The URL can be used to link to this page

Ordinance 08-1878ORDINANCE NO.08-1878 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LONGWOOD, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF LONGWOOD, FLORIDA, ADOPTING AN ANNUAL UPDATE OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT TO INCLUDE A FIVE YEAR SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 1.63 of the Florida Statutes requires the City of Longwood to prepare and adopt a Comprehensive Plan of the type and in the manner as set forth in said Chapter; and WHEREAS, Section 163.31.77, Florida Statutes requires that local governments adopt a financially feasible annual update to the five year schedule of capital improvements as part of the Capital Improvements .Element of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Longwood has adopted a five year capital project plan as a part of the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year Budget; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Longwood desires to update the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan in order to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes; and ORDINANCE 08-1878 CPA 02-08 Page l of 3 WHEREAS, the City of Longwood and its Land Planuling Agency have complied with the requirements of the aforesaid Chapter and with Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code in amending the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Longwood, Florida; and WHEREAS, the City of Longwood has held a public hearing subject to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LONGWOOD, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: This ordinance is adopted in conformity with and pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code. SECTION 2: The Capital Improvements Element of the City of Longwood Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended to include the financially feasible five year schedule of capital improvements, set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 3: The Longwood City Commission hereby authorizes the appropriate City officials to submit the appropriate number of copies of this ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended herein, to the State Department of Community Affairs and to any other govern mental agency having j urisdiction with regard to the approval of same in accordance with and pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. SECTION 4: The provisions of this ordinance are declared to be separable and if any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance or the application thereto any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not effect other sections or words or applications of ORDINANCE 08-1878 CPA 02-08 Page 2 of 3 this Ordinance. SECTIONS: All ordinances, parts of , resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict .herewith, are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 6: This Ordinance shall be in force Planning Agency publishes a notice of compliance in Statutes. FIRST READING: X�L e---r-- Z0, Z.od 2 SECOND READING: ��(bUeJnber„3, Z4�' PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 3DAY OF ATTES SARAH All. MIRUS, CMC, CITY CLERK Approved as to form and legality for the use and take effect 21 days after the State Land ce with Section 163.3184, Florida oVetn bet?- .2008 113RIAN D. SA.erCE' TT, MAYOR of the City of Longwood, Florida, only. 2 TERESA S. ROPER, CITE' ATTORNEY ORDINANCE 08-1878 CPA 02-08 Pabe 3 of 3 7R,s,d,,71,W7ay,a,ater Main Loops 2008-2009 2009-2010 65,000 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Pro'ect Purpose Address Future Demand Florida-Milwee AC Pipe 15,000 Replace Existing Facilities Replace.AC Pipe - Shadow Hill Phase 2 Georgia - 427 Water Main Loops 380,000 55,000 Replace Existing Facilities Address Future Demand Land-Wayman AC Pipe 20,000 Replace Existing Facilities Replace AC Pipe - Skylark Phase 1 400,000 Replace Existing Facilities Marvin - Columbus Water Main Loops 30,000 Address Future Demand Lake -Maine AC Pipe 40,000 Replace Existing Facilities Replace AC Pipe - Skylark Phase 2 400,000 Replace Existing Facilities Seminole - Highland Water Main Loops 45,000 Address Future Demand Orange -Grant AC Pipe 20,000 Replace Existinq Facilities Replace AC Pipe - Longwood Groves 400,000 Replace Existing Facilities Palmetto - Freeman Water Main Loops 45,000 Address Future Demand Replace AC Pipe -Longwood Groves 400,000 Replace Existing Facilities I Gallon Ground Storage Tank 1,200,000 Address Future Demand � Public Utility 460,000 475,000 470,000 465,000 1,645,000 ;;;;1 17 IN 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 12,000 �EXPENDITUEtES `�..��. ,,r . E � �__. 3. _ _.. __ _e...ic��,._.s. _-._.. _J..r...kw.,.. Ridge, Oak, Talmo , ,- _ ._r �•. , 5 :1 a..ea.:_�.r'i._L t_rs...� _s.a'r.i1;._�•+_,_..r..:aw.l:._'Y+I.::,}.:L.._cwa...: 1 111 - � - .n. ...-,-i�'_t� ,. - :r �' .:vi._:...•l.n.f"...�rr_tia,nt.�::�_ _- �- �_,. __�.:._ .. - -� 5 -•,,- _ .i......i,..�,'...x�.+:a.:..:.�i.e.......�'r,...4._�_..:.wi:'.::V%I` Address Future Demand SystemEast Vacuum - I� 1 111 11 Address - Demand Address Future Demand System -Overstreet East Vacuum Ph 11 Address Future Demand Address Future Demand Evergreen Address Future Demand 1 111 11 Address Future D_ • SystemEast Vacuum Ph I I I Address _ D_ • 9r East, SIR 434 to Sunsh.e• • 111 11 Address - Dernand East Vacuum System Ph 4 Address.111111 North St- -- to Forest • - Address-D- • SystemWest Vacuum . BI 111Address Future Demand tNG?SOUR_CES _It NPublic Utility Fund 40.1 111 11 '.-.. v+PV• •rs,'-'�Y.S?.a`�Y •:1 111 11 '_"""„i^-. 6 CI 111 11 0 111 1/ '•1 111 11 p,y�'� :+ +'�F'n3."C� .S ..'°' j'Y•"yY ^'S�.z:,;{'_:-.. r`mr(n} .,• " �.^ 'r''�ry s '' a^�"�''T". w: �� :^• s -: '.+a`,G,•'ieYe �' a%" c �mPe."'P` ^ _-..sri i',r•..T-IN ,�OPER�ITINGCOST `r a iw z 66i�Iil ', 111 11 l � � 2008-2009 12009-2010 120111 12012 12013 Proiect Purpose Replace Existing Facilities e • ` //1 111 01 - • Facilities t jl h 4 'i -'S � a f .::} YF .,h i .� 4 f �- ..q � -4-,� _ .y l4 � fq� "y 'ti 1 .;� 3.A�•.}{. - �;-• General• 11111// 11/11111 111 111 /11 .... �..--....r..,..r...yrY-r-5"�"'.ne ;yli• t r-c -1T, * �....:� ✓ l.-�t *+�r+,... 3' '++.rrx t: ''r" 'n�.k ,,a ,OPERATING+ '. - r COST cl4t_.'i - _.C2s..rt:t• �.� �.'y..._1;. ._.+ka.L�.at,.....ti:�3r£t��,�u �.-i3J:7: i�i.U.jsi�.a R .^Jc1iL•,.�..:]i MetroPlan TIP Projects (No Longwood Fiscal Authority)- Extracted From Seminole County Transportation Capital Improvements Schedule 8R 434 - Montgomery Rd to 1-4,(1 t SR 434 - 14 to Range Line Rd (TF SR 434 - Rangeline Rd to CR 427 \1 URBAN ROADWAY SECTION FROM 4 TO 6 LANES AND THIS PROJECT WILL IMPROVE THE CAPACITY AND SAFt I' 4CE BRIDGE OVER THE LITTLE WEKIVARIVER. THE OF STATE ROAD 434 AND THUS ENHANCE THE LEVEL OF ECT LENGTH IS APPROXIMATELY 1.0 MILES SERVICE FOR THIS HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME ARTERIAL ROADWAY, PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE 'PLAN ASDETAILED IN VISION 2020: A GUIDE TO THE JOURNEY AHEAD (REVISED JUNE 8, 2004); TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER. PROJECT WILL WIDEN URBAN ROADWAY SECTION THIS PROJECT WILL IMPROVE THE CAPACITY AND SAFET 1 4 TO 6 LANES. THE PROJECT LENGTH IS OF STATE ROAD 434 AND THUS ENHANCE THE. LEVEL OF IoXIMATELY 1.7 MILES SERVICE FOR THIS HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME ARTERIAL ROADWAY, PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS DETAILED IN VISION 2020: A GUIDE TO THE JOURNEY AHEAD (REVISED JUNE.8. 2004); TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER. PROJECT WILL PROVIDE OPERATIONAL THIS PROJECT WILL IMPROVE THE CAPACITY AND SAFET OVEMENTS TO THIS URBAN SECTION OF ROADWAY. OF STATE ROAD 434, PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY'S APPDXIMATE LENGTH OF THE PROJECT IS 1.0 MILES. A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS DETAILED IN VISION 2020: A 7EPTUAL STUDY IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN IN GUIDE TO THE JOURNEY AHEAD (REVISED JUNE.8, 2004); =MBER TO DETERMINE RIGHT OF WAY AND TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER. TENTATIVE 2008-2009 FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN June 2008 SEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Tentative REVENUE ._... ... 2008109 2009110 2010111 2011112 2012/13 _ _ - STATE - ,._ ..... _ ,. _ . _.. - CLASSROOMS FOR KIDS PECO NEW CONSTRUCTION $1,473,990 $424,977. $624,691 $668,143 $267,882 PECO MAINTENANCE $2,260,756 $3,049,660 $3,049,660 $3,029,957 $2,948,333 CODS BONDS (COBI) $6,850,000 CODS $368,064 $368,064 $368,064 $368,064 $368,064 LOCAL, - .. ,... _ ._... _ .. "2" MILL $65,321,653 $65,739,115 $70,102.761 $75,615.833 $81,879,555 2 MILL STATE REDUCTION (-0.25 Mil) ($8,165,207) ($8,217,389) t$8,762,845) ($9,451,979) ($10;234,944) COPS $21,000,000 SALES TAX $12,185,567 $7.953,238 $8,152,069 $4,126,356 IMPACT FEES $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300;000 $3,300,000 GASOLINE TAX REFUND $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 INTEREST $1,100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 SUB-TOTAL $105,794,823 $73,717,665 $77,934,400 $78,756,374 PRIOR YEAR CARRYOVER $8,781,041 §3,738,712 $10,659.561 $7,645,383 M$79,628,890 $114,575,864 $77,456,377 $88,593,961 $8640'.757 EXPENDITURES 2008109C .1 --2009/10. "' 2010111 - '201,1/121- -2012113' SUPPOR T'GENERA E,FUND" CATASTROPHIC LOSS RESERVE $11;000,000 PROPERTY CASULTY PREMIUM $1,731,152 $1,800,000 _ $1,800,000 $1,900.000 $1,900,000 MAINTENANCE $3,841,000 $3,841,000 $3,841,000 $3,841,000 $3,841,000 SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL EQUIPT PURCH $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 .$650,000 BUS REPLACEMENT $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1.500,000 $1,500,000 VEHICLES I $250,000 $250,003 $250,000 $250,000 1 $250,000 FLOOR CVRNG $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 HVAC $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 REROOF $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 PAVEMENT $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 PAINTING $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 "$300,000 $300,000 LEASED PORTABLES $500,000 $500.000 $500,000 $600.000 $600,000 SCHOOL CAP OUTLAY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 MAGNET SCHOOL EQUIPT $400,000 $100,000 $100.000 $100,000 $100,000 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $0 $600,000 $600,000 $750.000 $0 CROOMS TECH REPLACEMENT $380.000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 COMMUNICATIONS $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,600 DISTRICT LEVEL SUPPORT EQUIPT $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 MISC. $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 INSTRUCTIONAL TECH EQUIPT $347,000 $347,000 $347,000 $347,000 $347,000 DATA B.VOICE NETWORK $2914,000 $250,0001 $1,100,0001 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 VIDEO SECURITY PROGRAM $44,000 4 - I - - _ - - " _ DEBT,SERVICE _ ._ - __ ,-.._Y.._ _(_,_.__ ._. .. -_ __-._._. .,.,�. _._ -' COPS PAYMENT $23,400,000 $22,483,816 $22,485,578 $22,487.791 $22,480,291 NEW CONSTRUCTION - _ - "- _--_'- - - - - '" - - " --- -' LAND $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 NEW MIDWAY ELEM $1,000,000 NEW ELEMENTARY "N" (CSA E9) $14,000,000 BUS COMPOUND ANNEX $3,000,000 ROSENWALD $10,100,000 REMODELING S ADDITIONS. CASSELBERRY MEDIA $1,000,000 $5.000,000 HAMILTON - $1,600,000 $7,000,000 IDYLLWILDE ADMIN $500,000 $1,000,000 JACKSON HEIGHTS $1,000,000 $21,000,000 LAWTON $700,000 $10,000,000 LYMAN BLDGS. 7,.9, 10 $6,000;000 MILWEE REMODELING $1,000,000 PINE CREST ADDITIONIREMODELING $1.000,000 $8,000,000 SEMINOLE HIGH $13,500,000 SPRING LAKE $1,000,000 $8,000,000 " STENSTROM $1,000;000 $7,000,000 WEKIVA $1,000,0001 $11,000,000 WILSONIGENEVA PODS 8 RENOVATIONS $800,000 $4,000,000 SMALL PROJECTS $700,000 $700,000 -$700,000 $700,000 $700,000 EXCEL RELOCATION/REMODEL $1,900,000 SALES TAX PROJECTS t OVIEDO HIGH $14,400,000- RED BUG $1-,000,000 $8,000,000 STERLING PARK $11,000,000 CONTINGENCY $5,000,0001 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 TOTAL $110,837,152 1 $66,796,816F $80,948,578 $80.050,791 $73,593,291 % 5Year Total '6:4% $26;488369" 0.0% $0 0.8 % $3,459,683 3.4% $14,338.366 1.6% $6,850,000 0.4% _ $1,840,320 93.6% S389,343,782 86.3% $358,658,917 -10P.8% ($44,832,365) 5.1% $21,000,000 7.8% $32,417,230 4.0% $16,500,000 0.1% $500,000 1.2% $5.100.000 $415,832,151� 22.4% S92,489,152.t 2.7% $11,000,000 2.2% $9,131,152 4.7% $19,205,000 0.8% $3,250,000 1.5% $6,000,000 0.3% $1,250,000 0.4% $1,500,000 1.5% $6.000,000 1.5% $6,000.000 0.3% $1,350,000 0.4% $1.500,000 0.7% $2,700,000 1.2% $5,000,000 0.2% $800,000 0.5% $1.950,000 0.4%, $1,680,000 0.2% $750,000 1.5% $6,300,000 0.0% $200,000 0.4% $1,500,000 0.4% $1,735,000 0.9% $3.644,000 0.01 % $44,000 27.5% _ $1,13',337,476_t $113,337,476 7.3% S30,100;000 $15,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $10.100.000 36.7% $151,30D,000 $6,000;000 $8,000,000 $1,500,000 $22,000,000 $10.700,000 $6,000,003 $1,000,000 $9,000,000 $13,500,0D0 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $12,000,000 $4,800,000 $3.500,000 $1,900,000 $14,400,000 $9,000,000 $11,000,000 6.1% $251000;000 $25,000,000 $412,226,628 Facilities Planning Department TENTATIVE 2008-2009 TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN dune 2008 SEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS STATE CLASSROOMS FOR KIDS PECO MAINTENANCE COLDS BONDS-(COBI) -------- REDUCTION2 MILL STATE I��J�EfES�I�Fi�Il�111■�I 01101. GASOLINE TAX REFUND M., m"'ammmmmmmorIff, EXPENDITURES PRIOR YEAR CARRYOVER SUPPORT GENERAL FUND CATASTROPHIC LOSS RESERVE PROPERTY OASULTY PREMIUM MAINTENANCE I� FLOOR-PAVEM � _LEASED PORTABLES ____ SCHOOL CAP OUTLAY lo MAGNET SCHOOL EQUIPT OR milmorIff.m. EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CROONS TECH �� I�� loom=DISTRICT LEVEL SUPPORT EQUIPT " Emory MI.VIDEO SECURITY PROGRAM _DATA & VOICE NETWORK -LANDoffnimm NEW CONSTRUCTION -� ---MODULAR CLASSROOM STRUCTURES HAMILTON IDYLLWILDEADMIN WINTER SPRINGS HIGH SMALL PROJECTS F9,71 M., EXCEL RE OCATIONIREMODEL SALES TAX PROJECTS 7STERLUJU PARK CONTINGENCY Facilities Planning Department Facilities Planning Department Exhibit,A, City of Longwood Data and Analysis to Support the Annual Update to the Capital Improvements Element For the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year —1— Introduction: This update to the City of Longwood Capital Improvement Element (CIE) is adopted consistent with the requirement to amzually update the Capital Improvements Element (CIE), including the Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements (Schedule), consistent with s.163.3177(3)(b) 1., Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Rule 9J-5.0 t6(5), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Chapter 2005-290, Laws of Florida, became effective on July 1, 2005. Some of the statutory changes became effective immediately, while others become effective in 2006, 2007 or 2008. The purpose of the CIE and the Schedule is to identify the capital improvements that are needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan and ensure that adopted Level of Service (LOS) Standards are achieved and maintained for concurrency related facilities (sanitary sewer, solid waste,, drainage, potable water, parks and recreation, schools, and transportation facilities, including mass transit, where applicable). The process for updating the CIE is established in Section 163.3177(3)(b), F.S. The element must be updated "on an annual basis." The adopted update amendment must be received by the Department of Community Affairs (Department) by December 1st of each year. The annual update amendment is exempt from the twice -per -year limitation on plan amendment adoptions, pursuant to s.163.3187(1)(f), F.S. The Schedule must be sub -divided into five one-year (fiscal year) periods. This updated Schedule is adopted prior to December 2008 (which is during FY 2008-09), thus it addresses projects for FYs, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-2011, 201 1-2012, 2012-2013 on a year by year basis. —2— Summary of data included in this update: Updates to: 1) CIP for Sanitary sewer [Rule 9J-5.0055(3)(a), F.A.C.] 2) CI.P for Drainage [Rule 9J-5.0055(3)(a), F.A.C.] 3) CIP for Potable water [Rule 9J-5.0055(3)(a), F.A.C.] 4) CIP for Parks [163.3180(2)(b), FS] 5) CIP for Transportation Facilities [s.163.3180(2)(c), F.S] 6) CIP for Public Schools facilities [s.163.3180(13)(d) I., F.S] 7) CIP for MetroPlan TIP Projects [s.163.3177(3)(a)6, F.S.] Supporting documents demonstrating the financial feasibility of schedules of capital improvement include: 1) Projection of revenue for funds that provide funding to capital projects 2) Projection of non -capital related expenses 3) Projection of cumulative capital operating cost increases 4) A fiscal assessment that evaluates adequacy of projected revenues to fund all projected expenses Also included: 1) A summary of transportation concun•ency determinations and de minimis impacts 2) Historical budget data used to project revenues and expenditures 3) Utility rate fee study by PMG Associates, including new revenue projections 4) Seminole County Public Schools 2008-2009 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan and Budget 5) LOSS and Capacity data and analysis for public facilities 6) Population projection and allocation 7) 10 Year Alternative Water Supply data —3— -T. I8i T Revenue Projections Revenue projections were generated using Wessa Statistical Software. Historical data for each revenue source for five years was modeled using a simple linear regression, and projected forward to provide estimated revenues in all future years. Wessa, P. (2008), Free Statistics Software, Office for Research Development and Education, version 1.1.23-r1, URL httl:)://www.wessa.net/ © Resa R&D, and the 'Office for Research, Development, and Education' - All rights reserved. Academic license for non-commercial use only. —5— 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Cash Reserve $1,521,245.00 $1,194,168.00 $1,347,085.60 $1,541,157.80 $1,840,884.60 Revenue (Reference Public Utility Rate Stud) $3,620,1.60.00 $4,239,500.00 $4,850,000.00 $4,920,000.00 $5,000,000.00 TOTAL $5,141,405.00 $5,433,668.00 $6,197,085.60 $6,461,157.80 $6,840,884.60 Fund Balance $1,306,989.00 $1,278,097.30 $1,401,988.30 $1,248,662.00 $1,158,118.40 Miscellaneous Revenue $705,895.00 $699,105.00 $692,315.00 $685,525.00 $678,735.00 TOTAL $2,012,884.00 $1,977,202.30, $2,094,303.30 $1,934,187.00 $1,836,853.40 Fund Balance $2,210,363.00 $2,766,471.10 $3,362,013.40 $4,133,189.90 $3,673,706.80 Taxes $1,451,354.00 $1,508,505.00 $1,565,656.00 $1,622,807.00 $1,679,958.00 Miscellaneous Revenue $147,095.00 $147,802.50 $148,510.00 $149,217.50 $149,925.00 TOTAL $3,808,812.00 $4,422,778.60 $5,076,179.40. $5,905,214.40 $5,503,589.80 Fund balance $7,441,469.00 $7,283,567.00 $5,802,097.00 $4,897,059.00 $3,568,453.00 Taxes (4.99 mils assumed) $10,803,433.00 $11,342,975.00 $11,882,517.00 $12,422,059.00 $12,961,601.00 Licenses and Permits $464,476.00 $475,450.00 $486,424.00 $497,398.00 $508,372.00 Intergovernmental Revenue $1,510,203.00 $1,312,129.00 $1,114,055.00 $915,981.00 $717,907.00 Charges for Services $1,676,358.00 $1,745,106.00 $1,813,854.00 $1,882,602.00 $1,951,350.00 Fines and Forfeits $255,718.00 $254,141.00 $252,564.00 $250,987.00 $249,410.00 Miscellaneous Revenue $958,127.00 $1,066,820.00 $1,175,513.00 $1,284,206.00 $1,392,899.00 Lease Proceeds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Transfers In $2,255,185.00 $2,647,089.00 $3,038,993.00 $3,430,897.00 $3,822,801.06 TOTAL $25,364,969.00 $26,127,277.00 $25,566,017.00 $25,581,189.00 $25,172,793.00 Zez 5W Revenue - Misc Revenue 730500 725500 T, 720500 70500 ; I I 710500 705500 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.6 x PF Revenue - Taxes '1445458 - o 1425458 ....... ! ....:.. { ! t 1405458 1385458 i7 1; j { 1365458 1345458 -- 1325458 L 1305456 12854581265458I1245458 1225458 j i f I i 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.5 x 71445458 1425458 1405458 1385458 1365458 1345458 1325458 1305458 1285458 1265458 1245458 1225458 1.0 PF Revenue - Taxes Yt = 1222750 + 57151 Xt 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 m x A PF Revenue - Misc Revenue 285573 235573 185573 135573 85573 -I i 35573 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 x PF Revenue - Misc Revenue Yt = 143557.5 + 707.5 Xt s 285573 235573 185573 135573 85573 35573 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.e s.o d.4 a.v 3.0 — X m GF- Taxes 9771690 9571690 9371690 9171690 6971690 f I I! 8771690- _� I I I 5571690 8371690 8171690 7971690 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 x GF- Taxes �§971690 9771690 9571690 9371690 9171690 8971690 8771690 8571690 6371690 8171690 7971690 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 I -10- GF-Licenses and Permits s :_._i � ;■ is ;�.., i,s�, 494139 474139 I I i I 454139 ■ I 434139 414139 394139 374139 354139 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x GF-Licenses and Permits A = 396630.3 + 10974.3 Xt s 0 494139 474139 454139 ■ 434139 ■ 0 414139 394139 374139 354139 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x —11— m GF-Intergovernmental Revenue 2801873 2601873 2401873 .j - )- 2201873 it I 2001873 + � I 1801873 I I ! 