No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVI (F) Discussion re: Policy on 1% Sales Tax Proposal of Orange County Chairman Agenda 5-6-97 Item VI F "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" MAYOR•COMMISSIONER S.SCOTT VANDERGRIFI Ocoee CITY OF OCOEE COMMl$DMVNER] ANNY HOWELL rn� 1�� ISO N. LAKIitiIIOR[DRIVE SCOTT ANDERSON Q scant A GLASS v O OcoPP, 19ARIon 34761-2258 ��::.',�J� ?v , 07)Hy 6 n 2322 3476 NANCY J.PARKER f IN I ERIM CITY MANAGER Ay F* OF G000�` E'LLIS SI IAPIRO MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners FROM: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager DATE: May 2, 1997 RE: DISCUSSION OF ORANGE COUNTY SALES TAX PROPOSAL Almost a year ago, the communities in Orange County began talking about the possibility of proposing of a one cent sales tax increase to its voters. Everyone that met on this subject agreed that if the citizens would support this tax increase, it would take all the communities of Orange County along with the County government to support this proposal. When the City Managers met, the majority of the participants suggested that the sales tax should be proposed as follows: 1. The tax should be for a period of not less than 10 years and, if possible, 15 years to optimize the numbers of projects that could be done county-wide. 2. The tax should be distributed on a population basis throughout the county with cooperation between the cities and the County to do joint projects to get the most bang for the buck. 3. The cities feel that while we should not advise each jurisdiction how to use their allocation, we should attempt to dissuade the use of a county-wide tax to do drainage projects in the unincorporated areas of the County when the majority of the cities have a drainage utility and make the citizens receiving the benefit pay a fair share of the costs. At the same time the communities began to meet, Chairman Chapin created a Blue Ribbon Commission of Orange County Infrastructure to plan for the use of tic zS these and other funds for the future. A copy of their report can be found in the City Clerk's office for your review. As you may recall, Orange County asked each community to make a list of projects that might be funded for a tax period of 15 years. Our list is attached and is marked "Exhibit A." This list was for approximately $71,000,000.00. Approximately 20 days ago, Linda Chapin, County Chairman, presented the attached proposal dated April 10, 1997 and marked as "Exhibit B." Her proposal provided the following provisions: 1. The tax would be for an initial period of 6 years 2. 30+% of the total revenue would go to the School Board 3. 23% of the total revenue would go to regional transportation issues 4. 33+% would go to the County with a good deal of that 33+% going for drainage projects 5. 13.5% would go to the cities Mr. Jack Douglas, Assistant City Administrator, City of Apopka, provided the attached analysis of dollars as proposed by Orange County, marked as "Exhibit C." Mr. Douglas' figures suggest that based on the County proposal, each city's budget shall be decreased by 52+%. Incidentally, the County budget would also reduce by 53+%. If you reduce our budget by 52+% and you reduce the funding time frame from 15 years to 6 years as proposed, our revenue reduces from $71,000,000.00 to $11,500,000.00; a significant drop. If our evaluation is true, then the Staff would recommend the projects listed in "Exhibit D" of this report. For a moment, let us look at the projects proposed by the County Chairman that might have a positive impact on the City of Ocoee residents. 1. Drainage projects: -0- 2. Transportation projects: (a) Maguire Road - Gotha Road to S.R. 50 $6,559,000 (b) Good Homes Road - Old Winter Garden to S.R. 50 $578,000 (c) Roberson Road ENV Expressway to Maguire Rd $2,188,000 3. Parks Belmere Park $1,500,000 Regional Projects: Western Beltway $50,000,000 Let's evaluate the above-listed projects for a moment: (a) Maguire Road - $6.6 million - these funds will mostly fund the section of Maguire Road that the City does not need widened for its concurrency needs; however, at least 2 million dollars could be used for the widening of the turnpike bridge. (b) Good Homes Road - not in our list to do $578,000, but would be good for our residents as well. (c) Roberson Road - $2.188 million - neither the Expressway Authority nor the City of Ocoee wished to see Roberson Road connected to the East/West Expressway; further development of this road can be built at developer expense for the most part from 535 to Maguire Road. (d) Belmere Park - $1.5 million - if developed by the County could help some of the children to have a place to play while the City develops its park in the district of our City. (e) Western Beltway - $50 million - it is our understanding that the funds necessary to do the Western Beltway in our community is included in the proposed state budget. If this is true, where will this $50,000,000.00 go? This issue is somewhat complicated and has many turns in the road. Staff is concerned that this proposal as suggested means that we as residents of Ocoee will have to tell our constituents to vote for a sales tax that they will pay, where at least 75 cents of every dollar paid will not go for a project that will benefit in any way the City of Ocoee. Furthermore, we are not convinced that the residents of Ocoee would support any revenue going to the school system as currently constituted. Therefore, Staff recommends that the City of Ocoee go on record as being unable to support the County Chairman's proposal as presented. Respectfully S�bmitted, ecNiarf (A) �.� "ia1 fiv" , �..& �-ri4 F.�PF @ �7s. ii,a ni ;.4 Fscl� 3ala4 * b. e�i ��w� '_ � - �i 4'aa 'r sr rM '' :.. . t ' REQUIRED TOTAL AVAILABLE UNFUNDED SALES PROJECT DESCRIPTION NEED REVENUE NEED TAX FUNDED 1 Turnpike Connection-Flyover 9,350,000 0 9,350,000 9,350,000 100 (Tomyn Road -4 Lanes) •Clarcona Road Widening 13,200,000 0 13,200,000 13,200,000 100 Maguire Road SR 50 to Roberson Road 11 000,000 0 11,000,000 11,000,000 100 SR 50 to SR 438 7,700,000 0 7,700,000 7,700,000 100 'West Colonial DR.