make a greater effort to educate the
public that indeed, “the greenest building is one already built.”

It is especially important to determine the level of public support
for government initiatives and programs related to historic
preservation. The survey included a series of five statements on
government and historic preservation, which are listed in the table
below.

The survey next asked a series of questions intended to find
whether the public supports some of the more specific goals of
historic preservation. Public support was strong for many of these
goals, as indicated in the table below.
Statement
Historic preservation saves buildings and structures
Historic preservation saves places that are set aside for
public visitation such as museums and parks
Historic preservation saves archaeological sites
Historic preservation saves historic districts
Historic preservation saves Native American culture

Statement
Government should play a role in historic
preservation
Government should play a role in identifying historic
properties, sites and buildings
Government should provide tax incentives and grants
to owners of historic property
Government should be responsible for keeping and
maintaining some historic properties or buildings of
great importance
Government should help educate the public about
historic properties, sites and buildings

Mean*
4.26
4.38
4.38
4.26
4.17

*Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

The survey revealed a somewhat lesser appreciation of certain more
broadly phrased preservation goals. For example, a mean of 3.63
agreed, “historic preservation saves local neighborhoods.” Given
the stronger support that “historic preservation saves historic
districts,” there seems to be something of a disconnect between in
the public mind between historic districts and local neighborhoods.
The public agreed, although not strongly (mean 3.85), that “historic
preservation saves commercial downtown areas and rural Main
streets.” This is not necessarily an unexpected result since in
Arizona there are far fewer commercial historic districts than
residential districts, a result of the state’s tax program that favors
the latter. Also, there was a mean of 3.79 agreement that “historic
preservation rehabilitates old buildings for new uses.” This is
similar to the response about historic preservation’s compatibility
with recycling and sustainability. From the preservation advocate’s
point of view there is room for improvement in this regard.

Mean*
3.87
3.71
3.57
3.81
3.85

*Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Since much of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Plan
involves public agencies, especially the SHPO, it is critical that
public, i.e. government, programs reflect the public’s interests and
goals. The survey revealed that while a plurality of public opinion
(in the 40 to 50 percent range) strongly agree with most of these
statements, there is a core of approximately 17 percent who either
disagree or strongly disagree with them. On the specific question of
tax incentives and grants, public support is weakest, although still
generally favorable. Some 20 percent of respondents disagree that
such monetary incentive programs are a proper government
function compared to 55 percent to agree. While there is room for
improvement along all lines, it is an important finding that even in
Arizona, a state where the politics of limited government
predominates, the public is in broad support of government historic
preservation programs.
28

present survey. This could be an ominous trend and must be an
item of additional research. The survey did not reveal the cause of
this decline in support. We may speculate that at a time of severe
state and local government fiscal retrenchment during the Great
Recession, the public may perceive historic preservation as a lesser
priority than other government programs. It may also be a
reflection of the divisive politics that have centered around the
broad question of the size and scope of government in general. It is
notable that public support was weakest for programs like tax
incentives and grants that would most directly affect government
budgets.

Finally, the survey asked what sorts of properties the public valued
highly and should be preservation priorities. The following table
lists these priorities in descending order of support.
Priority Criterion
Historical or cultural importance
Age of the building or archaeological site
Architectural merit
The beauty of the property, site or building
The sense of place or atmosphere
The economic potential of the property, site or
building

Mean*
4.46
4.14
4.04
3.82
3.70
3.34

Government Agencies
Information about the preservation activities and plans of
government agencies was gathered through a government agenciesspecific questionnaire. The survey revealed widely varying levels
of preservation activity between agencies. Some agencies have
clearly integrated preservation goals and objectives into their
programs while others appear barely conscious of their
responsibilities under the law. Levels of staffing also vary greatly.

*Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

These responses indicate that to a large degree, the public perceives
historic preservation from a largely traditional point of view.
Historic preservation means first and foremost the preservation of
places reflecting our history, with the corollary that the older the
property, the greater its importance. The public strongly agrees that
buildings with architectural merit are worthy of preservation. A
building or site’s economic potential, on the other hand, is not
perceived as important as cultural values.

In response to specific questions, it was found that 71 percent of
agencies stated that they had incorporated historic preservation in
their agency planning, yet only a quarter of agencies (24 percent)
indicated that they had, in fact, a historic preservation component
in their state plan. Half of agencies (52 percent) stated that
preservation was integrated into their policies, procedures, or
regulations, while only a third (33 percent) indicated that they had
incorporated historic preservation in applications or agreements.
All of these figures indicate a small decline in integrated
preservation planning since the previous agency survey.

Implications
What are the implications of these findings? First, and foremost,
the survey indicates that the general public broadly supports the
state’s involvement in historic preservation issues and in the current
programs of the SHPO. The public has a high level of appreciation
for the goals of historic preservation. However, that level of
support is not as high as what was measured in the survey
conducted prior to the Great Recession. Then, 76 percent of
respondents agreed with the statement that government should play
a role in historic preservation, compared with 65 percent in the

One conclusion derived from the agency survey is that their
appears to be a common misperception that the term “historic
property” refers only to buildings and structures, generally of the

29

late nineteenth to twentieth century. While major agencies like the
Arizona Department of Transportation, with its link to the Federal
Highways Administration, have fully integrated preservation
programs, archaeological sites are not being consistently
considered by all agencies.

Tribal consultation is an important factor in preservation planning
in Arizona. In general, federal agencies have fully integrated tribal
consultation into their planning process. Unfortunately, state
agencies have not yet fully implemented the governor’s executive
order (EO 2006-14) to improve state agency consultations with
Native American tribes. The agency survey revealed less than a
third (29 percent) of state agencies had consulted with tribes
pursuant to their consultation plans.

Approximately two-thirds of agencies (67 percent) indicated that
they had at least one employee designated with responsibility for
preservation activities under the federal and state preservation acts.
Only 27 percent of agencies, however, have committed at least one
full time employee to preservation activities. Furthermore, less than
half (47 percent) of responding agencies indicated that the staff
they did have did not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s
professional standards. Agencies cited lack of funding as the
primary reason for their lack of adequate preservation staffing.

While state agencies in particular show an inconsistency in
adherence to the strict requirements of the state’s historic
preservation act, the survey did reveal a few example of positive
preservation activity. Two positive examples of such activity are:
1. Arizona State University has initiated a study of the architecture
of its main campus with the goal of preparing nominations of
important buildings to the National Register. ASU has also hired a
conservator to review the needs of historic public art on its campus.

Both state and federal law encourage agencies to identify and
nominate historic properties to the Arizona and National Registers.
Only 43 percent of responding agencies indicated that they actually
have such programs, while only a third (33 percent) had actually
conducted survey or inventory of historic properties. While federal
agencies occasionally submit nominations of properties to the
National Register, no state agency indicated they had in 2013 (or in
fact for several years prior as well).

2. Arizona State Parks, which manages several historic buildings
and sites had conducted needed stabilization work on historic
buildings at Oracle and Tonto state parks. Parks is also planning on
nominating its recently acquired Picket Post House at Boyce
Thompson Arboretum to the National Register.

Government agencies of both the state and federal government
operate under the legal requirement to review their plans with the
SHPO to identify possible adverse effects resulting from agency
activities. While federal agencies generally have a high rate of
consultation, state agencies have not been so responsive to their
responsibilities. Only 43 percent of state agencies indicated that
they had solicited review and comment by the SHPO on agency
plans. Those that did, such as ADOT or the Arizona State Land
Department, tend to either have strong ties to federal project
requirements or extensive land management responsibilities that
have heightened their preservation consciousness.

As a planning tool, the agency survey revealed the need for the
SHPO to continue holding regular training sessions to assist partner
agencies understand and fulfill their preservation responsibilities.
Such training has been part of the statewide historic preservation
conference accomplishments over the years, but the need for
additional training is a continuing process.

30

Current Historic Preservation Trends and
Outside Influences
Tribal Preservation Programs
Over the last twenty years most Arizona tribes have developed
tribal cultural preservation committees and/or offices. The 1992
amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
empowered tribes to take over any and all SHPO responsibilities
and programs on tribal land. By 2012, six tribes, out of 22
recognized tribes within Arizona, had officially taken over SHPO
functions on tribal land: the Hualapai Tribe, the White Mountain
Apache, the San Carlos Apache, the Navajo Nation, the Tohono
O’odham Nation, and the Gila River Indian Community. The
overall interaction with tribes has increased over the years even
with tribal assumption of SHPO responsibilities on tribal land
because tribes have increased their awareness of actions and
undertakings occurring off tribal land that are of concern, so in
reality SHPO tribal communications and interactions continue to
increase. Currently four additional tribes are actively pursuing the
take over SHPO responsibilities on tribal land. The Arizona SHPO
also consults with the Zuni tribe in New Mexico that owns land in
Arizona and has ancestral ties to many places in Arizona. Since the
1992 amendments to the NHPA most federal agencies working in
Arizona have developed working relationships and consulting
procedures with tribes. In 2006, Arizona’s Governor issued an
executive order requesting consultation by state agencies with
tribes. The SHPO has issued tribal consultation guidelines for state
and federal agencies that own historic properties including
archaeological sites.

Current Trends
Current trends within the historic preservation community include:
Historic Districts
There continues to be a strong interest in nominating historic
districts. Out of the 203 listed historic districts throughout Arizona,
128 are multiple owner residential and/or commercial districts with
over 18,000 contributing properties. Most of the current work on
historic district identification and nomination is done through our
Certified Local Government (CLG) program and often using CLG
historic preservation fund pass through grants. Many neighborhood
organizations sponsor the nomination of their neighborhoods and
raise the match for the pass through grant. One of the prime
motivations to nominate a neighborhood to the National Register as
a Historic District is the state historic property tax reclassification
program that, in the case of non-income producing properties
(primarily owner occupied residential properties), reduces the state
property tax classification rate from 10% full cash value to 5%. As
long as this tax incentive remains in place there should be a high
demand for district nominations and with the post-world war
building boom subdivisions becoming fifty years old there will be
increasing demand for inventory and evaluation of Fifties-era
buildings and related districts. Although the passage of Proposition
207 in 2006 (that addressed private property rights and municipal
zoning actions that may affect property value) has virtually stopped
historic district overlays at the local level there continues to be
interest in National Register historic district nominations that are
tied to potential property tax reductions. (See Appendix B: Historic
Designation and Residential Property Values.)

Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs)
Current Trends
The terminology Traditional Cultural Places (or Properties) derives
from the National Register Bulletin 38, currently under revision by

31

the National Park Service. TCPs are not one of the “property”
types defined in the National Register Bulletins, but rather they are
an overlay of significance linked to cultural identity. The concept
is often associated with tribal cultures, however it should be noted
tribes typically do not see these locations as properties [a more
Western concept], but rather as places [thus the term Traditional
Cultural Places] that are important to their traditional culture as
locations of cultural events, sacred ceremonies, gathering sites,
pathways, and environmental markers.

from a broader oral tradition linking together the entire landscape
associated with the ancestral lands claimed by Native American
groups. It is suspected that a future trend will involve embracing
entire storied landscapes from a Native American perspective. This
broader context is currently incongruent with the need for clearly
defined boundaries for a property’s inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places.
Loss of the Recent Past
Many distinctive property types from the Fifties and Sixties are
being lost well before any evaluation can be made as to their
significance or worthiness of preservation and well before they are
fifty years old. Modernist or International style banks, churches,
houses, service stations, motels, office buildings and fast food
restaurants are all disappearing. Changing transportation routes,
business consolidations, increased property values and functional
obsolescence all contribute to the problem. Although many
examples from this era are not worth preserving the undocumented
“cream of the crop” examples can be lost before their significance
is realized. The very first franchised McDonalds, the first
McDonalds with the Golden Arches, was actually constructed in
1953 in Phoenix on Central Avenue near Indian School Road but
unfortunately torn down before 1980. Most properties developed
between 1950 and 1970 were constructed under a 20-year lifetime
model of finance and usability. Contributing to the loss of these
resources is the lack of understanding as to the preservation
approaches to modern building materials including reinforced
concrete, glass and plastics (See Goal 8: Informed Professionals, p.
45).

TCPs are considered irreplaceable resources that define the unique
existence of a group of people, and have become an increasing
important issue in the domain of tribal consultation, something that
became obligatory for federal agencies with amendments to the
NHPA in 1992. These amendments to the NHPA came on the
heels of the passage of earlier federal legislation, such as the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in
1990, granting tribal entities cultural property rights. NAGPRA
fueled further Native American property rights, and started with
consideration of human remains, funerary objects, sacred items,
and objects of cultural patrimony. Throughout the 1990s as federal
agencies and tribal entities resolved the issues of repatriation, other
related issues related to Native American beliefs loomed up, TCPs
being one of these. These properties/places are perhaps best seen
as places of cultural patrimony.
Culture has always been a factor in assessing a property’s
worthiness of preservation, but the full consideration of the wide
range of TCPs has only recently been acknowledged. Consultation
with tribes and other traditional cultures is critical to understanding
the location, eligibility and treatment possibilities of TCPs. Often
tribes require information on TCPs, including locational
information, to be kept confidential.

Certified Local Government Program
In 1980 the National Historic Preservation Act was amended to
broaden the federal-state preservation partnership to include local
(towns, cities and counties) partners. Beginning in 1985, with
Florence first and Willcox second, Arizona’s Certified Local
Government (CLG) Program has grown to 27 communities ranging

Related to the issues of TCPs is the concept of a traditional cultural
landscape. The significance of many Native American TCPs stems

32

in size from Jerome, a National Historic Landmark with a
population of 343 to Phoenix, the capital of Arizona, with a
population of 1,552,259. In 2011, Pima County became the first
county CLG, establishing the precedent that historic preservation
programs may be extended beyond city and town boundaries. A
county CLG promises greater protection for archaeological
resources and rural landscapes ahead of development pressures.
Pima County in particular has been progressive in identifying and
protecting cultural resources through its comprehensive planning
process and its voter-approved bond programs. Most of the state’s
historic property survey efforts are coordinated and funded through
the CLG program.

their design and building code reviews mirror the Rehabilitation
Standards used by the state.
Arizona Heritage Fund/Grants
One of the greatest blows to historic preservation resulting from the
government funding crisis starting in 2009 was the elimination of
the Arizona Heritage Fund Grant Program by the Legislature. Since
approval by voter initiative in 1990, 508 matching grant projects
were funded by this program. Nearly $20 million in grant funds
leveraged an additional $25 million in matching funds on these
projects. While preservation advocates continue to consider
alternatives, no significant action has yet been taken to create a new
grant mechanism to promote preservation activities. Similarly,
federal grant programs like Save America’s Treasures and Preserve
America have not been funded since federal fiscal year 2011.