41 1601873 + i 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x GF-Intergovernmental Revenue Yt = 2696651 +-198074.6 xt T 2801873 2601873 2401873 2201873 2001673 p ■ 1801573 1601873 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x -12- GF-Charges for Services ■ 1547225 1497225 1447225 1397225 1347225 1297225 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x GF-Charges for Services Yt = 1263870.3 + 68748.7 Xt T ■ 1547225 ■ 1497225 ■ 1447225 ■ 1397225 1347225 1297225 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x -13- -14- GF-Misc Revenue O y 748462 i T Tt 1 698462 648462 �1r.i� to rrtT 1 598462-I+-{ �4,t#ii `- I 548462 j� I�{{ ; I I t}� l r� i if i-7tii 498462 {-1--, 448462 f r ¢ _ F- I f 398462 r 1 }} �I _ 348462 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x GF-Misc Revenue Yt = 305969.7 + 108693.9 Xt s ■ ■ 748462 698462 648462 598462 ■ ■ 546462 498462 448462 398462 r . 348462 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x J —15— GF—Transfers In 1722664 - i - i i} 1522664 1322664 1122664 II(I � I � i�-�Eiiiili[� �'• 922664 722664 I � r 522664 ■ 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x GF-Transfers In Yt =-96238.1 + 391904.3 Xt T ■ ■ 1722664 1522664 1322664 1122664 922664 722664 522664 1.0 .5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x -16- Non -Capital Expenditure Projections Non -capital expenditure projections were generated using Wessa Statistical Software. Historical data for each fund source for five years was modeled using a simple linear regression, and projected forward to provide estimated expenditures in all future years. Wessa, P. (2008), Free Statistics Software, Office for Research Development and Education, version 1.1.23-rl, URL http:l/www.wessa.netl © Resa R&D, and the 'Office for Research, Development, and Education'- All rights reserved. Academic license for non-commercial use only. -17- F7. +.�.i .« .-+Y ffl�Xn'^ 4i�r�11L<5'..�I,�ri '" i �rhL�y9�7f1 f'�Y C.�yisy{� py `�"' �•+Jt 1 if '�11�'..."'�ff�•v 1++'�IQ7_M ?- •-: U" y! .t'} ` .k ProoerctedNoCa ital{1_Cvwenses 1� _..t,. 1 M^33R. A �'i `_'°I,� A { �FQ � i• t �� ;� 1 f� � . f L.__.�Ls, �� 11: 11•20092010 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 P,ubilc tlti_!_itfie_s Furldw;;� l'k'^r" 'S .J4 • �¢�� R,• . r J s �^.._.d:� � ��.•L._�._.`r.__fav?-^:n � 67: ?}i�5.•34�c__J: FLY[ __'.L '� _.�...��v-. 'Iti:�.�_z{.-.i2 _��. _",'. ••- •- - •• •e 11 e• •e e e e ee •e - Out • •• •e 94 • ee 11• •e 11• e • e 11•• • e •e 3tormwabe�Fund�r�t_'k�w�..:,'� G -�'�c'"'� R{. L�. '� T.! , F_A�.� : :• a Y••`L� �. �%3 7 of J•J� ,c�1;-�`' Y3 l�' I•• •• a �,L•*.)fyl T �'��'�.) I• e.: ee � �L�1'♦�Yy� tY Y-. R a •• •e Operating Expenditures Transfer• Ie ee ;Ie ee eee .e ee eee I.: •t`�^^:; iw^':.44,'ea-.'� iyPubllc�FacilitlesaFuntl I>�� ...._d-__._______�._�._...... _�j'G l.i`r — -.r�. `.c ter^ �^;,+h j, s,�•� ;�'7 { -� � 3 �• e 'tt ,,, e • :e I •: : : e Operating Expenditures11• ••e •e$114,165.20 Transfers• 11 e e e 11 e 00 11 e e e 11 e e e 11 e e e • • ••0 •0 $114,165.20•• 1 •� • 1 . ,.+ �:"( �. iL ..,-- 9� q ^ F`."y�J �?. • 'C""-, t �"� �,r'7�y�-'� e. ••• ee y. ',•�i , j'q"''�9 e. •eee ""k'^'"' � '"""a°c" 1."itic' e.::• ee n�., ""ram �' _ { Y �!. '{, e :. ee Administration—� e • • : ee Fiscal Services e •: ee eeIt I". I a ee e• ee • :: ee Public Safety San/ices:e : ee I e • • ee :.: ee �I • •• ee • . : ee Works $2,644,604.00 $2,294,556.00 TransfersPublic *uto •eee ee 1 •e eee ee 1 eee ee eee ee eee ee •a $2e e0 PU - Operating Expenses =2260654 r- • tt 2210654 2160654 2110654 2060654 20106541 1960654 1910654 -.h1.T -+{.-}$•t� 186065411 1810654 J 1760654 1710654 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4..5 5.0 x PU - Operating Expenses Yt = 1626559.8 + 99563.8 Xt 3260654 • 2210654 2160654 2110654 2060654 2010654 1960654 1910654 • 1860654 1810654 1760654 1710654 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4..5 5.0 x 1J -19- m \11 m PU Transfer Out 535668 575668 565668 555668 545668 535668 r 525663 b - 515668 505668 tY 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 '3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x PU - Transfer Out Yt = 470104,6 + 17781.6 Xt 585668 575668 565668 555668 545668 535668 525668 515663 505663 th 170 1.5 0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x -20- b SW Operating Expenditures 405237 385237 i 365237 ' 345237 -1 -� _ i I i I I 325237 ' I t I + i I I j 305237 -� - ! ! ( I ■ i j 285237 265237 245237 I t 225237 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x T 405237 385237 365237 345237 325237 305237 285237 265237 245237 225237 1.0 SW Operating Expenditures Yt = 207222.9 + 29427.3 Xt 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 X �J \J -21- -22- GF- Administration 1056536 -Y- 1056036 ---i---, �- i --- -- 1055536 1055036 _.....___._ ( I 1054536 ------� 1 1054036 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 x GF- Administration s Yt = 1051065 + 2971 Xt 1056536 1056036 1055536 1055036 1054536 1054036 1.0 1.2 S.q 1.6 1.8 2.0 x -23- GF- Fiscal Services 2'640383 2540383 2440383 2340383 j 2140333 2040383 1940383 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x GF- Fiscal Services Yt 1685429 + 225:342.4 Xt 2640383 2540383 2440383 2340333 2240333 2140333 2040383 . . I . . . I . . . . . '2!5' 194030 1'5. 3'0 3.5' 4'0 4'5' 5.0 x -24- GF- Public Safety I ■ %790564 i i i 8290564 _� i _• i j .I __. 1 -•- t I I Ii_ � i- - T - - + 7790564 7290564 6790564 -, i i ' i i ! •- t 1 � 1 I 629056t4 5790564 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.6 x GF- Public Safety Yt = 4439209.5 + 971602.1 Xt %790564 ■ 8290564 7790564 7290564 6790564 O 6290564 ■ 5790564 1.0 1. -1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 x m -25- G17- Community Services 31622375 - I .. f : ; 13 1522375 j j 1422375 4 1 1322375 li T i 1222375 .t122375 1 1022375 -� i i i t j I I;- { I f 922375 822375 722375 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x =OZZ37' 1522375 1422375 1322375 1222375 i-t22375 1022375 922375 822375 722375 a GF- Community Services Yt = 420862.9 + 230375.9 Xt -26- fl, GF- Public Works } � f 3275286 3225286 } i 1 _ rt 3175286 i 1 ` i l i F 1 j 1 —, 7 i i 3125286 1 j t t ` �- . ,-•� 3075286 3025286 2975286iE � . �* � ,--i � � 1 '_ j i + T. t , F � L _■ i � � 2925286 2875286 2825286 -� I •� '1_ �_, . , 't'1.. -S -1 2775286 2725286 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x T 3275286 3225286 3175286 3125286 3075286 3025286 2975286 2925286 2875206 2825286 2775286 2725286 1.0 GF- Public Works Yt = 3169676.9 +-87512.1 Xt 1.5 2.0 2.5 3:.0 3.5 -27- 1 .- GF- Transfer Out r I 350000 300000 250000 200000 1._ i:1t}II 150000 4 ! - 100000 4 I ' 50000 o 7' 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5�.0 x GF— Transfer Out Yt = 133000 + 1000 Xt s 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 i 100000 50000 0 — 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 x Sm Cumulative Capital Cost Increase Cunnilative additional operating costs were added as capital projects are projected to become operational. As projects move through the schedule, the anticipated new operating costs are projected forward and added to other increased capital costs to provide a cumulative total. --a' —29— s 'v f' r�� u#'Sf•+.1�.k a.,Lid�rlCumulative i"K'J'21 .KS.Y�-ia zT�i '� G�. Fri- tii !''� :�tF"y �a�"�j�, Operating�Cost�lncirea es�©ue�To Gapital�Projects�� I w TI {C 7 r i�' 1 :. ,�r Public Utilities Fun d.. ee ee ee ee a ee ee ee of St(t,rmwater Fund eee ee eee ee eee ee eee ee eee ee Fund . .i acilities eee ee •. a eee ee eee ee ®®® •. a eee ee eee ee .e ee eee .e ee eee —30— Fiscal Assessment The fiscal assessment demonstrates financial feasibility of the schedule of capital improvements. All projected expenditures are subtracted from all projected revenues. The resulting balance demonstrates thatefor the first three years, committed revenues are sufficient to support all anticipated expenses and the proposed capital projects, and that during year 4 and 5, committed and planned revenue are sufficient to support all anticipated expenses and the proposed capital projects. —31— slim 2008-2009*2009-a20m10 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 Revenues $5,141,405.$5,433,668.00 '$6,1.97,085.60 $6,461,157.80 $6,840,884.60 Non -Capital Expenditures $2,80Q,737.00 $2,918,082.40 $3,035,427.80 $3,152,773.20 $3,270,118.60 Debt Payment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Operating Cost Increase $6,500.00 $13,500.00 $20,500.00 $27,500.00 $44,500.00 Capital Expenditures $1,140,000.00 $1,155,000.00 $1,600,000.00 $1,44.0,000.00 $2,005,000.00 BALANCE $1,194,168.00 $1,347,085.60 $1,541,157.80 $1,840,884.60 $1,521,266.00 Revenues $2,012,884.00 $1,977,202.30 $2,094,303.30 $1,934,187.00 $1,836,853.40 Non -Capital Expenditures $383,786.70 $413,214.00 $442,641.30 $472,068.60 $501,495.90 Debt Payment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Operating Cost Increase $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 Capital Expenditures $350,000.00 $160,000.00 $400,000.00 $300,000.00 $65,000.00 BALANCE $1,278,097.30 $1,401,988.30 $1,248,662.00 $1,158,118.40 $1,265,357.50 Revenues $31-808,812.00 $4,422,778.60 $5,076,179.40 $5,905,214.40 $5,503,589.80 Non -Capital Expenditures $95,940.90 $114,165.20 $132,389.50 $150,613.80 $168,838.10 Debt Payment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Operating Cost Increase $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 Capital Expenditures $941,400.00 $936,600.00 $795,600.00 $776,700.00 $0.00 BALANCE $2,766,471.10 $3,362,013.40 $4,133,189.90 $4,957,900.60 $5,314,751.70 Revenues $25,364,969.00 $26,127,277.00 $25,566,017.00 $25,581,189.00 $25,172,793.00 Non -Capital Expenditures $17,981,402.00 $19,325,180.00 $20,668,958.00 $22,012,736.00 $23,356,514.00 Debt Payment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Operating Cost Increase $0.00 $O.OQ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Capital Expenditures $100,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 BALANCE $7,283,567.00 $5,802,097.00 $4,897,059.00 $3,568,453.00 $1,816,279.00 -32- City of Longwood 2007-2008 Summary of De Minimis Traffic Impacts For the 2008-2009 Annual Update of the .Capital Improvements Element Concurrency management calculations are maintained to accurately show all concurrency determinations, de minimIs exceptions, and allow the calculation of background traffic. —33— The Longwood Comprehensive Plan, Concurrency Management Element, Objective I, �Policy D defines'de minimis impacts as follows: 1) The proposed development consists of a single-family house on a lot of record. 2) The transportation impact of the proposed development does not exceed 0.1 percent of the maximum service volume at the adopted Level of Service standard for the peak hour for the affected roads or road segments; 3) The cumulative transportation impact from de minimis exemptions does not exceed three percent of the maximum service volume at the adopted Level of Service standards of the road or road segment, if the facility does not meet the minimum Level of Service standard. The City of Longwood monitors roadway capacity and records de minimis impacts using the following methodology: Transportation concurrency is detennined at the time of site development plan application. No additional concurrency application is necessary- the site development plan application serves as an application for concurrency determination. Upon receipt of a site development plan application, the Community Development Division makes a concurrency determination according to the following process: 1) Existing Background Traffic shall be determined for the roadway impacted by the proposed development. Where possible, the Seminole County Segment County Summaiy shall be used to determine average daily trips for background traffic. If the impact area is not located on a road monitored by Seminole County, the Community Development Division shall require the developer to conduct a traffic count to collect the necessary data. 2) Future Background Traffic shall be determined for the impacted roadway by adding the cumulative average daily trips generated by all other developments approved but not yet constructed on the impacted roadway. This data shall be obtained from the concurrency determination for each previously approved project. 3) Total Background Traffic shall be calculated by adding the Existing and Future Background traffic totals. 4) Locate the adopted level of service (A, B, C, D, E) for the impacted roadway in the Longwood Comprehensive Plan, Transportation or Capital Improvements Element. 5) Find the maximum allowable service volume for the street. For State Roads and City Roads, use the FDOT Quality/Level of Service Handbook Generalized LOS Tables, Table 4-1 "Generalized Annual Average Daily Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas". Identify whether the road is a Class I- Class IV Arterial, or a Major City/County Roadway and use the adopted level of service to locate the maximum allowable service volume on the appropriate table. For County Roads, use the Generalized Maximum Service Volumes for County Arterial and Collector Roadways, TRA Exhibit-14 :from the Seminole County Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan. —34— 6) Determine the impact of the proposed development using the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Trip Generation". Use the square footage of the closest available description of the proposed use. 7) Detei7nine whether capacity exists to support the project. Add the Total Background Traffic to the impact of the proposed development. If this number is less than the maximum allowable service volume, capacity exists and a finding of transportation concurrency can be issued. If the number is greater than the allowable service volume, proceed to the next step. 8) Determine if the road is operating below 110% of the maximum service volume. If not, the developer may conduct a transportation study to determine that capacity exists. If an independent study cannot demonstrate capacity, mitigation must be provided. If the road is above 100%, but below 110%0, proceed to the next step. 9) Determine if the impact of the project makes up less than 1% of the total allowable service volume. If yes, make a "DE MINIMIS EXCEPTION" and find that concurrency is met. If the impact is greater than 1 %, the developer may conduct a transportation study to determine if capacity exists. If an independent study cannot demonstrate capacity, mitigation must -be provided. A tracking of all concurrency management calculations shall be maintained to accurately show all concurrency detenninations, de nninimis exceptions, and allow the calculation of background traffic. The following charts track all transportation concurrency determinations and de minimis impacts for the 2007-2008 fiscal year. Currently no deficiencies to LOSS exist. The Schedule of Capital Improvements includes replacements of existing facilities through the paving of dirt roadways, consistent with the City's adopted road paving policy. �) —35— City of Longwood Run Date: 09116108 &f1:_ST.t COMMUNITY SERVICES, BUILDING DIV. Permits by Report Code Detail Report From 10/01107 to 09/18/08 < REACHED STATUS: ISSUED > Selective Criteria: permit report => 101 And permit report <= 105 Permit Name Parcel ID Report Valuation Total Total P1. ermit # Property Address Code Properly Owner Contractor Amount Charge Paid NEW RESIDENTIAL 3120305A00000022 101 2008176 226 & 228 CHURCH AVE Zoned: -� Applied WWW Issued OWMAM Totalj or Re -WO -IL Code 101 -New Single family Detached # Permits Report Totals Page 1 ROBERT J RUTH OWNER/BUILDER 100,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 740 ORANGE AVE LONGWOOD, FL 32750 Longwood FL 32750 Issued Phone: (407)265-7389 Phone: N/A Permits # Units Valuation Permit Fees Charged Permit Fees Paid 1 1 $100,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 Total Valuation $100,000 Permit Fees Charged Permit Fees Paid $2,000.00 $2,000.00 FY 2007-2008 Traffic Concurrency Worksheet Existing de Maximum Hurricane Date SP# Project Name Road Segment Background Trip mtimus Total Traffic Adopted LOS Meets Allowable 110 % of MASV Evacuation Planned Traffic Generation r trips Concurrency Service Volume Route Improvements (MASV) Crown SterlingMotors, site work only, additional parking 8 vehicle SR 434 from US 17-92 to no additional 10/912007 SP15-07 display CR 427 33174 trip.. generation n/a n/a n/a 56123' n/a No No Milwee South - new CR 427 from Longwood 12/21/2007 SP16-07 office/residential Hills Rd. to SR 434 22127 35:52 22162.52 E Yes v 32900 36190 No No Mercon Construction, 133 E"Pine site work only,. - residential to commercial CR 427 from Longwood no additional 1 /29/2008 SP 01-08 conversion Hills Rd. to SR 434 22127 trip generation n/a n/a n/a 32900 36190 No No site work only, 138 W Jessup, residential to CR 427 from Longwood no additional 3/1012008 SP 02-0J commercial. conversion Hills Rd. to SR 434 22127 trip generation n/a n/a n/a 32900 36190 No No Avalon Plaza - new construction, SR 434 from Belle to 17- ' 3/18/2008 SP 03-08 shopping center 92 26919 586.66 27505.66 E Yes 56123' n!a No No MSP Data'Systems - new CR 427 from SR 434 to 3/27/2008 SP 04-08 construction, office/warehouse Dog Track 20172 29.707 20201.707 E Yes 32900 36190 No No site work only, S. Seminole' Hospital Helipad SR 434 from CR 427 to no additional 7/1/2008 SP 05-08 improvement Rangeline Rd, 42826 trip. generation n/a n/a n/a 56123' n/a No No Liberty Pointe - office, retail. SR 434 from CR 427 to No, Backlogged 7/23/2bo8 SP 06-08 dining Rangeline. Rd. 42826 145.5 42971.5 E' Facility 56123- We No No 211 West Warren Avenue, site work only,. residential to commercial CR 427 from Longwood no additional 8/7/2008 SP 07-08 conversion Hills Rd. to SR 434 22127 trip generation n/a n/a Yes 32900 36190 No No ' In 1992, SR 434 was designated as a backlogged facility and cumulative impact was limited to 15 % of existing service volume. 