- Good Homes Rd.to Winter Garden City Limits 5,500,000 0 5,500,000 5,500,000 100 `Old Winter Garden Road (Within City Limits) 2,750,000 0 2,750,000 2,750,000 100 Intersection Improvements: Old Winter Garden Road & West colonial Dr. 1,100,000 0 1,100,000 1,100,000 100 Good Homes Rd. &West Colonial Dr. 1,100,000 0 1,100,000 1,100,000 100 Maguire Rd. &West Colonial Dr. 1,100,000 0 1,100,000 1,100,000 100 Recreation Park on A.D. Mims (Full Service Facility) 9,350,000 0 9,350,000 9,350,000 100 Recreation Park-South 4,400,000 0 4,400,000 4,400,000 100 Sawmill Neighborhood Park 1,100,000 0 1,100,000 1,100,000 100 North Central Perk- North of Clarcona Rd. 1,100,000 0 1,100,000 1,100,000 100 Northwest Park 1,100,000 0 1,100,000 1,100,000 100 Clark Road&White Road Park 1,100,000 0 1,100,000 1,100,000 100 Total 70,950,000 0 70,950,000 70,950,000 100 *One half of total cost. Remainder is to be funded by County " Partial cost. Remainder of project is to be funded by FDOT and County dam 7d, ` REQUIRED TOTAL AVAILABLE UNFUNDED SALES CATEGORY NEED REVENUE NEED TAX FUNDED TRANSPORTATION 52,800,000 0 52,800,000 52,800,000 100 PARKS/RECREATION 18,150,000 0 18,150,000 18,150,000 100 TOTAL 70,950,000 0 70,950,000 70,950,000 100 ' N 40 CIUiNTY April 10, 1997 GOVERMENT PLUICIDA To: Board of County Commissioners /1� From: Linda W. Chapin, County Chairman �e,wel.�(•u. (:�Ca� Subject : Sales Tax Referendum After long deliberation and careful consideration, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Orange County Infrastructure (BRC) , in their report to the Board of County Commissioners, made substantial recommendations regarding our community' s needs and the revenues they thought most appropriate to address them. As you recall, these revenues ranged from an extra penny sales tax imposed by referendum to property taxes to a stormwater utility fee. We are embarking upon a public dialogue with our citizens that will involve a variety of mechanisms to solicit their views . The Blue Ribbon Commission provided an excellent platform which offered a full range of options. At my direction, our staff has developed more detail consistent with the basic framework of the Blue Ribbon Commission report . Building upon their work, I am also suggesting some additional options for public review and comment. This combined package suggests that we address our infrastructure needs by relying upon existing revenue sources and tax rates combined with a one penny sales tax for six years only, (the time period suggested by the BRC, to begin January 1, 1398, through sunset December 31, 2003) . It is not a proposal which addresses all of the needs we have recognized and discussed, but rather one which allows our community to begin the process by investing in clearly identified, near-term goals about which there is considerable community consensus. This is a conservative proposal which recognizes some important realities, such as the need to be extremely cautious about capital expenditures which would result in escalating costs for operations and maintenance. At the same time, I believe it is future-oriented in that it takes into account the importance of investing now in areas where the costs will inevitably be far greater if we defer them. e.g. land for parks or right-of-way for transportation corridors. It offers opportunities for partnering with municipalities and other agencies to leverage and maximize potential funding. OFFICE OF THE CHAnc4LN 201 South Rosalind Avenue•Ropy To-. Pre•Omce Box 1098•Orlando. Fond.3P802-1393 Te cphooc(407)8367870•htp/Anrw.aw na-ant.cu unan:c.fl us s'JBJ: Sales Tax Referendum Page 2 of 9 Recognizing that our citizens demand and deserve assurances that any plan they are asked to consider in a referendum election will be clear and enforceable, this proposal also includes an essential element of accountability. I have also attempted to advance projects with a focus on achievability during the six-year period, for the public will need to see the results of a positive referendum decision. An important element of the recommendation to take a careful and limited approach to such a program is the conviction that we should reserve important options and decisions for future community leaders who will be able to assess the benefits of any issues we advance now in the light of the continued growth and changing nature of the needs in our Central Florida region. it recognizes the fact that capital programs established by referendum in adjacent counties will be coming to completion within the time frame I propose, affording opportunities to partner on important regional transportation issues in the next decade should that be necessary and appropriate (the infrastructure sales tax in Seminole County sunsets in 2001; in Osceola County the sunset date is 2005) . Given lead time to consider such matters, the Metropolitan Planning Organization assumes even more importance as the regional transportation planning body. By limiting the framework of this plan to six years and clearly agreed-upon projects, we maximize the flexibility of alternative revenues which could be useful to future decision-makers, such as the transit tax, which is not currently available to Orange County, but is potentially a positive revenue option in that it allows for both capital and operational expenditures. Finally, 1 propose we give consideration to a need deliberately left unaddressed by the Blue Ribbon Commission: education. You all know of my belief that there is no issue more important to our economic viability as a community as well as the potential of individual citizens. My proposal affords an opportunity for the Orange County School Board to advance to the Board of County Commissioners the systems most pressing funding gaps for inclusion in what would then be a well-rounded, even though limited, plan to address Orange County's priority infrastructure needs. Please understand that my work is intended to provide a flexible framework to which you and others may react along with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission. I emphasize, however, my personal conviction that it is very important to take a conservative approach to the opportunities presented by a sales tax referendum, a., SUBJ. Sales Tax Referendum Page 3 of 9 In drafting this proposal, I sought the assistance of our County Administrator, Jean Bennett, whose understanding of budget and financial issues is an invaluable resource to all of us . Below are the details of proposed expenditures, as well as the forecast assumptions we have used: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS: - We have used conservative projections forecasting a growth rate of 5% per year in the penny sales tax. - You will note that we have not made any accommodation, pending the outcome of proposed legislation, and discussion with the BCC, in projected revenues for a temporary, i.e. 18-20 month, deferral of sales tax collections related to the resort tax. We will monitor these issues, but it is also our belief that our revenue projections are so conservative that growth may well balance a brief shortfall in collections. - Expenditures on issues of county-wide importance (e.g. schools and some transportation and transit) would be subtracted from available revenues prior to the application of the statutory distribution formula, recognizing that these improvements will