HomeMy WebLinkAbout951-Local Sales Surtax 2002 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SEMINOLE COUNTY AND CITY OF SANFORD
RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY'S SHARE
OF FUNDS UNDER THE CENT FOR SEMINOLE LOCAL SALES SURTAX
FOR THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
* THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this /£ day of
/~,~x-.,~... 2002, by and between SEMINOLE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the
State of Flodda, whose address is Seminole County Services Building, 1101 East First
Street. Sanford, Florida 32771 (hereafter referred to as the "COUNTY") and the CITY
OF SANFORD, a Florida municipal corporation, whose address is 300 North'-Park,
Sanford. Flodda 32771 (hereafter referred to as "CITY").
WlTNESSETH:
WHEREAS, in May and June of 2001, the COUNTY entered into an Intedocal
Agreement with the Seminole County School Board and the seven (7) municipalities
within Seminole County, which Interlocal Agreement is entitled the "Seminole County
Transportation and Education Infrastructure Plan Interlocal Agreement" (the "2001
Intedocal Agreement"), and relates to the improvements to be funded with local
government infrastructure saJes surtax proceeds and the distdbuti0n of revenues to fund
the improvements, as approved by the voters in a referendum conducted on September
4, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the CITY is a party to the 2001 Interlocal Agreement, and is bound
by the terms of the 2001 Intedocal Agreement and by the applicable provisions of State
law; and
WHEREAS, the CITY's Transportation improvement Projects are, pursuant to the
2001 Interlocal Agreement, to be implemented by the CITY, which implementation shall
include any and all phases and aspects of the Projects from planning and design
through construction and operation; and
WHEI~'EAS, the CITY's share of the revenues collected from the local
government infrastructure sales surtax constitutes funds of the CITY, pursuant to the
2001 Intedocal Agreement; and
WHEREAS. the COUNTY and the CITY desire to cooperate with regard 'to
accomplishing the City Transportation Improvement Projects for the benefit of the
citizens of COUNTY at~(~ the CITY and require a mechanism to provide funds from the
local government infrastructure sales surtax consistent with the terms of the 2001
Interlocal Agreement which are. have been, or will be on deposit with the COUNTY. and
which have been or will be incrementally transferred to the CITY so that the CITY can
effectively implement the CITY Transportation Improvement Projects; and
WHEREAS. the CITY's Transportation Improvement Projects and share of
revenues as set forth in the 2001 Interlocal Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
to this Agreement; and
WHEREAS. this Interlocal Agreement serves a public purpose and is authorized
pursuant to the provisions of Chapters '125, 163, and 166, Florida Stetutes, and other
applicable law. ,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and
commitments contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt,
adequacy, and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged as to both parties, the
parties agree as follows to the funding of CITY Transportation Improvement Projects by
the local government infrastructure sales surtax proceeds and the implementation of the
Transportation Improvement Projects by the CITY.
Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and form a
material part of this Intertocal Agreement upon which the parties have relied.
Section 2. Term. This Interlocal Agreement shall become effective upon
approval by the Governing Bodies of the COUNTY and the CITY, and shall remain in
effect through contract close out between the CITY and all of its contractors relative to
the CITY Transportation Improvement Projects, or through the conclusion of-
disbursement and expenditure of the full CITY share of revenues, whichever occurs
later.
Section 3, Disbursement of Funds by the County.
la) Except as specified in Section 3(e) below, the total financial oblig.ation of
the COUNTY under this [ntedocal Agreement is that the COUNTY shall reimburse the
CITY for legitimate and documented expenses as expressed in the CI'i-Y's contractual
agreements with respective mad improvement contractors, consultants, materials
vendors, or other contractors for the CITY Transportation Improvement Projects
consistent with the terms of this Interlocal Agreement, and subject to the availability of
funds from the CITY share of revenues. Said funds shall be solely and exclusively
derived from the CITY's share of revenues from the infrastructure sales surtax, including
interest income applicable to the CITY's share of revenues while on deposit with the
COUNTY. These funds shall be utilized, consistent with Section 212.055, Florida
Statutes (2001), for the purposes of the CITY Transportation Improvement Projects.