1992 ADT for SR 434 from CR 427 to Palm Springs Road was 48.802, resulting in a maximum allowableservice volume of 56,123. Reference:2000 Evaluation and Appraisal Report, Traffic Circulation Element, page.8. L- C I EST. I87R f7' Historical Budget Data Historical budget data for all revenues and expenditures related to funds that contribute to the construction of capital projects was compiled for five years, based on the best information available. Outliers for exceptionally large revenues or expenditures, fee structure changes, or other identifiable and atypical budgetary impacts that result in a significant deviation from the trend were discarded; and notated. The data was input into statistical software to conduct a simple linear regression analysis. The linear regression model was projected forward to estimate future revenues and expenditures for the schedule of capital improvements. Consistent with the adopted Water Supply Facility Work Plan, the City of Longwood is making preparations to participate in the Winter Springs- Lake Jessup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project, however,. at the time of the adoption of this update the City's proportionate contribution had not yet been determined. M". -:uy .w-r yt: x?�t�'Y` pro:""-....._.. •�rcr - - 1r:m+z ..Y-'�-4Y�^.`z"�"`•s^ - � - �` � Ctk� '�d i i � } X � �� x I p ` `�rv-�r e�'�� z�^ .a r� ,£`� ±�*''�' � ( � 6�' :• 4 � ,.. ; ni ,,yam _ - REVENUE��. �' �u� '�,� �. � �{• z �+ � t.: � t.,:;�. b�i,��`� .,` �� o - r-�N��-...�. ,.;�.;;.�..Misc. Revenue 1. 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 Stormwater data excluded as Utility Fee was increased in 2005. 2. 2006 Misc Revenue total does not include a one-time $250,000 General Fund Transfer. The total amount for 2006 was $969,080.00. 3. 2007 Misc Revenue total does not include a $357,340 FEMA Grant and $150,000 General Fund Transfer. The total amount for 2007 was $1,241,215.00. —39— ar .rn�-sa.•.-.�.. - .t; a ,x�;„k _�, ,, 4;Histoncal'i?ubtic Facitifi�es;lmpro ,.:ment`Eund;i3udgei;Dai .,; C : ! 4 11 0 II Ie� 11� 11 11 11• 11• 11estimate sf�>=tus�s,� ��.� �r.�.r.-�'�.�,-�.-�I��k�.��..:.�-.��;�-,ct1��1�:��=r��l'��r�.4��.� .L��,. �,��IC�k�%�..��!�.:.I,�.�::�� •>Y:::�.,:t.; Operating Expenses • 11 1 11 •1 III 11 • 11 I 11I 11 • 1 11 1 11 1 11 I/ 111 11 1 11 Taxes Misc. Revenue. 214,461.00 $1,335,698.00 $1,226,458.00 $35,573.00 $310,969.00 $139,763.00 $1,450,000.00 $95,000.00 • 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 are excluded as outliers to improve quality of projections. 2003-2004 data does not reflect local option gas tax. • 2006-2007 Transfer Out removed as outlier to improve projections. .R 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 estimate 2007-2008 estimate Admin See Note 1 $1,054,036 $1,057,007 Fiscal Services $1,940,383 $1,953,026 $2,501,274 $2,737,980 $2,674,618 Public Safety $5,790,564 $6,175,772 $6,628,042 $8,878,481 See Note 2 Community Services 722375 828438 1056782 1327769 1624589 Public Works 3321500 2725286 2767425 2949819 2771673 Transfers Out 0 140000 390000 150000 0 Taxes (See Note 3) 10018106 7971690 8760049 9542344 Licenses and Permits 354139 452885 506539 417500 426703 Intergovernmental Revenue 2138156 2905885 1878517 1997705 1601873 Charges for Services 1297225 1432043 1.500344 1527960 1593010 Fines and Forfeits See Note 4 262173 259060 261200 256200 Miscellaneous Revenue 348462 603156 617293 795673 795673 Lease Proceeds 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers in 522664 527361 686285 1830396 1830668 1. A new position was added to the Administration budget in 2005. Data for projections begins in 2006. 2. New fire engines purchased in 2007-2008 under Public Safety line, outlier value will not be included in projections. 3. Outlier high collection of franchise fees under the 'Taxes' line for 2004,.2003-2004 data will be removed for accuracy in projections. 4. 2003-2004 'Fines and Forfeits' data includes a large fine and will be excluded as an outlier value. -41- Public Utility Fund Rate Study The City Commission adopted new rates for water and sewer service on August 4, 2008. The attached rate study was prepared by P.MG Associates Inc. Revenue projections from this rate study were used for the fiscal analysis since no historical data at the new utility rates exists. Historical data for expenditures was used to project future expenditures to maintain a consistent methodology with the rest of the fiscal analysis. —42— SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY The examination of the rate structure for the public utility system for the City of Longwood was conducted to determine proper rate levels and to insure that the system is fiscally sound. This examination included the Water and Wastewater Utility. 1.1 -STUDY PURPOSE An evaluation of the utility rate structure has not been completed in Longwood since the year 2000 when a complete restructuring occurred. Over the past seven years, costs have increased to a level that has resulted in insufficient revenues to meet the obligations of the system. This review will focus on addressing the financial shortfalls. 1.2 - METHODOLOGY As this report progresses, a step-by-step procedure is revealed. This procedure addresses each item that impacts the rate structure and examines its impact. The principal items to be addressed include the following. 1.2.1 - Number of Customers The experience of the system was examined for the past five years to determine the type of customer base and its growth. The examination included the determination of the number of customers by type and by meter size. Additionally, the customers were identified by their location, either within the City limits or outside of Longwood. Section 2 of this report identifies the historic and existing customer base of the system. 1.2.2 - Cost Estimates The development of cost projections is another important element of the overall rate analysis. Costs are generally allocated to two segments; Operating and Maintenance Costs (O & M) and Capital Costs. O & M costs are those that contribute to the general operation and upkeep of the utility system. These costs also include factors such as Administrative and Finance Department functions from the General Fund. The second classification of Capital Costs includes those expenditures that add value to the system by completing additional plant, equipment or collection/distribution lines. —43— 1.3 - OTHER SERVICES In addition to the charges for services received on a daily basis, the system charges for special circumstances will also be reviewed. These charges reflect the use by only certain customers, or potential customers, of the system. The charges include: • Connection Fees • Capacity Charges • Guaranteed Revenues • Reservation Fees • Master Meters • Policy and charges for existing and new customers outside of the City limits • Deposits SECTION 2 CUSTOMER BASE The customer base of the water and wastewater utility system of the City of Longwood consists of various types of users and includes several meter sizes. The vast majority of the utility customers are for residential dwelling units. The next largest category is for commercial. customers. Summaries of the number of customers for the utility services are found in the following tables. 2.1 - CURRENT CUSTOMER BASE 2.1.1 - Water Table 2-1 lists the water service customers by type for the last five years. These records show little growth in the system for that time frame. This condition reflects the fact that the City is experiencing less than one percent of growth per year. Growth of the service area is likely to come from serving new areas outside of the City limits. The current policy states that this provision of service must be accompanied by an agreement to annex into the City of Longwood. 2.1.2 - Wastewater ..M Wastewater service is illustrated in Table 2-2 which lists the number of customers for the past five years. This listing identifies that only approximately 30% of the water customers also have wastewater service. Although the City has undertaken several projects to extend wastewater lines through the community, only a small number have actually connected for service. Growth in the number of customers has increased at a steady pace over the past several years. However, the overall number of customers remains low. This is expected to continue. 2.1.3 — Number of Meters by Size Most of the water meters in the City of Longwood system are measured at 3/ inches, which is the smallest size available and also meets the needs of the typical customer. Larger meters are used by commercial accounts that use significantly more water. Table 2-3 lists the active meters in the system by size. —45— TABLE 2-1 WATER CONNECTIONS PAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS CLASS 2005/2006 2004/2 005 2003/2004 2002/2003 2001/2002 Residential Commercial 4,406 909 4,361 88'1 4,344 862 4,339 840 4,322 838 Church 24 25 23 22 21 Homeowner Associations 26 27 26 26 27 Longwood 53 49 47 45 41 Multi -family 46 47 - 47 47 49 Post Office 1 1 1 1 1 School 5 5 5 5 5 TOTAL 5,470 5,396 5,355 5,325 5,304 TABLE 2-2 WASTEWATER CONNECTIONS PAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS CLASS 2005/2006 2004/2005 2003/2004 2002/2003 2001/2002 Residential Commercial 1,094 509 1,062 480 1,046 452 1,017 386 974 344 Church 16 16 14 13 10 Longwood 9 9 9 10 9 Multi -family School 30 4 31 4 31 4 31 4 32 3 TOTAL 1,662 1,602 1,556 1,461 1,369 EM TABLE 3 ACTIVE METER STATUS AS OF MARCH 27, 2007 Size Church Comm. HOA City MF Post Office Res School Total Inside City (in inches) 3/4 12 592 15 32 46 4,410 1 5,108 1 7 164 6 10 9 196 1 1/23 84 3 1 2 94 2 3 51 2 11 1 1 68 3 11 1 12 4 2 1 1 4 6 1 1 8 2 2 Outside City (in inches) 3/1 20 1 20 41 1 2 1 3 1 '/z 1 1 2 25 3 4 6 8 TOTAL 25 928 27 1 56_1 46 1 1 4,442 L 5 5,530 uJ -47- 2.1.4 — Consumption The 3/ inch meter serves primarily residential users and small commercial accounts. The average usage for these accounts is approximately 10,000 gallons per month. Table 2-4 lists the consumption by meter size for the system. TABLE 2-4 USAGE BY METER SIZE Size Inside Outside Total Monthly Average Consumption/Class Per 1,000 gallons Monthly Average Consumption/Account 3/ 5,108 41 5,149 50,809 9,868 1 196 3 199 3,947 19,834 1 '/2 94 1 95 2,711 28,537 2 68 68 3,709 54,544 3 12 12 2,142 178,500 4 4 4 984 246,000 6 1 1 2,463 2,463,000 8 2 2 431 215,500 Total 5,485 45 5,530 67,196 12,151 2.1.5 - Meter Capacity Certain customers use larger meters because of increased demand for water or for additional pressure for fire suppression purposes. The capacity of the meter rise as the diameter increases. The relationship of each meter is illustrated in Table 2-5 which lists the capacity of each meter size. TABLE 2-•5 CAPACITY RATING OF VARIOUS WATER METERS Meter Size Rated Capacity (gallons per minute) Ratio to 3/4" Meter 3/ x 5/8" 30 1.00 1" 75 2.50 1 '/z" 150 5.00 2" 240 8.00 3" 4,150 15.00 4" 7,50 25.00 6" 1,500 50.00 mo 2.2 - FUTURE CUSTOMERS The estimation of future utility customers provides the basis for the projections of revenues in succeeding years. This estimate is made by evaluating the historic number of customers and reviewing plans to expand the system. Based on these criteria, the estimate of future customers is flat with no known residential or commercial projects planned within the system. If these conservative growth projections are exceeded, the net revenues to the system will be used to complete other improvements. The projections for the next five years are based on no new Water customers and less that 1 percent in new Wastewater customers. SECTION 3 SYSTEM EXPENSES The examination of system expenses is addressed through focusing on two key elements; Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs and Capital Costs for system improvements. This section will review the historic expense amounts and also make projections for future requirements. The analysis of the expenses of the system begins with a review of the previous expenses from an engineering perspective to assess the types of expenditures and the allocation to the various segments of the system. 3.1 — RECENT EXPENSES Expenses for the system include Operation and Maintenance, Capital Lease, Transfers and Capital Items. Historic expenses for the system are found in Table 3-1, along with the overall reduction in Reserves based on Operations and Capital Outlay. TABLE 3-1 LONGWOOD HISTORIC REVENUE; AND EXPENSE SUMMARY 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Revenue Utility Charges 2,351,900 2,447,430 2,625,000 2,500,000 2,600,000 Miscellaneous 450,500 514,600 613,100 486,000 344,000 Total Revenue 2,802,400 2,962,030 3,238,100 .2,986,000 2,944,000 Expenses Operations 2,278,010 2,368,720 2,547,823 2,620,443 2,524,899 Net Operating Income 524,390 593,310 690,277 365,557 419,101 Transfers 505,668 469,250 505,668 505,668 505,668 Net Income/(Loss) 18;722 124,060 184,609 -140,111 -86,567 Capital Outlay 1,527,000 1,642,900 1,185,000 1,048,000 400,700 Reduction of Reserves 1,508,270 1,518,840 1,000,391 1,188,111 487,267 —50— 3 1 1 - Wholesale Sewage Treatment and Disposal Agreement with Seminole County (9/12/06) The agreement indicated that the City has the right of transferring 1.2 MGD of sewage to the County's WWTP for treatment after paying a connection charge. The amount of the connection charge is $7 per gallon. The treatment cost is identified as $2.83 per 1,000 gallons. For the purposes of this study, an agreement with Florida Water dated August 2000 is not considered because none of the terms of the agreement have ever been implemented. 3.1.2 - Transfer Payments Each year, the utility system transfers funds to the General Fund to offset costs associated with servicing and administering to the system. This cost has been estimated in past years to reflect the time spent by administrative and managerial personnel. The billing function has been moved from the utility fund budget to the general fund in the finance department. This amount must also be transferred to the General Fund as a reimbursement of costs to supply service to the utility system. The billing function costs have been included in the Transfer Payments category. 3.2 - FUTURE COSTS M, The projection of the future costs for the system is based on historic trends and plans for future customers and improvements. The original assumptions for increases in costs over the study time frame are: Operational Costs - 5% increase per year (County Water and Wastewater bulk costs will increase 3% per year), (Meter reading costs are eliminated as a result of the Capital Lease) Transfer Costs — variable 3% increase per year Capital Lease - $61,666 per year The estimates of costs for each year of the study time frame are found in the following table. TABLE 3-2 PROJECTIONS OF UTILITY SYSTEM EXPENSES CATEGORY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Operating Costs 2,372,505 2,491,130 2,615,687 2,746,471 2,883,794 —51— Capital Lease 61,666 61,666 61,666 61,666 61,666 Transfer to General. 612,413 630,785 649,709 689,276 Fund 669,200 Capital Items 1,140,000 1,155,000 1,600,000 2,005,000 1,440,000 TOTAL $4,186,584 $4,338,581 $4,927,062 $4,917,33 $5,639,736 7 SECTION 4 PROJECTED REVENUES Projecting the future revenue stream of the Utility System is necessary to establish the financial condition of the Fund and its ability to meet all fiscal obligations. The projections of the future revenues are achieved through the development of a mathematical model which defines the usage by the customers and the billing generated by this usage. The basis for this revenue projection is the estimate of future customers found in Section 3 of this report. These figures were included in the model to determine the estimate of revenues. Revenues were divided into three categories to better define the fiscal picture. 4.1 - REVENUE FROM SERVICE This category includes revenues derived from the provision of monthly water and wastewater service. The system growth is projected as flat for the next 5 years. Based on this no growth in the system, the following table provides the revenue for each of the study years without a rate increase. TABLE 4-1 PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE REVENUES EXISTING RATE STRUCTURE CATEGORY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Revenues from Service $2,866,00 0 $2,866,00 0 $2,866,00 0 $2,866,00 0 $2,866,00 0 Other Revenues 180,960 180,960 180,960 180,960 180,960 —52— TOTAL $3,046,96 $3,046,96 $3,046,96 $3,046,96 $3,046,96 0 0 0 0 0 4.2 - OTHER REVENUES A variety of miscellaneous revenue items are included in this category. These items include: • Sprinklers Fees • Late Charges • Connection Fees • Turn -On and Turn -Off Fees • Interest • Water Development Assistance Fees Revenue increases are estimated at 20% per year. 4.3 - SEWER DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FEES (DAF) This category primarily includes the fees paid at the time of connection to the sewer system. Additional payment of DAF could result due to changes in service or use. This figure is a component of Other Revenue and brought in $85,000 for FY07. 4.4 — SYSTEM SHORTFALL The analysis of the projected costs and revenues indicate that the system will experience a shortfall of. over $1,200,000 in the last year of the study period based on revenues and expenses from that year alone. This is in addition to the current condition where all reserves have been expended for capital expenditure purposes. To account for the projected shortfall, a rate increase of 60% is required to return the system to financial stability. This proposed rate increase will generate sufficient funds to cover all expenses and set aside funds for additional Capital Improvements. The system will also be able to build up reserves. Based on the assumption of a rate increase of '60.0%, the projections of future revenues for these categories are found in the following table. TABLE 4-2 PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE REVENUES PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE —53— CATEGORY 2008 20C19 2010 2011 2012 Revenues from Service $3,439,20 $4,058,54 $4,669,04 $4,739,04 $4,819,04 0 0 0 0 0 Other Revenues 180,960 180,960 180,960 180,960 180,960 TOTAL $3,620,16 $4,239,50 $4,850,00 $4,920,00 $5,000,00 0 0 0 0 0 —54— SECTION 5 IMPACT ON SYSTEM Comparison of the future revenues and expenses is necessary to determine the fiscal position of. the utility system. The system must generate revenues sufficient to cover all expense items required to operate and manage the provision of service. In addition, the City of Longwood Utility System has currently expanded service with improvements to the water distribution and wastewater collection lines. These capital requirements must also be met through the generation of revenues. 