benefit citizens in both unincorporated and incorporated areas. This approach will evoke discussion and debate . - Population estimates (for the distribution formula) match those forecast by OMB for the negotiations over the local option gas tax through 2005 . - Ad Valorem taxes would remain at current rates, with the possible stated exception (recognizing that public safety must always be a primary consideration) of the Sheriff's MSTU. - The Stormwater Utility fee would not be implemented, but opportunities for enhanced revenues for this purpose through the Utilities Division would continue to be explored. - All expenditures are ' pay as you go" ; however, short-term securities such as notes or commercial paper might be used to provide up-front funding. - The Board should retain the choice of making impact fee adjustments as may be warranted in continuing our goal of having growth pay its own way. For similar reasons, the Board may at some point wish to consider an interim services fee. .. ... h., ;:. : !duns SUBJ: Sales Tax Referendum Page 4 of 9 EXPENDITURES FROM SALES TAX: COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION: 1-4 Improvements - this proposal tracks the BRC Report (page 25) providing $120 million in a six year period. Projects, as suggested, should address most pressing needs such as the John Young interchange and East/West interchange and should be negotiated for maximum leverage with FDCT. We will ask their representatives, along with LYNX, to meet with the Board for input on May 6 . State Roads - provides the $55 million recommended by BRC (page 23) , one half of the shortfall for state roads reflected on the OUATS 2020 Plan. Western Beltway - this is an element not addressed in other plans, as it was assumed that the 000EA would fund all costs associated with the project . My view, however, is that we should seriously consider participation if by doing so we can either advance the project or significantly reduce the cost by earlier acquisition of right-of-way needed for Part C. The level of such participation should not exceed $50 million. A recent study by the Center for Urban Transportation Research at the University of South Florida has validated the significant economic and mobility impacts of the expressway system for Orange County, and completion of the Western Beltway should be a top Orange County priority. COUNTYhI E TRANSIT: Unlike the 3RC, I do not propose expenditure from sales tax proceeds for even the starter line of the light rail system. We are close to a funding plan for the segment from Sea World to downtown Orlando, and the experience of other communities suggests that citizens are far more likely to support such rail efforts after an initial leg is built and operating successfully. I would offer an exception to the above recommendation only if there is a minimal funding gap, of perhaps $20-30 million, once the participation of state, federal and private funding is assured. . . .the potential for bringing $350-400 million in outside funds to the community is so important that we should maintain some flexibility on the subject . The City of Orlando should share in meeting that funding gap. I would suggest we include approximately $2 million per year of capital for new buses for LYNX, freeing up a similar amount from cur general fund LYNX budget which could he applied to 0 & M costs during the six-year period. J1 10 9; ilil _ '. 4J HAV Ids )Ju r,uo ; f1Al2:9AN yl'duo SUS:: Saes Tax Referendum Page 5 of 9 ORANGE COUNTY NEEDS: Transportation - Over the years we have identified extensive • county-wide transportation improvements which our professionals believe are important to mobility in conjunction with improvements and expansion of state roads. Attached is a compilation of the most critical projects which are currently unfunded in our capital improvements plan and which could be included in a work plan funded by the infrastructure surtax. The cost of some of these projects should be shared with municipalities that will most directly benefit . Stormwater - We have reached the point in our development as an urban county when it is critical that we address improvements needed for issues of water quality and quantity. The Board of County Commissioners has been considering a stormwater utility fee for the residents in the unincorporated area which would be similar to that already in place in the cities of Orlando, winter Park and others (our process was delayed due to legal constraints and the necessity of completing individual basin studies) . Funding stormwater projects through the county' s share of the one cent sales tax would allow us to proceed without the imposition of that fee (currently estimated at $44 per household annually) . Attached is a six-year schedule of prioritized stormwater projects . Although some have suggested chat our funding needs are greater than this, our staff believes this is a realistic assessment of our capacity to manage such projects in the time frame. Parks and Recreation - This is an area where we must proceed with particular care and attention to the impacts on future operating budgets and, as you will see in the attached schedule. our staff has been mindful of that constraint . The projects proposed for funding (all drawn from approved master plans) focus on further development of existing and promised parks, building connections through trails and bikeways (very popular with citizens, and lower in 0 s M costa) and, at my request, emphasize sports fields for young people. This is an opportunity to dramatically impact those needs which directly touch Orange County families, and which offer important opportunities for partnering with other governmental entities and non-profit agencies such as the YMCA. The Little Econ Greenways Livable Community Project is an excellent example. Funding of this project will connect over 10 schools and create a transportation and recreational _ .., .,. Icu a .dvn> oul SUBJ: Sales Tax Referendum Page 6 of 9 corridor through a densely populated area. This corridor of greenways will promote partnerships with the YMCA, FDOT, Department of Environmental Protection and Orange County Public Schools, to name a few, and the addition of the prototypical community center will enhance the recreational, educational and governmental services . The funding allocated to these parks and recreation projects totals $45.2 million, but I have asked our staff to examine the issue of investing in the purchase of land for parks identified in our maeter plan which would then be "land-banked" for future use. This may well be extremely prudent and cost-effective in the longer term. Criminal Justice - The Sheriff has demonstrated a need for a centralized campus with facilities for