Tax Incentives
Tax incentives have played a major role in the preservation of
Arizona’s historic properties. Income tax incentives at the federal
level and property tax incentives at the state level have, in many
cases, been the impetus to find and nominate properties to the state
and national registers of historic places. The federal investment tax
credit is being sought on larger and larger rehabilitation projects
with the first $10 million plus credit application being processed in
2007. The Arizona SHPO and the Arizona Department of Revenue
have recently completed the clarification of rules and regulations
governing the in-state property tax reclassification program for
commercial (income producing) properties. The non-income
producing (home owner) historic property reclassification program
has grown to include 6,762 (by end of 2012), which is estimated to
be about one-third of the eligible properties. The main challenge to
managing properties in this program has been recent efforts to
design major additions, often exceeding the original square footage
of the property. Many house designers are not aware of the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and how to
make additions distinctive but compatible (See Goal 4: Integrated
Preservation Planning, p. 43). Another challenge is the need to
develop a close working relationships with the CLGs to make sure

Data Base Development and Electronic Processing
Electronic data base management is essential to the long-term
streamlining efforts for cultural resource management. Since its
inception in the 1990s, AZSITE has made tremendous advances in
the incorporation of cultural resources information and ease of use.
The AZSITE cooperative inventory has been designated by an
Executive Order (2006-03) by Arizona’s Governor as the official
statewide inventory of cultural resources.
As one of the founding members of the AZSITE Consortium, the
SHPO has seen its role change from creating parallel data base
systems to facilitating consolidation of other data sets into
AZSITE. This goal includes supporting the creation of a digital
report library. AZSITE currently tracks archaeological sites,
historic properties, standing structures, and projects (areas
surveyed). Additional GIS layers, such as canals, natural surface
waters, aerial photographs, and land ownership are also available
for research on AZSITE. The Arizona State Museum, Arizona State
University, the Museum of Northern Arizona/Northern Arizona

33

University, and the SHPO are consolidating their cultural resources
information and incorporating it into AZSITE.

with unsatisfactory results. More recently discussions with the
Arizona Department of Transportation and the Bureau of
Reclamation have led to an understanding that linear properties are
best defined as “structures” under the National Register definitions
of property types. These linear structures can be eligible for
historical associations (Criterion A) or for engineering design
(Criterion C) or both. Criterion A linear structures need to possess
integrity of location, materials, feeling and association while
Criterion C linear structures need to have integrity of design,
workmanship, materials and feeling.

In addition to participating with AZSITE, the Arizona SHPO is
currently testing the tracking of projects and properties by program
area and has developed initial upgrading of the electronic
compliance review process. The City of Phoenix and other
municipalities have been digitizing historic district property
inventory forms and related information in partnership with the
SHPO and AZSITE. Any institution that deals with historic
property management should work toward the computerization of
three levels of data management. First is the inventory of resources,
both historic and prehistoric. Second is the tracking of projects that
potentially affect historic properties. And finally is the creation of a
system that completes management actions electronically.

Cultural Landscapes
The identification of cultural landscapes (originally an internal
National Park Service landscape management classification
system) as historic properties in and of themselves is misguided.
The term “cultural landscape” is often defined in a geographic
sense that includes natural features as well as cultural features and
at the largest scale is synonymous with the definition of “heritage
area.” At the same time, significant open spaces and landscape
features have often been omitted from building, structure and
object nominations. Rightfully the inclusion of an “historic
designed landscape,” an “historic vernacular landscape” (such as a
farmstead), an “historic site landscape” and/or an “historic
ethnographic landscape” (such as a traditional cultural place) all
have their place within a building, structure, object, site or district
nomination. For eligibility and nomination purposes, it is important
to remember that “cultural landscape” should be used to describe a
feature within one of the official National Register property types
and that “cultural landscape” in and of itself is not a property type.
For example, in 2003 Arizona listed the Binghampton Rural
Historic Landscape (in Tucson) as an historic district with 59
contributing properties including a strong focus on agricultural
fields as vernacular cultural landscapes.

Linear properties
Recent efforts to inventory, determine eligibility and/or nominate
linear properties (including roads, canals, pipelines, transmission
lines, trails and railroads) have focused the need to clarify how
linear properties fit into the state and national registers of historic
places system of significance and integrity evaluation. Arizona’s
first linear nomination was for the Camino del Diablo, an 1848 trail
across southwestern Arizona, which was conceived as an historic
district with contributing features. When the nomination was
prepared for Route 66 across northern Arizona (1986) the
nomination was completed in a Multiple Property Form format
with the entire route across the state discussed in terms of
significance but only sections of the highway with high integrity
were officially nominated. Twenty years ago the Salt River Project
and the Bureau of Reclamation agreed that the major irrigation
canals in the Salt River Valley surrounding Phoenix were eligible
and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER)
documentation was done on all eligible canals but nominations
were never completed. In 2000, the Saguaro National Park pursued
eligibility of the park loop roads under a cultural landscape study

34

Stewardship
The preservation of historic properties from archaeological sites to
monumental buildings requires active stewardship. It is always in
the economic interest of owners of properties to take an active
interest in their preservation and maintenance, but properties on
public lands or owned by governmental agencies may not receive
adequate attention. For residential historic districts neighborhood
associations can provide needed stewardship oversight, but for
remote properties the need for monitoring can be forgotten.
Arizona has been very successful in developing a “stewardship
monitoring” program for archaeological sites called the Arizona
Site Steward Program. Currently with over 900 volunteers, this
program is the model for the nation. Even with 900 volunteers the
vandalism of properties and pot hunting activities continue at an
alarming rate.

Sustainability
Even before the energy crisis and the economic crisis, the climate
crisis brought sustainability to the forefront of public
consciousness. Now known as the “green movement,”
sustainability means “meeting the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.” Within the built environment sustainability has focused on
conservation metrics being applied to new construction such as the
LEED certification program of the US Green Building Council
(USGBC). Over the last two years preservation groups including
the National Trust for Historic Preservation have been working
with the USGBC and other metric providers to have existing
buildings better represented in the metric calculations. One oftenoverlooked concept is “embodied energy,” i.e., that energy already
represented by the standing building and the preservation of that
embodied energy in any rehabilitation.
!

Outside Influences
Outside influences on the historic preservation community include:

Smart Growth
Since the Second World War Arizona in general and Maricopa and
Pima Counties specifically have experience exponential population
growth. Most Arizona communities have little time to adequately
manage this growth let alone to fully take into consideration any
impact this growth has on cultural resources. Smart Growth does
not mean no growth. The smart growth movement is a backlash
against unmanaged sprawl. Basic principles of smart growth
include: 1) Encouraging advanced planning, 2) Planning that drives
zoning, 3) Targeting development that pays its own way, 4)
Developing pedestrian scaled environments, 5) Incorporating
planned open space, 6) Encouraging infill development, 7)
Encouraging protection of significant cultural properties within the
development area, if possible. The preservation community shares
many of these goals and preservation should be considered as part
of any smart growth program.

Economic Recession
The current slow pace of economic recovery appears likely to
endure for a considerable time. Whether one day we experience
renewed prosperity based on the “greening” of our infrastructure,
or with a prolonged era of relative stagnation is, of course,
impossible to predict. It would be foolish, however, to imagine that
our national condition will return more or less to what it had been
prior to the downturn. An economic transformation is occurring
that will have repercussions throughout our society and will affect
the historic preservation movement in several ways. Fortunately, it
is possible to see numerous advantageous avenues for historic
preservation to contribute to economic and social renewal. The
economic benefits of preservation have been well documented and
the energy benefits are becoming increasingly recognized.

35

New Urbanism/Neo-traditional Planning
Somewhat related to Smart Growth is “Neo-traditional Planning”
or the “New Urbanism.” New Urbanism is a community design
reform movement responding to the problems brought about by
urban and suburban sprawl most often associated with the
automobile. Characteristics of the New Urbanism include: 1)
Pedestrian oriented neighborhoods, 2) Public transit focus, 3)
Mixed-use development, 4) Axial placement of key buildings and
5) Contextual design. The neo-traditional aspect of this movement
refers to a return to neighborhood design patterns found before the
advent of the automobile (1900 to 1920) and design principles of
the City Beautiful movement. Obviously many historic properties
and historic districts reflect these neo-traditional design principles.

scale community-centered initiatives connecting local citizens with
the preservation planning process. Heritage Area designation at the
state or federal level help residents, businesses, governments, tribes
and non-profit organizations collaborate to promote conservation,
community revitalization, tourism and economic development. The
first National Heritage Area in Arizona is the Yuma Crossing
National Heritage Area designated in 2000. The goals of the Yuma
Crossing Heritage Area are: 1) The identification and conservation
of the cultural, historic and geologic resources, recognizing that
resource conservation is part of community revitalization, 2)
Assisting partners to develop a diversity of interpretative
opportunities, 3) Interpreting Yuma’s heritage resources to
emphasize their continuing role in a living, evolving community, 4)
Creating dynamic partnerships with federal, state and local entities,
5) Attracting visitors, investment and economic opportunity to
Yuma and 6) To create a gateway into Yuma that welcomes and
orients visitors to the significance of the area. Another area under
consideration is the Santa Cruz River Heritage Area that includes
portions of Pima and Santa Cruz Counties in Southern Arizona.

Regional Planning
Regional planning is the science of efficient placement of
infrastructure and zoning of land use for sustainable growth. The
concept of region varies but is usually inter-jurisdictional in nature
including more than one community, county or even state. Regional
planning attempts to coordinate land use and infrastructure
development within a better understanding of the underlying
natural and cultural resource base. In Arizona the best example of a
regional environmental approach to planning is the “Sonoran
Desert Conservation Plan” developed by Pima County. Plan
elements included: 1) Critical Habitat and Biological Corridors, 2)
Riparian Restoration, 3) Mountain Parks, 4) Historical and Cultural
Preservation and 5) Ranch Conservation. The plan was developed
using science-based principles shaped by public review and debate,
resulting in a plan that reflects community values.

Faux
Historic Preservation focuses on real resources and real places. At
the same time mainstream American culture is quite happy to
accept the use of fake or faux features or materials even to the point
of pursuing the reconstruction of historic or prehistoric structures.
Current trends also include the distressing of new materials to make
them appear older than they are. Many new houses are constructed
with tumbled brick or fake manufactured rocks, faux painted
gypsum wallboard, photographed wood flooring or wood grained
plastic doors. We either feel the need to put up an appearance of the
real or have decided that workmanship and real materials are too
expensive. It also appears we desire a “feeling” that our new world
should be older than we have time to wait for. All of these copies
devalue the real thing. If everyone can have fake marble, who
should respect real marble? There is a real need in a time of limited
resources to focus on real resources, especially in preserving the

Heritage Areas/Heritage Tourism
A “Heritage Area” is a place where natural, cultural, historic,
prehistoric, and recreational resources combine to form a
distinctive landscape arising from patterns of human activity that
have been shaped by the geographical setting. They expand on
traditional approaches to resource stewardship by supporting large-

36

real examples from the past instead of creating fake reconstructions
of fake historic resources using fake materials.

MySpace and Twitter, where even e-mailing is out of date let alone
reading the newspaper. Preserving resources for future generations
assumes that the next generation will want to be their stewards.
Without using all types of communication channels the message of
significance and meaning of historic resources could be lost.

Increased Density
Even in a state like Arizona, increased density of development is
having an effect on historic properties. In depression era or World
War II historic neighborhoods additions to contributing houses can
exceed the square footage of the originals. In warehouse districts
developers automatically pursue mezzanines inside the structures or
towering additions, next to, or on top of the existing buildings. In
historic downtowns, one or two story commercial buildings are
faced with twenty to thirty story neighbors. Does the meaning of
the single landmark change if the setting is radically altered? Does
the integrity of an historic district diminish if the back yards
become massive master bedroom suites? Historic Preservation
allows for the evolution of communities and neighborhoods but
increased density needs to occur in relationship to the historic
property not in spite of the historic property. Additions and
contextual development must defer to the historic property. Land
use planners and preservationists need to work together to meet
each other’s objectives with creative solutions to these issues. Just
saying no to either side will not solve the reality of the situation.

Homeland Security/Emergencies
Terrorist attacks and natural disasters have signaled the need to be
prepared in case of an emergency, at the same time day-to-day
obligations often delay proper planning for that unexpected
occurrence. While any rush to increase security especially along the
borders may trample on the very natural and cultural resources
trying to be protected, the necessity to plan for catastrophic events
and their effect on historic properties is real. Recent experience in
Arizona with wild fires, border crossings, and windstorms remind
us that emergency preparedness is a responsibility we cannot
continually put off addressing. Every historic property should have
an emergency action plan especially those properties set aside for
public visitation.
Private Property Rights/Proposition 207
In 2006, Proposition 207 was passed in Arizona that has had a
chilling effect on the local designation of historic districts as zoning
overlays. The proposition allowed property owners the right to seek
compensation if they believe local zoning changes have lowered
their property values. This has put a virtual stop to the local
designation of historic districts. The ability to quantify any loss of
value due to local zoning especially in the current real estate
downturn is at best complex. In fact, there is evidence that historic
designation may increase property values (see Appendix B). At the
same time increased value through additions or new construction
on one parcel could have an adverse effect on neighboring parcels.
Hopefully communities will find the necessary balance between
community planning objectives, historic preservation designation
and private property rights.

Internet/Social Media
As with the move to develop electronic databases and electronic
processing, the preservation community needs to utilize evolving
electronic communications systems and the Internet to inform the
public on preservation issues, resources and standards. Even though
preservationists are dealing with the existing built environment
their hope is to find properties worthy of preservation for future
generations. Therefore in order to instill in the next generation the
values of the past, preservationists need to understand and utilize
contemporary communication venues and techniques. The Internet
revolution has made possible rapid access to text and visual
information. Teenagers and young adults have already moved to
the social media world of texting, blogs, chat rooms, Facebook,

37

STATE PROPERTY TAX RECLASSIFICATION PROGRAM

which the homeowner agrees to maintain the property’s historic
character. Properties not so maintained are transferred back to
standard tax rates.

Participation in the State Property Tax (SPT) Reclassification
Program has grown steadily for over twenty years. In 2012, over
6,700 homeowners enjoyed the benefit of a substantial reduction in
their property taxes, helping them to maintain the historic character
of their property. The SPT program reclassifies non-income
producing property, which is generally owner-occupied residential,
as historic, reducing the base tax rate from 10 percent to 5 percent.

By far the largest portion of participants in the SPT program is
homeowners within historic districts. The rise in SPT participation
is a reflection of the increase in the number of historic districts that
are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The benefit of
the tax reclassification has been an important incentive in
encouraging the public to participate in historic preservation
programs. Peaks in the chart below typically follow the listing of
large historic districts or several districts in the same year.

The SPT program does not infringe on the rights of owners of
historic property. It is a voluntary tax reclassification of property in

!"#$%&'()'!%*'+,-'.%&/012/(34'
)!!"
(!!"
'!!"
&!!"
%!!"
$!!"
#!!"
!"
#*+'"#*+("#*+)"#*++"#*+*"#**!"#**#"#**$"#**%"#**&"#**'"#**("#**)"#**+"#***"$!!!"$!!#"$!!$"$!!%"$!!&"$!!'"$!!("$!!)"$!!+"$!!*"$!#!"$!##"$!#$"

38

Arizona Main Street Program
The SHPO has long partnered with the Arizona Main Street
Program when it was under the Department of Commerce. Main
Street has had a prominent venue at the annual Arizona Historic
Preservation Conference at which participating communities could
hear a variety of speakers and meet with preservationists from
across the state.

The most significant change to occur to the Arizona SHPO since
the time of the 2009 plan update was the acquisition of the Arizona
Main Street Program. Administration of Main Street previously
resided in the Arizona Department of Commerce, but when that
agency was eliminated by the Arizona Legislature the program was
left in limbo. In 2012, the Arizona SHPO signed a participant
agreement with the National Trust for Historic Preservation making
administration of the Main Street Program a SHPO responsibility.
It is a great challenge and a tremendous opportunity.

The current MS communities are: Sedona, Prescott, Show Low,
Pinetop-Lakeside, Casa Grande, Florence, Apache Junction,
Nogales, Florence, and Safford.

Main Street® is a community development program created over
thirty years ago by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Main Street® is encouraging revitalization of local economies
while preserving their local heritage and character. It does this
through the Main Street Four-Point Approach®, a preservationbased economic development tool that enables communities to
revitalize downtown and neighborhood business districts by
leveraging local assets—from historic, cultural, and architectural
resources to local enterprises and community pride. It is a
comprehensive strategy that addresses the variety of issues and
problems that challenge traditional commercial districts.
The Main Street Four-Point Approach®:
1. Organization
2. Promotion
3. Design
4. Economic Restructuring
The new agreement for SHPO to take over state-level
administration of Main Street was the direct result of the
commitment of the communities themselves to preserve the
program after the termination of the Department of Commerce.