5.1 - COMPARISON OF REVENUES AND EXPENSES The following table illustrates the fiscal conditions that exist in the utility system. Expenses were previously developed in Section 3 and revenues in Section 4 of this report. The data found in Table 5-1 reveals that the system does generate revenues at levels sufficient to meet the operating requirements of the system. The funds generated for capital improvements for the system is also positive. The surpluses generated from the revenue stream meet the projected capital outlay for the current years as well as provide sufficient funds to address the $5.26 million capital project scheduled through 2012. The surplus in 2010 thru 2012 is approximately $700,000. There is sufficient surplus to advance some of the capital projects, if it is feasible. TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF EXPENSES AND REVENUES PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE CATEGORY 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Revenue $3,620,16 $4,239,500 $4,850,00 $4,920,00 $5,000,00 0 0 0 0 Expenses $3,046,58 $3,183,581 $3,327,06 $3,477,33 $3,634,73 4 2 7 6 Capital Projects (Planned) $ $1,155,000 $1,270,00 $1,320,00 $1,055,00 460,000 0 0 0 Surplus for Capital Projects $ $-99,081 $ $ $ 113,576 252,938 122,663 310,264 Cumulative Amount for $ $ 14,495 $ $ $ Capital 1 113,576 267,433 390,096 700,360 5.2 - REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FEES —55— The basis .for the establishment of the Development Assistance Fees is the development of capacity at the treatment Plant. Since no expansion has occurred, or is expected to occur, the fee should remain as currently levied. 5.3 - METER INSTALLATION CHARGES The connection to the system is achieved through the installation of the water meter. The customer's fee for this installation is established in Section 23-23 of the City Ordinances. This meter charge is designed to pay for the purchase of the water meter and the labor and materials cost to actually install the meter at the connection to the customer. A detailed analysis of this fee was conducted in 2000 with a determination of the cost of the materials and the labor required installing the meter. To update this fee, the Construction Price Index was used to determine the increase in costs for the provision of this service. The result is a proposed 40% increase in the cost of installing meters. The classification of irrigation meter is eliminated and all meters are residential or commercial. High volume residential used for irrigation is charged at the commercial rate. TABLE 5-2 CURRENT AND PROPOSED METER INSTALLATION FEES 3/4 inch Meter 1 inch Meter 1 '/2 inch Meter 2 inch Meter 3 inch Meter CURRENT' PROPOSED —56— $ 450.00 630.00 700.00 980.00 1,000.00 1,400.00 1,350.00 1,890.00 2,200.00 3,080.00 4 inch Meter 3,700.00 5,180.00 6 inch Meter —57— 6,850.00 9,590.00 SECTION 6 POTENTIAL NEW RATES 6.1 - UTILITY RATE INCREASE The analysis from the previous sections indicates that an overall rate increase of 60 percent is required to meet the financial demands of the system. To achieve this goal, the rates for water are increased by 40 percent. In addition it was necessary to raise wastewater charges by 76 percent to cover all operating costs associated with wastewater process. This will be achieved over a three year period in which a third of the increase will take effect in 2008. An additional third will be effective in 2009 and the full increase will begin in 2010. The effects of these increases are illustrated in the following table where the current and proposed rates are identified. TABLE 6-1 WATER FEES Customer Type Current Base Rate New Base Rate 2008 New Base Rate 2009 New Base Rate 2010 Residential $ 4.50 $ 5.10 $ 5.70 $ 6.30 Commercial 3/" Meter $ 4.50 $ 5.10 $ 5.70 $ 6.30 Commercial 1" Meter $ 11.25 $ '12.75 $ 14.25 $ 15.75 Commercial 1.5" Meter $ 22.50 $ 25.50 $ 28.50 $ 31.50 Commercial 2" Meter $ 36.00 $ 40.80 $ 45.60 $ 50.40 Commercial 3" Meter $ 67.50 $ '6.50 $ 85.50 $ 94.50 Commercial 4" Meter $112.50 $127.50 $142.50 $157.50 Commercial 6" Meter $225.00 $255.00 $285.00 $315.00 Commercial 8" Meter $360.00 $408.00 $456.00 $504.00 Volume Charges Current Proposed Proposed Proposed 2008 2009 2010 0-10,000 gallons, per $1.00 $1.13 $1.27 $1.40 thousand 10,001-20,000, per $1.15 $1.30 $1.46 $1.61 thousand 20,001-30,000, per $1.30 $1.47 $1.65 $1.82 thousand 30,001-40,000, per $1.45 $1.64 $1.84 $2.03 thousand 40,001-60.000„ per $1.60 $1„81 $2.03 $2.24 EM thousand 60,001-80,000, per na $2.40 $2.53 $2.66 thousand Over 80,000, per na $2.80 $2.94 $3.08 thousand —59— TABLE 6-2 WASTEWATER FEES RESIDENTIAL Charges Current Proposed 2008 Proposed 2009 Proposed 2010 Base Rate $3.30 $3.76 $4.23 $5.81 Usage Rate - Cost per 1,000 gallons 0 to 15,000 gallons $1.80 $2.26 $2.71 $3.17 15,001 to 30,000 gallons $2.10 $2.63 $117 $3.70 Over 30,000 gallons No charge $3.03 $3.63 $4.23 COMMERCIAL Meter Type Current Base Rate New Base Rate 2008 New Base Rate 2009 New Base Rate 2010 Commercial 1/" Meter $ 20.00 $ 25.05 $ 30.15 $ 35.20 Commercial 1" Meter $ 50.00 $ (33.00 $ 75.00 $ 88.00 Commercial 1.5" Meter $ 100.00 $ 125.00 $ 151.00 $ 176.00 Commercial 2" Meter $ 160.00 $ 201.00 $ 241.00 $ 282.00 Commercial 3" Meter $ 300.00 $ 376.00 $ 452.00 $ 528.00 Comrrercial4" Meter $ 500.00 $ 630.00 $ 750.00 $ 880.00 Commercial 6" Meter $1,000.00 $1,250.00 $1_,510.00 $1,760.00 Commercial 8" Meter $1,600.00 $2,010.00 $2,410.00 $2,820.00 Usage Rate - Cost per 1,000 gallons Current Proposed 2008 Proposed 2009 Proposed 2010 0 to 25,000 gallons $3.20 $4.01 $4.82 $5.63 25,001 to 50,000 gallons $3.60 $4.51 $5.43 $6.34 Over 50,000 gallons 1 $4.20 $5.26 $6.33 $7.39 6.2 - OTHER FEES The recommendations for the fee increases for the other elements of the Revenues are as follows. Category Proposal Water Capacity Fees No Change Development Assistance Fees No Change Deposits No Change Meter Installation Fees Change as found in Table 5-2 Sprinkler Fees Eliminated as a separate category. .= Base Rate and User Charges will --- apply. No Wastewater Charges apply 7.1-Comparason of Utility Rates The following two tables compare the Longwood Water and Wastewater current and proposed rates with other area Utilities: TABLE 7-1 COMPARISON OF. MONTHLY WATER COSTS SYSTEM MONTHLY COST AVERAGE USAGE Sanlando $4.25 $9.65 Longwood (current) $4.50 $14.50 Lake Mary $4.20 $14.64 Winter Springs * $4.39 $15.49 Longwood 2008 $5.50 $16.40 Longwood 2009 $5.70 $18.40 Longwood 2010 $6.30 $20.30 Sanford $4.32 $20.47 Winter Park $8.16 $20.52 Casselberry $5.58 $21.28 Oviedo $8.69 $22.05 Altamonte Springs $3.08 $22.78 *Winter Springs rates have been in effect since March 2006. TABLE 7-2 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY WASTEWATER COSTS SYSTEM. MONTHLY COST AVERAGE USAGE Longwood (current) $3.30 $21.30 Longwood 2008 $3.76 $25.36 Sanlando $11.91 $27.49 Longwood 2009 $4.23 $31.33 Lake Ma $6.50 $33.80 Longwood 2010 $5.81 $37.51 Winter Springs $8.09 $39.69 Altamonte Springs $6.27 $42.01 Sanford $7.20 $42.14 Casselberry $9.05 $46.62 Oviedo $17.00 $51.10 Winter Park $9.65 $57.95 -61- 1-1 Seminole County Public Schools 2008-2009 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan and Budget The Seminole County Public Schools Five Year Capital Improvement Plan and Budget is adopted by the Seminole County School Board and includes funding for Land acquisition, equipment and technology purchases, school buses, facilities maintenance, capital debt service and other expenditures. MIGNE wl rm gm k.V _I:il b—Of tt M The SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA Diane Bauer, Chair Dede Shaffner, Vice Chair Barry Gainer ti Jeanne Morris Sandra Robinson Dr. Bill Vogel, Ed.D., Superintendent At Fq'qiliiips.tPl�qnmnjg, Diepartrnent 14,00 Ebst;L;6ke Mary Bo6l 1eva'rd" �a731(407)j1h6,—jb12,6 ' Stanford;' 327, awl, TABLE OF CONTENTS OVERVIEW Capital Outlay Funds are a category of funds used for acquisition and construction of major capital facilities and improvements to existing facilities. Land acquisition, equipment and technology purchases, school buses, facilities maintenance, and capital debt service are also typical expenditures with these funds. The Capital Improvement Plan & Budget is prepared in 5 and 10 year planning periods. The plans determine the necessary expenditures to meet projected student enrollment growth, maintain a quality environment in existing school facilities, and to maintain a desired level of service of school equipment and technology. Ensuring the prescribed level of service capacity pertaining to public.school concurrency and student growth is also a major factor in developing the district's Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Development of a capital. outlay budget differs from the creation of an annual operating budget in that projects generally span more than a single year and revenues are carried over year to year. Revenues and expenditures are not balanced each separate year. Because each year brings a five year average of additional revenue of approximately $78 million, the timing of projects and bid awards becomes the dominant factor. Matching total expenditures to total revenue is not as difficult as placing the projects within an appropriate time frame. There may be funding for a need within the plan, but it may not mathematically "fit" until a later year. This is often the case for large dollar volume projects. Some projects therefore may, require total funding in a given year, while other larger ones must be phased, or funds. built up, over a number of years. The first year of funding starts the planning and design phase of a project. During that time, the budget (as the scope becomes clearer and more definitive) can then be adjusted as needed in the subsequent year(s) when the construction phase begins or is in progress. Many of the budgets for projects identified in year 2 and beyond are more less "placeholder" amounts that cannot be precisely determined until the final scope and cost factors are determined. Such was the case for the Oviedo and Seminole Additions and Remodeling projects. The initial budgets for these projects were established in 2001. The total amount of capital revenue available for distribution in the 2008-2009 fiscal year is $105,794,823. The total five year .capital revenue is estimated to be $415,832,151. 'Expenditures in the five year plan represent $412,226,628 in facilities construction, improvements and various operating support programs. Although 93.6% of the capital revenue is generated by local sources, the Legislature places restrictions on 81.8% of the total locally generated revenue in prescribing what the funds can be used for and specific project priorities. The 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget, for both the 5 and 10 year planning periods, are included in TAB A. REVENUE Capital Outlay Funds are generated through State and local sources. A chart indicating �J the comparison of the two sources is in TAB B. Both sources have designated three digit numeric accounting codes for each fund that indicates the revenue source of the funds. Since most capital outlay funds have prescribed restrictions on how the particular fund can be used, the individual revenue coding makes it easy to determine how the funds were appropriated .and expended. Those restrictions are primarily established by legislative statute however, other restrictions can also be established by local voter referendum (such as the local option sales tax) and local government ordinance (impact fees). Revenue estimates are calculated based on official State notifications, certified county tax assessments, and historical trends. A primary source of capital revenue is the ad valorem "2 mill" tax levy, which is determined by using the certified tax roll. State revenue sources, such as Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO) and Capital Outlay and Debt Service (CO&DS), are budgeted at the official notification amounts. Sales tax proceeds, interest income, impact fees, and other revenues are based on expected cash flow, projected interest rates, and historical trends. Section 1011.14, Florida Statutes, provide for Loans and Certificates of Participation (COPs). These are funds determined by District administration and approved by the School Board. Estimated revenues are updated as new data becomes available throughout the budget process and legislative session. State revenue monies not encumbered within a prescribed time frames after their appropriation, revert back to the State Trust Fund. 1—✓ State Generated Revenue Sources Caaital Outlav and Debt Service (CO&DS Distributed to districts by the Florida Department of Education, Office of Educational Facilities, the funds come from license fees collected by the local agencies and remitted to the State. These funds can only be spent on projects listed on a current Project Priority List (PPL), approved by the State Board of Education. The projects must also be included in an FDOE approved educational plant survey. These funds typically carry the most restrictive requirements for expenditure. These funds may be used in acquiring, building, constructing, altering, remodeling, improving, enlarging, furnishing, equipping, maintaining, renovating, or repairing of capital outlay projects per FDOE guidelines. CO&DS revenue is 0.4% of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Capital Outlay Bond Issues (COBI) This appropriation, authorized by Sections 320.20 and 1010.57, Florida Statutes, comes from bonds issued by the State, and secured by future license fee collections. COBI bonds are issued by the State of Florida on behalf of participating District(s) for any permitted capital outlay purpose. COBI funds are not a recurring annual revenue source but have been secured for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Restrictions for COBI funds are the same as CO&DS funds above. COBI revenue is 1.7% of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Public Education Capital Outlay (PECO) The source of revenue for PECO funds is the Gross Receipts Tax, General Revenue funds appropriated to the fund for educational capital outlay purposes, and all capital outlay funds previously appropriated and certified forward pursuant to Section 215.301, Florida Statutes. In lay terms, these are a portion of utility services taxes paid to the State. PECO fund distributions have two categories; PECO New Construction and PECO Maintenance. PECO appropriations can vary substantially from year to year depending upon legislative priorities and distribution. Some years have actually resulted in little or no PECO, new construction funding. PECO Maintenance can vary as well. Any reductions in PECO maintenance funds from year to year are made up with local two mill funds to make certain current levels of service and support for the schools do not decrease. Ten percent of PECO Maintenance revenue must be spent on correcting facility Safety To Life deficiencies that are identified in annual inspections by district staff and local fire officials. PECO funds may be used for debt service payments, remodeling, new construction, furniture and equipment, sites, library books, -and asbestos removal. Restrictions for PECO New Construction projects require the programs to be included in an FDOE approved educational plant survey. PECO revenue is 4.3% of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Classrooms For Kids/Class Size Reduction In 2002, Florida voters passed the class size reduction amendment to the State constitution that obligated the Legislature to provide funding such that the number of students in a core curriculum class met a specific class size. By the beginning of the 2010 school year, there is to be a sufficient number'of public school classrooms so that the maximum number of students in each core curriculum classroom does not exceed 18 students for grades PK through 3, 22 students for grades 4 through 8, and 25 students for grades 9 through 12. The State inventory of classrooms, student stations and capacity at a school (referred to as the Florida Inventory of School Houses or FISH) reflects the mandated class size ratios in determining a school's capacity. As authorized by Section 1013.737, Florida Statutes, the issuance of revenue bonds is authorized to finance or refinance the construction, acquisition, reconstruction, or renovation of educational facilities. The revenue source securing the bonds is State lottery proceeds. Funds are allocated to school districts annually by the Florida Department of Education, Office of Educational Facilities as determined by the Legislature. Restrictions for these funds require them to be used on adding new classrooms (increasing the number of student stations) and substantiated in an FDOE approved educational plant survey. The projects must also be certified by the school board and approved by FDOE. The amount each year to be appropriated to the districts is determined by the Legislature. Appropriations can vary substantially from year to year, depending upon Legislative priorities. Past annual funding has ranged from $2 million, to a maximum amount of over $21 million in 2006 The 2007-2008 Classrooms For Kids funding was $5,409,345. The Legislature did not allocate any Classroom For Kids funds to the district in.2008-2009. State Revenue Summary: State generated revenue is 6.2% of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Locally Generated Revenue Sources Capital Outlay Millage Levy (2 Mill) Section 1011.71(2), Florida Statutes, authorizes each school board to levy not more than 2 mills against the taxable value of property for school capital outlay purposes. This is the largest source of revenue available to the district in funding capital outlay needs. Funds may be used for new construction, remodeling, and site improvement; expansion to new sites, existing sites, auxiliary facilities, or ancillary facilities; maintenance; renovations; school buses; new and replacement equipment; lease purchase agreement payments; payment of loans; environmental regulation compliance costs; and leasing of educational facilities. While these funds are generated through local property tax sources, the legislature restricts the expenditure of these funds to only projects included in an FDOE approved educational plant survey. The expenditure of these funds must also be advertised with the annual operating budget prior to budget approval. In the 2008 session, the Legislature directed that one -quarter (1/4) mill of the 2 mill property tax levy revenue be redirected to make up anticipated losses in the Required Local Effort (RLE) tax to make up for revenue losses. This action "re -directs" $8,165,207 from the district's capital plan and budget, to fund the loss in the FEFP appropriation. The projected revenue loss from the capital budget over the next five years is estimated to be <-$44,832,365>. The distribution of the "redirected" revenue back to public school districts is determined at the State level. The resulting revenue from the "Two Mill" capital outlay tax levy after the 1/4 mill reduction/redirect is 75.5% of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Local Option Sales Tax On September 4, 2001, the voters of Seminole County approved a one -cent sales tax for ten years. Twenty-five percent of the proceeds of the sales tax are distributed to the District to be used to increase the capacity of selected existing schools, build new schools, and remodel others as listed in the sales tax project list. TAB C indicates the sales tax projects approved in the referendum and the current status of each project. This tax will end in 2011. The local option sales surtax revenue is 7.8% oil' the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Certificates of Participation (COPs) Certificates of Participation are used to finance the construction of State approved educational facilities, land, and the purchase of equipment by the acceleration of funds to the District through the issuance of debt. The debt service for the bonds is paid from the proceeds of the 2 mill ad valorem tax levy. COPs funds may only be used for specifically designated projects identified in the master lease document, and must be included in an FDOE approved educational plant survey. On June 24, 2008, the board approved a $21,000,000 COPS sale to purchase 50 replacement buses along with the construction of the new Rosenwald Campus, the new Transportation Annex, and the remodeling of portions of