the co-location of specific functions at a cost of approximately $26 million, and technology improvements (mobile data collection, upgraded computer system, automatic vehicle location system) at approximately $11 million. have allocated $24 million towards new jail construction (total estimated cost $121 million) , for potential land acquisition and design. These figures need further study given the proposed time frame. I have asked the County Administrator to schedule a workshop with the BCC to discuss the priority needs addressed in this framework of expenditures derived from the Orange County portion of a six-year infrastructure sales tax, to be held May 5. • MUNICIPAL NEECS: For the past several months, city representatives have been working with our staff and sharing those capital projects which they would advance for an infrastructure sales tax. On May 20 we will offer an opportunity for those municipalities who wish to participate in the referendum to discuss those priorities with the Board of County Commissioners. ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS: Also on May 20, I will invite representatives of the School Board to share with us their view of the most critical unfunded needs faced by our school system. In the framework I am advancing, I have reserved 30% of the six-year proceeds, or 3J uu9 SUBJ: Sales Tax Referendum Page 7 of 9 approximately $314 million, which the Board can consider allocating to the construction of new schools . The School Board can share with us the details of the construction schedule funded by the "COPS" financing they have undertaken. It may be that their current construction schedule is all they can manage within the six-year period, and that they will choose instead to propose their own one-half cent option at some time in the future. I thought it beat that we have these discussions together, and have not undertaken any effort to determine their position on this proposal . By the date I have suggested for our workshop with representatives of the school Board, we will be more knowledgeable about actions of the Legislature which may impact funding for school construction, ACCOUNTABILITY: If we offer this referendum to the citizens, it must include a strong mechanism for assuring the public that the revenues will be spent exactly as proposed. I would suggest a Citizen's Oversight Board composed of five members (the selection of the members should take place in advance of the referendum and should be entirely non-political; I will discuss ideas to accomplish this) . The Orange County Comptroller should serve as an ex officio, rcn-voting member and should provide any staffing necessary. The task of the Citizen' s Oversight Board will be to verify that expenditures are in accordance with the plan approved by voters and issue an annual report to the public. The Comptroller can include comments cn performance measures and prudent management. PUBLIC INPUT: Let me emphasize once again that the framework I propose is a flexible one, as the Blue Ribbon Commission intended theirs to be. I continue to believe that open dialogue with the residents of our community is essential to determining how to address our infrastructure needs. We intend to do this in a number of ways: uJ tr:9= von ...' ut FAA LJ: S3J Udu j{: Ciil ld tie . .�diin SUBJ: Sales Tax Referendum Page 8 of 9 - An educational mail piece to residents explaining the needs we face will be the focal point of our dialogue; the piece will include a response mechanism and each respondent will receive a summary of the findings when complete - Conducting a Citizens' Forum with the Mayor and others about the needs and funding options - Holding public hearings on June 3 and June 24 for citizens to give their feedback and comments to the entire Board - using Orange TV to communicate the needs and the options, and offer yet another response mechanism • - Sending out information in utility bill stutters - Outlining the issues on our Orange County Web Site with an on-line response device Our goal is to make this as public a process as possible. As I have said, I welcome and encourage citizen input and hope that the residents of our community will take the opportunity to engage in this important process . TIMETABLE: May 6 BCC workshop with representatives of the Florida Department of Transportation and LYNX May 20 BCC workshop with representatives of municipalities and the Orange County School Board June 3 BCC workshop or. overall plan to be offered; public comment June 24 "Go" or "no go" decision; adoption of referendum ordinance; selection of election date (September, November) ; public comment. CONCLUSION: On a beautiful spring day in Central Florida, it is tempting to be complacent with the way things are and convince ourselves that we are now doing all we can to overcome the deficits of the past, whether that be in the area of parks, roads, stormwater, or any other important issue. But, I would quote the important findings of our Blue Ribbon Commission, our appointed group of citizens representing citizens, not special interests : n L1 0- ..., .3707 F.A. 407 136 7160 u,_ i:;{,AIRMAN 1,_j1Un SUBJ: Sales Tax Referendum Page 9 of 9 • . .The Commission found that there are infrastructure needs in unincorporated Orange County sufficiently critical in degree to warrant the immediate attention of the Board of County Commissioners. The commission further finds that some of these needs are of a "past due" nature while other will become critical soon if plane are not laid to deal with them now. The commission also finds that if these needs are not met, the quality of life now enjoyed by the County' s residents will deteriorate to a significant and undesirable degree. " After six years of working with our comptroller and professional staff to seek out economies and efficiencies, I can unequivocally agree that, at least for Orange County Government, the costs of important infrastructure improvements are far beyond our capacity to deal with simply by "tightening the belt" . We will always strive to be more efficient, but what is needed is a significant financial commitment. we have reached a critical time where important decisions cannot be deferred by responsible leaders. We must place before the citizens the ultimate choice that is theirs alone to make. It is our duty to make certain that those choices have been carefully researched, openly debated and presented in a spirit of full cooperation with our partners in local government . That is a responsibility that we should carry proudly, and that we must fulfill . C: Richard L. Spears, Chairman, Blue Ribbon Commission Municipal Mayors Susan L. Arkin, CCPS Board Chairman Don Shaw, CCPS Superintendent Wayne Rich, Chairman CCCEA Hal