Yavapai County Courthouse, Prescott

39

INVENTORY OF HISTORIC ARIZONA CEMETERIES

Summary Data for Inventory of Historic Arizona Cemeteries
by County

In anticipation of the Arizona Statehood Centennial, the Pioneers
Cemetery Association (PCA) and other concerned citizens began a
project to inventory historic cemeteries and gravesites around the
state. While initially conceived as a Centennial Legacy Project, in
2008, these citizens convinced the Legislature to pass a new law
giving the SHPO responsibility to identify and document historic
cemeteries. The inventory is conducted as a volunteer effort in
partnership with the PCA. The SHPO and the PCA have produced
a brochure to help inform the public about the new program and
has conducted workshops to train volunteers in filling out the
special cemetery inventory form. By the end of 2012, these
volunteers had recorded 540 cemeteries and gravesites. A SHPO
intern has been entering locational and descriptive information on
these cemeteries into a publically available GIS-based website.

Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
La Paz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
Total

40

24
89
23
27
24
17
13
71
13
32
47
50
38
53
19
540

Issues, Goals, and Objectives
Threats to Arizona’s Cultural Resources
Many forces threaten Arizona’s historic places, landmark buildings,
and prehistoric sites. One force we all recognize is the tremendous
influx of new residents into Arizona and the pressures it creates;
not just with new housing and subdivision sprawl, but also the
creation and modification of streets, highways, and business,
industrial, and social centers. And it is not just the metropolitan
areas struggling to adjust to rapid growth. Small towns and rural
Arizona face fundamental changes as thousands of new residents
arrive, attracted by Arizona’s natural beauty, climate and
recreational opportunities, yet in turn threatening the very thing
they were seeking. It’s true that hundreds of thousands of people
have only recently become Arizonans. Most are unaware of the rich
history that exists in this state, and even fewer identify it as their
own.

the financial base necessary for preservation. Few may know much
about Arizona’s history, but many want to learn. Many people want
to live in places where history is manifest. Neglected inner-city
neighborhoods and abandoned small towns can become desirable
places to live, when developers and city planners capitalize on the
qualities of historic buildings. Then there is the incredible demand
for places for recreation and relaxation. Tourism is one of the
state’s largest industries and historic places one of the biggest
draws. Small town main streets or isolated ranch houses may
become vibrant tourist attractions given the resources to preserve
the physical structures and the imagination to market them in an
appealing way. The demand is there—Arizonans do not want to
live in a cultural vacuum. It is the supply of cultural resources that
provides the solution. Protecting and maintaining our limited
resources depends upon property owners becoming stewards, on
preservation advocates becoming activists, and on governments
providing a general climate conducive to preservation and
historical entrepreneurship.

This problem is compounded for archaeological sites. Unlike
standing structures, many archaeological sites are indistinct
remnants of past cultures, which are hard for the layperson to
identify, let alone appreciate. Many of these have great cultural
value to the state’s Native Americans, values, that are not always
understood or appreciated by other Arizonans.

With the help of our government partners, the SHPO has made
important contributions to the identification, documentation, and
protection of Arizona’s historic resources. Still, the government
only amounts to a small portion of the effort needed to properly
care for our heritage. It is the people of Arizona that are the greatest
resource. Historic preservation is for them, and ultimately, it must
be by them as well. It is the duty of public preservationists to
ensure that our advocates within government, business, and the
general public have the tools they need to keep up the exceptional
work they have done, and will continue to do so. Our vision
statement emphasizes the importance of the relationship between
the public and the network of preservation professionals in
achieving the best management of our state’s history.

This lack of knowledge leads to lack of concern, and with little
understanding of the meaning of historic places, few are motivated
to preserve these reminders of the story of Arizona. What this
illustrates is an environment that contributes to the continuing loss
of our state’s significant heritage resources. These threats to our
resources are real, and once a resource is lost, it can never be
replaced.
Opportunities
As real as these threats are, the forces that create them also bring
opportunity. Growth brings with it prosperity which can provide
41

The Framework for Planning
Summarized below are the goals identified to achieve the
preservation mission, with an explanation of the underlying vision
and a set of step-by-step objectives leading toward attainment of
the goal. The following chapter sets the five-year action plan
toward achieving these objectives.

4. Recognize and support stewardship efforts of historic
properties.
5. Encourage historic preservation planning early in project
development.
6. Support stronger archaeological protection laws at the state
level.
For Citizens at Large:
1. Support historic preservation efforts.
2. Support designation of historic properties.
3. Publicize threats to historic properties.

Toward Effective Management of Historic Resources
Goal 1: Better Resource Management
Vision: Having a partnership of public and private programs and
incentives 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.

Objectives
For the Preservation Community:
1. Identify priority historic context (important themes in
history) as the basis for survey and inventory.
2. Nominate the best examples of properties identified by
priority themes.
3. Anticipate future preservation concerns by encouraging
interest in the recent past, including important less-than-50years-old themes and property types.
4. Encourage conservation of historic properties.
5. Take exemplary care of each preservation community’s
properties.
6. Incorporate historic preservation planning early in project
development.
For the SHPO:
1. Promote local historic property survey efforts.
2. Promote district and multiple resource nominations.
3. Promote adaptive reuse of historic properties.

Objectives
For the Preservation Community:
1. Continue to develop inventory databases in cooperation with
AZSITE or compatible with AZSITE.
2. Submit cultural resources information to AZSITE
3. Create historic property “Master Files” that track all actions
affecting an historic property.
For the SHPO:
1. Expand AZSITE as the principal electronic database
inventory for all historic properties and cultural resources.
2. Implement electronic processing and monitoring of all
SHPO programs.
3. Support AZSITE through pass-through funding and the
establishment of the AZSITE digital library.
For Citizens at Large:
1. Support AZSITE as Arizona’s “official” cultural resource
inventory.
2. Support access security for historic resource data bases.

42

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.

3. Consult with tribes regarding traditional cultural places.
For the SHPO:
1. Monitor state agency compliance with the State Historic
Preservation Act.
2. Work with agencies and consultants to improve report
quality
3. Seek to include historic preservation into community
development initiatives.
4. Seek to identify and resolve systemic federal agency issues
under Section 106 compliance requirements including the
use of Programmatic Agreements.
5. Assist and support tribal preservation efforts.
6. Support the local planning efforts of Certified Local
Governments.
7. Encourage creation of additional Certified Local
Governments.
8. Integrate SHPO planning and resource management with the
State’s disaster management program.
For Citizens at Large:
1. Recognize the historic preservation/planning connection.
2. Participate in public forum and polling opportunities.

Objectives
For the Preservation Community:
1. Develop project partnerships.
2. Monitor grant opportunities.
3. Integrate historic preservation focus toward Arizona’s
second century.
For the SHPO:
1. Post funding possibilities on website.
2. Over subscribe the Certified Local Government passthrough allocations.
3. Utilize volunteers and interns.
For Citizens at Large:
1. Volunteer.
2. Support funding at authorized levels.
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.

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

Objectives
For the Preservation Community:
1. Integrate historic preservation principles and policies into
plans and projects.
2. Improve understanding of Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation for owners of buildings
wanting substantial additions.
2. Include a “Historic Preservation Element” in
Comprehensive Plans.

Objectives:
For the Preservation Community:
1. Increase communication efforts between preservation
network members.
2. Support historic preservation non-profit efforts.

43

3. Initiate the creation of new and expanded preservation
programs by working with the Legislature and through the
citizens initiative process (tax incentives, Heritage Fund).
For the SHPO:
1. Attend and/or participate in partner conferences.
2. Seek new program partners.
3. Continue to assist tribes.
4. Strengthen programming with the Certified Local
Governments.
5. Use social media and other emerging trends to improve
communications with CLG and Main Street communities.
6. Encourage additional county CLGs.
7. Host an annual statewide historic preservation conference.
8. Increase public awareness of the connection between
historic preservation and larger environmental concerns
(Green Movement, climate change)
For Citizens at Large:
1. Join historic preservation organizations
2. Suggest new partnership opportunities.
3. Share the stewardship message/ethic.

2. Promote Arizona Archaeology and Heritage Awareness
Month and the Archaeology Expo.
3. Coordinate communications with the State Parks public
information officer.
For Citizens at Large:
1. Become informed on current preservation issues and topics.
2. Share your perspective on preservation issues with others.
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.
Objectives:
For the Preservation Community:
1. Brief policy makers on historic preservation issues.
2. Encourage preservation legislation related to Main Street
program, Arizona Heritage Fund, and tax incentives.
3. Promote legislation at the state and local levels to create a
“level playing field” between existing buildings and new
construction (development fees, comprehensive planning
mandates, repair vs. new construction).
For the SHPO:
1. Distribute State Plan to policy makers.
2. Prepare Annual Reports.
3. Answer policy maker requests.
4. Monitor CLGs and Main Street communities.
For Citizens at Large:
1. Monitor policy maker opinions.
2. Vote.

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.
Objectives:
For the Preservation Community:
1. Use all media forms to communicate the preservation
message.
2. Publicize current historic preservation issues.
3. Expand historic properties awareness to new Arizona
residents
For the SHPO:
1. Continue to update and expand the SHPO-Arizona State
Parks web site.

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 identification, evaluation, and
treatment are applied to the state’s historic properties.

44

Objectives:
For the Preservation Community:
1. Support continuing education opportunities.
2. Share “Best Practices” between professionals.
3. Advocate for historic preservation programs in the public
universities.
4. Improve understanding of preservation techniques involving
modern materials like reinforced concrete, glass and
plastics.
For the SHPO:
1. Schedule training opportunities.
2. Focus on professionals at the statewide conference.
3. Distribute preservation information from the National Park
Service.
4. Review current policies.
5. Partner with the universities, NPS and other institutions for
the development of internship programs integrating
academic studies with public professional practices.
For Citizens at Large:
1. Insist on continuing education credentials.
2. Only use qualified consultants.

45

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

46

Selected Bibliography

Birchard, Bill, Nature’s Keepers: The Remarkable Story of How
The Nature Conservancy Became the Largest Environmental
Organization in the World, (San Francisco, California: JosseyBass, 2005).

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Identification of
Historic Properties: A Decisionmaking Guide For Managers,
(Washington, D.C.: Advisory Council, 1988).

Birnbaum, Charles A. and Christine Capella Peters, 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).

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Public Participation in
Section 106 Review: A Guide for Agency Officials,
(Washington, D.C.: Advisory Council, 1989).
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Section 106P Step-byStep, (Washington, D.C., Advisory Council, 1986).

Center for Desert Archaeology, Preserving the Places of Our
Shared Past: Strategic Plan, 2010.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Section 110
Guidelines: Annotated Guidelines for Federal Agency
Responsibilities Under Section 110 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, (Washington, D.C.: Advisory Council, 1989).

City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Commission, Ten Vital Years
in the History of Phoenix, (Phoenix: City of Phoenix, 1997).
Collins, William S., The New Deal in Arizona, (Phoenix: Arizona
State Parks Board, 1999).

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36 CFR Part 800:
Protection of Historic Properties, (Washington, D.C.: Advisory
Council, 1986).

Collins, William S., The Emerging Metropolis: Phoenix, 19441973, (Phoenix, Arizona State Parks Board, 2005).

Archaeology Southwest, 2012 Annual Report.

Cunningham, Storm, The Restoration Economy: The Greatest New
Growth Frontier: Immediate & Emerging Opportunities for
Businesses, (San Francisco, California: Berrett-Koehler, 2002).

Arizona Archaeological Advisory Commission, Presenting the Past
to the Public: Guidelines for the Development of
Archaeological Parks in Arizona, (Phoenix, Arizona State
Parks Board, 1997.)

Dehart, H. Grant, “Key Issues for the Future of the Preservation
Movement,” A background paper for the 45th Annual
Preservation Conference, National Trust for Historic
Preservation, March 15, 1991.

Arizona Hospitality Research & Resource Center, Northern
Arizona University, The Economic Impact of Arizona State
Parks, (Phoenix: Arizona State Parks Board, 2009).

Doyle, Gerald A., Lyle M. Stone, and Richard E. Lynch, Arizona
Heritage Fund Historic Preservation Five-Year Plan,
(Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona State Parks Board, 1992).

Ayres, James E., Carol Griffith and Teresita Majewski, Historical
Archaeology in Arizona: A Research Guide, (Phoenix: Arizona
State Parks Board, 2008.
47

Eadie, Douglas, Taking Command of Change: A Practical Guide
for Applying the Strategic Development Process in State
Historic Preservation Offices (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency
Resources Division, 1995).

National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, 1990).
National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division,
Preservation Planning Branch, A Planning Companion for
NPS-49 Chapters 6, 30, and 31: Suggestions for Designing and
Implementing a State Preservation Planning Process,
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1993).

Grants Section, FY 2007 Annual Report for Grant Programs,
(Phoenix: Arizona State Parks Board, 2007).
Growing Smarter Commission, Growing Smarter Final Report,
(Phoenix: Growing Smarter Commission, 1999).
Kelly, Eric D., Community Planning: An Introduction to the
Comprehensive Plan, (2000).

Osborne, David, and Peter Plastrik, Banishing Bureaucracy: The
Five Strategies for Reinventing Government, (Reading, Mass.:
Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1996).

Kelly, Stephanie B., Community Planning: How to Solve Urban
and Environmental Problems, (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, 2004).

Osborne, David, and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing Government: How
the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector,
(Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1992).

King, Thomas F., Cultural Resource Laws and Practice: An
Introductory Guide, (Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira Press,
2004).

Rich, Jacqueline, et al, Governor’s Task Force on Historic
Preservation: Final Report, (Phoenix: Arizona Governor’s
Office of Economic Planning and Development, 1981).

Laurent, Steven, et al., Arizona Historic Preservation Plan,
(Phoenix: Arizona State Parks Board, 1996).

Rypkema, Donovan D., The Economics of Historic Preservation: A
Community Leader’s Guide, (Washington, D.C.: National Trust
for Historic Preservation, 1994).

Lawson, Barry L., Ellen P. Ryan, and Rebecca Bartlett Hutchison,
Reaching Out, Reaching In: A Guide to Creating Effective
Public Participation in State Historic Preservation Planning,
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1993).

State Historic Preservation Office, Annual Work Plan (various
years) (Phoenix: Arizona State Parks Board.
State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona Historic Preservation
Plan. Update 2000, (Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona State Parks
Board, 2001).

National Park Service, National Register Program Guidelines
(NPS-49), (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, 1990).

48

State Historic Preservation Office, Historic Context Studies
(various titles), (Phoenix, Arizona State Parks Board).
Travis, Tara, Historic Preservation Myth Series, (Phoenix: Arizona
State Parks Board, 2000).
Vegors, Wallace, An Interim Plan for Historic Preservation in
Arizona, (Phoenix: Arizona State Parks Board, 1970).
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
Reconstructing Historic Buildings, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995).
White, Bradford J., Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan,
(Chicago: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory
Service, 1994).