the ESC Annex to accommodate the EXCEL program. The COPS sale revenue is 5.1% of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Impact Fees On October 23, 2007, the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners passed Ordinance 2007-41 updating the Seminole County Public Educational System Impact Fee Ordinance, effective February 1, 2008. The new fees to be paid by developers at time of issuing a building permit are: Single Family Detached House $5,000.00 per Dwelling Unit Town Home Units $2,450.00 per Dwelling Unit Multi -Family Units $2,100.00 per Dwelling Unit Mobile Home Units $1,924.00 per Dwelling Unit Impact fees are one-time payments that are used to construct public education system improvements needed to accommodate associated growth. The fees are assessed when issuing a building permit for the new dwelling unit within the County or Cities. Funds can be used for equipment, site acquisition, and the construction or expansion of new facilities necessary from the impact of the housing unit. Impact fee revenue is 4.0% of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Interest These funds are generated through interest earnings, proceeds from property sales; and other capital fund earnings. The estimate is modeled on an analysis of the actual capital outlay fund balances, estimated revenues, interest rates, and anticipated rates of expenditure. Some of the interest earnings (those unrelated to restricted fund sources) help fund projects that cannot be funded with" other more restrictive revenue sources. Examples of such projects include contributions made to the Central Florida Zoo. Interest revenue is 1.2% of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Gas Tax Refund These funds are generated through tax rebates from vehicle fuel purchased and used by the district. The funds are restricted for use in improving roadways adjacent to school sites, and are normally used on construction projects where off -site roadway improvements are necessary. Gas Tax Refund revenue is 0.1 % of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Outlay Budget. Local Revenue Summary: Locally generated revenue is 93.6% of the total revenue for the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Undesignated/Balance Carryover These are non -appropriated funds brought forward from the previous fiscal year. There are three sources associated with these funds. The first source is the end of the year balance in the budgeted contingency account from the previous year. The second source is the fund balance amount at the end of the prior fiscal year. Fund balance is essentially the difference in actual funds received during the year, less the amounts that were budgeted (also referred to as appropriated) at the beginning of the previous fiscal year. A desirable estimate of fund balance is in the range of 5% of the total planned budget. The third source of this revenue is the available balance of the catastrophic loss account not spent in the previous fiscal year. Since there were no catastrophic losses in 2007-2008, the entire $5 million amount (included in the $11 million amount on the CIP) budgeted in 2007-2008 is brought forward in the 2008-2009 budget under the indicated amount. EXPENDITURES The 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget The proposed 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget (TAB A) consists of the following projects and programs: Growth (New Construction) Projects: The costs to construct or acquire new classroom spaces, either permanent (new schools, additions, and modular structures) or temporary (purchased or leased portables). Ten year Capital Outlay Full Time Equivalency (COFTE) student enrollment projections are formally released in August of each year by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research of the Florida Legislature. These projections are developed using a statistical population projection model know as Cohort Survival. The model factors in birth rates, determines a survival rate for each age cohort (based on historical trend), and then projects the survival rate of each cohort as it matriculates through subsequent grade levels. These projections are also used in determining future student growth for both the educational plant survey and public school concurrency level of service. Statutes regarding public school concurrency require the district to develop a financially feasible capital budget that maintains the prescribed levels of service for each grade grouping (elementary, middle, high) within each concurrency service area to accommodate COFTE enrollment projections in the 5th year of the Capital Improvement Plan. Over the next 10 years, elementary enrollment will continue to decline until 2009-2010. After a slight positive growth rate until 2012-2013, elementary enrollment is projected to then increase substantially at an average rate of 600 students per year. Middle school enrollment is projected to continue declining until 2015-2016, at which time, the elementary cohorts will matriculate into the middle school levels. High school enrollment is projected to decrease at an average rate of 100 students per year, over the 10 year planning period. COFTE enrollment projections graphs are included in TAB D. Previous projects that will be completed and ready for students in 2008-2009 are as follows: 1. 30 Modular Classrooms: An additional 638 student stations. 2. Lake Orienta Elementary Additions & Remodeling: An additional 440 student stations. 3. Sabal Point Elementary Additions & Remodeling: An additional 446 student stations. 4. Lake Mary Elementary Additions & Remodeling: An additional 341 student stations. Planned projects to accommodate projected COFTE growth and meet required concurrency levels of service for all service areas are as follows: 1. Wekiva Elementary Additions & Remodeling: An additional 252 student stations in Fall 2011. 2. Stenstrom Elementary ELC Addition: An additional 252 student, stations in Fall 2012. 3. Pine Crest Elementary Additions & Remodeling: An additional 252 student stations in Fall 2012. 4. New Elementary School "N" (Concurrency Service Area E9 - Northwest Cluster): Begin design in 2012-2013 to provide additional capacity of 871 student stations in Fall 2014. Overall student growth is forecasted to continue declining until 2010-2011. As such, new capacity projects have been rescheduled from previous plans, or deferred to program years beyond 2018 (beyond the 10 year planning period). New capacity/school project changes from the 2007-2008 Capital Outlay Budget are as follows: 1. New Elementary School "N": Extended +3 years further to now open Fall 2014 2. New Elementary School "O": Extended +5 years further to now open Fall 2016 3. New Middle School "EE": >10 years (beyond 10 year planning period) 4. New High School "CCC": >10 years ,(beyond 10 year planning period) Given trends in COFTE projections, there most likelywill not be a need for a new middle or high school in the next educational plant survey scheduled for 2010. Land: The current decrease in enrollment provides the district an opportunity to acquire future school sites since funds are not currently needed in the near term to construct new schools. Current market conditions and opportunities also make this a desirable time to acquire future school sites. The 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget allocates $5 million each year in years 2, 4 and 5 of the plan to acquire future school sites. The Rosenwald Center project is planned to begin design in FY 2008-2009. The campus will be relocated from its current location, to the recently acquired Chase Grove site near Sanford on Old Lake Mary Blvd. While not necessarily a "growth" type project it is a complete campus replacement and is listed in the "new construction" category. Growth and New Construction Projects comprise 7.3% of the total expenditures in the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Remodeling, Additions & Renovations: These are projects to maintain and/or improve, existing school district facilities. These projects may provide additional classroom spaces to accommodate projected growth as recommended in the educational plant survey or, as needed to accommodate classrooms displaced under a remodeling project. With new capacity school projects being deferred due to decreases in projected student growth rates through 2010-2011, other (non -growth related) projects identified in previous capital outlay budgets can be accomplished. In addition, previously planned and current project budgets can be adjusted as needed to address cost escalation factors and to ensure -the planned project scope is accomplished. Sales tax projects: The district has `completed, or is beginning the design, all of the projects that were proposed in the 2001 1/4 penny, public schools sales tax referendum. This is notable in that the district was able to plan, budget and successfully complete all of the projects that were approved in the 2001 referendum. A list and current status of the sales tax projects are included in TAB C. Oviedo & Seminole High: Additions & Remodeling: Both of these extensive and complex projects have been proceeding smoothly however, both project budgets were based upon estimates prepared in 2004. CIP budget increases are necessary to accommodate construction cost increases and address unforeseen conditions in classrooms initially not programmed to be renovated in the 2004 estimate. Examples include deteriorated spaces in science labs. The 2008-2009 Capital Outlay budget includes increases in the project budgets. Increasing both project budgets will not affect any other previously planned projects. The Sterling Park ILC & Remodeling project bid in June 2008 and will begin construction in July. Other projects budgeted and entering design phase in 2008-2009 are the Red Bug Remodeling, and Spring Lake Remodeling projects. Remodeling, Additions & Renovation Projects comprise 36.7% of the total expenditures in the 2008-2009. Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. General Operating Fund Support: These are expenditures for equipment or projects that support existing school or district level operations, consistent with revenue restrictions. These items include the purchase of school buses, technology,- maintenance & repair, school capital outlay, etc. These expenditures tend to be recurring from year Ito year and may increase as operating needs or costs increase. The budget includes ongoing maintenance and repair programs for roof replacement, painting, floor covering, HUAC equipment, pavement resurfacing, and continuing support of the Facilities Services Department. These programs are listed in TAB E. Also included are programs for school bus replacement, communication and technology programs, magnet school equipment, school capital outlay funding, high school stadium improvement, district vehicle replacement, and band uniforms. A five year program to improve network connectivity for voice and data services, which too will increase the access speed onto the Internet for students;, teachers and administrators, is also included in the this program. General Operating Fund Support programs comprise 22.4% of the total expenditures in the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Debt Service: These are expenditures to pay back incurred debt or loans, such as COPS, general obligation bonds, or revenue anticipation loans. Currently, the entire amount of debt service indicated in the 2008-2009 Capital Outlay Budget are for COPS sales. Debt Service payments comprise 27.5% of the total expenditures in the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. Miscellaneous: This small category primarily includes an operating contingency for the overall capital outlay budget. Budgeted funds that are not expended in the current fiscal year are carried over into the next fiscal year budget. Miscellaneous expenditures comprise 6.1% of the 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Plan & Budget. 2008-2009 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan & Budget 2008-2009 Ten Year Capital Improvement Plan & Budget TENTATIVE 2008-2009 FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN June 2008 SEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Tentative REVENUE', r_".." """`:"__" "'`; -'2008/09,. _`i;;=:2009/10';" ;'. 2010/11 _.„".2011/12-': "2012/1] STATE--.,-,_,.%_. CLASSROOMS FOR KIDS PECO NEW CONSTRUCTION $1,473,990 $424,977 $624.691 $668,143 $267,882 PECO MAINTENANCE $2,260,756 $3,049,660 $3,049,660 $3,029,957 $2,948,333 CO&DS BONDS (COBI) $6,850,000 CODS $368,064 $368,064 $368,064 $368,064 $368,064 LOCAL "2" MILL. $65,321.653 $65,739,115 1-70,102,761 $75.615,833 $IIIA79,555 2 MILL STATE REDUCTION (-0.25 Mil) ($8,165,207) (58,217,389) ($8,762,845) ($9,451,979) (510,2341944) COPS $21,000,000 SALES TAX $12.185,567 $7,953,238 $8,152,069 $4,126,356 IMPACT FEES $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 $3,300,000 GASOLINE TAX REFUND $100,000 $100,000 $100.000 $100,000 $100,000 INTEREST $1.100,000. $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1.000.000 SUB-TOTA $105,794,823 $73,717,665 ':$77,934,400 $78,756.374 $79,628,89 PRIOR YEAR CARRYOVER $8,781,0411 $3,738,712 $10,659,5611 $7,645,383 $6,350,966 $114,575,864 1 $77,456,377 $88693,961 $86,401,757 $85,979,855 EXP.ENOITURES;`O`t= '-"'" -_ ' --_2008/09i-`."2009/10, !_.�'1010/11 `, �2011/12' SUPPORT GENERAL FUNDL;- .`.` •-,. y -_ - _., „, _.:. ,,.,, __" ... CATASTROPHIC LOSS RESERVE $11,000,000 PROPERTY CASULTY PREMIUM $1,731,152 $1,800,000 _ $1,800,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 MAINTENANCE $3,841,000 $3,841,000 $3,841;000 $3,841,000 $3,841,000 SCHOOL INSTRUCTIONAL EOUIPT PURCH $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 $650,000 BUS REPLACEMENT $0 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $1,500.000 $1,500,000 VEHICLES 1 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 FLOOR CVRNG $300;000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 HVAC $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500.000 REROOF $1,000,D00 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 PAVEMENT $250;000 $250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 PAINTING $300;000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 LEASED PORTABLES $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $600,000 $600,000 SCHOOL CAP OUTLAY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 MAGNET SCHOOL EOUIPT $400,000 $100.000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $0 $600,000 $600,000 $750,000 $0 GROOMS TECH REPLACEMENT $380,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 $325,000 COMMUNICATIONS $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150;000 $150,000 TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1.100,000 .$1,500,000 $1,500,000 DISTRICT LEVEL SUPPORT EQUIPT $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Misc. $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 INSTRUCTIONAL TECH EQUIPT $347,000 $347,000 $347,000 $347,000 $347,000 DATA& VOICE NETWORK $294,000 $250,000 $1.100,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 VIDEO. SECURITY PROGRAM $44,000. DEBT,SERVICE" a - COPSPAYMENT $23,400,000 $22,483,816 $22,485,578 $22,487,791 $22;480,291 NEWCONSTRUCTION- 4 LAND $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 NEW MIDWAY ELEM $1,000,000 NEW ELEMENTARY "N" (CSA E9) $1,000,000 BUS COMPOUND ANNEX $3,000,000 ROSENWALD $10,100,000 REMODELING& -ADDITIONS"'"- `" "' - - CASSELBERRY MEDIA $1.000,000 55,000,000 HAMILTON $1,000,000. $7,000,600 IDYLLWILDEADMIN $500,000 $1,000,000 JACKSON HEIGHTS $1,000.000 $21,000,000 LAWTON $700,000 $10,000,002 LYMAN BLDGS. 7.9. 10 $6,000,000 MILWEE REMODELING $1,000,000 PINE CREST ADDITION/REMODELING :$1,000,000 $8,000,000 SEMINOLE HIGH $13,500,000 SPRING LAKE $1,000,000 $8,000,000 STENSTROM :$1,000,000 $7,000,000 WEKIVA $1,000.000 $11,000,000 WILSONIGENEVA. PODS & RENOVATIONS $800,000 $4,000,000 SMALL PROJECTS $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 EXCEL RELOCATION/REMODEL $1,900,000 SALES TAX,PROJECTS OVIEDO HIGH $14,400,000 REDBUG - $1,000,000 $8,000,000 a;I. ? s.K _ 1;; ]_', �'•". STERLING PARK $11,000,000 A S CONTINGENCY $5,000,000 $5,000,000 55,000,000 $5,000,0001 $5,000,000 TOTAL $110,837,152 $66,796,816 $80.948,578,1 $80,050,791 $73,593,291 5 Year Total 6.4% $26;488,J69' 0.0% $0 0.8% $3,459,683 3.4% $14,338,366 1.6% $6,850,000 0.4% $1,840,320 93.6% $389,]43,782 86.3% $358,658,917 -10.8% ($44,832,365) 5.1 % $21,000,000 7.8% $32,417,230 4.0 % $16,500,000 0.1% $500,000 1.2 % $5,100,000 $417l 32;161 22.4% $92,489, 1S2� 2.7% $11,000,000 2.2% $9,131,152 4.7% $19,205,000 0.8% $3,250,000 1.5% $6,000,000 0.3% $1.250,000 0,4% $1,500,000 1.5% $6,000,000 1.5% $6,000,000 0.3% $1,350,000 0.4% $1,500.000 0.7% $2,700,000 1.2% $5,000,000, 0.2% $800,000 0.5% $1,950,000 0.4% $1,680.000 0.2% $750,000 1.5% $6,300,000 0.0% $200,000 0.4% $1,500,000 0.4% $1,735,000 0.9% $3;644,000 0.01% $44,000 27.5% , $113,337,476,) $113,337,476 7:7%, $30,10Q0_00, A$15,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $10,100,000 36.7%• $151,LOT ,000' $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $1.500,000 $22,000.000 $10,700,000 $6,000,000 $1.000,000 $9,000,000 $13,500,000 $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $12,000,000 $4,800,000 $3,500.000 $1,900,000 $14,400,000 $9,000,000 $11,000,000 6:1%' $25;D00;000 $26,000,000 4 $414226,628 Facilities Planning Department 12008 ]009 CIP TENTATIVE 2008-2009 TEN YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN June 2008 SEMINOLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1 GASOLINE TAX REFUND ommommommu.". m-moffunmWoommm, PRIOR YEAR CARRYOVER MAIN INi I� .. I morm.T.17m. IIIIIIIIIIII11171mmonyr. M., Moran?, M., IIIIIIIIIIEWTIT SCHOOL CAP 1UTI-AY EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTI � mmmm.?M,. mEnommomm.m.� I� Imo® REMODELING&& ADDITIONSI®®®®®® GREENWOOD LAKES MIXILE�� META __�ASSELBERKY MILWEE REMODELING I�� IIIIIIII11M.T.�� EXCEL RELOCATOWREMODEL SALES TAX PROJECTS Ism®®®®®®®® I . ®® Facilities Planning Department "Ami e � STATE vs. LOCALLY GENERATE® REVENUE 2000-2000 Five Year CIP STATE vs. LOCALLY GENERATED REVENUE 2008-2009 Five Year CIP STATE (t V�VTV�1 VL 93.6% Seminole County Public Schools 2001 Local Option Sales Tax Program & Statuis 2001 Local Option Sales Tax Program & Status CDATE DE CRIPTION r CONST ISTATUS,ISCHOOL ., PLI TION , DATE ;. ALTAMONTE ^� 1974 CONVERT OPEN PLAN TO 20 2020 2004 COMP 'TED ELEM SELF-CONTAINED CLASSROOMS; ADD MEDIA CENTER;ADD I CLASSROOMS -� _COMPLETED (FOREST CITY 1971 CONVERT OPEN PLAN TO 2005 2007 ELEM SELF-CONTAINED CLASSROOMS; ADD ATE, DIA 1 CENTER;ADD CLASSROOMS SABAL POINT - 1974 CONVERT OPEN PLAN TO 2007 2009 UNDER I ELEM SELF-CONTAINED t CONSTRUCTION `CLASSROOMS; ADD MEDIA (CENTER; ADD CLASSROOMS - STERLING PARK ELEM 1974 CONVERT OPEN PLAN TO SELF-CONTAINED 2005 2010 i UNDER CONSTRUCTION (CLASSROOMS; ADD MEDIA CENTER; ADD CLASSROOMS ! WINTER SPRINGS 1974 CONVERT OPEN PLAN TO r 2002 2004 COMPLETED ELEM SELF-CONTAINED CLASSROOMS; ADD MEDIA CENTER;ADD CLASSROOMS �EASTBROOK 1970 CONVERT OPEN PLAN TO r-2002 -� 2004 COMPLETED ELEM SELF-CONTAINED CLASSROOMS; ADD i (LAKE MAR('- T 9979 'CLASSROOMS _ !RENOVATE AND UPGRADE _ 2002 2006 i COMPLETED (HIGH CLASSROOMS; ADD jPERFORAHNG ARTS f CENTER/CLASSROOMS; , UPGRADE MEDIA CENTER I I OVIEDO HIGH 1967 RENOVATE CLASSROOMS; 2006 2010 UNDER ADD PHYSICAL EDUCATION i CONSTRUCTION FACILITY, BAND AND CHORUS ROOMS AND GENERAL CLASSROOMS I I - N> �V MIDDLE �TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR 2004--- - v 2006 7^ COMPLETED ; MARKHAM WOODS SCI�OOL GREENIVOOD LAI{ES, i �AULLEN'NIUNI, AND MIDDLE SCHOOL SANFORD MIDDLE NEW - (ELEMENTARY TO PROVIDE RELIEF IN THE I 2003 �- 2004--COA'IPLETED OVIEDO AREA r WALKERTARY ELEMENSCHOOL RED BUG ELEM !