Worrall, Executive Director COCA Nancy Meuston, PLOT, District Secretary Rob Gregg, Interim Executive Director, LYNX Jean Bennett, County Administrator Tom Wilkes, County Attorney Syron Brooks, Deputy County Administrator Howard Tipton, Deputy County Administrator Orange County Division Directors Lit zUil Summary A one cent Wes tax generates S 1,035,000,000 over 6 years(using a 5%annual growth rate). Regional kedS $120 Million I-4 Improvements S5S Million State Roads S50 Million Western Beltway 4l2 Million Lynx $237 Million TOTAL School S314 Million Schools 3314 Million TOTAL Oranw Co• y S60.5 Million Stormwater S178 Million Transportation S60 Million Criminal Justice S45.3 Million Parks&Recreation S344.6.M4fibn TOTAL Munteipalities S139.4 Million • 5139.4 Milton TOTAL The breakdown of municipal expenditures is yet to be dctemuned pending discussions with the Board of County Commissioners on May 20, 1997. ❑37% •33% •30% ■County ■Schools ❑Mumpalites&Regional Transportation NOTE Should some portion of the sales tax be devoted to rail,funds would be derived from the County's transportation share and the City of Orlando's share. Y: L Orange County Projects Sales TAX Projects mraT Orange County A^KIGWMIn'gea Rangy I sum 1t) rota St.maaar I I Rkj*rynd Lake Outran SOUS 11A GV(.II 1000,,000 Las wit.Cowl / �3270.000 rya US Bn Mal I 300000 eaku.CmS MN I ..32000 31 MlaNn Slap LBO OawI - f1.210.000 Rb As SO Impwarses f 1550,003 Owniy lw%Ma 31D Cara itSt0.000 Basra Sash Impros its 31 34/.'210 Snood atLabMN Rood Mao I 32,010.000 LS Rate RR ROSS l lt11,000 .Caws a Proms ImPoveneM rT�S.We tali Hmyta runt I f]15.(N US Ate OuS 12e0.000 Lane Casts Sews Imprwabas 1135,5001 lye San glsll 3112003 Watsids Manor Asp Hods9 1 t ry 22503.000 • mere BAN.InamaSaw 11.]9).OLV Dee 011..etwaae MOSS Uw sass Rho FwMT'saNnaersn 5502033 saki Defames/COaunMau tartan SS.mI.NO l LpgAond Lake. ay I A.]12.5W b Cl Renbpl Avtnt flansfOBO.Om Is.Jennie Arad Rs* 3150.000 ctinmd Estes Rana 3500.0001 abd Slaw WO RIM it.10],500 LEN Lana Fifties Sort 1215.000 Psmameegraf P .ROM $l TRI.IYq east Lies Inaerenbi I®.000 - 0me 1521.000 Lake Showood I 1221000 ~_ Cmaad Lais. 31.250.0001. BadpeOlgRew Ran issranlst SI Rs.1100 ��rOtlM Lakes Sanas Dort Pus Stir f110.m0� Lab Floors Cohn $312.50) low.ba CWall S1e0,0m Lake Awlgoda OEod r 3813.0Ca Ece*N 6ms.*t Im rcnosra itld•W01 Lake Rsea..Inpratam.ss NY Sand Lola O.YII i]W.RO $lhWarr dome.panto ITIS.QA toms 3050.003 Chess Ps ImplaemaNn n'�'� Taylor r Olga Rand dnawep 12.773.050 SurfersTN Improrsent ' Si.]]e,400; Lab Pro raahl 11.S112m Lae Worst.sass 5300.0A1 Lela Grass Ora - i2N.WJ Lap Ades ogd S555.m01 tolerids palM I lfpf,0pp l tala PnRt Oflaa 516,0e0 r San Pak Puna arm il]0,000 1 Mhoelt sus Buell Cato.PRSts 1]S.Ne Sand Otto Cams Lasts. seet.t0o %Ots Eva Rtna Ma= Galas bons Ruse 1111,2m Om LainLainoah N9.am Snot Rom Raak 32:34.000 Ma We Rost - 5150253 Taal-Saanrawa f5B/,S00I _. 191.504,120 18% �av Papa 1']5I'M ,• . . r.1. ,. d-lo No'r Hiuli Orange County Projected Sales In Projects • omega County Pr t Category/eject Neese Amm est Ice°Tete Trwywwyr 'gym Tml(We Underhill to e_.' )(fin) I $Se®,U00 A4 Amodeen Oho.(Edpereetar m en d)(aged 1311,0$.003 Mooavewns Rd.(All aem to — )ninon) $.$ni.0m Corree te..na Nsh.al hrMem r) $af.99R Wnbr G.e1PVi.eM(Close Read to Celetsal) � 61311woo Doan Row an Ra (Curry P.d Leg u to la dented ) gag) $.1n.30)Own Roes(Untnngy to Ss/Snag Camay WY tester) I $1.711103 EoaMemeaea Tram(Goaet to Cory Fero)MMa) cow Some Rd.(OS Water Gedwb A1.e Wawa $ensdy ant(Tone Cry lM to Omne it) lden)() fA1AO3 PIoHiRood dMews• d.to Rd.es LNmsn nwra.d)a7 ,15$.m0 Mews Rd.nrNemndrW.)0 C neam) i11.5n.000 Roe Millagented non n,s(E..W W....yl Rd. (new toed (1)01 $.en.cotY1 T�eo+I dy Pe tRe.)dew Mod)(5) Gl I A.led.m0 Rock Rd . Roved ankh Rd.to la Pen a)tn(dw need) $.1N.0001 Rona SM M1.b unoa y Lan 9wrinob[.War(d R)(nerd nasal Saul v.R Rase(Teary Lab to eRPk yleMtl Rd) I Af.0 3.030 l Wym.Ye Reed(Ls Rod le 9me,a canal f11,en.GW Tom_Tne r_._..w C°umY m I fT.im.[W $11e,eA.000 I 52M P) Pm.q new tO r.stied wen ayaowm F (I) France nos to be wed wan Ch of Ogee (3) Pesos oast td b.nand wel,awe s Bernie$Mettand I -�— <M Plq.e oat to be stend age py el Ocoee II (5) Poen cod to a sinned with Cry a Apnea Obwor.Mafee I Shorn Cadging �-- -Tow-ginger n.da, Ae.000.030 310.0E0.000I 17% Pang sw.aeryr Una Eel Cnonwey Cady Wry TM.Etlw.wn A,w].tpp- W.C+ep Tres Pe iv A.0m.m0 r E.9M Rea$Tel Ca', ice A.®O,mUI _ favorSlams Crew Gramm �yWwb Snotty mmommob $.000.tW sweat Pen Impor.n.0 »60.OW Omen Ginn Innne.rae$ Mow erl Oak A.dW.lim _Lake George A.AO.O I Ginn33,100,033 R.Oedema 71.500.000 I One gm IW1,000I _ Weltaw1.Park fz.e0p.000 I Ten Ann(TCq A.mO.Om I _Pool in Aeons M]M.®o Tam-Peen d Rwre_w $IOAW 345377.5$0 13% Tom-Orange Cagey 93411eea$ef late% 119] Reg 1:$PM ;W. 1(fAR tpcg OhSTORMWAtgltW.17:441101:0Vgn1FMP, lgt:7S CQ9T 91ilIRNlAIW PRIORITY DESCRIPTION COST CUMMULATIVE COST 1 Project (1 - 12) $11,165,500 $11,165,500 1 ` d 2 Project (13 - 21) $12,625,030 $23,790,500 3 Project(22 - 39) $15,036,500 536,827,000 4 Project (4(1 - 44) $10,642,530 $49,469,500 5 Project(45 -61) $11,034,920 $60504,420 R k [_-_ SIX YEAR SCHEDULE ON STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT i o. DeacgiMonBasin - To4l Co 1 Hickorynm Lake Outfit. _ _ RC 1300 000 1 EasemenUConatrutton -2 Sand lake HN Outfall CC $7700 000 I EeeemenvConnucton 3 Lake Wills Out all SC $300000 I Easement needed for Mehtenence/Flaotl Control 4 Lake Bryan Outfall __ SC $1,430,000 1 Easement needed for Maintenance/Flood Control5 Shingle Creek RAN _ - SC 31210,600 1 Easement needed for Maintenance/Mood Control c. 6 Hidden Springs 9/D Outfit. SC 3550,000 1 Plans/Perrnil/Conaucfon 7 Rio Pinar SOOlmprovements - _ LE $1110,000_ 1 PlansiPermn/Canstructon _ 8 Cheney Heights 9/D OuHal LE $1i7 S00 1 Plane/Permit/Conetrucfon _ B Sonnevile South Improvements BE $2,310,000 1 Plans/Permit/Construction 10 Somerset at Lakeville Road Oulfall BW _ 3838,000 1 Plans/Permit/Construction/Ction _ 11 Lake Rose Hal Retrofit BW i355.000 1_Permit/Construction 12 Lakes McCoy,Caroni IL Prevail Impovements SW _ 371_5,000 1 PlanstPermit/Consbuc on -- . _suhtotal(1 � 12)=$11,185,500 --- _ • 13 Lake Hancock Outlet RC $280,0000 2 PIens/Permn/EasMant/Conatructfon no 14 Lake Rhea Cutlet CC $155000 _2 PlansiPermit/EasbnenuConatructan _ L. 15 Lake DosNLake Bessie Improvement _ CC $110,000� 2 PImWPermiuEaatment/Conseucton 18 Lake Holden Duda!! _ SC $1,540,000 2 PIuNPermfl/Conebucbon _ _17 Westslde Manor Pump Station _ SC $2,500000 _2 Pbns/Permf/Consbucton 18 Holden Heights WO Improvements SC $1,780,000 2 Planns/Perma/Conatrucoion _ 19 Commerce BNd.lmprovemenrs LC __$770,000 2 Ptana/Pennit/Construchon _ 20 Coda Drive Sbucture LC $500,000 2 )Piarm/PennIUCorobucton 21 Lt Weklva River Erablon!Sedmentadon Impf. LW 35,000,000 2 /Plem/PermluConstrucfon Subtotal(13-21)-$12,625,000 _ — — ---- - --`-- _ J— " �RC Reedy Creek BC-Baggy Creek BE-Big Econ LW-LABS Weklva CC-Cypress Creek LH-Lake Hart LE-Little Econ SW-Big Welve SCShingle Creek_ SJSt.Johns__ H-Howell Branch LA-Lake Apopka _, - — - - ____.