, The funds shall not be used for collateral programs or projects, and not for programs or
projects which may be accomplished simultaneously with, in conjunction with, or as a
result of CITY Transportation Improvement Projects. Intersection improvements,
however, to roads intersecting the Projects may be accomplished and shall be deemed
eligible for funding pursuant to this Intedocal Agreement. Further, this exciusiort is
intended to disallow expenditures for CITY staff time and labor charges unless such
costs are recorded as capitalized costs of the CITY Transportation Improvement
Projects to the fixed asset accounts of the CITY as reported in the CITY's .annual
audited financial state~nents, and to disallow expenditures which pertain or relate to
work not directly related to the CITY Transportation Improvement Projects. In the event
that the CITY is entitled to any development commitments for or related to the CITY
Transportation Improvement Projects, it shall use such funds for directly related costs
for the projects not reimbursed under this Agreement. The CITY may advance fund the
CITY Transportation Improvement Projects pdor to the availability of funding as set forth
in this Intedocal Agreement. in such event, invoices or other appropriate contract
documents shall be reviewed and approved by the County Engineering Division to
determine whether the reimbursement is consistent with the terms 'and conditions of this
Intedocal Agreement.
(b) Upon initial award of the engineering design agreement, award of the
construction contract, authorization to initiate acquisition activities, or agreement
between the CITY and a contractor for contract amendments to any contract for each of
the capital projects as identified in Exhibit "A", the CITY shall be eligible to receive an
advance of up to one hundred percent (100%) of the agreement, contract award
amount, or acquisition authorization. The eligibility to receive advances shall be subject
to the CiTY's affirmation that it will record receipts and disbursement of advances in a
separate interest beadng account. These advances shall be limited by the availability of
funds from the CITY share of revenues. If adequate funds are unavailable, the CITY
may either submit for future reimbursements as outlined in Section 5(b) or may request
that the advance be incrementally forwarded as funds from the CITY share of revenues
become available.
(c) Upon demonstration through a comprehensive, phased multi-year
schedule that other CITY funding sources will be used throughout the life of the
infrastructure sales tax levy to advance the overall program of CITY transportation
projects set forth in Exhibit "A", the CITY shall be eligible to request that the advances
referenced in Section 3(b) of this Agreement shall be increased to one hundred (100%)
per cent of the CITY's share of the infrastructure sales tax revenues for the duration of
the term of this Agreement. In making such a request, the CITY shall agree to
submission by the CITY's financial officer of quarterly reports to the COUNTY in such
format as may reasonably be required by the COUNTY.
(d) Should an audit reveal that any funds distributed pursuant to this
agreement were expended or applied for purposes or services other than as authorized
bythe 2001 Interlocal Agreement or this agreement, then the CITY shall promptly, from
funds other than those distributed pursuant to this agreement, reimburse the COUNTY
the amount the audit determined to be improperly spent or applied.
(e) Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a schedule of projects that are to be
funded on a 50-50 basis between the CITY and the COUNTY. The funds for these
projects will be disbursed to and administered by the CITY in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this Agreement.
Section 4. Plenary Status of City Transportation Improvement Projects.
For all purposes, the CITY Transportation Improvement Projects as described in the
attached Exhibit "A" shall be solely and exclusively projects of the CITY. The CITY shall
determine the typical sections, design standards, right-of-way limits, and all related and
similar matters for the Projects consistent with State law and the terms of this Intedocal
Agreement. However.' the Projects ,shall be consistent with the purposes, terms, and.
conditions set forth in the 2001 Intedocal Agreement. The parties desire to cooperate in
the successful implementation of the Projects, but the COUNTY's actions pursuant to
this Intedocal Agreement and all other matters that the COUNTY may accomplish
relative to the Projects shall be for the COUNTY's purposes, and not the CITY's. The
COUNTY shall not be deemed a partner or co-venturer as to the Projects or any portion
or part of the Projects. The CITY shall implement the Projects through the use of in-
house or contractual services with regard to design, permitting, value engineering, right-
of-way acquisition, construction, maintenance of access and traffic, landscaping, and
constr~ction engineering and inspection as well as any and all related services and
activities in any way associated with the Projects.
Section 5. City's Duties. In addition to all other covenants, obligations, duties
and responsibilities set forth in this Inteflocal Agreement, dudng the course of this
Agreement, the CITY shall:
(a) Award, enter, administer and supervise all design, planning, surveying,
appraising, environmental auditing and remediation, negotiating, value engineering,
right-of-waY acquisition, legal activities, condemnation, permitting, construction,
landscaping inspection, access and traffic maintenance, and any and all construction
and project related contracts necessary in any way to accomplish the ultimate
construction of the CiTY Transportation Improvement Projects in accordance with the
plans and contract documents.