� 1972- CONVERT OPEN PLAN TO 2009 2010 �- IN DESIGN SELF-CONTAINED i (CLASSROOMS; ADD CLASSROOMS M 2007-2008 Capital Outlay FTE (COFTE) Enrollment Projections 2007-2008 Grades PK-12 COFTE Projections Seminole County Public Schools, Florida 67,000 66,000 65,000 64,000 w F- LL 0 63,000 N C N 62,000 61,000— 60,000 59,000 58,000 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 2013- 2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 School Year Data Released By The Office of Econonmic & Demographic Research of the Florida Legislature, July 2007 Each Index Is Equivalent To A New Elementary School 33000 32200 31400 UJ 30600 U- O U w 29800 c a� 29000 28200 27400 26600 2007-08 COFTE Grades PK-5 Growth & 2008-09 Proposed CIP Capacity Comparisons COFTE Data Released By The Office of Econonmic & Demographic Research of the Florida Legislature, July 2007 OO`L ZP OOR 00� CO' 00A 0P 000 ONO ONN O0 O0 ONN ONh ONc° ONA ON00 �`L h� OIT ,SIT O`L IT IT ,SIT `L 'L `L `L `L �L 00� 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O� O^ ON`t'ONE' School Year 2007-08 Grades PK-5 2007-08 COFTE Grades 6-8 Growth & 2008-09 Proposed C1P Capacity Each Index Is Equivalent To Comparisons A New Middle School COFTE Data Released By The Office of Econonmic & Demographic Research of the Florida Legislature, July 2007 17000 2008,-2009 5 Year Plan Window 15600 w 0 0 14200 12800 00 00 O� 5 4j Oco O-A 00 O°6 NO �� ,�0, �O ,�tk ,�h "O ,�A NO �O �O ,LO �O �O �O �O �O �O �O 'T rO rO Off' 00 O"o Otx O� OHO 01 O4� 00 ,�O' ,�'�' N ,�`b �� NO NO N 1O �O �O If, ro ,f, School Year ®2007-08 Grades 6-8 February 1,, 2008 i 2007-08 COFTE Grades 9-12 Growth & 2008-09 Proposed CIP Capacity Each Index Is Equivalent To A New High School Comparisons 21200 COFTE Data Released By The Office of Econonmic & Demographic Research of the Florida Legislature, July 2007 15600 000' 000 00� 000 000 00� 000 000 OHO O�� O�ti OHO O�� 0�0 ONO 0�1 ON- `L COL ,� L D L IT OT ,SIT �`L SIT o'T ,�;L 'L `L `L 'T T `L 00� 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O� O� O�� OHOOHO' O�� ti ti ti ti r ti r School Year ®2007-08 Grades 9-12 June 2008 TAB E Five Year Maintenance Plans Ij SCPS'Vehicle, RepIimement;FY2008-09 ME mmm �� Im�Mmmuvwm �� POEM= MUM or- EPITIMMEM�� MMMEEM� NUNN.M.�� Kmrd-v. -� �mmD ��MMFW MI rM.T.Mmumm.r.mmm EMMMIMOmmm SCPS Vehicle Replacement FY_2008-09 Efflw��m NONCOM MEMORM P,Nw.=.��-�-� MEEFT-T-MIMMUM �� Im M ASPHALT PAVING & RESURFACING PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT FY 2008-09 SCHOOL Year'Resurfaced ,. 2008.09 2009.10 . 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Elementary Schools Altamonte 2001 $9,500 Bear Lake 2000 $9,000 $10,000 Bentley 2001 $8,500 Carrillon 1996 $9,500 Casselberry 1989 $ 8,000 $9,000 Crystal Lake 2006 $10,000 $10,000 Eastbrook 1994 $ 9,000 $10,000 English Estates 1998 $9,500 Evans 2000 $9,500 Forest City 2007 $9,500 $10,000 Geneva 1994 $ 6,000 $7,000 Goldsboro 1999 $ 7,000 $8,000 Hamilton 1994 $ 10,000 $10,000 Heathrow 2004 $8,500 $9,500 Highlands 1996 $7,500 Hopper Center 1997 $5,000 $5,000 Idyllwilde 2004 $9,5001 $11,000 Keeth 2001 $7,5001 $10,000 Lake Mary 1995 $ 9,000 $10,000 Lake Orienta 1994 $ 5,000 $10,000 Lawton 1998 $11,0001 $12,000 Layer 2004 $9,500 Longwood 1994 $9,500 Midway 1999 $6,0001 $8,000 Partin • 1991 $ 6,000 $9,000 Pine Crest 1993 $8,000 $9,000 Rainbow 19.93 $8,000 $9,000 Red Bug 1995 1 $9,500 Sabal Point 1995 $7,0001 $10,000 Spring Lake 1994 $9,500 Stenstrom 1994 $ 9,000 $12,500 Sterling Park 1994 $8,000' $10X0 Walker 2004 $9,500 Wekiva 1994 $9,500 Wicklow 1997 $11,500 Wilson 1999 $9,500 Winter Springs 1990 $ 9,500 $10,500 Woodlands 2001 $9,500 $12,000 Middle Schools Chiles 2005 $15,000 Greenwood Lakes 1999 $8,0001 Indian Trails 1992 $ 11,000 I $12,500 Jackson Heights 2000 $9,500 Markham Woods 2006 $10,000 Millennium 2000 $9,500 I $12,000 Milwee 2001 $8,000 $11,000 Rock Lake F-1994 B-2000 $6,000 $7,000 Rosenwald Center 1994 $3,0001 $4,000 ASPHALT PAVING & RESURFACING PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT FY 2008-09 SCHOOL - Year Resurfaced _ ` 2008=09' 2009=.10 2010-41 201.1-72 2012-13 Sanford 1998 $9.5001 South Seminole 1997 1 $15,000 Teague 1996 $11,000 $13,000 Tuskawilla 2006 $10,500 Tuskawilla Track 2006 High Schools Crooms 2002 $9,500 Hagerty 2006 $ 27,500 $30,000 Hagerty ---track 2006 Hagerty --tennis cts 2006 Lake Brantley 2000 $ 40,000 $18,000 Lake Brantley Track -rubber 2003 Lake Brantley -tennis cts 2008 Lake Howell 1997 $25,000 $30,000 Lake Howell Track 1997 Lake Howell Tennis cts 2008 Lake Mary 1999 $45,000 $47,000 Lake Mary Track - rubber 2006 Lake Mary Track - tennis cts 2006 Lyman 2003 $20,000 $33,500 Lyman Track- rubber 2005 1 $35,000 Oviedo 1998 $ 33,000 Oviedo Track 2007 Oviedo Track --tennis cis 2007 Seminole 2001 $45,0001 Seminole Track 2001 Seminole Tennis cts $ 15,000 Winter Springs 1996 $ 43,000 $55,000 Winter Springs Track 1996 $42,000 Winter Springs --tennis cts 1996 Ancil M Educational Support Center 1996 $12,000 ESC Annex (Concrete) Facilities Services 1999 $13,000 Mellonville Annex 1980 Student Museum 1975 Tec Park ? $3,5001 $4,500 Transportation Services 1998 $21,000 Minor Sealing/Surf.-Contingencyl $ 2,000I $2,500 $5001 $1,0001 $2,500 Total Program Cost $ 250,000 $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Proposed project funding $ 250,000 $250,0001 $250,000 $300,000 $300,000 1-J FLOOR COVERING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENI School Est. SF Year - Installed 2008-2009, 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Elementary Schools ----------------I-----j--___ Altamonte Elementary (ESE, Offices 22,211 I _______j i `------- -- Altamonte Elementar� i 57,200 004 Altamonte Elementary (PLC; -` 20031 Bear Lake Elementary �101,20CJ 2006j Bear Lake (PLC) --------------- 19- Bentley Bentley ! 103,280 -- -`------------------- 20011 - j '�-------- 1 $10g000 j ---_---------- (ELC) j 26,577 2005 ! j Carillon Elementary 126,000 1997� j $. 110,D00 - I- j Carillon (PLC) I 20011 Crystal Lake ____ ------_- 20061 j Eastbrook Elementary --------------- I- 80,158-- ----�-----`-'------ 2004� ------!------ - EaslbYook (PLC) -- -----j`------ 20031 --` Casselberry Elementary----_ j 10_0 783 j __ ----- English Estates Elementary- -- j 76,867 - --- ------- -_ 1996j j--------- _____ English Esiate PLC ( ) 26;511 2004j j $110,OOC Evans Elementary 103,0841 2000 Forest City Elementary 73,143 20071 Geneva 102;574 1999j Goldsboro Elementary j 106,421 19981 j $110,00C $110,00c Hamilton Elementary j 89,5981 2004i j I Heathrow Elementary 88,773' 20061 I Highlands Elementary----------j_ 106,395 2007j Hopper ---- ! 15,320 --------• ------ 19 -------'------• ------ ------- Idyllwilde Elementary j 99,249 2001 idyiiwiide (PLCj-- ------.._- ------------- - 19991 I Keeth Elementary _ 76,921--2006-07; -- ------� -------------'---'- j Lake Mary Elementary 68,450 Lake Oriente Elementay 76,067 1999j Lawton Elementary ! -----------� 119,445 ---- -- _20011 Lawton (PLC) Layer 2000'---------------- ------------------7------ �------- I 11-5-,700 2005 Longwood Elementary 81,56 - - -- 2007-08-j -' - Midway Elementary I 63,193 Partin Elementa_ry_____ 92,990 j 1 - ----- Pinecrest Elementary.office -I----- ------------------------- _20061 2006T-------! ------ ----- -- - !--- Pinecrest Elementary remaininc j 104,710 2007j - -- ----- -� -----�j- ----- Rainbow Elementary j 91,341 2006-07j I Red Bug Elementary 68,723 20021 �------ '------I------ j ----------.----_ Red Bug(ILC) � Xint:�Ilernenta 30,730 2005j---------j 1 Sabal Point Elementa ry 14,047 1997j I Spring Lake Elementary I 19,638 19961 Stensfrom Elementary 88,372 2001j Sterling Park Elementary 78,500 19961 Walker I 115,700 20051 I j Wekiva Elementary 60,338 19961 $110,00C Wicklow Elementary ----------------------------- Wlson Elementary j 113,694 88.966 _ 19971. -----j--------- 20011 --'-- '------ ------ $110,000 I' -- --- Wilson (ELC) j 34,146 2005j j Winter Springs Elementary -- ! Winter Springs (PLC) ---- j- _7_6,41_5 29,677�-- _20041 2003j-------------- ----- - ------I------ ------------- Woodlands Elementary, j 95,295 2000; j Middle Schools -------------- � 1 ----- -------------- ------ ------- FLOOR COVERING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENI ' - School Est. SF Year 2008-2009 2009.2010 2010-2011 ' - 201fi;12 2012,13 2013-14 2014-15 ....Installed Chiles (Lawton M.).M_iddle_---_____I- 178_381 Greenwood Lakes Middle j 185,964 -_ 2005�--__-___�_------_.------__---_-_�------ - 19961 I - $150,OOCi - - - - - - j Indian Trails Middle j 166,449 Jackson Heights Middle l 146,427 2004j _ j 2005 I Markham Woods ( 20061 Millennium Middle --_-_ ---_i 187,7511 ----------- � 1462981 Milwee Middle ------'---_---------r- 149', ue Middle 1201 New Teag! 2000 i--- _2003I ------ �-_-- ------• ------------ 1996: j $ 140,000 ------_.---_-_�------ -------•-------------•------_. j --------------- I Rock Lake Middle----------�- 131.5L51--- R_osenwald 38,945' Sanford Middle 163,135 South Seminole Middle 143,7301 2004!-_------------ 1999j 1 2001; j 1999 j ------- - ------�_----- - - ----�....-$175,OOC -------------- �-------- j Tuscawilla Middle j 106,922, 20061, j l I I I I High Schools j Crooms School j 131,0001 I j 20021 I j j I Hagerty (Chiles) 1 20061 ( Lake Brantley _High ------_----_-- 367,7001 Lake Howell (88 additions) 165;000 - 20031--.------(-------___________ - 2002j j ____----.-----�.----_._.. j 157,000 Lake Howell (97 Additons)----- 1997, $ 250;OOG. j Lake_M_aryHigh-- 316;700 ----- ------------ __I----_--____---------- _ --- Lyman High (91 Additions) 54,236 ___2004j_________'__ 1991 - j Lyman High (Administration) j 10,702 2005, j Oviedo High -----I= 334;939 Seminole High Building,25-3-0----- Seminole High i 316,330r ------------ ------ - 2003' I j ------ ------------- -----._--._--_.------- ------I--------- Winter Springs High 313,500 1996: $ 250,000 I Ancillary Facilities 1 j Educational Support Center _ j 9_2,60_0� Educational Support Center Anne) 62,000 -_--_-=-_---------- ) ---__''------ Facilities Services Media/Technology Service_--- j 14,129 ---------------'--------� Student Museum 15,600 Tech Park ---------------- i - _---- - ---_ 2006 j i------------------- 2002;--j----------------'-------.j------- -------� - I ----� ----- --' - -------------- -- ---- - ---- - _-- I_ -- -J------'------ I Transportation Services 21,634 2002i j j j 1 j 1 T & M for VCT floor finist j 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10.000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 j $10,000 I I 1 I I Total Program Cost j $ 260,000 j $ 260,000 $ 260,000 $270,0001 $220,000 $295, 000 71 $230,000 I $300,uuul $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Proposed project funding I $ 300,000 j $ 300,000 $ 300,000 GYMNASIUM FLOOR REFINISHING / RESURFACING PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT FY 2008-09 School Date Last Refinished 2008=09 2009-10'c' 2010-11 1 2011-12 2012=13 2013614: 2014-15.: 2015-16- --2016-17-2017-18 2018-19 Crooms Academy 2002 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Chiles 2005 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 15,000 1,000 1,,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Hagerty 2006 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Lk Brantley 2001 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Lk Howell 2005 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Lk Mary 2008 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 Lyman 2002 2,000 2,000 _ 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Markham Woods 2006 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 15,000 1,000 1,000 Milwee Middle 96 15,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Oviedo 97 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 Seminole 2001 2,000 2,000 15,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2.000 2,000 Tuskawilla 2006 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 15,000 1,000 1,000 Winter Springs 2007 2,000 2,000 2,000 2.000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 15,0001 2,000 T.-L�1 A rota) rrogran, Oust $ 36,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 36,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 I $ 50,000 $48,000 $35,000 NOTES: 1. Gym floor resurfacing is estimated at $4,000 per treatment. Facilities Services will fund one half the. cost of one resurfacing per year. Scope of work includes screeding to smooth floor and applying two coats of epoxy finish. Facilities Services will refinish gym floors on a 11 year cycle. Estimated cost to refinish is $15,000 per treatment. Scope of work includes sanding to bare wood, applying two coats of sealer, applying stripping and applying two coats of epoxy finish. EXTERIOR BUILDING PAINT PROGI FY 2008-09 SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCHOOL. Year Last Completed 2008-2009 2009-2010, :2010-2011, 2011-2012 201.2-2013 2013-2014 Elementary Schools Altamonte Elementary 2001-02 $15,000 Bear Lake Elementary 2005 Bentley 2001-02 $15,000 Carrillon Elementary 2003-04 Casselberry Elementary 2007-08 Crystal Lake 2006 Eastbrook Elementary 2000-01 $ 12,000 English Estates Elementary 2004 Evans Elementary 1999-00 $ 10,000 Forest City 2006 Geneva Elementary 2003-04 Goldsboro Elementary 1995-96 $ 25,000 Hamilton 2001-02 Heathrow Elementary 2007-08 Highlands Elementary 200.1-02 $15,000 Hopper ESE Center -2005-06 Idyliwilde Elementary 2006 Keeth Elementary 1996-97 $ 8,000 Lake Mary Elementary 2001-02 $15,000 Lake Orienta Elementary 1996-97 Lawton Elementary 2007 Layer 2003-04 Longwood Elementary 2002-03 Midway Elementary 2002-03 Partin Elementary 2003-04 Pine Crest Elementary 2003-04 Rainbow Elementary 1999-00 $ 6,000 Red Bug Elementary 2000-01 Sabal Point Elementary 2005-06 Spring Lake Elementary 2002-03 Stenstrom Elementary 2006-07 Sterling Park Elementary 2005-06 Walker 2003-04 Wicklow Elementary 2006-07 Wilson Elementary 2001-02 $20,000 Winter Springs Elementary 2005 Wekiva 2001-02 Woodlands Elementary 2000-01 $ 10,000 EXTERIOR BUILDING PAINT PROGI FY 2008-09 SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCHOOL Year Last.. Completed 2008.2009 '2009-2010 ;2010-2011 2011.2012 2012-2013 •2013-2014 - Middle Schools Chiles (Lawton M.) Middle 2005 Greenwood Lakes Middle 2000-01 $ 8,000 Indian Trails Middle 1999-00 $ 8,000 Jackson Heights Middle 2007 Markham Woods 2006 Millennium Middle 1999-00 $ 10,000 Milwee Middle 2003-04 Rock Lake Middle 2007-08 Rosenwald E.S.E. Center 1996-97 Sanford Middle 1997-98 $ 28,000 South Seminole Middle -Middle 2003-04 Teague 1996-97 $ 20,000 Tuskawilla Middle 2006 High Schools Crooms School 2001- 22 Hagerty High 2006 I aka Rrantlatr H-h _ ...� ...y.... I 7nno nn _ _ I m �n nnn I W JV�VVV Lake Howell High 2005-06 Lake Mary High 2004-05 Lyman High 2000-01 $ 40,000 Oviedo High School 2000-01 Seminole High 2000-01 Seminole High Media 2003-04 Winter Springs High 2003-04 Ancillary Facilities Educational Support Ctr. 1995-96 ESC Annex. 1999-00 Environmental Center 2 004 Facilities Services 1999-00 $ 8,000 Media Technology Bldg 2001-02 Student Museum 1997-98 Teague Gym 20 11-02 Transportation 1999-00 $ 8,000 Total Program Cost $ 83,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ ,48,000 $50,000 $30,000 NOTE: Costs Shown Are For Materials Only. INTERIOR BUILDING PAINT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCHOOL Year Last Completed 2008-2o09 2009-'2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 201212013 2013-2014 ` 2014-2015 Elementary Schools Altamonte Elementary 2003 Bear Lake Elementary 1995-96 $ 80,000 Bentley 2001-02 Carrillon Elementary 1.996-97 $85,000 Casselberry Elementary 1995-96 Crystal Lake 2006 Eastbrook Elementary 2004 English Estates Elementary 2003 Evans 1999-00 $80,000 Forest City 2006 Geneva Elementary 1996-97 $ 80,000 Goldsboro Elementary 2007-08 Hamilton 1995-96 $ 80,000 Heathrow Elementary 2002-03 Highlands Elementary 2007-08 . Hopper 1997-98 $ 60,000 Idyllwilde Elementary 2000-01 Keeth Elementary 1997-98 $ 70,000 Lake Mary Elementary 1995-96 $ 80,000 Lake Orienta Elementary 1999-00 Lawton Elementary 2001-02 Layer 2003 Longwood Elementary 1995-96 $ 80,000 Midway Elementary 1995-96 Partin Elementary 2003 Pine Crest Elementary 1995-96 $ 80,000 Rainbow Elementary 1993 $ 80,000 Red Bug Elementary 2002-03 Sabal Point Elementary 1997-98 Spring Lake Elementary 1996-97 Stenstrom Elementary 2000-01 Sterling Park Elementary 1998-99 Walker 2003 Wekiva 1995-96 Wicklow Elementary 1997-98 1 $80,000 C INTERIOR BUILDING PAINT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCHOOL Year Last Completed 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010'-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014. 2014-2015 Wilson Elementary 1996-97 $85,000 Winter Springs Elementary 2004 Woodlands Elementary 1996-97 $65,000 Middle Schools Chiles 2005 Greenwood Lakes Middle 2006 Indian Trails Middle 2005 Jackson Heights Middle 2007-08 Markham Woods 2006 Millennium Middle 1999-00 Milwee Middle 2004 Rock Lake Middle I $ 60,000 $ 80,000 Rosenwald E.S.E. Center 1998-99 Sandford Middle 2008 $ 40,000 South Seminnla Midrlla 1AgR-g7 Q i cn nnn Teague Middle 1996-97 $150,000 Tuskawilla Middle 2005-06 High Schools Crooms 2002 Hagerty 2006 Lake Brantley Nigh 1999-00 $140,000 Lake Howell High 1998-99 $200,000 Lake Mary High 2004 Lyman High 2003 Oviedo High School Seminole High Media 2003-04 Seminole High Cafteria 2003-04 Seminole High GYM. 2003-04 Seminole High Bld.25 halls only 2003-04 Winter Springs High 1995-96 $ 100,000 $ 80,000 Ancillary Facilities Educational Support Center 25 ESC Annex 199900-00 150000 60000 INTERIOR BUILDING PAINT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCHOOL Year+Last Completed 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010, 2011 2011.2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 - 2014.201,5 Environmental Center 2004 Facilities Services Media Technology Building Student Museum 2001-02 Transportation 2003 Total Program Cost $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $300,000 $285,000 $300,000 C_ C c ROOF REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SOPS -FACII ITIFS SFAVrr•Cc noono-r.e.-..r SCHOOL Elementarv.Sdhools TYPE WARRANTY YEAR WARRANTY REMAINING . AREA'! = 2008-09 y- Y .. 