Milwaukee Railroad Shops Historic District ~ Sioux City, Iowa

Milwaukee Railroad Shops Historic District ~ Sioux City, Iowa
Prepared by
Larry Obermeyer, Executive Secretary
Si
Siouxland
l d Historical
Hi t i l Railroad
R il
d Association
A
i ti
Presentation theme:
How the investment of Transportation Enhancement Funds supports the
Milwaukee Railroad Shops Historic District Preservation Project
Presentation scope:
1. What has been accomplished with Transportation Enhancement funds?
2. What will be accomplished in the next three years with Transportation Enhancement
funds?
3. What is the impact resulting from the investment of Transportation Enhancement
funds?
Presentation team:
•
•
•
•
Jon Wagoner, president and chief executive officer
Odell Overgaard, board member and Corliss project manager
Bob Sweeney, board member and Corliss project manager
Larry Obermeyer
Obermeyer, executive secretary and chief marketing officer
SAFETEA-LU Transportation-related activities
The Milwaukee Railroad Shops Historic District is eligible
as a Transportation
p
Enhancement Activityy based on its fit
in the following categories:
•
Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings, structures or
facilities, including historic railroad facilities and canals.
•
Preservation of abandoned railway corridors, including the conversion and
use of those corridors for pedestrian and bicycle trails.
•
Installation of interpretive facilities for a federally-designated scenic or
historic highway focusing on local history.
•
Provide information to direct members of the traveling public to specific local
area sites deemed to be of scenic and historic significance.
•
Establishment of a transportation museum to educate the public on surface
transportation history.
Project Location
Historic District History
• Built 1917
• Steam and diesel locomotive servicing and rail car repair facility (1917 – 1980)
• Abandoned by the railroad (1981)
• Salvage yard operation (1981 –
S l
d
ti (1981 1996)
• Historic District (1996 – present)
• Redevelopment goal: interpretive science d l
l
and industrial heritage museum
Four Development Phases
•
•
•
•
Reclamation
Reconstruction
Reuse (adaptive)
Revitalization
Development is similar in scale to a national park
• Steamtown (Pennsylvania): 71,123 visitors/visits
• Golden Spike (Utah): 39,968 visitors/visits
16,000
000
• National average for historic sites: 16
Reclamation – Before and After
1996
2009
Reclamation – Before and After
Spring
p g 1997
May 2009
Reclamation – Before and After
Spring 1997
M 2009
May
Milwaukee Railroad Shops – Before and After
Spring 1997
May 2009
Reconstruction - Work completed in 2008
Roundhouse Bay 1 Reconstruction
Virtual hard hat tour on
YouTube.com
Roundhouse Bay 1 Reconstruction
Roundhouse Bay 1 Reconstruction
Roundhouse Bay 1 Reconstruction
Great Northern Railway Steam Locomotive No. 1355 and Tender 1451
2009
2007
•
Restoration began in 1984
•
Restoration completed in 2009
•
C
Cost:
$
$275,000 ((TE: $
$58,879))
•
Volunteer Hours: 96,000
•
Listed on the National Register of
Historic Places
•
Designated an official project of
the federal Save America
Treasures Program
1984
Wood Sand Tower Reconstruction
Hi t i Preservation
Historic
P
ti
Work
W k Plan
Pl
2009 to 2010
• Machine Shop Building Rehabilitation
• New Exhibit Building Construction
• New Restroom Facilities Construction
• Fundraising Campaign for Phase V
Improvements – remaining buildings
2009 – 2010 Reconstruction Work Plan
Rehabilitation of the Machine Shop
Building
•
Reuse as an industrial science
museum
Planned Exhibits
•
Corliss Stationary Steam Engine
•
Cameron Steam Turbine Pump
•
Frick Compressor
•
Worthington Compressor
•
Large scale railroad equipment
2009 – 2010 Reconstruction Work Plan
2009 – 2010 Work Plan
2009 -2010 Work Plan
2009 -2010 Work Plan
Purpose: industrial heritage exhibits
2009 – 2010 Reconstruction Work Plan
Construction of new Exhibit Center
•
Railroad/civil engineering and scale
model railroad museum
Planned Exhibits
•
Nebraska Central Railway diorama
•
Scale models to illustrate engineering
•
Civil engineering tools and artifacts
2009 – 2010 Reconstruction Work Plan
Facility purpose is to house exhibits focusing on railroad and civil engineering
through the use of scale models.
2009 – 2010 Reconstruction Work Plan
Design, construction and installation of “green” restroom facilities
• Pre-engineered to match architectural heritage of the site
• Waterless
W t l
urinals
i l and
d vault
lt system
t
• Solar-powered electrical system
• Cost Estimate: $ 174, 412
• National Scenic Byway Funds: $ 139,529
• Balance of funds needed: $ 34,883
2009 – 2010 Reconstruction Work Plan
Fundraising
g campaign
p g for Phase V historic district improvements
p
•
Rehabilitation of the following buildings: carpenter shop, water closet,
sand drying house and engineer tool shed.