49

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

50

APPENDIX A
SHPO FIVE-YEAR ACTION PLAN
The following pages outline the specific steps the State Historic
Preservation Office will be undertaking with our preservation
partners toward achieving the eight goals described in the previous
chapter.
A few notes on the format of the Action Plan: The action steps are
organized by section according to the planning goal addressed.
Seven years are shown on the chart although this plan only
specifically addresses actions taken during the middle five. Because
it is important to know where progress on a certain goal has been
made to date, the initial (dotted) box to far left gives some
perspective on the goal as it stands at the beginning of the planning
cycle. At the far right is another dotted box emphasizing future
related actions or specific objectives to be reached. The action steps
relate strategically year-to-year (left-to-right across the page), and
each step builds upon the previous working toward the stated goal.
This format attempts to show the strategic cause and effect of
actions, and the direction of tasks on a yearly-planning basis.
The Plan will be updated for the National Park Service at the end of
this five-year cycle, but the action plan component will be updated
by the SHPO each year through a process of consultation with our
partners in the preservation network. Each summer, the Arizona
State Parks Board will approve that year’s action agenda as the
SHPO work plan, while at the same time reviewing the updated
five-year cycle for longer term planning.

51

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN PLANNING CYCLE
2012

2013

2014

2016

2017

2018

FY14

Plan Review
and Update

FY15

FY16

2019

New Planning Process

Plan Adoption

Planning Process

FY13

2015

FY17

FY18
Plan Review
and Update

Five Year Action Plan

Annual Work Plans
Biannual Budget Cycle
Biannual Budget Cycle
Biannual Budget Cycle

Strategic Plan Updates
State Historic Preservation Office
52

2013-14 (FY2014) Work Program Task List

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

For the purposes of illustration, the SHPO’s annual work program
task list for FY 2014 is included in this Plan. In general, the tasks
falling under the heading ‘Basic Tasks’ do not change from year to
year. ‘Proactive Tasks’ are those special projects and initiatives
undertaken to fulfill the mission statement and are removed from
the list when completed. The annual work program task list is
reviewed and approved by the Arizona State Parks Board.

Complete reviews within designated time frames.
Meet with agencies and visit project and property locations.
Assist in Section 106 and State Act training opportunities.
Provide technical assistance to agencies.
Summarize activities for reporting purposes.
Coordinate with Grants Section on federal and state compliance.
Prepare State Agency Compliance Report.

Proactive Tasks:
• Continue entering legacy data into AZSITE.
• Work with state and federal agencies and NCSHPO to update
critical Programmatic Agreements, or to generate new PAs.
• Develop electronic compliance policies and procedures.
• Explore a new SHPO projects database using a commercially
available program.
• Assist federal agencies to work on Congressionally mandated
projects.
• Work with agencies and tribes on TCP issues including
ethnographic landscapes.
• Assist NPS with Bulletin 38 revisions.
• Assist NPS on cultural landscape designations.
• Develop compliance streamlining ISA with ASP.
• Continue development and updating of “SHPO Guidance Points.”

Program Administration
Basic Tasks:
• Present Policy, Program and Process Recommendations to the
Parks Board.
• Pursue multiple funding sources for programs and staffing.
• Prepare NPS End-of-year Report and new HPF application.
• Monitor state and federal administrative requirements.
• Sort, log and process incoming communications.
• Document outgoing correspondence.
• Monitor expenditures and budget limits.
• Provide administrative and program staff to GAAC.
• Monitor preservation legislation.

Survey and Inventory:

Proactive Tasks:
• Seek out new program partners and funding.
• Monitor NPS/HPF Grant funding process.
• Continue copying of SHPO documents into electronic formats.
• Seek staff training opportunities.
• Assist in implementation of ASP Tribal Policy Document.

Basic Tasks:
• Coordinate with federal and state agencies, local communities,
and CLGs on local survey efforts and priorities, including
archaeological sites and districts.
• Process internal determinations-of-eligibility.
• Process incoming inventory forms.
• Provide survey technical assistance to communities.
• Maintain electronic and paper inventory records.
• Share inventory data with AZSITE.

Compliance:
Basic Tasks:
• Review federal and state agency undertakings.
53

•

Planning:

Monitor Historic Cemetery Inventory Program.

Basic Tasks:
• Review CLG annual reports and work plans.
• Coordinate with ASPB planning and budget requirements.
• Align annual task list with updated State Historic Preservation
Plan.
• Collect statistical information for NPS annual report.

Proactive Tasks:
• Continue computerization of inventory legacy data.
• Consolidate and correct site and project information in the SHPO
and AZSITE databases.
• Explore Internet access to the building database.
National/State Registers:

Proactive Tasks:
• Monitor implementation of the State Historic Preservation Plan.
• Monitor the designation of Heritage Areas/Corridors.
• Pursue partnership for local planning workshops.
• Expand advanced planning efforts and briefings with Federal and
State agencies.
• Explore development of new “historic context,” especially
“mega-contexts.”
• Assist partnership groups (cities, counties and tribes) with
historic preservation planning efforts and compliance.
• Assist state and federal agencies to better integrate tribal input
into the planning process.

Basic Tasks:
• Process nominations from external sources.
• Review federal and state agency nominations.
• Coordinate with CLGs on nomination review.
• Provide technical assistance to property owners, consultants and
agencies.
• Coordinate with CLGs, Arizona Main Street communities and
Neighborhood Associations on district update needs.
• Monitor continued eligibility of NR/SR and NHL Properties.
• Monitor historic cemetery inventory.
• Facilitate HSRC meetings and peer review of nominations.
• Report on activities of HSRC.

Grants:

Proactive Tasks:
• Continue development of ROPE process.
• Work with our partners including CLGs on proactive NRHP
projects.
• Assist with NHL monitoring and reviews.
• Encourage archaeological nominations, especially districts, as
appropriate.
• Use interns in nomination preparation and updates when possible.
• Assign HP Conference sessions for HSRC and consultant
training on NRHP issues.
• Develop guidance on the eligibility of linear/network properties.

54

Basic Tasks:
• Review and monitor NPS funded grants.
• Coordinate HPF CLG Pass-through Program emphasizing
planning efforts.
• Inspect and monitor grants and easements for compliance.
• Monitor covenants and easements.
Proactive Tasks:
• Seek grants with partners for proactive program goals.
• Explore funding approaches for the Main Street Program.
• Monitor e-Civis.

Arizona Main Street Program

Proactive Tasks:
• Explore revising tax incentives for commercial historic
properties.
• Explore interaction with the realty community on the SPT
Program.
• Monitor any proposed incentive legislation.
• Explore incentives for archaeological site preservation.

Basic Tasks
• Assist cities and towns to become Main Street Communities.
• Monitor existing Main Street programs
• Submit annual plan and report on the program
Proactive Tasks
• Integrate archaeology considerations into Main Street Program.
• Update Main Street Program plan.

Public Education:
Basic Tasks:
• Continue Annual Historic Preservation Conference
• Continue Archaeology & Heritage Awareness Month (AAHAM)
and the Archaeology Expo.
• Assist with the Site Stewards Program activities and training in
coordination with program partners.
• Participate in the Heritage Preservation Honor Awards with APF.
• Provide support to GAAC and their Awards in Public
Archaeology.
• Monitor and update ASP/SHPO website as needed.

Certified Local Governments:
Basic Tasks:
• Assist Counties in their CLG designation efforts.
• Assist Communities to become CLGs.
• Monitor CLGs.
• Provide technical assistance on preservation issues.
Proactive Tasks:
• Recommend integration of State Plan Goals into CLGs Historic
Preservation Plans.
• Explore model archaeological ordinances for use by CLG cities
and counties.

Proactive Tasks:
• Coordinate sessions at partner conferences.
• Provide training opportunities to agencies and the public.
• Seek funding for AAHAM and the Expo.
• Target preservation professionals for training opportunities.
• Explore greater use of “Social Media.”

Tax Incentives:
Basic Tasks:
• Provide technical assistance to Tax Act and SPT program
applicants.
• Process Tax Act and SPT applications.
• Prepare SPT Program status report.
• Review participant reports, status and proposed projects.
• Review Commercial Historic Property Tax Projects.

Technical Assistance:
Basic Tasks:
• Provide technical assistance on historic property treatments.
• Provide technical assistance on survey and inventory techniques.
• Provide technical assistance on property nominations.
• Provide technical assistance to CLGs.
55

•
•
•

Provide technical assistance to tribes.
Provide technical assistance on archaeological
mitigation/treatment measures.
Provide technical assistance to Main Street communities.

ABBREVIATIONS GLOSSARY

56

106
110
AAC
AAHAM
ACHP
AHAC
AHF
APF
ASLAPR
ASM
ASP
ASU
AZSITE
CLG

Sect. 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Sect. 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act
Arizona Archaeological Council
Arizona Archaeology and Heritage Awareness Month
Advisory Council for Historic Preservation
Arizona Historical Advisory Commission
Arizona Heritage Fund
Arizona Preservation Foundation
Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records
Arizona State Museum
Arizona State Parks
Arizona State University
Statewide Inventory of Cultural Resources
Certified Local Government

DOE
GAAC
HPF
HSRC
MPDF
NCSHPO
NHL
NHPA
NPS
NRHP
PA
ROPE
SHPO
SPT
SRHP
TCP

Determination of Eligibility
Governor’s Archaeological Advisory Commission
Historic Preservation Fund
Historic Sites Review Committee\
Multiple Property Documentation Form
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers
National Historic Landmark
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Programmatic Agreement
Recommendation of Preliminary Eligibility
State Historic Preservation Office
State Property Tax [Program]
Arizona State Register of Historic Places
Traditional Cultural Place

APPENDIX B
owner-occupied houses in National Register-listed historic districts
enjoy an additional benefit from the State of Arizona historic
property tax reclassification program, which translates to an even
higher rate of return to homeowners.

HISTORIC DESIGNATION AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES

One of the most frequently asked questions regarding historic
designation is the effect it may have on private property values. In
numerous studies across the country, economists have found that
Fears that historic designation will harm property owners' return on
historic designation, either on the National Register of Historic
investment have been found to be groundless. By instilling pride in
Places or a local register or both, has no negative impact on the
neighborhood, encouraging reinvestment, and controlling against
sales price of residential property. In many instances, the effect is
incompatible development, historic districts are a valuable tool in
highly positive with sales prices increasing at a higher rate than
maintaining the economic viability of older neighborhoods as
other comparable properties. Of course, the impact of historic
livable communities for home-owning households.
designation can vary considerably according to the particular local
conditions, but the general pattern is consistent and clear. Historic
designation does not restrain property
Chart 1. Residential Property Values in City Historic Districts
value growth compared with non300
historic property and often is associated
with accelerating growth well above
that of non-historic property.
These conclusions were demonstrated
in a 2007 study of the economic effects
of historic designation in the City of
Phoenix. Phoenix has had for many
years an active historic preservation
program and 35 neighborhoods are now
listed on the City's historic property
register, the National Register of
Historic Places, or both. The results of
the study are summarized in the chart
below. Controlling for the size of the
house, residential sales prices in Citydesignated historic districts can be seen
to be increasing at a slightly greater rate
than residential property in Phoenix as
a whole. Furthermore, single-family,

Mean Sales Price/Square Foot

250

200

All Districts

150

City Districts Only
City Average

100

50

0
1993

1994

1995

1996

57

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2013 UPDATE TO PHOENIX RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUES
STUDY

Through analysis of assessed property values, this update
investigates the additional question of whether the Arizona historic
state property tax (SPT) program has had a substantial effect on the
total property taxes paid by homeowners in historic districts.
Between 2006 and 2011, the sale price of single-family, detached
houses in the City of Phoenix declined from $173.71 per square
foot to a low of $67.21, a decline of 61.3 percent. Prices recovered
to $86.08 in 2012 and have continued to rise during the first half of
2013 (not included in this update). Chart 1 illustrates this trend and
also shows trend lines for properties in City and National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP) listed districts.2
The trend line for properties within NRHP districts follows very
closely the trend of Class 131 property, apart from a temporary rise
that occurred in 2010. Sale prices of houses within NRHP districts
declined from a high of $265.35 (per square foot) in 2006 to a low
of $118.85 in 2011, a decline of 55.2 percent. At the end of the
period in 2012, following a notable rise in housing prices, Class
131 housing sold at an average of $86.08 and property within
historic districts at an average of $139.76. This means that between
2006 and 2012, all Class 131 housing declined 50.5 percent,
compared to a decline of 47.3 percent for historic districts.
Comparing these trends with those of Chart 1 (2007: 8) indicates
that through the 1990s and up to the Great Recession the sale value
of property designated historic diverged positively from the
Phoenix average. Just prior to the Great Recession, property within
historic districts had a price premium of just under 53 percent
during 2006 and 2007. Between 2008 and 2012, this premium

The 2007 study ended at approximately the peak of the
residential housing boom when residential property values in
Phoenix, as in most of the rest of the United States, rose to
unprecedented and unsustainable heights. The collapse of the
housing bubble between 2007 and 2011 greatly reduced property
sales values and, with some delay, reduced assessed property
values, thus contributing to a substantial decline in tax revenues.
This event, dubbed the Great Recession, marked the greatest and
longest reversal of residential property values that Arizona has
experienced since the Great Depression of the 1930s. This update
examines the impact of the Great Recession on sales value of
historic houses to determine whether recent economic trends have
had a disproportionate impact on historic property, either positively
or negatively, compared with price changes in the market as a
whole.
This update does not reproduce the hedonic modeling used
previously. Neither does it examine trends district by district.
Factors identified previously as significant and their signs (positive
or negative) are presumed to remain relevant although their
magnitude may have varied. In this update data on sales values are
tracked in order to compare the trend in the average price of houses
to that of historically designated property. The study area remains
the same thirty zip code areas of the City of Phoenix and covers the
period from 2006 to 2012. Although foregoing regression analysis
tools, this study makes two simplifications in order to make data
more comparable. First, the results presented here consider only
those properties classified by the Maricopa County Assessor as
Class 131 single-family residential.1 Second, sale and assessed
values are calculated per square foot.

131 housing alone, which is unsurprising since Class 131 constitutes
nearly eighty percent of the total sample. See the 2007 study for
discussion of the influence of these classifications as independent factors.
2
The separate trend line for properties in City historic districts ends in
2010. Between 2007 and 2010, the remaining City districts not yet listed
in the NRHP were so listed, ending the anomaly of districts being locally
designated but not nationally.

1

This study was limited to Class 131 for pedagogical purposes. Data on
all single-family, owner-occupied housing, Classes 111, 121, 131, 141,
151, 161, and 181 was compiled and analyzed. The trend lines for the
larger body of residential housing is nearly identical that that of the Class
58

Chart 7. City of Phoenix, Residential Class 131
Average Sales Value per Square Foot
&!!"

%#!"

!"##$%&'

%!!"
+,,"-,.//"$&$"01/231452.,"
625724"809:";<"-25=">2/5<2?5"

$#!"

809:"-;45<2@A5;</"
809:"8;4?;45<2@A5;</"

$!!"

#!"

!"
%!!'"

%!!("

%!!)"

%!!*"

%!$!"

generally increased to over 70 percent in 2008, 2010, and 2011,
with 2009 exhibiting an unusual 36.7 percent, before settling at
62.3 percent in 2012.

%!$$"

%!$%"

historic SPT reclassification program. Over time, as more
properties enter the program the reduced property tax rate should
be capitalized into the price of the house, raising the premium for
historic designation. Since that time, the City of Phoenix has ceased
designation of new historic districts and at the present there are no
neighborhoods actively pursuing NRHP listing.3 We may speculate

Using the results from the 2007 study, we may venture some
explanatory statements regarding these observations. Between 2007
and 2010, fifteen City districts were listed in the NRHP, with
eleven listed in 2010 alone. Following listing, property classified as
Contributing qualified and began receiving certification to the

3

Since Arizona voters approved Proposition 207 in 2006, no city or town
has created a new locally designated historic district. The proposition
requires compensation to private property owners should a government

59

that within a few years, most of the qualifying property will receive
the tax benefit and the price premium should stabilize.4
Properties within NRHP districts are further classified as either
Contributing or Noncontributing, with only the former qualifying
for the property tax benefit. Chart 7 includes separate trend lines
for each of these and, consistent with the 2007 findings,
Contributors enjoys a substantial sales price premium above
Noncontributors.
Throughout the study period, the proportion of sales of property
within NRHP districts was remarkably stable at between 86 and 88
percent Contributing with the remainder Noncontributing. With this
high proportion, the Contributing trend line matches very closely
the overall trend of all properties within NRHP district. The
Noncontributing trend line diverges somewhat as a result of the
relatively small number of such properties sold each year, but
overall follows the general trend.