-_ _ __ I, C: CIPIProJect Workaheem SIX YEAR SCHEDULE ON STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS j Ni Deacfla8on Baaln o I C a { ; • r a Critical Drelnvrell Clasures/Outfall Solution _ $3,712,500 3 Drdnwells are:5480,8.83,S-52,S-54A, 6-53, S-74; E-102.104 , E-117-119,E-88:H-20-21,H-37,H-95;W-48,W-47,etc.Land-Locked Lakes Outtak --- _RC 9390,000 3 Lakes Scott, Rextord, Onge, Ingram,ela.F33 fl Randolph Avenue Retrofit _ BC $750,000 3 Plans/Permftlland/Canstwction LakeJennie Jewell Retrofit BC $5000001 3 Plans&PanniULarld/Construdlen o. • Crestwood Estates Retrofit LE $1,1137,500 3 Pians/PemdULand/Constmction Quail Hollow S/D Retrofit LE 3915.000 3 Plans/PenniVLendIConslruction = Little Lake Fairview Retrofit LW _ _ $1.370,000 3 Plans/Permit/Land/Construction Pembroke-Arch Pipe Retrofit LW $850,000 3 PlanslPermiVConatmdIon Border Lakes Improvement 6W $528,0000 3 Plans/Permit/Construction Bulova Delve SW $225,000 3 _ Plans/Permit/Construction Lake Sherwood SW $1.250,000 3 Plans/Penult/Land AcquWon/Canstrudlon Crooked Lakes BW $1,825,000 3 PlanwPermitLar4 AclauisiquConstrudlon Be.•s/Ovedand Road Improvement _ BW $275,000 3 Plans/Permit/Land Acqulslon/Constructlan > kes Se :ding&Dwarf Pump Station BW $130,000 3 Plans/Permit/Land Acqulslo&Constmdion x I :ke Gandy Outlet, BW 5312;500 3 Plans/PemVLand Acquisloa/Canstrudion _ + Lake Florence Outfall BW $189 000 3 Plans/PermiVLend Acquislon/Cansfmdlon Lake Julia Outfall BW $813 000 3 Plans/PermiUland Acquislon/Conslmdlon Lake Al.haretta Outrall BW $234,000 3 PlanslPermhULand Acqulslon/ConsWdlon Subtotal(22.39)= S15,038,5130 40 :Dome Brook Sin Improvement SC $907,500 4 Evaluation/Plans a Permf/Land/Car rudbn _ _ 41 ake Hiawassee Improvements SC $700,000 4 Evaluation/Plans a Permit/Land/Construction 42 Little Sand Lake Outfall SC _ $375,000 4 _Evaluation/Plans a Permlaand/Canstrudbn 43 Miscellaneous Secondary Drainage Program $550,000 4 Basin Wide 44 Blthlo(CIP BE $7,930,000 4 EvaluatloNPlansa Permit/Land/Construction --- --- ___ —__—_ Subtotal(40-44)= s1a,e+2s5a1 I---- --- -- --- -- RC-Reed BGBoggy Creek BE-Big Econ LW-Little Wekiva k -Little Econ 8W-BI9 Wekiva SC-Shinty le Croak SJ-St.Johns H-Howell Branch LA-Lake A. ••ke CIP/PwJed Worksheets - [ SIX YEAR SCHEDULE ON STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Ij4o. Deterlotifl 4}as}0 heal CQgst I .r r Ewalt 1 45 Chrisbnas Park Improvement SJ $2,773,080 5_JPlans/PermitLand Acquisition/Construction 46 Taylor Creek Road Improvement SJ 21,334.400 5 PIarWPermklLand Acqui i o&Construction 47 Sunflower Intl I provement BE 31,538.260 5 Plans/Permit/Land Acquia8lon/Cmrtruction 48 Lake Price Cnrall BE $390,000 5 Plarr&PerinfAand Acq Ishion/Conetruction 49 Lake Weurm8a Outfeil _ LE $234,000 5 PIan&Permlbt-and AcquiaieonlConsfructicn - 50 Lake Georgia OuBall LE $585,000 _ 5 Piens/PermiULend AcqulstoNConsaucton 51 Lake Azalea Duffel LE $195,000 5 PIans/PermIULand AcqutstioNConstniclion 52 Lake Douglas Outten LE _ $195.000 5 _ Plana/Permitkand AcqutNoc Canauucton • C 53 Lake Philp Outfal LE 3130.000 5 Plans/PennULand AcquIsefoNConstuction 54 Verona Park Pump Stallon _ LE $75.000 5 65 Miscellaneous Drainage Projects $650,000 5 Begin Wide 56 Maitland Chen Control Structure HB $422.800_ 5 c 57 plantation Estates Retold LW _ $781.250 5 Plans/PermNLand Acquisition/Construction 58 Apopka Blvd.RetroIt BW $153,A00 5 PIan&PermltLand AcquWdoNCansbuction d 59 Oak Lake Outfel BW $234,000 5 Plana/Permit/Land AcquisidoNConmtrucfon 60 Walker Road Retrofit LA $858,250 5 Plans/Permit/Land AcquiaillorVCorauction 61 Johns Lake Retrofit _ LA $867,500 5 Plens/Pennit/Land AcquiailoNCorMuction Subtotal(45431)a$11,034,920 1 RC-Reedy Creek BC-Boggy Creek BE-Big Econ LW-Lftle We kiwi CC-Cypress Creek LH-Lake Hart LE-Effie Econ BW-BIg Wekive SC-Shingle Creek SJSt.Johns H-Howell Branch LA-Lake Apopka - i K GIP/Project Worksheet 4Th P ORANGE COUNTYS ROADWAY PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED BY 1%SALES TAX I PrnNclipn.m PnMc10i4Am let[ Ognp Camels T Other Mwawlfl]h --T IWI•erkeenlnie Project Cam' Projeaa Cool Pre MGw Prefect Nine From V. (Nl•r lacM1 on leuan141 IIn T%anndel _ nn flaunt] Commun. Awes Ind A1.1Ne.*S Read SR 511(e.ebeel ].hr..cn 116420 wma NIM.IynSod 2ya.W.Rlln S$1N(FenRG) 74Wee pAl __ swamSI I,p60 Ap614-11nIend Reed ACMMs Reed Cl.,.o Oran RanNM.wf1. _ ]PW NW_ CR Sta(CM.e1 SR to l%eeline( SR II&Re. 1l tine ill EN 151b R9m] Pan.50%,ocuad50% at m55Woler OatiemV9WWI emu Reef an s(CoIg1. ]iU..e Vur _ 10ON N.m1 _ __ Cam Raw d ryF.rd Am' Snp ONnMrlRra ]e Yn.s 1Y.5 13 In i51U' Ilse Rau?UeMMyINI Seminole CauM Una Nwae ye) — 11711 Ilrll -- PnnMWeMaa ink tRla idol/tie) SR 6511O.ny Flrd Real) _ 14 Ina MR mm m 1,I1,lm On Homes Road rOM%YYOWw R N nos SlCo Wq S) ]J fW4 R11 Ulf 551 One 10%.O0641Y 5.6% Kennedy Sled SR IN feast Cy) W]rlen Road Kira OM A.764 45131 17 310 m Ile I514.14426161 l 5%Cang it% MeinRW PnYsAhle Rand 91 SOjCAnla9 14 lame 1W1 513.117 55551 I1551 50%,Cousdy 50% Pm KIN Rood S. .Reel MMOWahY l inn lwf) il1S/5 111113 Pw w►Mu.n Read GngM a we ROW _SR SO ICCIana4 4 Mra MF) ell ea 53157 II1.172 ObW le%.CCLIe n% _ Merin Rod SR4NI6fM%R E.) Slam Rid limn(NFl NT] 1lIM mole One SO%,County 50% Reck Spay(;Rood QalT Aar KellyRKellyPah Reed ]lanes f.5) 11etl mM y 1t ,1M fpk 5011 a ,Corey 50% Pw aa l.Ra lake than Reed SanliS Courts lane 11 Yen Tel 121147 171.112 Seed Lo.Road .10b5Ub Road Apga-ni.W ROW HMM Its 111.471 SII.01 W)rmr.Reed' SR 13644 Rae) _ SnnfNcootri 1 14bna M'f 51.197 17.114 N.nt/Fimnit 5%.Yellow 15%.Courtlm% l Tool cwM. Ill 1171122 1N 411 NOTES' (I)A Its ban his been edd.dtet.aR ma nta la dr.Reaco l•rifled No mII olmnyYdy P%NR]M edu ,wnerr Wan mw.da. (]).Tail We RMnld Intidxq.Y net Ydal.e R RY Sew.Cmnnal.a ...,onlge Gu.y.Weiler Oanlerk COCEA and nenM'a Tunes Outdo Alb reams. Ill SM•ma Wth YmlrY hfwMa&tmd..lr Mlan lab mgtV W mR ganmvwba Nr mdnuM. O Sad TRAILS, PARKS AND COM IIINTTY CENTERS PROJECT LISP- DRAFT I Priority Project Description Cost Timeline District Master Partner plan , ship I Little Eton 9.6 miles of reuestional trail and community $7 447,000 Acquisition- 3,5 Yes Yet OrcenwaylLiveble center that will connect 9 schools,past office, 2 years Community library,subdivisions,apartment complexes Design- I • and other busioessn. (Note majority of trail year 28• is funded through grams.) Also completion Coast. - 1.5 P.' of Blanchard Park Masterplan consisting of years Soccer fields,tennis courts,basketball cowls, Total 4.5 restreoms,cnnoession building and fishing years v- pier- • e 2 Cady Way Tait 2.8 mils trail that connects the Gaining Cady $2,000,000 Acquisition- 3, 5 Ycs Yes CI Way Trail to the 14 milt trail in Seminole 2 years Ci County. Design- I year Cont.