2009:10 ; - Altamonte ESE Altamonte Altamonte, Cafe, Kgdn Altamonte (PLC) Bear Lake Bear Lake, Media Bear Lake, PLC Single Ply (EPDM) Single Ply Metal/Recoat Single Ply (Fibertite) SinglePly (TP) SinglePly (TP) Single-Ply(TP) 10 20 20 -15 10 10 20 1990 1998 1988 2003 1988 1995 2000 2018 2008 * 2018 1998 2005 1,000 53,000 16,500 76 912 6,200 Bentley Bentley PLC Metal Metal 20 20 2000 2001 05 2020 2021 2025 21,000 92,000 Garrillon, PLC Camillon Casselberry Casselberry, Media Crystal Lake Asphalt Shingle Asphalt Shingle Built-up SinglePly (TPj Metal 20 20 10 10 20 M 2001 1997 1988 1995 2 006 2021 2017 1998 2005 2026 33,000 98,000 65,900 31,000 Eastbrook Eastbrook(PLC) Modified Single Ply (Fibertite) 10 15 2003 2003 2018 2p1g 65.020 English Estates English Estates, Main English Estates, Media English.Estate PLC Evans Forest City, Main Forest City. ESE, Cafe Forest City PLC Metal/Recoat SinglePly (TP) SinglePly (TP) Single Ply (Fibertite) Metal SinglePly (TP) Grace, (MB) Single Ply [TP] 20 20 15 15 20 15 10 1988 1997 1997 2003 2000 1997 1988 2008 2017 2 112 2018 2020 2012 1998 81,201 63,200 7,200 92,000 53,000 21,000 Geneva r_e Bldg Metal/Recoat/Seal 20 1587 2 007 94 201 ....nevi 11 Geneva, Health Clinic Goldsboro, Bldg: 7 Goldsboro, Media/Cafet Goldsboro, 88 Addns Hamilton Hamilton Heathrow Highlands Idyllwilde, Main Idyllwilde, ESE Idyllwilde, Cafe,. Kgdn Idyllwilde, PLC Idyllwilde, Intermediate Keeth Lake Mary Lake Mary, Ramps Lake Mary PLC Lake Orienta,-Main Lake Onenta, ESE Lake Onenta, Cafe, Kgdn Lawton (4, 5 6) Lawton(1, 9, 11) Lawton, 3-Metal Lawton, PLC Lawton (96 Addns) Layer Longwood Longwood (7, 11) Midway ouiii-tip SinglePly (TP) SinglePly (TP) Metal - Metal/Recoat Metal/Recoat SinglePly Metal/Recoat Metal/Recoat (G) Single Ply (EPDM) Single Ply (EPDM) Metal/Recoat SinglePly (TP) SinglePly (TP) SinglePly (TP) SinglePly (TP) BP uilt-u Single Ply [tp] Single Ply (EPDM) Single Ply (EPDM) - Grace (MB) Built -Up, Built -Up Metal/Recoat SinglePly (TP) SinglePly (TP) Metal SinglePly (TP) Metal/Recoat Built -Up 20 10 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 10 20 15 20 15 10 10 20 10 10 10 15 10 20 15 20 20 10 20 10 1976 1992 1999 1999 1988 2001 2000 1992 1997 1994 1990 1988 1999 2000 1996 1988 1992 2008 1994 1990 1 888 2001 1989 1984 2000 1996 2004 1988 1993 1995 1 996 2 002 2019 2009 2008 2020 2010 2012 2017 2004 2000 2000 2014 - 2020 2011 1998 2002 2028 2004 2000 1998 2016 1999 2004 2015 2016 2024 1998 2013 2005 8,600 3,200 22,000 25,000 40,000 82,276 20,000 88,772 92,000 53,000 7 ,100 76,500 32,000 22,000 79,841 16700 , 61,0000 53,000 7,100 16,500 18,800 30,200 21,000 27,000 13,570 65,000 20,500 40,600 $800,000 $400,00 RnnF REPLACEMENT PROGRAM South Seminole (TP). 20 1997 2aT7 't oo,uuu South. Seminole, Multi -Purpose 20 1999 2019 - 9,600 South Seminole, Media Single (TP) 20 2D08 2028 4,300 Teague -McNeil Road (TP) W:i: _ 15 1996 2011 150,000 Teague -OLD, Gym oat 20 1989 2009 5,800 Tuskawilla [TP ] 10 2005 2015 77,980 Tuskawilla, Gym, Cafe coat 20 1989 2009 27,600 C ROOF REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DFPARTMFNT SCHOOL. TYPE. WARRANTY . YEAR, _-WARRANTY' REMAINING ' .AREA .. '.�2008-09 : �.2009.10 _ - _ 2010;11 - 2011-12 201213 - 2013714 . 2014-15 High Schools Crooms, Bldg 183 SinglePly (TP) 15 2002 2017 113,000 Crooms; Bldg 2 Metal/Recoat 15 2002 2017 18,500 Hagerty SinglePly (TP) 15 2000 2015 131,000 Hagerty (New) SinglePly (TP) 20 2005 2025 Lake Brantley Modified Bit/Gran Surf 15 1999 2014 280,000 Lake Brantley, 5, Cafe Grace (MB) 10 1988 1998 29,500 $350,000 Lake Brantley, Auditorum Metal/Recoat 20 1988 2008 13,400 Lake Howell SinglePly (TP) 20 1997 2017 253,300 Lake Howell, Concession shingles Lake.Mary Built -Up 20 1995 2015 136,000 Lake Mary (89 Addns) Built -Up 15 1989. 2004 21,300 Lyman Building 15 Build Up 15 2001 15 41,788 Lyman Building 2-4 Build Up. 15 2002 56,000 Lyman Building 5 Build UpU20 2003 52,167 Lyman Remaining Buildings. Built -Up 1980 1995 143,885 Lyman (91 Addns) Built -Up 1991 2001 62,010 Oviedo (86,Additions) Built,Up 1986 2006 130,200 Oviedo Buildings 10,11,12 Build -Up 1986 6 79,750 Oviedo, Metal Metal/Recoat 1993 2013 206,390 Oviedo, Bldg 5, 6 SinglePly (TP) 1996 2011 9;500 Seminole Built -Up 10 1976 1986 242,710 Seminole (88 Addns) Built -Up 20 1988 2008 122,710 Seminole (95 Addns) Metal/Recoat 20 1995 2 115 84,600 Winter $pringG CingloPly lTDl 1996 2011 166,020 Winter Springs Repair Flashing 2001 District Relocatables 221 @792 SF Each Asphalt Shingle 204,930 Ancillary Educational Support Ctr SinglePly (TP) 10 1995 2005 25,124 Educational Support Ctr Annex. SinglePly (TP) 20 2006 2026 62;000 Facilities Services Metal/Recoat 15 1991 2006 71,094 Mellonville Annex Built -Up 10 1980 1990 43,178 Mellonville Annex, ATEN Facility Metal/Recoat 20 1987 2007 7,129 Student Museum Modified Bit _ 10 1983 1993 11,540 Tech Park 2003 Transportation Services Metal/Recoat 15 1987 2002 28,907 Total Program Cost $800,0001 $1,000.0001 $1,000,0001 $850,0001 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 HVAC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM TYPE MANUFACTURER INSTALLED 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Elementary Schools I - - monte --- - -- - - '--------------- -------- — Alta+Package DX -Roof -- ° - - -- — Carrier/York ---- - --- 2005 Altamonte, Cafet,Kgdn !Split DX �McQuay T_rane 2005 — Altamonte, PLC IAircooMchiller 2003 Bear Lake (Split DX jYork 1995 $100,000 Bear Lake, PLC lAir Cooled Chiller 'York 1999 Bear Lake, Office !Package DX Rheem 1996 Bentley ;Air Cooled Chiller Trane 2001 Bentley, ELC Carillon, PLC ;Air Cooled Chiller (York 2002 Carillon ;Air Cooled Chiller Trane 1996 $100,000 Casselberry _ !Split DX !Trane/Rudd 1994-95. Cassel berry, Media ;Split DX Rheem 1992 Crystal Lake —.._-2006 ---- —--.�—.__._.._..- -- ----- - — Eastbrook ;Air Cooled Chiller -- - -----....----- McQuay 2003 Eastbrook, Cafe, Kgdn ISplit DX Weatherking 1990 English Estates L Carrier 1989 _ $150,000 _lTrane/Rudd English Estates, PLC iPir cooled chiller IYork 2004 English Estates, Main lAir Cooled Chiller --'-------=---------------- Carrier --=-_----------- 1.996 --------------- --------- Evans 'Air Cooled Chiller Forest City, Main ':Package DX Roof lCarrier Trane 2000 1997 Forest City, ESE, Cafe --!Split DX -- --- Trane ---------- 1989 — ----- $100,000 Geneva Water -Air -Heat Pumps Evapco _ 2004 ---- --- -- -------------- ----------- — Geneva (Kgdn) Split DX Trane/Rudd — - 1988 $50,000 Goldboro ;Air Cooled Chiller ;Trane 1999 Hamilton ;Package DX Roof Carrier 2002 Heathrow Water -Air -Heat Pumps lWeatherking 1991 $154,000 _ _ Heathrow ;Split DX Weatherking 1991 $120,000 --- ----- --- --- --- Highlands Air cooled Chiller Hopper (Split DX -- . — - — jCarner ITrane -- -- 1996 1996 $100,000 Idyllwilde, Main Package DX Roof — —!Weatherking-- 2006 $100,000 Idyllwilde, PLC !Air Cooled Chill ITrane 1999 Idyllwilde, ESE 'Split DX jTrane 19B6 Keeth !Air Cooled Chiller (York 2004 Lake Mary 'Air Cooled Chiller Carrier 1985 $200,000 Lake Mary, Ramps Split DX— Rheem_ 1995 _ — --- Lake Orienta, Main ;Package DX Roof _ Weatherking 1996 Lake Orienta, Cafe, Kgdn, E Split DX Trane 1989' Lawton(4,5,6) !Split DX AirQuestRudd 1991 $70,000 $70,000 Lawton(1,9,11) ,Split DX AlrQuest/Rudd 1991 Lawton, 3-Metal ;Split DX AirQuesURudd 1991 Lawton, PLC ;Air Cooled Chiller Caiirer 2001 Lawton (96 Addns) _ ;Split DX - -------------------------- Longwood !Split DX Carrier ---------------- York 1997 ----------- 1995 Longwood (88 Add) — Split DX —__ Carrier 1988 $300,000 r HVAC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM -TYPE MANUFACTURER. INSTALLED,. -.2008-09 �_2009-10 .010-'11 201,1-12, 2012-13_ Longwood (7,11) !Split DX --- - - ...-------- I-p---- ---- - Midway-- Split DX Midway, Media, Admin ;Split DX — — Midway ;Split DX !York ---- - - ---- W.King/Rudd Weatherking - --- Trane 1995 ---=-- 1989 1989 1995 $60,000 Partin ---- :Water -Air -Heat Pumps ----------- -- Partin __ ISpIit DX Weatherking ----- ----- Weatherkin 1991 ------ $100,000 Pine Crest :Package DX Roof Weatherking jgg5 Pine Crest (95 Addns- ) -Split DX _ Rainbow ;Water -Air -Heat Pumps Carrier Trane 1988 1993 Red Bug !Package DX Roof Trane 1992 $100,000 Red Bug(office) _ ;Package DX Roof _ Red Bug (88 Addns) ;Split DX Carrier L_ennox _2003 1988 Red Bug, ILC Sabal Point ;Package DX Roof Carrier 1997 Sabal Point (88 Addns) ;Split DX Trane 1988 Spring Lake IPkg DX Roof Carrier 1999 Spring Lake (88 Addns) !Split DX Stenstrom _--_ ; Water -Air -Heat Pumps Stenstrom Split DX Sterling ParkLackage DX Roof Sterling Park. ESE IPapkaga r1X Rppf or Weatherking Weatherking Weatherking Ian„/eath2rk_i�g 1988 1988 1988 1999 $70,000 $70,000 lggy DX___ _ Sterling -Park (88 Addns) —]'Package Wekiva-- - — —�---------- _ Package DX Roof Wekiva (89 Addns) !Split DX Wicklow -------------------------- ------------- Wilson ;Water-Air-Heat Pumps York I York 88 19- 88 ---- 1993 Weatherking - 1989 $100,000 -------- Weatherking -- $156;000 Wilson ;Package DX Roof York— _1988 1993 Wilson _ ---- ;Split DX_— — — Wilson, Winter Springs : Package DX Rooi Winter Springs ISpIit DX Winter Springs, PLC —Chiller _ Weatherking _ Weatherking Trane _ 1988 2004 1999 1988 $100,000 $100,000 ;Air Cooled Woodlands (88 Addns) '!Split DX — Woodlands, ESE !SplitDX Trane Carrier .—_.__..:—_ Carrier 2000 1988 1994 $60,000 $100, 000 _Middle schools --- Chiles 'Chiller Greenwood Lakes __;Air cooled Chiller Greenwood Lakes (Admih) ,,Split D_X__ — - — Indian Trails - _;Chiller York Carrier _ York --- 2003 1984 2004 $50,000 _ Jackson Heights, 5, Gym__;Package DX Roof Jackson Heights �S !lit DX P � Weatherking Weatherking 1995 -- 1992 $50,000 Jackson Heights ;Split DX _ Markham Woods i -�-- Trane 1985 $85,000 HVAC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM•TY,PE MANUFACTURER INSTALLED. 2006-09 2009-.10 2010-11 20.11-12. 2012;13 ,-, Millennium -(Lakeview) -;Split DX - - Milwee ; Split DX Carrier - -- - Carrier 1986 -- 1992 $90,000 $50,000 Milwee, Cafe, Gym - - !Split DX Rock Lake I Chiller Carrier York 1992 2000 $150,000 Rock Lake (89-Addns) jChiller lYork 2000 Rosenwald (88 Addns) !Split DX Carrier 1988 Rosenwald Center ISplit DX Trane 1989 Rosenwald Center I Split DX Trane 1992 Sanford ;Trane Chiller Trane 1994 $160,000 Sanford, Media, Ramps ;Trane Chiller Trane 1990 Sanford ;Trane Chiller Trane 1998 South Seminole 'Chiller Trane 1996 $155,000 South Seminole, Media 'Split DX York 1987 $100,000 Teague, New _--- ;Chiller --__- Teague,ym G;Split DX Tuskawilla-- --- i Trane — — Carrier -_- - -- 1990 2007 $90,000 Tuskawilla, Gym, Cafe - Split DX (Carrier �_1989 $100,000 High Schools I C rooms School IAirCooledChiller IMcQuay - - - -- --- ---------------- -- -- - Grooms School Gym L Split DX --- -_ Weatherking 2002 1994-95 Crooms School Gym U 'Split DX -- -- =- --- Hagerty, old Chiles Chiller - - --- -- - ---- - - Hagerty, old Chiles Weatherking- - ------ York -'--- - - 1994 95 --- -- 2000 -- _ 200_ $60,000 Lake Brantley Chiller Garrier 1999' Lake Brantley, 5, Cafe ?Chiller Carrier 1988 $50,000 Lake Brantley, Blue•Gym ;Chiller Icarrier 1999. Lake Brantley Field House ;Split Dx- Rheem 1994 - - - ------------(Trane--------------- - Lake Howell (New) - Chiller Lake Howell (88 Addns) ,Chiller _ _ (York 1997 1968 $100,000 $100,000 Lake Mary 'Chiller ------lTrane ----- --- 1996 - --- ---- -- Lake Mary (89 Addns) IChiller Trane 1996 Lake Mary Field House (Split Dx Trane 1991 Lyman ',Package DX Roof Carrier 1994 Lyman 1Package DX Roof York 1994 Lyman ;Split Dx Trane _- 1995 Lyman ;Split Dx Trane 1991 Lyman,Gym (Air Cooled Chiller Trane 1977 Lyman (91 Addns) ;Air Cooled Chiller York 1991 Oviedo, Main ;Chiller jTrane 1993 Oviedo, Metal IChiller Trane 1993 Oviedo Bldg.21 ?Air Cooled Chiller Trane 1995 Oviedo ;Split Dx ------------------------ ------------------------ Seminole (88 Addns) ;Air Handlers Weatherking - McQuay -1995 1988 Seminole (88 Addns)- - ,Chiller 680 Ton _ Trane 1999 HVAC REPLACEMENT PROGRAM SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT SCHOOL SYSTEM TYPE MANUFACTURER INSTALLED 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 Seminole (95 Addns) [Chiller 669 Ton Winter -- - - -- ----- ------------------------------ Springs ;Chiller Trane ---------------------------- York lggg 1996 Ancillary Educational Support Ctr ;Air Cooled Chiller York 2003 Facilities Services :Split DX Weatherking 2003 Facilities Services ;Split,DX — ---..Weatherking Mellonville Annex ;Air Cooled Chiller 1991 _ York 1 g93 Mellonville Annex ISplit,DX IAirquest 1992 Mellonville Annex ;Split DX York 1993 Mellonville Annex ;Split DX Rudd 1986 Mellonville Annex ;Split DX (Carrier 1986 Student Museum — ;Split DX Student Museum jWindowUnits Transportation Services Split DX Weatherking G.E. Weatherking 1981 1988 $80,000 I Parts I 100ton ortable chill ' er , ----` -- ------ $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,0001 $600,000 RELOCATABLE PROGRAM - BUDGET WORKSHEEI BUDGET YR 2008-09 SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPAR I Mt-N I District Units/Hybrids Leased Units Total Cost End Start Gainl End Yr Year Service End Start Gain, + 1- # Mo. End Yr. Annual Company Service District Didt,Leased Location 07-08 OB-09 Loss 08_09 G I L Connect $ 07_08 08-09 Loss 08-09 On Site 08-09 Lease $ Set/Remove $ Connect $ Growth $ Growth $ Project $ Elementary Schools Altamonte' Elementary Bear Lake Elementary Bentley Elementary Carrillon.Elementary Casselberry Elementary Easlbrook Elemenatary Evans Elementary English Estates Elementary Forest City Elementary Geneva Elementary Goldsboro Elementary Hamilton Elementary Headslart Elementary Highlands Elementary Hopper Center Idyllwilde Elementary Keeth Elementary Lake Mary Elementary Lake Orienta. Elementary Laudon Elementary Longwood Elementary Partin Elementary Pinecrest Elementary Rainbow Elemenlary Red Bug Elementary Rosenwald ESE Center Sabal Point Elementary Spring Lake Elementary Stenstrom Elementary Sterling Park Elementary Walker Elememlary Wekiva Elementary Wicklow Elementary Wilson Elementary Winter Springs Elementary Woodlands:Elementary 2 2 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 1 0 11 6 3 0 0 6 11 4 5 1 8 7 0 9 5 0 4 11 5 8 B 9 5 6 0 00 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 3 0 0 6 7 0 5 1 4 7 0 9 6 1 4 1$ 3 6 8 9 5 10 6-0-0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0F 0 0 -1 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 -4 -4 0 0 -4 0 0 0 1 1 0 '0 -2 -2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 7 0 5 1 4 7 0 9 6 1 4 11 3 6 B 9 5 10 0 0 0 0$ 0 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0 O 0 0 0 0$ 0 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 00 0$ $ 5,000 - $ - - - $ $ - $ 3,500 $ - $ 14,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 14,000 $ 0000 $ - $ - $ Q 000 $ $ - $ - $ - $ 13,000 $ - $ - 000 $ 6rj$j;�3,000 - 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 o 0 -0-0-0 5 0 0 3' 5 3 3 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 3 4 6 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 b 0 5 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 3 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7$ 0 0$ 0$ 0 0$ 0- 0 0 0$ 10 0 1$ 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 0$ 3 1 6$ 0$ 0$ $ - 42,000 $ $ - - $ - $ - - $ 60.000 $ - 6,000 $ $ - $ - $ 22,500 $ 5 - $ 18,000 $ - $ 18,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000 S - $ 30,000 $ - $ - - $ 18.000 $ 4,500 36.000 - - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ _ $$ $- $ $ - $ $ $ $ :12.0 $ $ $ $ - $ 7,500 $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ 7,500 $ $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ -S $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ 2,500 $ - $ 1,500 $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ 1,500 $ 5 $ $ 5,000 '$ $ $ $ - 14000 -Heathrow $ $ $ 14,000 $ 2.000 $ $ 12,000 $ ,$ $ $ - $ 13,000 $ - $ $ 6,000 $ 3,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ 3,000 $ $ $ $ - $ 42,000 $ $ $ $ fi0,000 $ 6,000 $ $ - $ - $ 22,500 $ - $ 18,000 $ 15.000 $ 18,000 $ 9,000 $ 13.000 $ 9.000 $ $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ 18,000 $ 13,500 $ 36,000 $ $ _ $ $ " $ $ $Hamilton $ - $ $ - $ - $ $ $ $MidwayElementary $. $ - $ - $ $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ $ Middle Schools Chiles Middle Greenwood Lakes Middle Indian Trails Middle Jackson Heights Middle 5 1 5 0 5 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 5 0 0$ 0$ 0 0 $ $ - 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 0 0 a - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ S $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ - $ Markmm Woods Millennium Middle Milwee Middle Rock Lake Middle Middle South Seminole .Middle Teague,Middle Tuskawilla Middle 3 11 6 0 2 0 8 0 3 11 6 0 4 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2 .0 0 0 3 11 6 0 4 0 8 0 0$ 0 0 0 0 0$ 01 0$ $ - $ $ - $ 10;000 - 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0$ 0 0$ $ - $ - $ - $ 11,160 $ - $ - $ - $ $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ $ 10,000 $Sanford $ $ $ $ 11,ifi0 $ $ $ - $ $ Page 1 7/9/2008 ( RELOCATABLE PROGRAM - BUDGET WORKSHEET SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT BUDGET YR 20n8-nA District UnitslHybrids Leased Units Location End 07-OB Start 08-09 nLa,.n.1EndTr 08-0 Service Connect § End 07-08 Start 08-09 Gain/ Loss +/- 08-09 #Mo.rn.d On Site09 Yr. Annual Lease $ Company Set/Remove $ Service Connect $ Total Cost District Growth $ Didt/Leased Growth $ Project $ High Schools } Lake Brantley High Lake Howell High Lake Mary High Lyman High Oviedo High Seminole Hi h$ 9 Winler Springs High -Ancillary 3 0 6 0 17 22 0 3 0 6 3 0 22 0 0 0 0 3 -17 0 0 3 0 6 3 0 22 0 0$ 0 0 0$ 0 0 0 - $ $ 30,000 $ - $ - § - 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 .. c 0 0 a 0-0- 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 0 0$ 1$ 0 0 0 - $ - 6,000 $ $ § _ $ 3,200 $ - $ $ _ - $ _ § _ $ 2,000 $ - $ § _ § $ - $ $ - $ 30.000 § § § $ § ` $ 5,200 $ $ § 6,000 § _ § $ § § $ - $ - $ ' ESC Annex Facilities Services (Construction Use, or [-I Disposal) 3 3 0 3 0§ - 0 0 0 0 0 O$ $ -$ - $ § § _ 10 10 0 0 10 2 0 0$ $ - 0 0 0 0 0 $ § Transporfalmn Services 2 2 Totals ` 2421 =31-29 213 $ 130,51W ' 64 49 -15 0I 49 $ 281;1 60' :$ 30,700' $" 7;500; 11 130;500 $-449860 1. Costs As Follows: A. Service Connection : Power„F/A, I/C, ITV, ($3,500) Data, Tel; ($3,500) Security ($1,000) Plumbing ($2;500) sidewalk ($1,500) site prep ($750) = $12,700 per portable. Site repair $500. B. Current Type IV monthly leasing costs with RR $729 without RR is.$685 C.Type IV portables have set up freight and delivery of $3100 with dismantle, freight and return of $3000 Page 2 7/9/2008 BUDGET YR 2007-8 RFLOCATABLE PROGRAM - BUDGET WORKSHEEI SCPS - FACILITIES SERVICES DEPARTMENT Units Leased Units District Total Cost DidtlLeased Location District End 06-07 Start 07-OB Gain/ Loss End Yr 07-08 Year G 1 L Service Connect $ End 06.07 Start 07-OB Gain/' Loss +l- 07-08 #.Mo. On Site End Yr. 07-08 Annual Lease $ Company SetlRemoveb Service Connect$ Growth $ Growth $ Project $ $ _ $ $ 2 2 0 o 1 0 0 D 0 1 0 11 6 3 0 0 5 11 - 4 O$ 0 O$ o 0$ O 0 0$ 0 0$ O 0 0$ 0 _ 0 0$ 0$ 0 0 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0$ ❑$ 0 0$ 0 0$ 0 0$ 0$ 0 0 0$ 0 0$ - $ - $ S $ S 2,000 5 $ - $ - $ - - - $ $ - - - - - $ - $ - $ - - $ - $ - $ - - 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 3 5 3 3 D 2 3 5 0 0 0 6 4 6 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 10 ❑ 1 0 0 0 5 b 0 3 5 3 3 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 3 4 6 1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ 7 0 0$ 0$ 0$ ❑$ 0$ 0 0$ 0$ O$ O$ 10 0 1$ 0$ 0 0 5$ 0$ 0$ 3$ 5$ 3$ 3 0$ 2$ 0 5 0$ 0$ 3 4 6 i 0$ $ 42,❑❑0 $ - - - $ _ - $ 60,000 6,000 - $ - $ - 22,500 - 18,000 34,000 18,000 $ 13,500 - 9,000 $ - $ 30,000 - $ 18,000 $ 18,000, S 34,500 $ 4,500 $ $ 2,500 $ $ $ $ $ 500 $ $ $ - $ _ $ $ $ $ $ $ Elementary Schools Altamonte Elementary Bear Lake Elementary Bentley Elementary Carrillon Elementary Casselbeny Elementary EaslbrookkElemenatary Evans Elementary English Estates Elementary Forest City Elementary Geneva Elementary Goldsboro Elementary Hamilton Elementary Hamilton Headslart HeathrowElementary Highlands Elementary Hopper Center Idyllwilde Elementary Keelh Elementary Lake Mary Elementary 2 2 0 ❑ 1 0 0 D 4 1 0 11 6 3 0 0 8 11 4 2 2 0 a 1 0 0 ❑ 0 1 0 11 6 3 0 0 5 11 4 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 -4 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ $ $ $ 6,000 $ - 5 $ $ $ - $ $ $ _ $ $ 1,000 $ $ $ $ $ _ $ $ 2,000 $ $ _ $ $ $ _ $ 6,000 $ $ _ $ $ $ _ $ $ $ $ _ $ $ _ $ - $ $ $ 60,000 $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ 6;000 $ - $ $ - $ $ - $ $ $ $ - $ _ $ $ $ 7;500 $ - $ $ $ 7,500 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ - $ $ $ - $ - $ $ _ $ $ - $ $ $ - $ $ $ 22,500 $ $ 18,000 - $ 34,000 $ $ $ - $ $ $ $ $ Lake Orienta!Elemenlary Lawton Elementary Longwood' Elementary midway Elementary Partin Elementary Pinecrest Elementary Rainbow Elementary Red Bug Elementary Rosenwald ESE Center Sabal Point Elementary Spring Lake Elementary Stenslrom Elementary Sterling Park Elementary 5 1 5 7 0 6 3 0 4 6 4 8 7 5 1 5 7 0 6 3 0 4 6 4 8 7 0 0 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 5 1 5 7 0 6 3 0 4 6 4 8 -7 0 0 6 0 0 0 S _ $ $ - $ $ 18,000 '$ 13,500 $ $ $ $ _ _ $ 0,000 $ - $ 1,500 $ $ 9,000 $ $ $ $ _ $ 1.500 $ - $ $ $ _ $ - $ 8 _ $ .