(b) Review and approve all payment requests submitted for labor, materials,
or services used in the implementation of the CITY Transportation Improvement
Projects. Invoices or 6ther appropda, te documentation for reimbursement or advances.
shall be submitted to the COUNTY's Engineering Division, in a format specified by the
COUNTY.
(c) Obtain any and all necessary lien waivers or releases in connection with
payment requests or disbursements.
(d) Furnish to the COUNTY a full and final accounting of all costs,
disbursements and receipts in accordance with generally accepted accounting and
auditing principles.
(e) Obtain any and all local, regional, State, and Federal permits necessary
for the CITY Transportation Improvement Projects.
(f) Obtain "as built" surveys by a Florida licensed land surveyor for the CITY
Transportation Improvement Projects.
(g) Make any and all timely and proper payments of accurate and payable
valid invoices received from any and all contractors or subcontractors.
(h) Submit schedules and status reports for the CITY Transportation
Improvement Projects two (2) times per year in such formats as may be mutually
agreed upon.
Section 6. COUNTY's Duties, During the course of this Intedocal Agreement,
the COUNTY shall:
(a) Review copies of invoices or payment requests and disbursements
records delivered by the CITY to the COUNTY, and notify the CITY within fifteen (15)
business days of any dbjections to the requests or disbursements.
(b) Subject to the review period, the not-to-exceed amount, and the terms and
conditions set forth in this Agreement, advance funds to the CITY or reimburse the CITY
for the actual authorized and payable costs as set forth in the CITY's contractual
agreements with respective road improvement contractors, consultants, materials
vendors, or other contractors for the CITY Transportation improvement Projects
consistent with the terms of this Interlocal Agreement through construction completion
of each of the CITY Transportation Improvement Projects. Payments of invoices,
payment requests, and disbursement records not objected to by {he COUNTY shall be
made within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt by the COUNTY of the invoice from
the CITY indicating amounts payable by the CITY to contractors or subcontractors
working on the Projects.
(c) Cooperate with the CiTY in the review of any matters relating to the
Projects.
(d) Serve as administrator of the 2001 Seminole County Transportation and
Education infrastructure Plan Intedocal Agreement as set forth in that Agreement,
including, but not limited to, providing for interpretations, reasonable enfomement and
implementation, coordination of overall program reporting, and determinations of fund
availability as may be required.
Section 7. Remedies. Each party shall have any and ail remedies es
permitted by law. The parties agree, however, to provide for positive dialogue and
communications if disputes or disagreements arise as to the interpretation or
implementation of this Intedocal Agreement and agree to comply with the alternative
dispute resolution pr(~cesses set forth in any intedocal agreement relating to said
subject.
Section 8. Force Majeure, In the event any party hereunder fails to satisfy a
requirement imposed in a timely manner, due to a hurricane, flood, tornado, or other Act
of God or force majeure then said party shall not be in default hereunder.
Section 9. Binding Effect. This Interlocal Agreement shall be binding upon
and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and the successors in interest, transferees
end assigns of the parties.
Section 10, Assignment. This Intertocal Agreement shail not be assigned by
either party with the pdor written approval of the other.
Section 11. Publi~ Records. The parties shall allow public access to all
documents, papers, letters or other materials which have been made or received by the
parties in conjunction with this Intertocal Agreement or the CITY Transportation
Improvement Projects.
Section 12. Records and Audits. The parties shall maintain any and all
records, documents, papers, and other evidence pertaining to the work performed under
this Intedocal Agreement. Such records shall be available at reasonable times and
places during the term of this Intedocal Agreement and for so long as such records are
maintained thereafter. Records shall be maintained in accordance with State law.
including but not limited to Chapter ~19, Florida Statutes, and generally accepted
accounting and auditing principles. Financial statements usable for fiscal year end
purposes shall be provided annually to the COUNTY.
Section 13, Notices,
Whenever either party ,desires to give notice to the other, notice may be
(a)
sent to:
For the COUNTY:
With copies to:
For the CITY:
County Manager
Seminole County Services Building
1101 East First Street
Sanford, Flodda 32771
Public Works Director
Reflections Plaza
520 Lake Mary Boulevard
Suite 200
Sanford, Flodda 32773
City Manager
300 North Park
Sanford, Florida 32771
(b) Either of the parties may change, by written notice as provided herein, the
addresses or persons for receipt of notices or receipt ol= invoices. All notices shall be
effective upon receipt_
Section 14. Liability. Neither party assumes any responsibility or liability for
the acts or omissions of the other party. The parties recognize that the COUNTY
assumes no operational level duties or responsibilities with respect to and that the CITY
assumes total responsibility for the planning, design, construction, maintenance, use
and all other aspects of the CiTY Transportation Improvement Projects funded
hereunder. The parties do not intend for this agreement or the 2001 Intedocal
Agreement to provide benefits to or create any dghts in third parties.