- 1.5 years 3 West Orange Trail Three miles of trail which corrects to the S1,000 000 hfasterplaa • i 2 Yes Yes Phase IV existing 19 miles of West Orange Trail. This 5 years • phase of ball also connects into existing Design- 1 service center in Apopka The trail is year i. on currently funded through grants and Cuuoty Cond. - I budget. The additional dollars are for year v. expending and upgrading the existing service Total 2.5 o v. center to a community center. - years c br 4 West Orange Trail 4 miles of trait that will connect the currently $1,600,000 Acquisition- 2 Yes Yes Pbase N proposed 22 miles of trail to Kelly Perk. 2 year - , Design - I In year Coast.• I year Total 4 years et 9 Priority Project Description Cost Timeline District Master • Partner plan ship 5 East SR50 Trail 10 mile recreational trail that connects Little S5,400,000 Maaterplan - 5 No No Connection Eton Greenway, Bast Orange Community I year Center, Bi[ Community Center and park, Acquisiion• - klo and Long Branch Park. 2 years ' Design- 1 yr. t'- Const.- I yr. _ t> 6 Shingle peek 10 milt recreational trail and natural path S5,000,00D Masterplae- 1,6 No Yes Greenway connecting City of Orlando Facilities,Dr- l year Smith Center,Tourist District(Convention Acquisition- Center)and South Florida Water 2 years t. o Management District environmental lands. Design - 1 yr. Coast.- 1 yr. o = u _ r 7 Playground Safety Creation of a planned program of playground 2650,000 Program All No No s Improvements safety improvements,code compliance,and Developments )e° maintenance.. 6 months Desigo-6 mos Coast-1 S yr. c 8 Barnett Park Multiple purpose fields,volleyball courts, 45,60D,000 Design- 6 Yes Yes pavilions,picr,entrance road,amphitheater, 1.5 years _ gymnasium,aquatic center. Cons.- tn r-to 2.5 years 9 Cypress Grove Recreation Center, indoor racquetball, 52,400,000 Design- 4 Yes Yes ta ri m playground,gathering area with pavilion and I Year re:trooms,tennis courts,basketball coats, Contr.- . bike/jogging/walking trail,parking,200 I year spates asphalt, 100 spaces grass,site - furnishings,landscape,irrigation,community o gardens. 0 Ca 2 r, 0 Priority F Project Description Cost 'limiting District Master Partner plan ship 10 Moss Puk/Split Moss Park is located on Moss Path road in S2 200,000 Design - 4 No No Oak the southeast section of the County and is I year adjacent to split oak Forest. The Masterplan Coast. • - • for Mon Park needs to be revised to include 1.5 years t Split oak forest,and the revised Murerpla needs to be implemented. II Lake George Recreation center,covered racquetball courts, S1,100,000 Design- ' 4 Yes l Yes • swimming pool w/uffsces,restrooms,picnic 1 year pavilions,group pavilion with fishing Coast.- c. platform, covered veran dah dah for organized I year arecreation,houdwalk,bridge,roadway, 0 bikeway, parking,tennis and a basketball Co courts, utilities,grading,landscaping, sire futnisbings. 12 Reinert Developer donated sue to Orange County $1,500,000 Design- I No Yea iti Parks through agreements for a ballfield 7 months complex. Site is located south of Ocoee on Coast. - Windermere Road sad Roberson Rood. 9 months al 13 Fod Christmas Fort Christmas Historical park and Museum S231,000 Design and 5 Yes Yes Masrerplan Implementation iaeluding implcmen • - recreational and cultural exhibits. lalion of puk ea es in Mastcrplan- 2.5 yearn m r Historical inventory relocation and 5700,000 Design and S Yes Yes 7,9 construction'of 14 structures identified. construction ti to relocate-• Visitor center,restreom,pavilions, basketball 3 years ce court,tennis courts, Historical Homes. r parking lot. o o cs d, 3 K. Priority Project Description T Cost Timeline Disfrlc Master Partner f plan } ship 14 Odo Vista RecceatiudCommunily Center improvements, S2,400,000 Design- I Yes No covered gyMtraskethall, lakeside I yen ampbitbeateribandshell,tennis courts, Consl. - t y raquetball courts, large group pavilions, fishing l year [ ^+ dock,shuffleboard courts with lights,site I i` furnishings,parking,boardwalks,landscaping, irrigation, site furnishings. 15 West Osange Park Playgrounds,parking,softbalVbaseball,temin, S3,000,000 Design- I Yes Yes o. basketball,soccer fields,pavilions, visitor I year 71 c center. Coast.- c N 2.5 years 0 u M 16 Taft Area parks MastemIan a system of parks and recreation S4,384,580 Design- All Yes Yes and Recreation opportunities for the Tail area. Project not Based on I year ®S Masterplan located-multiple sites identified. ICI needs Conic.- _ 2.5 yean 17 Pool In Apopka Survey,design and construction af4600 sq.ft. 5666,000 Design- ' Ycs Yes c. r heated recreational pool facility and bathhouse. 3 months 2 z Includes lap swim and play area. Construction- i. (5200,000 for Bath House et Office) , 9 months _ ie ei " v SI 67,000 Annual Operating and maintenance costs includingchemicals,utilities,lifeguards,programs,etc.Operated by the City of Apopka se m April I, 1997 . I- a- • • •• 4 . LI I I CIZI I t I o nun wrLSn a ur r i Lt Ole i bb`1 lb P. Xiiil 171 C diza 4 asai5 eii. I\4\P4OR VS /4' P.Q.BOX 1229•APOPKA.FLORIDA 3POa-1239 PHONE IaO110B9-1700 FAX COVER SHEET Fax Number (407) 889-1705 To: (jab/ 0340 Fax Number:l41) le%- €3509 From: �rna WI`- 9,4- Hi) Operator: '7Y O ft J-a--' Pages- including cover 6 Date: 511 ich Time: 3%10m. Comments: I Mawr JOHN H.LAND Commissioners. J.WILLIAM ARROWSMITM MARK R. HOLMES ROBERT S JOHNSON,JR. BILLIE L.DEAN .r .r P 1.vv i G. rMLAi 'IMIun S VhIct AO/ loss I /lib P. 3 Summary Cities 139389768 13.47% County 344600000 33.30% School Board 314000000 30.34% Transportation 237000000 22.90% Total 1034989768 Distribution of 7th Cent Sales Tax S Regional Cities (13.5%) Transportation (22.9%) • as County (33.3%) School Board (30.3%) o! Io.)i ‘L. ioriI ritum mmILJK urn ICt alit bt$ I Rib 12_ 2 Additional One Cent 7th Cent County's 7114 Cent Distribution Sot Year Proposed County Reduction Reduction Based on DOR Distribution City Proposed Percentage Formula Percentage Based on DOR Distrib Distribution Apopka 3327691 1.98% 20522052 6.97% 9711992 10810060 52.88% Belle Isle 1005410 0.6094 6200418 2.10% 2934327 3266091 5268% Eatorwille 432483 0.26% 2667146 0.91% 1262218 1404928 52.68% Edgewood 204463 0.12% 1260934 0.43% 596733 664201 52.68% Maitland 1712848 1.02% 10563227 3.59% 4999012 5564215 52.68% Oakland 135769 0.06% 837295 0.28% 396247 441048 52.68% Ocoee 3341537 1.99% 20607441 7.004 9752402 10855039 52.68% Orlando 30703229 18.29% 189348485 64.28% 8%CSIR5-7 99739953 52.68% Windermere 309482 0.18% 1908592 0.65% 903235 1005357 52.68% Winter