Analysis of Assessed Values and Effect on Total Tax Revenues
The 2007 study examined only the relationship between sales
value and various independent variables. The 2013 update also
examines the trend lines of assessed valuation from which we may
estimate the total effect on property tax revenues resulting from the
historic property tax reclassification program. These are illustrated
in Chart 8. Assessed value is established by the Maricopa County
Assessor’s Office based on a formula that includes the sales value
of comparable housing. Assessed values lag behind changes in
sales value, as shown in Chart 8 where the peak occurs in 2008,
two years after the peak in sales prices. The trend line falls through
2011, where the data set ends, but will presumably rise again
following the general rise in house prices in 2012 and 2013.
Over the period 2006 to 2011, Contributing property averaged
about 60 percent higher assessed value than the Class 131 average.
Noncontributing property had a premium of about 40 percent. By
itself and without the SPT program, these higher assessed values
would mean proportionately higher taxes. Noncontributors do in
fact pay more because, again, they do not qualify for the tax break.
Noncontributors and non-participating Contributors paid
approximately 40 and 60 percent more, respectively, in property
taxes than the Class 131 average. The enhanced assessed value of
all property in NRHP districts implies higher total tax revenues.
Given the steady 87:13 percent proportion of Contributors to
Noncontributors, the 40 percent higher assessed value for
Noncontributors should result, ceteris paribus, in approximately
5.2 percent greater property tax revenue to the government.
Calculating tax revenue from Contributors is complicated by
three factors. First, such property as stated above averaged about 60
percent higher in assessed value than the Class 131 average during
the study period. At the same time, the property tax rate paid by
participating Contributors is substantially lower, but unfortunately
for ease of calculation, not fixed. Property tax on single-family,
detached, owner-occupied housing in Arizona is normally
calculated on 10 percent of assessed value. For participants in the

regulation result in a reduced the value for the property. Despite consistent
evidence that historic designation results in higher property values, public
policy has been ruled by the common belief that such designation will
reduce property values.
4
The historic property tax reclassification program is voluntary on the
part of homeowners and not an automatically granted entitlement.
Homeowners must agree to keep the house according to minimum
maintenance standards and allow the State Historic Preservation Office to
review alterations that might affect the historic character of the property.
One hundred percent participation has never and likely will never be
reached because some owners are unaware of the benefit and other object
on ideological grounds. Also, because rental property does not qualify,
some houses may come into or leave the program as their use status
changes. The participation rate in the Encanto-Palmcroft and Willo
historic districts is about 85 and 83 percent of potentially qualifying
property, respectively. These being among the oldest districts in Phoenix
and among those with the highest property values (and thus greatest
potential tax saving), these participation rates may represent a stable
maximum.
60

SPT program the rate is only 5 percent. The total
tax payment is not, however, cut in half because
of a third factor. Most Arizona homeowners
receive an educational tax credit rebated from
their property taxes. This credit is proportional to
the assessed value of the home and is capped at
$300. This credit is unavailable to historic
property in the reclassification program. As a
result, the total tax savings homeowners enjoy is
somewhat less than the 50 percent the lower rate
would imply. Further, because the credit is
capped the total savings rate approaches 50
percent as a limit as the value of the house
increases. In other words, the more valuable the
historic house, the higher the rate of tax savings.
As a general rule of thumb, typical owners of
historic property may see tax savings in the mid40s percent.
The 50 percent rate cut can serve as the upper
limit of the tax reduction which, when applied to
the average 60 percent premium, calculates to a
20 percent discount from what average Class 131
property owners paid during the period. Given
87 percent as the upper limit of potentially
qualifying properties, this means that total tax
revenues from Contributors could be reduced by
a maximum of 17.4 percent.5 Taken in sum with

5

The 2007 study disaggregated among Contributors participating and not
participating in the property tax program, with the former enjoying a
substantial sale price premium as well as all of the tax benefit. However,
for this update all Contributors are aggregated and the tax effect averaged
between both participants and nonparticipants.
61

the additional 5.2 percent paid by the Noncontributors implies a
total potential tax revenue decline from historic districts of 12.2
percent. To restate the point, if every potential Contributor to
Phoenix historic districts joined the SPT program, and given the
87:13 proportion of Contributors to Noncontributors, and using the
60 percent/40 percent average assessed value premium derived for
Contributors and Noncontributors, respectively, total tax revenue
received by the state from these districts should be no more than
12.2 percent less than if they were valued and taxed at the average
rate for their class.
For the reasons stated above, the effective tax rate enjoyed by
reclassified historic property will be greater than 5 percent. No
study has yet determined the precise average rate, but for
illustrative purposes, a rate of 5.5 percent can be used as a
reasonable estimate. This would be a 45 percent reduction in rate
from the standard rate paid by typical Class 131 houses. Using the
same method as in the paragraph above, this rate suggests a tax
revenue reduction, Contributors and Noncontributors combined, of
only 5.2 percent. These calculations presume full participation by
all potentially qualifying Contributing property, but as noted not
every property that qualifies actually participates. Qualifying but
non-participating property not only continues to pay at the higher
10 percent rate, but applies that rate to the enhanced assessed value.
If we indulge in a presumption that, say, 80 percent of qualifying
property actually participates in the program, the range for tax
revenue reduction would fall from 5.2 to 12.2 percent to a range of
3.2 to 8.7 percent.
The above calculations are important because the common
perception among the public policy makers and even most
preservationists is that the historic property tax reclassification
program cuts property taxes in half. It is then commonly, though
naïvely extrapolated that total tax revenues from historic properties
would also be cut in half, raising concerns about significant loss in
tax revenue. But as these studies have demonstrated, the lower tax
rate paid by program participants is to a large measure
compensated for by much higher assessed values. Add to this the

fact that Noncontributors and non-participating Contributors
continue to pay at the higher rate on the higher assessed base and
total reduction in tax revenue is largely mitigated. A fairly simple,
yet economically safe summary statement is that property tax
revenue paid by the historic districts of Phoenix is likely less than
10 percent below what would have been paid if the property were
assessed and valued at the average of their class.
The 2007 study demonstrated that the enhanced value of historic
districts owes to a number of factors, some of which relate to
historic designation and programs intended to incentivize historic
preservation, while some relate to other physical, locational, and
demographic variables. Historic preservation factors, especially the
property tax reduction available to certain NRHP-listed property,
have been determined to have a large impact on value. The 2013
update found that the price premium has not only continued, it
slightly expanded during the course of the Great Recession. There
is no known reason why this pattern should not continue into the
near future. There is also no reason why, if this pattern continues,
that the negative tax revenue effect could not be cancelled out
altogether, yielding no net change in property tax revenue, or even
a net gain in tax revenue. Given the above method of calculation
this could be approached if the premium for Contributors was to
exceed 70 percent and that for Noncontributors remained no less
than 40 percent. Notably, this nearly occurred during the course of
the Great Recession during 2010 and 2011.
Conclusion
The 2013 update demonstrates that the generally positive effects
of historic designation found in the 2007 study have continued
through the Great Recession of 2008-2011. Although the market
value of all homes suffered greatly by the deflation of the housing
market, property within historic districts continues to command a
significant price premium over comparable non-historic property.
There is some evidence to suggest that the premium may continue
to grow into the future, although it is suggested here that this is

62

likely to, or perhaps already has, stabilized, at least as far as historic
preservation incentives like the property tax reduction program can
influence. Although the historic districts in Phoenix are not equally
successful, on average they appear poised to emerge from the Great
Recession as desirable places to live and to invest.
The question of the tax revenue effects of the property tax
reclassification program is important for public policy because state
and local governments, schools, and other public institutions
dependent on tax revenue suffered greatly from the budget crises
induced by the Great Recession. It has been suggested that the state
cannot afford the loss of revenue due to bestowing a special tax
break for historic homes. This study suggests that the net loss in
total tax revenue generated by the historic districts of Phoenix is
likely less than 10 percent and perhaps approaching breakeven.
This is a result of the success of the property tax program, city
grants for historic preservation, and other benefits associated with
historic designation in driving and maintaining the value of historic
properties significantly above comparable non-historic property.

63

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

64

APPENDIX C

prominent Arizona historian, who as a member of the Arizona State
Parks Association, and later the Arizona State Parks Board,
successfully convinced the Board to establish five historic sites
among the first state parks. These were the presidio ruins at Tubac,
the former county courthouse in Tombstone, the Yuma Territorial
Prison, Fort Verde, and Picacho Peak near the site of a Civil War
skirmish. Despite this strong start, later Boards hesitated to acquire
new historic parks because of their operating expenses often
exceeded the revenue they generated from visitors. Furthermore,
even though the Board’s first ten-year plan identified eighteen
archaeological sites for possible acquisition, it acquired none
during that time.
In 1960, preservation-minded members of the National Park
Service, the Arizona Pioneers Historical Society, the Arizona State
Museum, the Arizona State Parks Association, and the Parks Board
organized the Committee for the Preservation and Restoration of
Historical Sites in Arizona. The purpose of this committee was to
coordinate the separate activities of each agency. Most looked to
the Parks Board to be the leader in this effort, but the Board and
their director, Dennis McCarthy, balked at this assigned role.
Through the 1960s, their attention was given largely to the
acquisition and development of recreation parks, primarily lakes,
which promised to provide a more secure financial return. This was
important as the budget-conscious Legislature was wary of taking
on new park responsibilities. Furthermore, such a coordinating
effort would have taken the Board’s attention away from its park
properties, which it believed were its primary responsibility. While
the Board was willing to participate in preservation activities, it
rejected a wider statewide leadership role.

SYNOPSIS OF SHPO PLANNING
Early Advocacy for Historic Preservation in Arizona
Preparation and implementation of a comprehensive statewide
historic preservation plan is one of the mandated responsibilities
given to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) by the
National Historic Preservation Act [Sec 101 (b)(3)(c)]. Details of
this requirement are found in the National Park Service’s Historic
Preservation Fund Grants Manual (formerly NPS-49), which
defines the necessary components of a plan, mandates a public
participation component in its preparation, and requires revision of
the plan over time as conditions warrant. The state is given broad
authority to establish a planning vision and goals appropriate to its
special circumstances as long as it meets the minimum
requirements established in the manual. National Park Service
approval of the state plan is a requirement for the SHPO to receive
its annual allocation from the Historic Preservation Fund. This
allocation provides the majority of the SHPO’s operating budget.
Over the course of more than four decades since passage of the
Act, the SHPO has prepared several comprehensive statewide
planning documents and updates. To assist planners in the future,
this synopsis of past planning efforts has been prepared to
summarize the important trends and preservation philosophies
affecting the movement over time. This synopsis has been drawn
from early plan documents, a published history of Arizona State
Parks (the SHPO’s parent agency), and from the institutional
memory of long-term SHPO staff.
Interest in preserving important historic and prehistoric sites in
Arizona predates the National Historic Preservation Act.
Preservationists in the 1950s were instrumental in the political
coalition that successfully lobbied the Arizona Legislature to pass
legislation establishing the Arizona State Parks Board in 1957.
Among these supporters, the most notable was Bert Fireman, a

The State Historic Preservation Office and Early Planning
This situation changed with the passage by Congress of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The Act mandated the
establishment of a system of State Historic Preservation Offices
that would work with the National Park Service and Advisory

65

Council on Historic Preservation to established a list of properties
important in the nation’s history, to work with federal agencies to
avoid destruction of those sites, and to administer a program of
grants-in-aid to assure their preservation into the future. Where in
the State’s organization the SHPO would be located was not
specified. There was interest within the Arizona Pioneers Historical
Society to locate it within their organization. This grew out of the
Society’s growing interest during the 1960s in acquiring historic
properties such as the Century House in Yuma and the Charles O.
Brown House in Tucson. Even after Parks Board was designated
the official agency under the Act, the Historical Society continued
to lobby for itself for a time after, until they also recognized the
difficulty of managing historic sites and returned their primary
interest to preservation of documents, artifacts, and the operation of
museum and education programs.
The Parks Board evidenced little interest at first in taking on a
larger statewide preservation role under the Act. It appears that
Director McCarthy may have been the primary influence over
Governor Goddard to designate him as the first preservation liaison
officer. His motivation may have been to take advantage of the
money that Congress was likely to appropriate to support the new
federal preservation program. Through late 1966 and early 1967,
the National Park Service geared up to create a nationwide
preservation network, creating draft criteria for the National
Register and guidelines for program implementation. It was only in
late 1967 that Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall wrote to
Governor Goddard requesting the designation of an official “state
liaison officer” to represent the state in the federal program, a
designation that went to McCarthy. Whatever McCarthy may have
hoped to accomplish with his new position, he soon realized that
progress in the historic preservation field would be as slow as in the
development of new parks. The Legislature failed to appropriate
matching funds for a preservation program in its first year.
National Park Service staff worked diligently to establish a
preservation program, but they too were hindered by lack of funds.
Congress appropriated no funds until fiscal year 1969, which began

in July 1969, and then only $100,000 instead of the $10,000,000
that had been authorized. Arizona was one of only 25 states to
apply for funding that year and it received $13,400, an amount that
dropped the following year to only $8,997.21. In the meantime,
McCarthy was active in organizing the state’s effort and allocated
some state funds for FY 1968-69. Governor Williams issued a
temporary executive order designating the Parks Board to act on
behalf of the state in historic preservation policy matters while
enabling legislation was being prepared for the Legislature. One of
the first activities was a partnership with ASU’s College of
Architecture to begin a statewide inventory effort.
The historic preservation program proved a difficult fit for
State Parks. It required the preservation officer to leave the bounds
of the parks and to go out to the many communities to promote
preservation awareness and projects. McCarthy quickly passed the
responsibility to Assistant Director Wallace E. Vegors, and soon
thereafter to Robert Fink. In 1970, to aid in the promotion of
historic preservation, State Parks began publishing Arizona
Preservation News.
Preparation of the first comprehensive statewide historic
preservation plan began in 1969 following publication of the
publication of NPS’s guidelines. Vision statements, as they are
promoted in modern planning theory, were not as clearly defined at
the time of the first plan. Still, it did include a declaration of longterm intent: “that all facets of Arizona’s cultural background be
made known to all of its citizens.” This succinct goal would stand
as the primary directive of Arizona SHPO purpose through the next
several years.
The primary focus of attention during this first planning effort
was on identifying historic and prehistoric sites worthy of
consideration for the new National Register of Historic Places. The
plan’s major accomplishment was to set up a process for
identifying and nominating properties. The process involved two
steps. In the first step, members of the public could nominate sites
to a separate state register using a fairly simple form that described
the property’s historic significance, integrity, and condition. The