$ $ 30,000 $ $ _ $ $ 27,000 $ 18;000 $ $ $ $ $ Walker Elememlary Wekiva Elementary Wicklow Elementary Wilson Elementary Winter Springs Elementary Woodlands Elementary 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '$ $ 36,000 $ - $ - ,$ $ 4,500 $ $ $ - Middle Schools 0 1 5 0 11 6 0 0 0 0$ 0 0$ 0 2 0 4 0 - $ 5,500 $ - - $ 52,000 - 0 $ 0 $ - 0 $ 0 $ - 0$ - 0 0 0 0 6 0 ❑ 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 0 0 -2 0 0 D -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ❑ 0 ❑ 0$ 0 0 O$ 0 ❑ 0 0 $ - $ - $ - S - $ - 0 $ - $ $ - $ $ 9,000 $ $ $ 3,000 $ $ - $ - .$ _ $ 3,000 $ $ - $ 1,000 - 5 - $ 5,500 $ $ _ $ $ - $ $ _ $ '$ - $ $ Chiles Middle 0 0 0 Greenwood Lakes Middle Indian Trails Middle Jackson Heights Middle Millennium Middle Milwee Middle 12 5 0 7 1 5 0 11 6 6 -11 0 0 4 - 0 $ 52,000 $ $ - $ _ $ 12,000 $ $ 4,000 $ $ $ _ $ $ Rock Lake Middle Sanford Middle South Seminole Middle Teague Middle Tuskawilla Middle 0 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7/9/2008 Page 3 RELOCATABLE PROGRAM - BUDGET WORKSHEEl BUDGET YR 2007-8 SCPS - FACILITIES SFRVICFS nFFARTnnFnIT Location ' District Units Gainl End Yr Year Service End7.7-H 06-0Loss 07-08 G I L Connect$ Leased Units End Start Gain/ + I - # Mo. End Yr. Annual Company Service 06.07 07-08 Loss 07-08 On Site 07.08 Lease $ Set/Remove $ Connect $ Total Cost District Didtll-eased Growth $ Growth $ Project $ High Schools _ Lake Brantley High 3 3 0 6 0 0 0 3 0 6 0 17 22 0$ 0 0—$— 0$ 0 0 $ - - $ - $ $ 4 —0-0-0-0 5 1 0 0 —0 4 0 1 0 D —0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4$ 0 0 1$ 0 0 0$ 22,320 $ _ $ 6;000 $ - $ _ $ $ _ $ 4,000 $ $ _ $ $ _ ,$ $ $ 2,500 $ $ _ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ _ $ $ 22,320 $ $ 6,500 $ 6,000 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Lake Howell High 0 Lake Mary High 6 Lyman High Oviedo . High Seminole High Winter Springs High 0 17 22 0 0 17 22 0 0 0 0 0-0-0 Ancillary b $ ESC Annex Facilities Services (Construction 3 3 0 3-0 $- 0 0 0 0 0 0$ $ $ _ $ _ Use, or I-] Disposal) Transportation Services 8 2 15 2 0 0 15 2 0 0$ $ 15,000 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0$ $ 6,000 $ $ $ $ 15,000 $ 6,000 $ Totals 209 205 0 205 1,$ 74,500 11 861 64 -221 0 64 $ 363,820 $ 38,500 '$ 11000 '$ 74,500 $ 487,820 $ Notes: 1. Costs As follows: A. Service Connection : Power, F/A, 11C, IN, ($3;500) Data, Tel, ($3,500) Security ($1,000) Plumbing ($2,500) sidewalk ($1,500) site prep ($750) = $12,700 pet portable. Site repair $500. 8. Current Type IV monthly leasing. costs with RR.$729 without RR is $685 C.Type IV portables have setup freight and delivery of $3100 withdismantle, freight and return of $3000 Page 4 7/9/2008 Capacity Data and Analysis for Public Facilities This section summarizes capacity analysis for public facilities affected by the adopted schedules of capital improvements. MA —63— Potable Water Capacity ata The City's water utility system operates under SJRWMD Consumptive Use Permit #8274. The permit was issued :in September 2002 and expires in September 2022. In 2002 the total raw water pumped was 2.0 million gallons per day in accordance with the consumptive use permit of 7.2 million gallons per day. The requested withdrawal rates for 2006 showed a six percent increase above 2002 levels. The small amount of increase is not anticipated to harm the groundwater resources and SJRWMD staff concluded that the water supply is sustainable through the 2.0- year permit duration. A copy of the permit and the specific conditions of the permit can be located in the City's Consumptive Use Technical Staff Report September 11, 2002, and the SJRWMD's, "Exhibit A" Conditions for Issuance of Permit Number 8274 for the City of Longwood, dated September 10„ 2002. A total of five wells comprise the raw water supply. The total capacity of the system is 9.648 million gallons per day (mgd). The reliable water supply capacity for both plants is 5.448 mgd, which is calculated by subtracting the capacity of the largest well from total capacity at each plant. Reliable pumping capacity is 7.128 mgd and the total maximum day storage capacity is 1.75 mgd. Total well capacity varies at the two water plants. Table 1 indicates the permitted and total well capacity at each plant. In addition, the average treated flow for the first 11 months of 2007, from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Drinking Water Data Base, are shown in this table as a comparison to permitted capacities. TahlP 1: Total WA111 f!a„nn;+xT FDEP WELL 2007 TOTAL TREATMENT PERMITTED CAPACITY AVERAGE STORAGE PLANT CAPACITY (MGD) TREATED CAPACITY (MGD) (MGD) (MG) WPi 2.552 2.592 0.801 0.70 WP2 4.608 7.056 1.458 1.05 Total 7.160 9.648 2.259 1.75 Ouurce• UiLy oz Longwooa utilities lepartment; .N-DEF, Drinking Water Data Base, 2007. The 2002 annual average day demand (AADD) was 2.0 MGD1. The projected `.% AADD demand for the planning period is shown below: m_i_i_ n• ll__.._....4..A A.-. .,1 A—nvouA T)nu T)P.Tngnd 1 Qu1G YEAR. cP- i—J--vv..- -- ---- DEMAND PROJECTIONS (MGD) - MAXIMUM WITHDRAWAL (MGD) 2005 2.130 2.513 2010 2.330 2.537 2015 2.620 2.241 2020 2.680 2.241 Source: SJRWMD, CUP #8274, Exhibit "A' and the SJRWMD, Appendix A, Water Supply Assessment 2003. The above demand figures are projections from SJRWMD, and represent the maximum water demand that could reasonably be expected during those years. The figures in the last column, titled "Maximum Withdrawal", represent the maximum water withdrawals on an average daily basis as authorized by the SJRWMD in the consumptive use permit issued in 2002. Beginning in 2013, the maximum water withdrawal from ground water sources will be limited to 2.241 million gallons per day. The water service area is comprised of a wide variety of users, in residential, commercial, and industrial users. The City has adopted a level of service standard for potable water in the Public Facilities and Services Element, Objective V, Policy B. The level of service standard for potable water is based on historical data complied and maintained by the City's Public Utilities Division. The adopted level of service standard is divided into three categories, as shown below. Residential 1300 gallons per day per dwelling unit Retail/Commercial 100 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet Warehouse/Office 142 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet Showroom Currently no deficiencies to LOSS exist. The Schedule of Capital Improvements includes replacements of existing facilities and projects to expand the service area and meet future demand. Unless specifically classified as "replacement", a project in the schedule is an expansion to the existing service area. 1 Conditions for Issuance of Permit 8274, Sept. 10, 2002. —65— Sanitary Sewer Capacity Data The City's Comprehensive Plan identifies the location of the City's Wastewater Service Area as determined. in 1997 and shown on "Map P-2 Sewer Service Area." There are four wastewater service providers within the municipal limits of the City of Longwood: Aqua Utilities, Sanlando Utilities, Inc., Utilities Inc. of Longwood, and the City of Longwood. The City of Longwood is responsible for one of the service areas. The other three areas are served by the private utilities. Future Land Use Map P-2, Sewer Service Area from the Plan, is still applicable. These service areas are a result of growth and development patterns over years of development, formalized by the Public Service Commission. Although the City does not operate a wastewater treatment facility, it does own and maintain sewer lines within its service area. Subject to the Wholesale Sewage Treatment and Disposal Agreement with Seminole County (9/12/06) the City has the right of transferring 1.2 MGD of sewage to the County's WWTP for treatment after paying a connection charge. Currently the City uses approximately 50% of this available capacity from the County. In the event the City ever reached the maximum allowed. by this agreement, the County is not the sole provider of wastewater treatment service and additional capacity could be negotiated from a private company (Source: City of Longwood Utilities Division) The City requires that any necessary extensions of increased capacity needs will be provided by the developer, and that all new subdivisions and all new commercial developments must connect to a central sewer system; where connection to a central sewer system is not feasible in the Wekiva Study Area, performance -based septic tank systems with drip irrigation for effluent disposal are required. These systems shall be designed to provide a recovered water product that contains not more than 10 mg/l or Total Nitrogen, expressed as N. Wastewater facilities were analyzed as part of the 2006 Plan amendment (CPA 01- 06) for the Wekiva Study Area. These amendments to the Plan were adopted in February 2007 and found in compliance in April 2007. The level of service standard for sanitary sewer was revised in the 2005 Plan amendment to reflect current conditions. The level of service standard continues to be appropriate. Residential 1300 gallons per day per dwelling unit Retail/Commercial 1100 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet Warehouse/Office 42 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet Showroom Currently no deficiencies to LOSS exist. The Schedule of Capital Improvements includes replacements of existing facilities and projects to expand the service area and meet future demand. Unless specifically classified as "replacement", a project in the schedule is an expansion to the existing service area. Parks Capacity Data The City's level of service standard for recreation and open space is 0.2 acres per 1,000 population for mini parks and 3.5 acres per 1,000 population in neighborhood and community parks. Longwood's population in 2005 was estimated to be 13,913. The City has approximately 5 acres located in five mini parks; this exceeds the level of service standard requirement of 2.78 acres. There are 346 acres of land in neighborhood and community parks. Based on the park acreage requirement per 1,000 people, there are no park acreage deficiencies. The Schedule of Capital Improvements includes replacements and upgrades of existing facilities. FFPark Name Type Acres Arbor mini 3.5 Highland Hills 1\,hM* 0.5 Magnolia Mini 0.3 Haven 0•4 Small World Mini 0.5 Total Acres IVlni 5.2 Candyland Community 18.5 Reiter Community 8.0 Sandalwood Neighborhood 1.5 Shadow Hill Neighborhood 3.0 Soldiers Creek Park Community- 315.0 Total Acres Neighborhood /Community 346.0 —67— Stormwater Capacity Data For property with a positive outfall, the City requires that for post development conditions the peak runoff from the twenty-five year frequency, twenty-four hour storm event be less than or equal to that experienced in predevelopment conditions. Stormwater management systems shall be designed to retain on -site the runoff generated by a storm of this magnitude, at peak discharge rates, which will not exceed predevelopment rates. Application of these standards ensures that stormwater drainage does not adversely impact the surrounding envi:ronment. Additionally, the City requires that all development activity conform to the permitting requirements of the Saint John's River Water Management District. The Schedule of Capital Improvements includes replacements of existing facilities which are not performing consistent with design function. Solid Waste Capacity Data The Comprehensive Plan establishes the solid waste level of service standard at 5 pounds per day per dwelling unit and 3.25 pounds per day per 1000 square feet of commercial or warehouse. City provided for the collection of solid waste through a franchise agreement with a private collection company. This franchise arrangement continues in effect. The County has the responsibility for disposal. The County has two solid waste facilities, the Osceola Road Landfill (ORL) and the Central Transfer. Station (CTS). "As of 2004, the ORL and the CTS are projected to meet the County's needs beyond the 2025 planning horizon, based on current regulations, disposal techniques, and operational policies." According to the County's EAR, the adopted level of service is being met. The County makes this projection based on data forecasts for the entire County, including Longwood. (Infor.:mation from Seminole County Environmental Services) No capital improvements are scheduled for solid waste. sty :�s J u� L'5T_'187A �7 Population Projections and Allocation This section provides current population projections and includes information on the allocation of this population as provided for in the City's adopted 2008 EAR as it relates to the Future Land Use Element, W Longwood Population Projections and Methodology II CITY OF LONGWOOD POPULATION PROJECTIONS II II Years I 2014 I 2015 I 2020 1 2025 11 Total Population 115,030 116,168 116,442 116,519 Methodology Longwood's population projections are based on a share of Seminole County's population projections. The City's share of the total county population was 4.6% in 1990 and 3.8% in 2000, based on decennial census information for those years. Since 2000, the City's share of the total county population has continued to decrease. Estimates in 2006 and 2007, however, show that the population estimates for both years represent 3.3% of the total county population.2 With the advent of the Central Florida. Commuter Rail Station in 2011, some additional population is anticipated based primarily on increased residential densities. Therefore, the City's population is projected based on a 3.3% share of Seminole County's projected population.3 These projections represent a. total increase of 2,457 persons, from 2007 through 2025. Notes 1. The City of Longwood's 2007 estimated population, by the Florida Department of Revenue, is 14,062, compared to an estimate of 425,455 for Seminole County. 2. Seminole County's population projections, as provided by the County, are shown in the table below. SEMINOLE COUNTY POPULATION PROJECTIONS Years 2015 2020 2025 Total Population 489,954 498,250 500,582 2 Source: Florida Department of Revenue, by the Executive Office of the Governor, "Adjusted 2007 Population Estimates for Florida's Counties and Municipalities," June 10, 2008. Retrieved from Department of Revenue website on July 16, 2008. 3 Seminole County Population and Employment Projection Methodology, http://www.seminolecountyfl Gov/pd/planninq/pdf/socio Pop ulationAndEmgloymentProiectionMet _h_odology.pdf Retrieved on July 16, 2008, and; Seminole County, Socio-Economic Data by Traffic Analysis Zone, 2004. littp://www.seminolecountyfl.-gov/p J/planning/socioeconornicasp Retrieved on July 16, 2008. —70— Geographically Allocating the Projected Population Longwood's population was 13,745 in 2000, an increase of 429 people from the 1990 Census. When the last evaluation and appraisal amendments were made to the comprehensive plan in 2002, the population was forecast to grow to 15,048 by 2010. However, the completion of a commuter rail station in downtown Longwood in 2010 will alter the dynamics of population growth. The commuter station will be a magnet for additional population. In addition, new residential growth in Longwood is also possible based on its location within a region that is projected to need 35,800 new housing units by 2010. Population projections for Seminole County by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research exceed the County's ability to realistically absorb growth based on current densities and vacant land suitable for development. At the time of the last evaluation and appraisal in 1998, the City was considered built -out with an estimated 266 acres of vacant land, scattered throughout the City in existing, platted lots. By the time data was collected for the EAR -based amendments, vacant land was estimated to be approximately 148 acres, again made up of existing, platted lots. Development has continued to occur within the same established land use pattern. Residential uses are almost 45 percent of the City's land area; commercial uses are almost 13 percent as are lakes and wetlands. In light of these continuing trends and the expectation for increased density in the vicinity of the Commuter Rail Station, it is expected that a majority of the projected population increase will occur as infill redevelopment consistent with exiting land use patterns. The exception will occur in the vicinity of Commuter Rail and the downtown core area that will benefit from increased transit service. —71— 10 Year Alernative Water Supply Data This section provides information related to Longwood's participation in an alternative water supply project, consistent with ongoing amendments to the City's Water Supply Facilities Work Plan. —72— The City of Longwood transmitted proposed revisions to its water supply plan to DCA on August 18, 2008. Upon receipt of an ORC, the City will make revisions and adopt the plan amendment. At this time, Longwood's share of the alternative water supply project is unknown. The Water Supply Plan update, when adopted, will create a "placeholder" in the schedule of capital improvements, where funding will be inserted once dollar amounts can be. assigned. Alternative Water Supply Development The City of Longwood is a signatory in a County -wide Water Supply Planning Interlocal Agreement that was established in 2004. They participated in the development of a county -level plan, The Seminole County Water Supply Plan, with Seminole County and all other municipalities within the County, to address alternative water resources. The plan was completed in March 2007. Since that time, the City of Longwood has continued to pursue an alternative water source to provide . the shortfall between water demand and the maximum withdrawal of ground water, beginning. in 2013. The projected potable water shortfall will range from 379,000 gallons per day in 2015 to 439,000 gallons per day in 2020 based on the 2002 consumptive use permit. However, consultants currently working with the City on water supply issues have submitted revised water demand figures based on service area population projections. These figures are still being reviewed by SJRWMD as part of the 2007 compliance report on the 2002 consumptive use permit. The City recently selected the Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project as its alternative water supply project. A letter has been sent to the St. Johns River Water Management District to notify them of this selection. The City is awaiting approval from the Winter Springs Commission. As of July 19, 2008, the City is in the preliminary planning stages with the City of Winter Springs and continues to coordinate the details of cost sharing and water demand. The Winter Springs Lake Jesup Reclaimed Water Augmentation Project consists of the construction of filtration treatment, two 1.0 million gallons per day ground storage tanks, pumping facilities, and high-level disinfection facilities. The project will be constructed with expansion capacity to provide treated surface water to neighboring entities not in the City of Winter Springs' service area through interconnects, which are based on interlocal agreements. r —73—