Garden 2175542 1.30% 13416686 4.55% 6349401 7067285 52.68% Winter Park 4411665 2.63% 27207102 9.24% 12875669 14331433 5268% Unincorporated 120067145 71.54% 740460622 344602030 395860522 53.46% 167827284 100.00% 1035000000 483989768 551010232 School Board 314000000 Regional Transportation 1.4 impr0vemerts 120000000 State Roads 555000030 Western Beltway 5O000000 Lynx 12000000 1034989768 49781235.35 P 5 City of Apopka - Sales Tax Analysis City Shares (est.) $9,711,992 Indirect Benefit from County Share: Swimming Pool 660,000 Rock Springs Road 8,148,000 West Orange Trail - Trail Head Upgrade 1,000,000 Indirect from Regional Transportation Improvements: Apopka Bypass 48.150.000 Total Estimated Value of Direct and Indirect Benefits $67 669 992 "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING-PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE' MAYox•CUMMuSIoNW S.SCOT! VANDERGRIFF Ocoee40 Tr CnamisvIOvFRs o CITY OF OCOEE DANNYHOW LL 40Ty ISO N.LAICP.SHORE DRIVP. SCO'Pl'ANUI?RSON w OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 SCOFF A.GLASS NANCY A.J. G L SS n o (407)656-2322 �b�, ��? ER IVTNRIm CITI'MANAGER f*Of G000�` ELI.IS SI IAIIR(/ TO: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager FROM: Donald Carter, Finance Supervisor DATE: April 30, 1997 RE: Recommended One Cent Sales Tax Projects Orange County Chairman, Linda W. Chapin has recommended a 52%reduction of the original projected revenues,with a funding period of six years. Based upon this information , city staff recommends the following projects for consideration: • Recreation Park/A.D. Mims- Completion of phase 1 $ 4,500,000 • Recreation Park - South (20 acres) 1,000,000 • Intersection Improvements Old Winter Garden Rd. & Hwy. 50 1,100,000 Good Homes Rd. &Hwy. 50 1,100,000 Maguire Rd. & Hwy. 50 1,100,000 • Old Winter Garden Road 2,750,000 $I 1,550,000 If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact me. Ocoee d, o It 0 0 K�4©ooa� NANCY J. PARKER COMMISSIONER DISI RICE 4 MEMORANDUM NUN. IAKFSHORE DRIVE OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761 DATE: April 30, 1997 OEFICE(407)656-2322,EX.191 RES.(407)292-8E49 TO: Ellis Shapiro, Interim City Manager FROM: Nancy J. Parker, District 4 II, SUBJECT: Sales Tax Referendum I have reviewed County Chairman Chapin's April 10th proposal regarding the use of revenue from the proposed penny sales tax. My comments/questions follow. Transportation & Regional Needs: I have no doubt that improvements to 1-4, State Roads, Construction of the Western Beltway and Improvements to Lynx will provide benefits to both incorporated and unincorporated Orange County, though I would like to see improvements to Silver Star Road from Hiawassee Road to Clarke Road and beyond considered for the list of projects. Increased Lynx services to, from & within Ocoee and the other Municipalities need to be prioritized. Stormwater: Ocoee and other municipalities have already "bitten the bullet" so to speak and implemented stormwater utility fees to take care of their problems. I believe that residents of unincorporated Orange County should be willing to do the same. To utilize revenue from the proposed county-wide sales tax for this purpose would in my estimation mean that those citizens of municipalities already paying stormwater utility fees to improve and correct problems within their own city would also be required to pick up a portion of the tab for neighborhoods in unincorporated Orange County as well. Parks and Recreation: Any master plan using this proposed sales tax should take into account projects planned by the municipalities and result in access to projects, parks, trails, greenways etc. as equally as possible for residents of both incorporated and unincorporated Orange County. Criminal Justice: I have no specific problem with addressing expansion of facilities and technological improvements for the Orange County Sheriff's Department, nor do I have a problem with earmarking funds toward the expansion and improvement of jail facilities. There is and should be cooperation between the Municipal Police Departments and the Sheriff's Department as our citizens' safety concerns certainly do not end at our city borders. At present, Orange County THE PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE provides services that Ocoee does not have within its own department such as Canine Units, Swat, Search Helicopters, etc. Though there are some functions that Ocoee should consider adding during future expansion of the Police Department, present needs dictate utilizing Orange County Sheriff Department Resources. Municipal Police Departments including Ocoee, must utilize the jail facilities out of necessity. Though I am not certain of the funding needs of the MBI, certainly consideration should be given in this area as well. Municipal Needs: Division based upon population of a greater percentage than Madame Chairman proposes should allow the municipalities to address specific needs. Orange County Public Schools: Aaack! "30% of the 6 year proceeds..., which the Board can consider allocating to the construction of new schools" makes me shudder. In my past six years of active community involvement, I have not heard one positive or complimentary comment on the construction priorities of the School Board. Since the tax paying public has little confidence in the budgeting/spending ability of the Board, why should they be handed $314 million to "consider" using for school construction? The "Taj Mahal" administration buildings and bureaucratic salary budget overloads while our children sit in overcrowded, substandard facilities sharing classroom copies of textbooks is already intolerable. The trend to have individual schools designed to be expensive showpieces for architects is also intolerable. Functional plans A, B, C, etc. designed to accommodate primary and secondary level facilities with add on options for school size could certainly be developed on a statewide level and utilized by counties to avoid individual custom design fees for each school. As it is, newly constructed facilities are already overcrowded on opening days. Until such items and others are properly addressed by our school boards and cooperation levels with the municipalities are improved as mandated by law, I cannot see handing over $314 million dollars without specifically mandating the correction of problems in our existing facilities first (including the hiring of more teachers to reduce class size) and then addressing the construction of new facilities that are already known to be needed. In summary, a 63% - 37% split doesn't pass muster. If it cannot be 100% of the revenue split based upon population, it can certainly be better than that which is listed in the proposal.