66

terminology used in the early state register form was simpler than
that later propagated under the guidance of the National Register
program’s bulletin series. For example, instead of the seven aspects
of integrity that are now a familiar part of the National Register
evaluation process (association, location, design, etc.), the state
register form merely asked whether the property was unaltered or
altered to a minor or major degree, and whether it was moved or
reconstructed. This nomination form would be reviewed by the
Arizona Historical Advisory Commission, which might recommend
its placement on the state register and direct the State Parks staff to
prepare a National Register nomination. Although the National
Register recognized properties of state and local significance, it
was still believed necessary to maintain a separate list of properties
on a state register that did not appear to qualify for national
recognition. It was even thought that the National Register might be
a relatively static listing. If a property were lost there would be an
opening for a new listing from the state register. The reason for
separate state register stage of the process was that public input into
the planning process revealed that the National Register form
tended to “boggle” people, even those knowledgeable in historical
research.
Following definition of the listing process, attention in the plan
was turned to defining the inventory of historic and prehistoric
sites. There was as yet no comprehensive list of sites, but there
were several sources from which a preliminary list could be
compiled. These included the Historic American Building Survey,
which since the 1930s had documented important buildings
throughout the country. There was also a list of 100 sites developed
by Bert Fireman for a historic marker program. Other sites could be
taken from published sources such as the WPA’s Arizona
guidebook, Will Barnes’ Arizona Place Names, and published
histories such as Frontier Military Posts of Arizona and Arizona
Territory Post Offices and Postmasters. In addition, there was a list
of 70 houses in Tucson gathered under a survey project sponsored
by the Tucson Community Development Program and the federal
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The planners saw

this early list as only preliminary, and as a means to give local
organizations a place to start in gathering information about sites in
their localities.
Throughout the 1960s, local historical societies were taken to
be the most important preservation advocates. The designation of
Director McCarthy as the “State Liaison Officer” and Vegors as
“Historic Sites Preservation Officer” forced State Parks to take on
the coordinating role that it had earlier rejected. In 1969, McCarthy
and Vegors visited with many of these organizations to gain their
input into the planning process. In 1970, under Historic Sites
Preservation Officer Fink, the newsletter was begun and a series of
workshops held to promote knowledge of historic preservation and
to encourage participation in the nomination of properties to the
National Register.
Early efforts to promote historic preservation challenged
common assumptions about how Arizona could develop its
economy. As Deputy Director of State Parks, Wallace Vegors,
recalled in the late 1970s:
It seemed to me, ten years ago, [in late 1960s] that there was
very little interest in preserving historic sites in Arizona and I
met actual antagonism to the idea. Preservation was
definitely ‘anti-progress’ then. ‘It would take property off the
tax rolls,’ people said. The general attitude was that ‘if it was
worth saving, the National Park Service would already have
done it.’ A cadre of vitally interested citizens existed, but it
was not yet.
The final part of the plan laid out an organization chart for
coordinating the statewide preservation program. Because State
Parks had no preservation staff other than Robert Fink, who
obviously could not single-handedly manage a statewide program,
McCarthy determined on a scheme in which the managers at state
historic parks would interact with preservation advocates and
organizations in their area. These outreach efforts would be
centered upon the parks at Jerome, Yuma, Tubac, and Tombstone.

67

The National Register process was established in 1969 with the
Arizona Historical Advisory Commission (AHAC) in the role of
the professional body with the responsibility to review
nominations. During preparation of the state plan, AHAC
recommended emphasizing the nomination of properties to a state
register rather than the National Register, which at the time seemed
more suitable for only the most outstanding of historic landmarks.
It is noteworthy that practically no attention was given to the
interaction between the SHPO and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation in the administration of Section 106 of the
Act, which at that time was poorly defined.
The National Park Service approved Arizona’s Interim Plan for
Historic Preservation in Arizona in December, 1970, allowing the
state to continue to draw its allocation from the Historic
Preservation Fund. The use of the word ‘interim’ in the title of the
plan shows that McCarthy, Vegors, and Fink understood that what
the plan would accomplish would be simply to get the state’s
preservation program off the ground. Very quickly it was perceived
that new staff would be required to meet the expanding demands of
the program, especially as Section 106 compliance, something little
considered in the interim plan, grew into a major priority. As
Vegors later noted:

approve legislation establishing an Arizona Register. In the short
term this created more problems than it solved. From the
beginning, the Arizona Register was conceived as a lesser status for
properties that had historic significance, but not enough to qualify
for National Register designation. This magnified the staff effort to
maintain separate property inventory lists. The first, the state
inventory, included files of information on any potentially historic
property that had come to the SHPO’s attention. Above this were
the Arizona and National Register, and above these the National
Historic Landmarks and National Monuments. As the number of
properties in these inventories increase, in an era before
computerized databases, the management task of organizing the
information grew significantly.
At the same time as the inventory and Arizona and National
Register programs were growing, so also were the grants program
and the Section 106 Compliance workload. Increased staffing
became necessary if the program was to remain viable. By 1974
there were, in addition to State Liaison Officer McCarthy, three
professional staff members. The Historic Sites Preservation Officer
Dorothy Hall, was an archaeologist who held primary responsibility
for Section 106 compliance, but also for all program areas and was
directly accountable to McCarthy. Two new contract employees
were a historian, Marjorie Wilson, placed in charge of the
inventory and nomination programs, and an architect, James
Garrison, who oversaw the grants program. After McCarthy was
replaced as director of Arizona State Parks, the new director,
Michael Ramnes, allowed the title of State Historic Preservation
Officer to pass to his chief preservation staff member. Another
organizational change was the creation of the Historic Sites Review
Committee, formally a subcommittee of AHAC, to serve as the
review body for National Register nominations.
A new plan published in 1975 reaffirmed the goal stated in the
Interim Plan of 1970: “It is the intent of the State that all facets of
Arizona’s cultural background be made known to all of its
citizens.” To achieve this goal would require individuals,
organizations, political subdivisions, state, and federal agencies to

Looking back from the vantage point of eight years
experience, the labyrinthine critical-flow-path charts, the
agonized-over target dates, the laboriously developed
strategies, and the academically-oriented lists of sites were
all inconsequential. What counted was the talks and the
meetings and the newspaper articles that got the word
around that State Parks was concerned with historic
preservation.
One problem not recognized in the 1970 Interim Plan was the
lack of a statutory basis for the state register that had been proposed
as an important stage in the process from property identification to
National Register listing. Only in 1974 did the Legislature formally

68

join in a concerted effort to promote preservation. Gone was the
earlier emphasis on local historical societies as the primary partners
in the preservation movement. The role of the SHPO remained
similar to the earlier model of an advocate and coordinator who
would encourage these many potential partners to take part in
preservation activities. The SHPO as a distributor of technical
assistance, monitoring and advising preservation projects, became
increasingly necessary as it was recognized that while there were
many people who sympathized with the preservation movement,
many lacked the expertise to successfully rehabilitate a historic
building or conduct a historic building survey.
The 1975 plan also anticipated a continuing role in promoting
preservation-friendly legislation. As already noted, legislation
establishing the State Register passed in 1974. The legislative
agenda for future years would include a State Historic Preservation
Act, with provisions similar to those of the National Act, and a
state-level incentive program such as grants and tax breaks.
The 1976 celebration of the national Bicentennial of the
Declaration of Independence offered a unique opportunity to
promote historic preservation by taking advantage of the popular
groundswell of interest in American history and culture. The
expanded staff meant that it would be possible to form an “historic
preservation team” that could travel more extensively throughout
the state, meeting with local organizations and communities to
assist and promote projects. This would replace the cumbersome
system of trying to use staff at the state historic parks to interact
with local advocates. This team would be especially active in
promoting survey and inventory projects by training and organizing
local volunteer efforts to document community resources.
Work with federal agencies expanded dramatically after 1974
when the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the
Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs all hired
staff archaeologists to implement their responsibilities under the
Act and Executive Order 11593. Although not described in detail,
the 1975 plan included a mention of the intent to work more closely

with Tribes and to encourage them to identify and nominate sites to
the National Register.
The selection of properties to nominate to the State and
National Registers had been driven largely by the perception of
urgency, moving forward those properties that seemed most in
immediate danger. It was believed, however, that it had become
possible to leave this crisis mode and pursue listings based on the
significance of the properties. To this end, an elaborate system for
the thematic analysis of properties was developed to improve on
the existing geographic organization of the inventory. Properties
were to be placed into classifications such as era (Prehistoric,
Spanish-Mexican, Territorial, and Statehood), function (for
example, Exploration, Military, Education, Commerce), and
cultural affiliation (such as Prehistoric identities, modern Tribes,
Ethnic affiliations). Computerization, it was recognized, would be
necessary to follow through on such a systematic organization of
properties, a capacity that was not readily available in the mid1970s.
The Governor’s Task Force on Historic Preservation, 1981
Bruce Babbitt served as Arizona’s governor from 1978 to 1987.
Of all the state’s chief executives, he was perhaps the most
supportive of historic preservation. In 1981, Babbitt created a
Governor’s Task Force on Historic Preservation to provide support
and direction for the growing movement. The Task Force’s twelve
members6 was supported by technical advisors such as Don Bufkin
of the Arizona Historical Society, Billy Garrett of the Heritage
Foundation of Arizona, State Historic Preservation Officer Ann
Pritzlaff, Charles Hoffman of Northern Arizona University,
Kenneth Kimsey of the Sharlot Hall Museum, and Raymond
Thompson of the Arizona State Museum. The Task Force
6

The members were Jacqueline Rich, Chair, Elena Anderson, Richard V.
Francaviglia, Robert C. Giebner, Anna Laos, Gordon Pedrow, Ray
Roberts, Elizabeth F. Ruffner, Emory Sekaquaptewa, George Tyson,
Marian Watson, and Dava Zlotshewer.

69

established five polices intended to remove barriers to historic
preservation efforts and to replace them with incentives that would
encourage preservation by state agencies, local governments, and
private citizens.
The first policy recommendation was to develop an improved
State Register of Cultural Resources. This recommendation
reflected the belief that the existing Arizona Register of Historic
Places was not yet effective in providing the broad range of cultural
resources with needed public exposure. The Arizona Register still
lacked defined criteria and served as a lower category of status than
the National Register. Furthermore, the task force feared that there
might be a change to the National Register that would restrict it to
properties of national significance, leaving properties of state and
local significance without recognition or protection. Finally, a
strengthened Arizona Register could serve as a planning tool for
state agencies so that they might avoid inadvertent harm to cultural
resources. Among the Task Force’s specific recommendations were
to align the Arizona Register’s criteria to the existing National
Register criteria, to make the Historic Sites Review Committee
responsible for technical review of nominations, to create tax
incentives for listed properties, and to require state agencies to
allow the SHPO the opportunity to review their plans and actions
that might affect cultural resources.
The second policy promoted by the Task Force was to address
the cultural resources owned or controlled by state agencies. While
the State Museum cooperated with the Arizona State Land
Department to identify and inventory archaeological sites on state
land, there was no mandate for other state agencies to take historic
properties into account in their planning or to facilitate maintenance
of historic properties owned by them. To address this problem, the
task force made several recommendations. The first was to require
all state agencies to inventory all cultural resources under their
control. Second, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Historic Preservation Projects should be adopted as the state’s
standard for the treatment of historic buildings. Another
recommendation was for AHAC to make recommendations to the

Legislature for the development of a policy for the acquisition and
disposition of historic resources and to ensure that these resources
were adequately maintained. In addition, state agencies were to be
directed to give first consideration to historic buildings when
planning for acquisition or lease of facilities. Finally, the Task
Force recommended that the state adopt a model building code
adjusted to the special concerns of historic buildings and make it
available to other jurisdictions for local use.
The Task Force’s third area of concern was to strengthen
private sector preservation efforts through additional tax incentives,
grants, and technical assistance. Its first recommendation was to
lower the special assessment rate on historic property from 8
percent to 5 percent in order to maintain its tax advantage following
the Legislature’s recent action to lower the standards residential
assessment rate from 15 percent to 10 percent. In addition, it
recommended extending the special assessment rate to all
buildings, not just residential property, listed on the State, National,
and local registers. Furthermore, the existing requirement for
twelve days of public visitation for properties receiving the tax
benefit should be reduced. Another recommendation was for the
creation of a State income tax credit to encourage rehabilitation of
historic buildings, both residential and commercial.
The fourth policy area addressed by the Task Force was to
enable and encourage local governments to establish their own
preservation programs. This followed the direction set by the
amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act passed in
1980 that encouraged decentralization of preservation programs to
certified local governments. In 1981, there were already several
communities with active preservation programs. Tucson, Florence,
Prescott, Jerome, Yuma and a few others had conducted historic
building surveys and supported nomination of individual properties
and historic districts onto the National Register. Still, although
State law enabled creation of local historic districts and special
zoning overlay regulations, there remained no local landmarks
programs in state statute which could protect individual properties
outside districts. Also, statutes mandated that cities and towns

70

consider such areas as blight removal, improvement to housing,
business, industrial, and public building sites in their
comprehensive planning, but made no provision for consideration
of cultural resources. Again, a few towns, such as Scottsdale,
Yuma, Jerome, and Tucson, included preservation in their
planning, but most did not. To encourage expansion of local
preservation programs, the Task Force recommended new enabling
legislation to allow communities to use special financial methods
such as bonding, special assessments, and tax increment financing
that were widely used for new construction. In addition,
communities should be enabled to protect historic properties
through easements, covenants, and deed restrictions. The Task
Force recommended a greatly expanded program of technical
assistance to communities to jump-start their own preservation
programs. Finally, the Task Force recommended creation of a
Governor’s Award program to recognize special achievements in
historic preservation.
The last policy area address by the Governor’s Task Force was
to promote a broader awareness and appreciation of historic and
cultural resources among the citizens of Arizona. From this broader
appreciation, the Task Force hoped, would arise a higher level of
citizen involvement in preservation planning and projects.
Unfortunately, the Task Force’s specific recommendations toward
this policy were less detailed that in other areas. It recommended
that the SHPO cooperate with public and private groups, such as
schools, libraries, and local historic societies, to encourage
educational and outreach efforts. It also suggested more effort to
inform local officials about public support for preservation through
such outlets as the public media. Both SHPO and AHAC, the Task
Force recommended, should work with the Department of
Education and local schools to promote the teaching of Arizona by
taking advantage of nearby historic and prehistoric sites.
Many of the Task Force’s recommendations anticipated
legislation to implement, which would require a display of public
support by the preservation network and leadership from the
governor. Crucial in this regard was the expanded role

recommended for AHAC. The Task Force suggested including
additional agencies in AHAC’s membership, such as from the
universities, the Department of Tourism, the League of Arizona
Cities and Towns, the Association of Counties, and the Department
of Administration, to make it a body capable of coordinating state
agencies and local efforts to promote preservation planning. It
might serve as a statewide clearinghouse for preservation
information and consolidate the efforts of the state agencies to
avoid duplication. Furthermore, its public role would be enhanced
by the issuance of an annual report to the Legislature on
preservation activities statewide. Naturally, this would require
giving AHAC dedicated staff to accomplish its wider goals. In all
its activities, AHAC would work closely with the SHPO, which
would continue to be the primary source of technical support and
administration for existing and, hopefully, new preservation
programs.
Planning for Expanding Programs, 1976-1986
Conditions continued to change rapidly during the late 1970s
and early 1980s, and all the changes expanded the SHPO’s
responsibilities, with a subsequent increasing pressure on its staff
resources. Some of this was a growth in workload associated with
program success. The number of communities completing historic
resource surveys and moving towards creation of historic districts
was beginning to rise as was the public’s interest in nominating
individual sites. It was becoming clear that the earlier emphasis on
landmark historic and prehistoric sites was giving way to interest in
properties of local significance. Workload under the Section 106
Compliance program continued to expand as more federal agencies
acknowledged and improved their preservation planning
responsibilities. By 1983, SHPO staff under Donna Schober had
grown to six professionals with a majority assigned to the
compliance program.
Important new federal legislation reflected the movement’s
growing importance around the country and the influence of

71

preservation advocates. Indian Tribal governments and their
cultural interest gained greater importance following passage of the
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, which required
federal agencies to take into account sites of religious significance
when undertaking projects that might affect those sites.
Complementary to this was the Archaeological Resources
Protection Act of 1979, which extended protection of
archaeological resources over all federal and Tribal lands.
The most important new federal laws affecting the SHPO
directly were the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and the Economic
Recovery Tax Act of 1981. Both acts provided for substantial tax
incentives for the rehabilitation of historic commercial property.
Administration of these acts included major roles for the SHPOs in
coordinating oversight of eligible projects between projects
proponents and federal officials with the National Park Service.
The State Legislature also passed important new laws, creating
incentive programs for owners of historic property and directing
state agencies to plan with historic resources in mind. Two property
tax programs, one for residential, non-income producing property,
and the other for commercial property, were intended to encourage
renovation and maintenance of properties listed in the National
Register. Over time, the residential property tax reduction program
would become an important force driving demand for other SHPO
programs, especially survey and nomination. The State Historic
Preservation Act of 1982 established a policy of historic resource
stewardship among all state agencies in a way analogous, although
not precisely parallel to the requirements on federal agencies under
the National Historic Preservation Act. The State Act expanded the
role of the SHPO to review the plans of state agencies to determine
whether they might adversely affect historic properties.
By 1981, the SHPO was clearly in need of a new plan, one that
better reflected contemporary planning principles and input from
the growing number of preservation partners. At the same time, the
National Park Service was in the process of formalizing its
planning requirements, which would eventually be published as the
Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Preservation Planning.