•
Purchase, construction and installation of 16
Purchase
16-inch
inch gauge railroad for
transportation and visitor entertainment.
•
Purchase and installation of way finding directional signage.
Project Budget
•
Cost Estimate: $681,632
•
TE Award: $ 477,142
•
B l
Balance
off funds
f d needed:
d d $ 204
204,490
490
2009 – 2010 Marketing Campaign
Budget: $ 11,000
• Sioux City Journal
• The Weekender
• North Sioux City –
D k t Dune
Dakota
D
Ti
Times
• Nebraska Journal
Leader
• KSCJ Nostalgia
Theater
• Website and Blog
Revitalization: measuring the impact of heritage tourism
Monitoring Project/Program
Accomplishments
p
and Impact
p
• Audience Profile
• Economic Impact Study
• Return on Investment
Questions for economic impact analysis
Hypothesis: the Milwaukee Railroad Shops Historic District creates a positive economic impact on the surrounding community. The following four research questions formed the design of the study:
1 Is
1.
Is the historic district project aligned and integrated with economic the historic district project aligned and integrated with economic
development strategies at all levels of government and who benefits from the project?
1. Who are the people visiting the historic district site by type of visitor segment?
1. On
On average, how much do visitors spend per trip when accessing the average, how much do visitors spend per trip when accessing the
historic district?
1. What is the total economic impact on the local community attributed to people visiting the historic district? l i iti th hi t i di t i t?
Analytical
a yt ca framework
a e o for
o tthe
e study
Scope of the Literature Review
•
Review of the public policy landscape integrating historic preservation and heritage tourism as economic development practices.
•
Review of the public strategic initiatives and the integration of historic Review
of the public strategic initiatives and the integration of historic
preservation policies across all levels of government.
•
Determine an appropriate methods to assess this project’s progress towards achieving public policy goals and objectives dealing with economic development at the federal, state and local levels.
Study Methodology
1.
Strategy Map and Logic Model Exercise
2
2.
Visitor Registrations
Visitor Registrations
3.
Survey
•
•
•
30 question visitor survey adapted from National Park Service
Key Survey On‐line Instrument and Tabulation System
3 options for completing survey: on‐site, on‐line, return mail
4.
Key Survey On‐line instrument and tabulation system
5.
Excel Spreadsheet
6.
Input/Output Spreadsheet Model
•
Money Generation Model 2 Short form Spreadsheet
Description of Population and Sampling
• Study period:
August 1 to October 26, 2008
• Estimated attendance:
7,364
• Average visitor party size:
5.1 people
• Estimated sampling pool: 1,444 visitor parties
• Number of survey participants: 158 (10.9%)
• Number of visitor registrations sampled:
361 (25%)
• Gender:
51%
male
• Age:
46 3 % ranged in age from 18 to 45 years of age
46.3
female
• Length of visit/stay: 80.4%
49%
two to three hours
Findings – alignment with public policy
Q. 1: Is the historic district project aligned and integrated with economic development strategies at all levels of government and who benefits from the project?
1. The strategy map illustrates there is an inter‐governmental/agency linkage between the project, local government, and state and federal agencies.
2. The organization has a strategic goal indexing economic development.
3. The strategic goal helps to define the tasks the project must p
perform to have impact on the p
local business community.
Findings
g – alignment
g
with public
p
policy
p
y
Q. 1: Is the historic district project aligned and integrated with economic development strategies at all levels of government and who benefits from the project?
p j
1. The logic model presents the “big picture” to help better understand the project’s fit within the community’s priorities.
2. The model shows how the economic impact study fits as part of measuring the project’s progress towards achieving local public policy goals and objectives.
Findings – audience profile
Q. 2:
Who are the people visiting the historic district site by type of visitor segment?
1 Average party: 5.1 individuals (3.3 adults, 1.8 children).
1.
A
t 5 1 i di id l (3 3 d lt 1 8 hild )
2. Majority (81%) of the current visitor market is captured from within a 50 mile radius of Sioux City .
3. Project has large regional drawing power – nearly 75% of visitors were making their third or more visit.
T bl 1:
Table
1 Audience
A di
Profile
P fil Analysis
A l i
Historic District Information
Total estimated attendance/visits
Average party size
Total estimated parties visiting
7,364
5.1
1 444
1,444
Visitor Segment Information
Segment by origin of residency
Shares of visits by segments
Estimated parties visiting by segments
Length of Stay in area (days/nights)
Local
Regional
Non-Local
Day Tripper
Traveler
Total
81%
12%
7%
100%
1,164
173
101
1,438
1
1
1
Findings – main reasons for visiting
(Quality-of-Life measure: does the project connect the visitor to the community or improve local residents’ knowledge?)
Top five reasons among the 18 categories of answers, in order of importance
• See the steam locomotive: 54.8%
• Interest in historic preservation: 54.8%
• See what the railroad museum offers: 43
43.8%
8%
• Interest in the community’s local history: 43.8%
• Something to interest the children: 26%
Findings – needed site improvements
(Quality-of-Life measure: does the project provide a positive visitor experience?)