Section 15. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. in performing under
this Interlocal Agreement, the parties shall abide by all laws, statutes, ordinances, rules,
and regulations pertaining to, or regulating the performance required by this Agreement.
Any violation of such laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, or regulations shall constitute a
material breach of this 'lnterlocal Agreement, and shall entitle the non-violating party to
terminate this lntertocal Agreement immediately upon delivery of wdtten notice of
termination to the violating party, provided that a written notice of violation and a
reasonable opportunity to cure has been first given.
Section 16. Headings. All sections and description headings in this Interlocal
Agreement are inserted for convenience only, and shall not affect the construction or
interpretation of this Agreement.
Section 17. Entire Agrsement. This Interlocal Agreement constitutes the
entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and
may not be modified or amended except by a written instrument equal in dignity to this
Agreement, and executec~-by the parties to be bound by the amendment to the
Agreement.
Section 18. Counterparts. This Interlocal Agreement may be executed in any
number of counterparts, each of which, when executed and delivered, shall be an
original, but all counterparts shall together constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first written above.
".'; '~ AN'OQ U~ RTY,(/City Clerk
0;.E 0~''
ClTY.OFSANFORD
B RA'D~ LESS,~t~,~layor ....
Date: -~~ c~o~e,70~
ATTEST: ~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SEMINOLE COUNTY, FLORIDA
.-'" to..*. ~ '",,, Y'%"~' J~L ~c'~
~ By:
~.,~..Y~N~vlO~SE~ '~ ~ ~ ~AR Chaise,
Cle~t~the ~arO, of ~' :,,:_' ~"
Cou~°mmiss~ e~TM .: Date: /
,, ',," O/S'~ '.:'.}~0,/-
For th~.?~,~eof As authorized for execution by ~he Beard
Seminol~'~'e0'un~"~iy. Ap-' of COu.~ Commissione~ ~t its ~//~¢~,
proved as to found legal 2002, regular meeting.
suffici~
Coun~ Affomey
1\31\02
Attachments: Exhibit A and Exhibit B
F:\Ca\Usecs~,OaslO%Agreements~Sanford Intedocal (2nd 9en sales ~ax).doc
12
EXHIBIT A CT'r.
Cent For Seminole Local Sales Surt~,~,;-'~;~'v~:~
SANFORD
Transportation Projects Proposed Scope ~ ~.~rffrNOL~ ~: ~'1: Preliminary
.r~ r Cost
Estimate
Collector Syatem North of West Widen pavement, add drainage (including: White Cedar $3.701 M
SR 46 Avenue, Church Street, others)
Mulberry AVenue Extension 14TMStreet to Country Club Road; $1.1~ M
new extension - 2 lane urban section.
Downtown Circulation Location and scope - TBD by study. $1.790 M
Improvements
Intersection Improvements , Add turn lines, upgrade signals, align lanes, add Pad X- $3.164 M
~ Walks eto. to high acc~dont intersections.
Lakafront RomJway I Protective Reconstruction of Seminole Blvd. This is the $2.388 M
first of a two-phase project encompassing the Lakefront
Roadway along Lake Monroe east of I-4. The second
phase segment of the project is set froth on Exhibit B.
Cash flow advances from the second phase segment, not
to exceed $1.5 Million, are to be repaid in Fiscal Years
2004/05 and 2005/06.
Sidewalks Rehabilitate deficient sidewalk installations and add to $2.568 M
Existing and New citywibe netwen~, based on plan.
Miscellaneous locations. $.B95 M
PROdECT$ TOTAL
City Revenue Sham relating to funding Per Section 2(d) and Dis~bution Year ~ 2'9:3803264c~It
of the above projects. Exhibit D of the 2001
Transportation ond
Educe/ion Infrastructure Be~inning Distrfbution 2.~38002528%
Plan Interkx:al Agreement. Year 2
Per Section 2(e) of the 2001 Transportation end Education Infrastructure Plan intedocal Agreement, ii: any local government
succasefully appeals Ihe results of the 2000 Census F~lures as published by lhe Census Bureau, the distribution shall be
recalculated to reflect the adjustments mede in the 2000 Census results by Ihe Consus Bureau. Any such c~ange shall be
effective at the start of the distribution year following the adjustment, in conjunction with County issuance of such
eentered into the ublic record.