These guidelines evolved from the Resource Protection Planning
Process (RP3), a planning model developed by the Heritage
Conservation and Recreation Service, and tested in a small number
of states in the early 1980s. Understanding of RP3 was limited at
the time and caused some initial confusion with participants in the
Arizona planning process until NPS held two workshops in the fall
of 1982 and summer of 1983 to explain its principles.
The initial planning effort in Arizona was led by the SHPO
Liaison Committee of the Arizona Archaeological Council (AAC),
which held meetings in 1980 and 1981 to determine the best means
for developing a state plan. The SHPO wanted to formalize their
effort and offered a grant to fund it, but neither the AAC nor the
Liaison Committee were qualified to receive such a grant. Instead,
the grant was given to the Heritage Foundation of Arizona, which
used it to hire Architectural Resources Group, a San Franciscobased consulting firm. These consultants were given two major
tasks. First, identify all the organizations with an important role in
preservation in Arizona and determine the nature of their interest.
The second task was to gather data about the extent of the state’s
cultural resources and to determine what agencies, organization,
and key individuals knew about those resources.
Major input from preservation partners into the plan’s priorities
was gathered through interviews with specific individuals who
were deemed representative of most of the important players in the
preservation field. Early plans for a questionnaire for the general
public were dropped after the review committee determined that the
responses from the professionals appeared to adequately address
the major issues. A questionnaire was sent to federal and state
agencies to gather their input. The Resource and Review Panel,
composed of people from a variety of professional backgrounds,
such as archaeology, architecture, education, neighborhood
organizations, different ethnic groups, and key federal and state
agencies, were central to the information gathering process.
Difficulties arose early on because of a misunderstanding of the
RP3 format. Review of test applications of RP3 standards in other
states were disappointing because of its seemingly exclusive

72

emphasis on context-based “study units.” These study units were
clearly defined temporal or spatial concepts, which seemed to defy
the softer contextual boundaries generally used by historians and
anthropologists. The Review Panel rejected the method as placing
artificially hard boundaries over such cultural concepts as the
Hohokam, whose extent in both space and time, could not be
rigidly bound. It was only after the NPS workshops that the
planners gained a better understanding of what RP3 was intended
to accomplish. Specifically, it became clear that it was not
exclusively based on study units, but also included management
units and operational plans. This made RP3 appear as a more
reasonable planning instrument, one that had to be taken into
account as it was eventually to be the standard by which the state’s
plan would be evaluated by NPS officials. The planners then
incorporated the RP3 principles into the work being completed by
the consultant.
The Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines for preservation
planning made historic contexts the fundamental tool for the
evaluation of historic properties and for the planning of their
preservation. These contexts defined a set of priority topics, defined
by theme, place, and period. Ideally, inventory, nomination and
preservation would follow the direction set by the contexts. The
federal guidelines gave priority to the academic fields of history,
anthropology and architectural history, allowing them to define
what was significant in state and local history and to set the agenda
for program activities. They recommended developing “ideal
goals” for resource uses such as research, interpretation,
conservation, and reuse.
The problem initially identified by the Arizona SHPO planning
team in the early 1980s—that historic contexts were numerous and
difficult to define—was only the first indication that the federal
planning guidelines would be problematic. What the problem came
down to, fundamentally, was that the guidelines anticipated a level
of leadership and freedom of action that the SHPO would never be
able to exercise. In practice, virtually all SHPO program areas
proved to be reactive to the demands of outside forces. Government

agencies, private property owners, and local governments pursued
their own priorities. This meant that academic planning had to give
way to the demand to immediately evaluate current projects and
proposals. Professional judgment and precedent, not formal
contexts (which were not yet written in any case), became the
instruments for program management.
The Phase 1 planning report, completed in 1983, proved
unsatisfactory because the planning team had been unable to
reconcile the federal guidelines with the reality of SHPO program
management. As an interim measure, SHPO staff and the Arizona
Archaeological Council developed a plan outline and an initial set
of themes, from which were derived a set of tasks. One of the first
tasks undertaken was to hire a consultant, Janus Associates, to
complete a statewide resource analysis.
The resource overview was an attempt to organize the SHPO’s
existing inventory of historic and prehistoric sites so that it could
accomplish planning in the manner suggested by federal guidelines,
that is, by pursuing the logic of historic contexts. The first goal of
the resource analysis were to define the major themes using broad
category headings, such as agriculture, commerce, ‘early man,’
government, ‘personages,’ religion, and transportation. Under these
broad categories were more specific themes. For example, under
agriculture were such specific topics as cattle ranching, Japanese
flower horticulture, prehistoric agricultural technology, and Navajo
sheep ranching. The somewhat nebulous heading of ‘personages,’
included architects, scientists, engineers, heroes, Native Americans,
and women. The early man category was little more than another
word for prehistoric archaeology, although many anthropological
themes were also identified under other categories.
The consultant’s next task was to organize the property
inventory, or rather only the National Register listings, according to
the 25 identified contexts and 282 subcontexts. This organization
was accomplished by filling out a form for each listed property,
identifying the themes to which it might be associated. Once done,
it was possible to know the number of properties falling under each
thematic heading. For example, seven properties were listed under

73

the context of engineering and the subcontext of use of materials.
This tabulation made it possible to identify what might be
important data gaps. For instance, no properties were then listed
under the context of education and subcontext BIA education
system. Since the federal system of education for Indians was
recognized as having great significance, this indicated a need to
focus identification efforts in that direction.
In addition to identifying shortcomings in the exiting National
Register listings, the consultant also noted that there was simply not
yet enough information to properly understand the important
historic contexts. The academic historical and anthropological
information was incomplete in a number of areas. Furthermore,
what did exist was not directly usable by preservationists, who
needed to answer the specific question of National Register
eligibility. Historians, especially, tend to concentrate on documentbased research, and often do not identify and rarely evaluate the
importance of specific places or properties. The resource evaluation
concludes with a recommendation of a number of areas needing
additional research, such as banking, tourism, water recreation,
labor, women, cemeteries, and the fine arts. Such specific topics as
“Auto camps and courts of Route 66 through the 1940’s” and
“Chinese involvement in gold and silver mining, 1860’s to 1912”
are suggested for future study.
While the resource overview suggested an important role for
the SHPO in developing historic contexts, it recognized that the
task was too large for it to undertake alone. The report identified a
number of potential partners who might undertake specific context
research and later inventory. Local governments, especially
Certified Local Governments who were developing their own
historic preservation programs, could undertake context and
inventory projects to identify properties within their communities
worthy of preservation. Other potential partners included non-profit
service organizations, specific constituency groups such as the
Arizona Institute of Architects, the universities, and federal and
state agencies.

The Arizona Heritage Fund
The Arizona Heritage Fund (AHF), created through a voter
initiative in 1990, set aside up to $1.7 million annually to support a
variety of historic preservation activities. The new law specified
that funds might be spent only on properties listed, or determined
eligible for listing, in the State Register. Approved project
categories were acquisition and maintenance of historic and
prehistoric properties; acquisition of preservation easements;
stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction;
development of education and preservation programs; and
development of interpretive programs. The wide scope of possible
preservation activities, and the acknowledged widespread need,
made it imperative to undertake a systematic planning effort to
create guidelines that responded to the public’s wishes.
The law specified that the historic preservation component of
the AHF would be administered by the SHPO, which, because of
the large new resources available, would be under greater scrutiny
to ensure the achievement of the maximum public benefit. The
SHPO determined to contract out the planning process and to
engage the general public in a more systematic way. The SHPO,
Shereen Lerner, contracted with long-time preservation consultants
Gerald A. Doyle, Lyle M. Stone, and Richard E. Lynch to produce
the Arizona Heritage Fund Historic Preservation Five-Year Plan,
which was completed in 1992. The planning team developed a
questionnaire that was distributed to a random selection of 880
Arizona residents, with several hundred more distributed at public
meetings held across the state. This questionnaire tried to identify
the public’s attitude towards specific types of historic preservation
projects, concepts, activities, and legislation. It also asked the
public to rank five preservation issues from high to low priority and
to define other issues of concern. With this public input, the
planners created the following list of issues, ranked from highest to
lowest level of concern:
•
74

Loss of Deterioration of Heritage Resources

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

return, or to invest in projects with a long-term benefit. While the
latter was perceived as generally preferable, there was the thought
that some projects had to be pursued that would demonstrate the
benefits of the AHF fairly quickly. This was important because the
AHF, which had been passed without support of the Legislature,
had no protection against possible legislative diversion of its funds
for other purposes. The later Voter Protection Act, another
initiative designed to prevent the Legislature from altering voterapproved initiatives, had not yet been passed and would not, in any
case, apply to the AHF retroactively.
Public input identified several programs that might be created
using the AHF. The following is a short list of some programs that
were eventually enacted and a few that were not:

Historic Preservation Education Programs
Economic Benefits Through Heritage Resources
Historic Preservation Incentives
Governmental Attitudes Toward Heritage Resources
Native American Participation in the Historic Preservation
Process
Development-Related Effects on Heritage Resources on
Private and Public Land
Involvement of Ethnic Populations in the Historic
Preservation Process
Heritage Resources in Rural Area
Quality of Preservation Actions

In addition to these priority issues, participants at public
meetings and through the questionnaire identified more than fifty
goals to meet the challenges raised under the list of issues. Finally,
a more specific list of activities, more than fifty, was created to
provide guidance on precisely how the SHPO might organize its
work tasks to accomplish the goals and objectives. It should be
noted that the planning team provided a great deal of guidance with
the form of the questionnaire and at the public meetings so that the
public had a broad appreciation of the spectrum of preservation
issues from which they could express their opinions and priorities.
With the public opinion data in hand, the planning team
organized and presented the results to provide guidance for what
sort of projects should be pursued with the AHF. It was clear that
among all issues, the two most important were the loss or
deterioration of heritage resources, the overwhelmingly supported
issue, and education programs, which led among the lesser issues.
Finally, the five-year plan raised a number of issues that would
remain concerns for the long term. One of the most difficult was
the balance that was seen as necessary between rural and urban
projects. There was a fear that with their vastly larger resources,
urban areas such as Phoenix and Tucson would obtain a
disproportionate share of the AHF’s benefits. Another area of
concern was whether to concentrate on projects with an immediate

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Develop school curricula in historic preservation
Expand incentive programs
Develop a low-interest loan program
Conduct public education programs
Allocate funds for emergency grants
Assist communities in preparing local historic preservation
ordinances
Develop a guidebook on the state’s heritage resources
Conduct technical assistance workshops
Develop a “whole project” approach to awarding grants
Encourage the use of preservation easements
Expand the Site Steward Program

The plan then listed goals and recommendations under each of
the priority issues. These were extensive and only a few items
under the leading issue of loss or deterioration of heritage resources
need be described here to understand the direction the plan
indicated for SHPO and the AHF. The first goal under this issue
was to fund measures to protect and maintain heritage resources.
Under the AHF’s competitive grant program, many grants would
be given to acquire, protect, and rehabilitate heritage resources.

75

Maintenance of historic properties, however, has been more
difficult to achieve. Where properties have been acquired by
preservation organizations such as The Archaeological
Conservancy or rehabilitated for renewed public service, as many
buildings have, many properties have been maintained without
further AHF assistance. In a few cases, however, property owners
have used grants for a one-time fix-up, only to leave it neglected
afterwards, leading to continuing deterioration and the need for
another sizable intervention. In any case, funds have not been
allocated for categories of work that might be considered routine
maintenance.
Another goal for slowing the loss or deterioration of heritage
resources was to assist owners of heritage resources in
documenting their properties. This has been accomplished through
promotion and funding of building condition assessments, which
owners can use to plan long-term preservation activities. A third
goal, to improve the Arizona Site Steward Program through
training, funding, and staffing, has also been accomplished. A small
allocation from the AHF has been made annually to pay for the
program’s newsletter and for regular training workshops. The Site
Steward Program has also been instrumental in accomplishing
another goal, to enlist the support of law enforcement agencies in
the protection of historic properties.
Finally, the plan included lists of specific recommendations for
the SHPO, using the AHF, to meet the challenge of the priority
issues. The recommendation to develop further public education
about preservation issues has been followed through with the
annual Archaeology Expo, and later the Statewide Historic
Preservation Partnerships Conference. On the other hand, the
newsletter, which had kept preservationists up-to-date on SHPO
activities since 1970, was discontinued. The recommendation to
establish teams of professions, both public and private, to assist
properties owners in documenting their properties, has not been
done precisely as the plan seemed to intend. However, SHPO staff
regularly provides private property owners with technical
assistance in understanding the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

for Rehabilitation, and has promoted and funded numerous building
condition assessment reports, most produced by private consultants.
Implementation of the Arizona Heritage Fund Historic
Preservation Five-Year Plan was accomplished through specific
work tasks among SHPO staff and through administration of the
AHF’s competitive grant program. Instrumental in developing
specific guidelines for the grant program was the new Historic
Preservation Advisory Committee (HPAC), a group of citizens
representing the fields of history, archaeology, architecture,
preservation organizations, and the general public. The HPAC, with
SHPO assistance, developed program guidelines for priority grant
projects that were adopted by the Arizona State Parks Board. One
early guideline recommended in the plan was to establish separate
funds for bricks-and-mortar or acquisition projects and for
education projects. These distinct funds were later abolished in
response to the overwhelming demand for bricks-and-mortar funds.
The lesser demand for education projects was met through revising
the federal pass-through grants to the Certified Local Governments.
Another recommendation made in the plan that was adopted
early, and later dropped, was to allocate funds to support projects
that would encourage heritage tourism. This was accomplished by
setting aside funding for the Arizona Department of Tourism’s
Main Street Program, which it used to provide small façade grants
to historic commercial properties in their participating
communities. One recommendation not implemented was to set
aside ten percent of the AHF grants to projects that had also been
granted special local monetary incentives.
The 1996 Comprehensive Statewide Plan
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, the SHPO made
significant progress along the lines suggested in the 1986 resource
evaluation. Several historic building surveys had been completed in
partnership with local communities, and many new National
Register districts established. Working with consultants, the SHPO
had published contexts studies on several topics in history and