Top five facility improvements indicated by visitors as necessary to improve
the visitor experience offered by the historic district
• Permanent restroom facilities: 49.1%
• Interpretive walking trail: 45.5%
• Interpretive signage in historic district: 43.6%
• Hard surface parking lot: 41.8%
• Directional signage/way finding street signage: 41.7%
Findings – trends in visitor spending
Q. 3:
On average, how much do visitors spend per trip when accessing the historic district?
1. Average daily spending for all visitor segments: $94.46
g
y p
g
g
$
2. Local regional visitors spend a larger share of their expenditures on food.
3 TTravelers spend a larger portion of their expenditures on lodging and 3.
l
d l
ti
f th i
dit
l d i
d
transportation, followed by food.
Table 2: Daily Spending by Visitor Segment and Expenditure Category
Historic District Visitor Segment
Local
Regional
Non-Local
Day Tripper
Traveler
Total
(Mean)
Food and beverage
$17.80
$33.22
$29.17
$26.73
Transportation or fuel for vehicle
$15 52
$15.52
$8 89
$8.89
$46 50
$46.50
$23 64
$23.64
Lodging (Motel, hotel or campground)
$0.00
$0.00
$66.83
$22.28
Other entertainment
$6.14
$2.22
$9.17
$5.84
$14.47
$15.55
$17.91
$15.98
$53 93
$53.93
$59 88
$59.88
$169 58
$169.58
$94 46
$94.46
Expenditure Category
General shopping
Average daily spending per party
Assumption: Based on the mix of the Riverside business district, the historic district can make an impact on the economic base of the neighborhood, primarily in the food and retail sectors.
Findings – economic impact to local region
Q. 4:
What is the total economic impact on the local community attributed to people visiting the historic district?
1 Total direct economic impact: 1.
T t l di t
i i
t
$90 279
$90,279
2. In‐direct turnover (multiplier): $19,387
3. Total direct and indirect economic impact: $109,666
Table 4: Estimated Direct and In-Direct Economic Impact of Visitors to the Milwaukee Railroad Shops
Historic District
g
Visitor Segment
Local
Non-Local
Regional Day Trippers
Traveler
Total
Spending by Consumption Category
Food and beverage
$20,716
$5,756
$2,948
$29,420
p
or fuel for vehicle
$18,062
,
$1,540
,
$4,700
,
$24,303
,
Transportation
Lodging (Motel, hotel or campground)
$0
$0
$6,755
$6,755
Other entertainment
$7,146
$385
$927
$8,457
General shopping
$16,840
$2,694
$1,810
$21,344
Total estimated direct economic impact
$62,764
$10,375
$17,140
$90,279
Multiplier rate
1.2
1.13
1.32
Total estimated in-direct economic impact
$12,553
$1,349
$5,485
$19,387
Total estimated economic impact effects
$75,317
$11,724
$22,625
$109,666
Findings – economic impact to local region
Q. 4:
What is the total economic impact on the local community attributed to people visiting the historic district?
4. Sales Tax Benefit (state and local):
$6,320
5. Total Direct and In-Direct Economic Impact:
$109,666
6. Total Economic Impact with Sales Tax Benefit: $115,986
Table 5: Estimated State and Local Sales Tax Generated
Visitor Segment
Rate
Local
Regional
Non-Local
Day Tripper
Traveler
Total
Iowa Statewide Sales Tax
City of Sioux City Local Sales Tax
5%
1%
$3,138
$628
$519
$104
$857
$171
$4,514
$903
Sioux City Community School Local Sales Tax
1%
$628
$104
$171
$903
Total Estimated Sales Tax Generated )
7%
$4,394
$727
$1,199
$6,320
Findings – 2009 total economic impact
• Total visitors/visits: 9,784
• Total direct spending: $ 119,948
• Total sales tax collected: $ 5,837
• Total direct economic impact: $ 125,785
• Total volunteer spending: $70,362
• Total volunteer hours: 9
9,948
948
• Total in-kind volunteer labor: $72,123
• Construction Expenditures: $569,918
• Total
T t l Economic
E
i IImpact:
t $838,188
$838 188
Job Creation: 25
Construction trades and
tourism-related employment
Leveraging local public funds and sweat equity
Local City, County and MPO Investments
• City of Sioux City:
$45,000
• City/Federal Urban Renewal :
$135,00
• SIMPCO-MPO:
$58,879
• Woodbury County:
$17,000
• Total investments:
$269,000
Federal and State Investments Secured/Committed
• Statewide TEA Funds:
$1,887,780
• National Scenic Byway Funds:
$139 529
$139,529
• State HSPG/HRDP Funds:
$255,908
• State Cultural Affairs Funds:
$38,350
• Vision Iowa/CAT Funds:
$266 466
$266,466
• Total Federal and State Investments: $2,588,033
ROI: $2,588,033/$269,000 = 962.09%
Sweat equity investment: 257,000 collective volunteer hours * $7.25 per hour = $1,863,250
Thank You!
Questions?