Pro.iect~ may be added or deleted pursuan~ . Scopes may be expanded, reduced, or otherwise altered Costs are
to the provisions of Section 3 (a) of tho pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the 200'1 provided as
2001 Trensportalton and Education Transportatlen and Education Infrastructure Plan estimatas only.
Infrasb~cturs Plan InterlocalAgreement. In Intorioc~l .~reemant. In conjunction with Cou~t~ Changes to costs
conjunction with County apprevai of such concurrence in such scope change(s), an up,ate to this do not require a
project change(s), an update to this Exhibit Exhibit shall be entered into the public record, formal update to
sh~ll be entered into the public record. CERTIFIED COPY this Exhibit to be
MANYANN~ MOR~ issued, unless a
CLI~I( OF CIRCUIT COURT project or scope
~t~1~101.'~)Ol~.,j~)~ltlDA revisiOninvolved.is also
//' ~ ~ ~vlaw/Approv~l
This Exhibit For The City Of Sanford Valid As Of ~:../,.~.. ~/~-~.~ ./, 20~ ~ cl~J~is:
/ / DPW .~.~____..
/ /' CM OR ~CC CHAIR/_~___.
Cent Sales Tax - 2~d Generab3r t~C:lfles & School Board~C~ty of S~,;~u~EXH[BIT A-~ford-Rev1.doc12/20/2002 4:46 PM
EXHIBIT A
Cent For Seminole Local Sales Surtax
SANFORD
TranspoiAatlon Projects Proposed Scope Preliminary
Cost
Estimate
Collector System North of West Widen pavement, add drainage (Including: White Cedar $3.701 M
SR 46 Avenue, Church Street, others)
Mulberry Avenue Extension 14'n Street to Country Club Road; $1.194 U
new extension - 2 lane urban section.
Downtown Circulation Location and scope- TBD by study. $1.790 M
Improvements
Intersection Improvements Add turn lanes, upgrade signals, align lanes, add Ped X- $3.164 M
Walks etc. to high accident intersections,
Lakefront Roadway Protective Reconstruction of Seminole Blvd. This is the $2.388 M
first of a two-phase project encompassing the Lakefront
Roadway along Lake Monroe east of l-4. The second
phase segment of the project is set forth on Exhibit B. r--
Cash flow advances from the second phase segment, not
to exceed $1.5 Million, are to be repaid in Fiscal Years ~_~
2004/05 and 2005/06. , --
Sidewalks Rehabilitate deficient sidewalk installations and add to $2.568 M .
Existing and New citywide network, based on plan.
Upgrade R.a,~!lroad Crossin~q~ Miscellaneous locations. $.895 M
~~' ~'-~- "~"~"~-~' PROJECTS TOTAL $15.7 M
City Revenue Share relating to funding Per Section 2(d) and Exhibit D of the 2001
of the above projects. Transportation and Education Infrastructure Plan 2.938032649%
Interlocal Agreement.
Per Section 2(e) of the 2001 Transportation and Education Infrastructure Plan Interlocal Agreement, if any local government
successfully appeals the results of the 2000 Census figures as published by the Census Bureau, the distribution shall be
recalculated to reflect the adjustments made in the 2000 Census results by the Census Bureau. Any such change shall be
effective at the start of the distribution year following the adjustment. In conjunction with County issuance of such
.?~al~ulation, an update to this Exhibit shall be entered nto the public record
Projects may be added or deleted pursuant Scopes may be expanded, reduced, or otherwise altered Costs are
to the provisions of Section 3 (a) of the pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the 2001 provided as
2001 Transportation and Education Transportation and Education Infrastructure Plan estimates only.
Infrastructure Plan Interlocal Agreement. In Interlocal Agreement. In conjunction with County Changes to costs
conjunction with County approval of such concurrence in such scope change(s), an update to this do not require a
project change(s), an update to this Exhibit Exhibit shall be entered into the public record, formal update to
shall be entered into the public record, this Exhibit to be
issued, unless a
project or scope
revision is also
involved.
Sem. Co. Review/Approval/]
This Exhibit For The City Of Sanford Valid As Of ~/,,,' ~ ,2002. Initials:
/ DPW
CM OR BCC CHAIR' J,~e~--~
S:\Special Projects\l Cent Sales Tax-PH 2\EXHIBIT A-AItl-Sanford.doc 7/5/2002 10:47 AM
EXHIBIT B
Cent For Seminole Local Sales Surtax
COUNTY COST-SHARED PROJECTS WITH SANFORD
Major Road Projects Proposed Scope Preliminary
Cost
Estimate
US 17.92 Lake Front Roadway Protective Reconstruction. This is the second $2.9 M
ora two-phase project encompassing the
Lakefront Roadway along Lake Monroe east of
I-4. The first phase segment of the project is
set forth on Exhibit A.