76

prehistory. Also, following the report’s recommendations, the first
steps in inventory computerization had been taken.
Unfortunately, it also became apparent that these efforts were
barely keeping up with the need. SHPO staff time continued to be
taken up largely by reactive program areas such as Section 106
Compliance, leaving little time or resources to pursue research in
the more esoteric areas of historic context. Furthermore, the reports
issued in 1983 and 1986, while containing recommendations for
future action, did not constitute satisfactory planning documents
that could be applied by preservation advocates across the state.
While the 1992 plan for the Arizona Heritage Fund was more
polished in its presentation and had involved the largest public
outreach effort to date, its limited focus meant that it did not
address the planning needs of other SHPO activities.
James Garrison, who replaced Shereen Lerner as preservation
officer in 1992, undertook the first truly comprehensive planning
effort, starting in 1995. The principle underlying the new planning
effort was recognition of the inherent limitations in the SHPO’s
capacity to direct Arizona’s historic preservation efforts. Instead of
focusing on specific goals for the SHPO, the new plan established a
vision for enhancing statewide partnerships among all parties with
an interest in historic properties. This refocusing of attention was
made explicit in the Statewide Vision for the Future:

Governments, and Tribes were held to identify issues of importance
to critical preservation partners. Also, public input was gathered
through the mailed questionnaire to 1,500 citizens and, for the first
time, through a statistically valid sampling of public opinion
through a telephone survey.
The public input process found a widespread concern for
properties of local significance. Properties of statewide or national
significance—the San Xaviers and Montezuma Castles—did not
seem in immediate danger, while the properties that defined the
character of local communities were being lost at an alarming rate.
This implied an even greater emphasis on strengthening local
preservation programs through the CLG and Arizona Heritage
Fund grant programs. Similarly, there was a strong desire to
enhance Tribal preservation programs.
Input from federal and state agencies focused not on specific
properties or their loss, but rather on how to improve the regulatory
compliance process. Streamlining the process, not historic
preservation itself, was their concern. An important suggestion in
this regard was to take advantage of the then-new Internet to share
cultural resource data among land and resource managers.
Amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act passed in
1991 which had enhanced the role of Tribal governments in the
Section 106 process had made traditional cultural places a special
topic of concern. Also, agencies wanted a larger role in the future
development of historic contexts. In response to this last concern,
the SHPO promised to create a statewide advisory body to oversee
the production and utilization of historic context studies.
The major achievement of the 1996 plan was the formulation of
eight broad goals that encompassed virtually all of the concerns
raised in the public input process. These goals were truly applicable
statewide and for preservation advocates, organizations,
communities, and agencies, and not just the SHPO. These eight
goals were organized under two broad headings:

We envision an Arizona in which an informed and concerned
citizenry works to protect our state’s irreplaceable cultural
heritage. They will be supported by a coordinated, statewide
historic preservation network providing information and
assistance which enables them to undertake successful
projects and long-term preservation planning.
The new planning process was guided by the SHPO with the
assistance of a State Plan Advisory Team, consisting of
representatives of key agencies, organizations, and advisory
groups. In addition to public meetings held in Flagstaff, Phoenix,
and Tucson, separate meetings with agencies, Certified Local

Toward the Effective Management of Historic Resources
Goal 1: Better Resource Management

77

Goal 2: Effective Information Management
Goal 3: Maximized Funding

partners and all were invited to coordinate their own planning to
this statewide scope. These goals were durable, that is, they were
likely to remain valid for many years to come. There would always
be a strong necessity to maximize the benefits from available
funding and to encourage an informed and supportive public. Such
goals made initiatives towards greater efficiency and public
education ever current.
The stability of the 1996 plan was demonstrated during the
process initiated in 2000 to update its public input component and
recommendations. The preservation environment had continued to
evolve after 1996 with such changes as new federal regulations for
Section 106, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, creation of
the Transportation Enhancement programs, and continued growth
in the Tribal preservation programs. Public input generally
supported the direction and goals established in the 1996 plan.
The major change expressed in the 2000 plan update was the
implementation of a tighter program within the SHPO to tie its
work plans to the larger statewide goals. This was done through a
Strategic Planning Cycle, which involved the Parks Board in a
review of the SHPO’s strategic planning efforts every five years.
This was to be coordinated with an annual work program
developed during SHPO staff planning retreats. The intent was to
ensure that staff always remained connected to the larger goal
plans, with an opportunity for comment and approval by the Parks
Board, which was ultimately responsible for approving funding
decisions.
The 2000 update also laid out a plan for regularly scheduled
updates to the plan itself. This would be done every fifth year of the
planning cycle. At this time, the public and partners would be again
extensively canvassed for input and, if necessary, major alterations
to the plan, its vision, and its broad goals would be considered.
Again, this would involve final input and consent from the Parks
Board.
The specific recommendations in the 2000 plan update built on
the accomplishments of earlier objectives. Computerization,
particularly the implementation of the AZSITE database remained

Toward Proactive Stewardship and Partnerships
Goal 4: Partnerships in Planning
Goal 5: Proactive Communities
Toward an Informed and Supportive Constituency
Goal 6: An Informed Supportive Public
Goal 7: Informed Supportive Policy-Makers
Goal 8: Informed Trained Professionals
The specific concerns raised by the public and SHPO’s
preservation partners led to a set of priority action items under each
of these headings. All need not be described here, but one priority
item under the heading of Effective Management of Historic
Resources was to establish a public process for identifying and
nominating properties, and assisting property owners on a statewide
level by priority historic theme. This goal reconciled the earlier
effort to create a context-based plan with the reality of the demands
of the many SHPO programs. Another priority item, under the
heading of Proactive Stewardship and Partnerships, was to assist
state agencies in their management of historic resources through
completion of guidelines for the State Historic Preservation Act.
This item recognized that the mandate of state agency
responsibilities in the law was insufficient to protect cultural
resources. The SHPO would have to provide additional assistance
to these agencies if they were going to meet their responsibilities.
The 1996 Arizona Historic Preservation Plan was an important
breakthrough in codifying SHPO’s relationship with the network of
historic preservation activists. While its specific recommendation
were directed towards SHPO and its annual work program, it
directed staff attention on the need to work with their statewide
partners if they were to accomplish the overarching goal of
reducing the loss of important cultural resources. Its eight goals
were intentionally formulated to apply to all the preservation

78

a top priority. Other objectives remained relatively unchanged,
such as the directive to continue to assist in building strong Tribal
preservation programs. Within the Section 106 program, the desire
to streamline the process remained important.
The update conducted in 2009 occurred as the economy was
entering the worst period of the Great Recession. Despite the
tremendous blows inflicted on Arizona’s new housing construction
sector, government revenues, and other areas of the economy, the
value of historic residential property compared favorably to the
trend in the housing sector as a whole (see Appendix B). At the
same time, the public survey portion of the plan found that the
public continued to support the goals of historic preservation.
The only significant change to the planning goals in 2009 was a
slight rewording and a reorganization under two broad categories
instead of two.
Toward the Effective Management of Historic Resources
Goal 1: Better Resource Management
Goal 2: Effective Information Management
Goal 3: Maximized Funding
Goal 4: Integrated Preservation Planning
Toward an Informed and Supportive Constituency
Goal 5: Proactive Partnerships
Goal 6: Public Support
Goal 7: Policy-Makers Support
Goal 8: Informed Professionals

79

THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK

80

APPENDIX D
PUBLIC SURVEY
In order to gauge the opinion of Arizona residents on historic preservation issues, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
commissioned the School of Community Resources and Development, Arizona State University (ASU), to conduct a telephone survey. ASU
contacted 600 selected persons across the state. Demographic information indicates that those responding represented the major ethnic
groups living in Arizona (White/Caucasian, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and Native American). Respondents included residents of the major
metropolitan, small towns, and rural areas. To gain a representative sample of opinion across the state rather than concentrated in the MetroPhoenix and Tucson areas, the state was divided into eight regions with respondents in each region randomly selected. The following tables
summarize Socio-demographic information about the respondents.
Table 1. Community Distribution

Large city
(>100,000)
Small city
Small town
Rural area
Other
Don’t
know/refused
Total

Frequency
119

Percent
19.8

110
194
145
11
21

18.3
32.3
24.2
1.8
3.5

600

100

Table 2. Ethnic or racial background
Black/AfrAmer.
White/Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino
Asian
Native
American

Frequency
11

Percent
1.8

393
88
10
33

65.5
14.7
1.7
5.5

81

Other
Don’t
know/refused
Total

28
37

4.7
6.2

600

100

Table 3. Education
<9th grade
9th – 12th
HS graduate
Some college
Business/vocational
school or Associates
degree
Bachelor’s degree
Graduate/Professional
degree
Don’t know/refused
Total

Frequency
17
32
75
142
84

Percent
2.8
5.3
12.5
23.7
14

101
131

16.8
21.8

18
600

3
100

Table 4. Age distribution
Frequency
18-24
25-44
45-64
65-84
85 & over
Don’t know/refused
Total

8
76
240
234
16
26
574

Percent
1.4
13.2
41.8
40.8
2.8
4.3
100

82

Table 5. Income distribution
$25,000 and under
$25,001 to 50,000
$50,001 to 75,000
$75,001 to 100,000
$100,001 to 125,000
$125,001 to 150,000
$15,001 or more
Don’t know/refused
Total

Frequency
92
134
108
70
36
15
22
123
600

Percent
15.3
22.3
18
11.7
6
2.5
3.7
20.5
100

Table 6. Gender

Male
Female
Total

Frequency
296
304
600

Percent
49.3
50.7
100

Table 7. Regional distribution

AZ Strip
Flagstaff/Prescott
Metro Phoenix
Metro Tucson
Rim Country
SE Arizona
Super Desert
West Coast
Total

Frequency
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
600

Percent
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
100

83

Table 8. Interview language preference
Englis
Spanish
Total

Frequency
556
44
600

Percent
92.7
7.3
100

Question 1.
In the following questions, historic properties may include archaeological sites, buildings of architectural distinction, places of historic
events, and historic districts. Can you recall any property, site or building that you thought had historical importance anywhere in the state
having been destroyed or otherwise lost in the past year? Is that one property or building or more than one.

Yes
Yes, more than one
No
Don’t know/refused
Total

Frequency
38
9
538
15
600

Percent
6.3
1.5
89.7
2.5
100

Question 2.
Can you recall any property, site or building that you thought had historical importance anywhere in the state having been destroyed or
otherwise lost in the past year? Was it/were they . . .

A residential property
A commercial property
An archaeological site
A public building
Something else*
Don’t know/refuse
Total

Frequency
12
3
9
14
6
3
47

Percent
25.5
6.4
19.1
29.8
12.8
6.4
7.8

*Specific responses were: a barn, forest, a mining town, “too many homes destroying public lands,” park, and the Shrine in Yarnell.
84

Question 3.
People have different perceptions about historic preservation. I’m going to read you a few statements and after each one, please tell me
whether you agree or disagree with it using a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 meaning you strongly disagree and 5 meaning you strongly agree.

Historic preservation
connects people with
the past
Historic preservation
prevents change
Historic preservation
helps make a better
future
Historic preservation
obstructs progress
Historic preservation
is compatible with
recycling and
sustainability
Historic preservation
helps sustain the
American way of life
Historic preservation
helps sustain Native
American cultural
places and traditions

Strongly
disagree
(1)
3.00%

11.30%

Strongly
agree
(5)
73.00%

Mean
4.49

Standard
deviation
0.98

2.50%

10.20%

39.00%

15.50%

22.50%

7.70%

15.30%

2.45

1.45

4.70%

3.30%

21.30%

20.50%

50.20%

4.08

1.12

54.80%

14.80%

12.70%

6.70%

11.00%

2.04

1.39

10.00%

8.20%

27.00%

16.70%

38.20%

3.65

1.32

6.70%

4.70%

16.20%

19.20%

53.30%

4.08

1.21

4.30%

2.50%

11.50%

18.80%

62.80%

4.33

1.06

(2)

(3)

(4)

85

Question 4.
Next, I’m going to read a few more statements and, again, I’d like to know if you agree or disagree with each one. Us the same scale from 1
to 5 with 1 meaning you strongly disagree and 5 meaning you strongly agree.

Historic preservation
saves buildings and
structures
Historic preservation
saves places that are
set aside for public
visitation such as
museums and parks
Historic preservation
saves archaeological
sites
Historic preservation
saves historic districts
Historic preservation
saves local
neighborhoods
Historic preservation
rehabilitates old
buildings for new uses
Historic preservation
saves commercial
downtown areas and
rural Main Streets
Historic preservation
saves Native American
culture

Strongly
disagree
(1)
4.00%

20.50%

Strongly
agree
(5)
57.80%

Mean
4.26

Standard
deviation
1.08

3.50%

13.80%

3.80%

2.20%

10.50%

20.30%

62.50%

4.38

1.02

4.70%

2.30%

10.30%

15.70%

66.70%

4.38

1.07

3.50%

4.20%

15.00%

19.30%

56.50%

4.26

1.09

10.20%

8.50%

26.80%

18.00%

35.20%

3.63

1.34

7.80%

8.50%

20.70%

24.20%

37.70%

3.79

1.27

5.80%

7.50%

23.00%

24.50%

38.20%

3.85

1.20

5.70%

5.70%

12.80%

18.80%

56.00%

4.17

1.20

(2)

(3)

(4)

86

Question 5.
Please tell me if you agree or disagree using the same scale from 1 to 5 with 1 meaning you strongly disagree and 5 meaning you strongly
agree.

Government should
play a role in historic
preservation
Government should
play a role in
identifying historic
properties, sites and
buildings
Government should
provide tax incentives
and grants to owns of
historic properties,
sites and buildings
Government should be
responsible for
keeping and
maintaining some
historic properties or
buildings of great
importance
Government should
help educate the public
about historic
properties, sites and
buildings

Strongly
disagree
(1)
10.70%

16.80%

Strongly
agree
(5)
48.30%

Mean
3.87

Standard
deviation
1.36

6.20%

17.70%

11.20%

7.70%

21.30%

19.20%

40.80%

3.71

1.35

14.20%

6.80%

23.00%

20.20%

35.20%

3.57

1.40

10.20%

7.30%

17.80%

20.20%

44.50%

3.81

1.34

10.70%

5.70%

19.20%

17.50%

46.80%

3.85

1.35

(2)

(3)

(4)

87

Question 6.
I’m going to read you a few items that are sometimes considered when identifying an historic property, site, or building for preservation.
Please tell me how important YOU THINK each item is in deciding whether a property, site, or building should be preserved. Rate each
item using a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 meaning it is not at all important and 5 meaning it is very important.

The beauty of the
property, site or
building
The historical or
cultural importance
The sense of place or
atmosphere
The economic
potential of the
property, site or
building
The architectural merit
The age of the
building or
archaeological site

Not at all
important
(1)
6.30%

24.50%

Very
important
(5)
38.20%

Mean
3.82

Standard
deviation
1.20

10.50%

21.00%

65.00%

4.46

0.89

7.50%

31.50%

22.20%

30.80%

3.7

1.20

13.00%

12.20%

30.00%

18.70%

25.20%

3.34

1.34

4.00%
4.20%

5.20%
2.50%

18.50%
17.70%

28.30%
27.00%

43.30%
48.30%

4.04
4.14

1.10
1.06

(2)

(3)

(4)

7.00%

23.80%

2.30%

0.80%

6.00%

88

Question 7.
Next, I’d like you to think about visiting an historic STONE building. If you were to visit an historic stone building, in general, would you
prefer seeing . . .
A ruin
A building stabilized with fallen stone
but back in place
A building that has been restored to
look as it did when it was new
A building that has been restored as is
being used as a restaurant, visitor center,
or some other commercial use
Don’t know/refused
Total

Frequency
129
103

Percent
21.5
17.2

209

34.8

131

21.8

28
600

4.7
100

89