Cash flow advances in Fiscal Year 02/03 to the
City's first phase segment, not to exceed $1.5
Million, are to be repaid in Fiscal Years 2004/05
and 2005/06.
(This is a cost-shared project with the City of
Sanford; project will also have other funding,
including approximately $5.4 M through FDOT.)
Per Section 2(c) and Exhibit B of the 2001 PROJECTS TOTAL $2,9 M
Transportation and Education Infrastructure Plan
Projects may be added or deleted pursuant Scopes may be' expanded, reduced, or otherwise altere"d" Costs are
to the provisions of Section 3 (a) of the )ursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the 2001 estimates only.
2001 Transportation and Education Transportation and Education Infrastructure Plan
Infrastructure Plan Intedocal Agreement. In Intedocal Agreement. In conjunction with County
conjunction with County approval of such approval of such scope change(s), an update to this
project change(s), an update to this Exhibit Exhibit shall be entered into the public record.
shall be entered into the public record.
Sem. Co. Review/Approval/~
This Exhibit For The City Of Sanford Valid As Of .~o /V ,~ I 2002. Initials:
/ DPW
~CM OR BCC CHAIR'
S:\Special ProjecLs~l Cent Sales Tax-PH 2\EXHIBIT B-Alt1-Sanford.doc 7/5/02 10:48 AM
County Manager's Office
July 5, 2002
Tony VanDerworp, AICP
City Manager
City of Sanford
P O Box 1788
Sanford, Florida 32772-1788
Dear Mr. VanDerworp,
We have reviewed the proposed updates to Exhibits A and B of the 2002 County/City
Local Sales Surtax Administration Agreement per your request of June 27, 2002 (copy
enclosed). As agreed, the only change from your original submittal was to adjust by
one year the repayment timing specified in the Exhibits, (from Fiscal Years 2005/06 and
2006/07 to Fiscal Years 2004/05 and 2005/06). The approved, updated Exhibits are
attached for your records.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
/ /Kevin Grace
(JCounty Manager
Attachments: Exhibit A/executed update
Exhibit B/executed update
Correspondence of June 27, 2002
CC:
Board of County Commissioners
Sandy McCann, Recording Secretary
/'~-Janet Dougherty, City Clerk
Pam Hastings, Manager, Department of Public Works
· 1130E. First Street ·Santbrd, Florida 32771-1468 ', Phone: (407)665-7219 "Fax:(407) 665-7958
ILO. I;,,× 1788 · ~277.? 1788 · (407)3:~0-5607. (¢07)330-5fll01:,~c~i.,,ilc
Office of the City Manager
RECEIVED
June 27, 2002
Kevin Grace, County Manager
Seminole County Government
County Services Building
1101 East First Street
Sanford, Florida 32771
RE: 2001 Renewed 1~ Sales Tax/Proposed Scope Clarification to City Project Lists
Dear Mr. Grace:
Attached, please find proposed updates to Exhibits A and B of the County/City
Local Sales Surtax 2002 Administration Agreement. Proposed project scope
clarifications, which I have approved, are indicated in italics, and are hereby
submitted for your written concurrence pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the 2001
Infrastructure Plan Interlocal Agreement.
The scope change in the Exhibits will allow the City flexibility to manage cash
flow requirements between two connected segments of Sanford's Lakefront
Roadway protective reconstruction project.
The County's FY02/03 Proposed Budget includes $2.9 million from the 2001
Sales Tax for the US 17-92 segment of this City-administered project, shown on
Exhibit B. While the City will be initiating preliminary design activities on this
segment in FY02/03, the time requirements for permitting and right-of-way
mean that the construction phase is now more realistically anticipated to begin
in FY05/06 - pending various State and other funding sources.
In the meantime, the City is preparing on July 22nd to award construction
contract for the Seminole Boulevard segment, which is the first phase of the
Lakefront Roadway project shown on Exhibit A. To bridge time lags in receipt
of other funds, the City proposes flexibility in management of cash flow
requirements using both the City's share of the 2001 Renewed lc= Sales Tax and
the $2.9 million which will be set aside in the County's FY02/03 budget for use on the
Lakefront Road way project. It should be noted that:
"The Friendlg ( ty"
Kevin Grace, County Manager -2-
RE: 2001 Renewed 1~ Sales Tax/Proposed Scope Clarification to City Project Lists
06/27/02
the Seminole Boulevard project does include the point of connection with the US 17-92
segment;
repayment of cash flow advances will occur in time to meet construction requirements
for the US 17-92 segment;
· the City is not proposing to use the full $2.9 million to bridge cash flow requirements;
over the coming year the City will be initiating preliminary planning/design phases for
the US 17-92 Lakefront segment; and
the exercise of flexibility as to cash flow management is consistent with the County's
administrative role for the overall program.
Attachments: Exhibit A
Exhibit B
ec:
Mayor Brady Lessard
City Commissioners
Jay Marder, Director of Engineering & Planning
(¥~;2)a:Kevin Grace-Renewed Sales Tax
I appreciate your consideration of this matter, and the City looks forward to our continued successful
cooperation on this important improvement project. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have
any questions or need additional information.
Sin
Tony VanDerworp, AICP
City Manager
SEMINOLE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND EDUCATION
INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, by and between SEMINOLE COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose address is Seminole County Services
Building, 1101 East First Street, Sanford, Florida 32771 (hereafter referred to as the
"COUNTY"),
THE SEMINOLE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, a school district created by
Florida law, whose address is 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard, Sanford, Flodda 3Z773,
(hereafter referred to as "SCHOOL BOARD"), and the following municipalities:
THE CITY OF ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, a Florida municipal corporation, whose
address is 225 Newbun/port Avenue, Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 (hereafter
referred to as "ALTAMONTE SPRINGS"); and
THE CITY OF CASSELBERRY, a Florida municipal corporation, whose address
is 95 Triplet Lake Drive, Casselberry, Florida 32707 (hereafter referred to as
"CASSELBERRY"); and
THE CITY OF LAKE MARY, a Florida municipal corporation, whose address is
Post Office Box 950700, Lake Man/, Florida 32795-0700 (hereafter referred to as "LAKE
MARY"); and
THE CITY OF LONG~NOOD, a Florida municipal corporation, whose address is
175 West Warren Avenue, Longwood, Florida 32750 (hereafter referred to as
"LONGWOOD'); and
THE CITY OF OVlEDO, a Florida municipal corporation, whose address is 400
Alexandria Boulevard, Oviedo, Florida 32765 (hereafter referred to.as "OVIEDO"); and
1
THE CITY OF SANFORD, a Florida municipal corporation, whose address is
Post Office Box 1788, Sanford, Florida 32772-1788 hereafter referred to as
"SANFORD'); and
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, a Florida municipal corporation, whose
address is 1126 East State Road 424, Winter Spdngs, Florida 32708 (hereafter referred
to as "WINTER SPRINGS").
WlTNESSETH:
WHEREAS, under the authority of Section 212.055(2), Florida Statutes, and
pursuant to Seminole County Ordinance Number ~0'0~.30 , the COUNTY has
imposed a 1.0 percent (1¢) local government infrastructure sales surtax upon taxable
transactions occurring in Seminole County and has provided for distribution of the
proceeds from the surtax, subject to the outcome of a referendum in September, 2001;
and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY, the SCHOOL BOARD, and signatory municipalities
desire to earnestly and cooperativety work together in order to benef*r[ the cit~ens of
Seminole County and the municipalities within Seminole County by improving the
infrastructure of the Seminole County school system, by providing acceptable levels of
service for roadways within Seminole County, and by providing for the distribution of
revenues of the local government infrastructure sales surtax according to the terms of
this Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants and
commitments contained herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt
and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged by all parties hereto, the parties
2 OZ73FG07
agree to provide for the distribution of the revenues derived from the local government
infrastructure sales surtax as follows:
Section 1. Term, This Agreement shall become effective when approved by
the Governing Bodies of the COUNTY, the SCHOOL BOARD, and the requisite number
of municipalities pursuant to Section 212_055(2)(c)1, Florida Statutes. This Agreement
shall remain in effect for the life of the surtax imposed pursuant to Seminole County
Ordinance Number. 2001-30
Section 2. Distribution of Proceeds.
(a) The net revenues (meaning the collected surtax less the amounts retained
by the Florida Department of Revenue pursuant to Florida law) dedved from the local
government infrastructure sales surtax levied and imposed by the COUNTY shall be
allocated totally to the COUNTY.
(b) The COUNTY shall transfer to the SCHOOL BOARD twenty-five percent
(25%) 'of the overall net revenues collected during the life of the surtax, for use by the
SCHOOL BOARD on the projects listed in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement. The proceeds
shall be distributed as shown in Exhibit "A" to this Agreement.
(c) The COUNTY shall use thirty-seven and one half pement (37%%) of the
net revenues to diligently prosecute the projects on major roads in Seminole County
listed in Exhibit "B" to this Agreement.
(d) The COUNTY and the signatory municipalities shall use the remaining
thirty-seven and one half percent (37%%) of the net revenues to diligently prosecute the
transportation projects listed in Exhibit "C' to this Agreement. The net revenues
referred to in the immediately preceding sentence shall be distributed among the
3 02 3tG07 $
COUNTY and the signatory municipalities according to the formula contained in Section
218.62, Florida Statutes, incorporating population data from the 2000 Census published
by the Census Bureau in March 2001. The distribution that results from the application
of this formula is attached hereto as Exhibit "D".
(e) If any local government successfully appeals the results of the 2000
Census figures as published by the Census Bureau, the distribution formula found in
Exhibit "D" shall be recalculated to reflect the adjustments made in the 2000 Census
results bythe Census Bureau. Any such change shall be effective at the start of the
distribution year following the adjustment.
(f) It is the intent of the parties to improve the infrastructure of the Seminole
County school system. It is the intent of the parties to improve the transportation
infrastructure within Seminole County and its municipalities, and thereby provide
acceptabie levels of service to the residents of Seminole County and its municipalities
as they travel the transportation system within Seminole County. It is the intent of the
parties that revenues derived from the local government infrastructure surtax (other than
the revenues distributed to the School Board pursuant to this Agreement) will be used to
fund the identified improvements and other necessary transportation improvements by
constructing and reconstructing transportation facilities. The parties recognize the need
to consistently communicate on an ongoing basis with regard to the use of surtax
revenues and as to the project needs and timing as set forth in Exhibits "A", "B", and
4
Section 3. Project Lists.
(a) A project listed in Exhibits "A', "B" or 'C" may be deleted from these
exhibits, or a project may be added to Exhibits "A', "B~, or "C", only after approval by the
governmental entity controlling the project following an advertised public heating. The
governmental entity proposing the changes shall notify the COUNTY's Manager and all
other governmental entities that are parties to this Agreement no less than thirty (30)
days before the public hearing. The other government entities that have received notice
of the proposed addition or deletion shall have the right to propose comments to the
local government entity proposing the change, and any such comments shall be duly
considered. Within ten (10) business days following the action of the governmental
entity proposing the changes, any of the commenting parties may file an appeal of that
action with the Seminole County Board of County Commissioners. After reviewing the
original comments, recommendations and action with the governmental entity proposing
the change, the COUNTY shall approve or reject the proposed revisions at a public
meeting,
(b) The scope of an existing project listed in Exhibit "A", "B" or "C" may be
expanded, reduced, or otherwise altered upon the written approval of the chief
administrative officer of the governmental entity seeking the change, subject to the
statutes, rules, and procedures of the local government entity, and with the written
concurrence of the COUNTY's Manager.
Section 4. Entire Agreement.
(a) It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement of the parties is
contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
5
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any
previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject
matter hereof.
(b) Any alterations, amendments, or waivers of the provisions of this
Agreement, other than those matters addressed in Section 3 of this Agreement, shall be
valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties.
IT WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties having caused this Agreement to be duly
executed in nine (9) counterparts by thei~ respective and duly authorized offices on the
respective dates,
SIGNATURES BEGIN ON PAGE 7
BK0273 P607 8
ATTEST:
Clerk to the
Seminole County School Board
SEMINOLE COUNTY/~CHOOL BOARD
SANDY ROBIrSON, Chairman
Date:_~~_
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON PAGE 8
7
BK0273 ~07~9
P ATSY~/AI N RI G H;~/, City Clerk
RUS~-L HAUC-~K, Mayor
SIGNATURES CONTINUI:: ON PAGE 9
8
ATTEST:
THELMA L. M'cPNERSON, City Clerk
CITY OF CASSELSERRY
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON PAGE 10
~o273mo751
9
By:
THOMAS C. GREE{~, Mayor
~J
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON PAGE 11
KOZ73m075~
10
CITY OF LONGWOOD
PAUL LOVESTRAND, Mayor
Date: "-~-,~¢_.~ ~?~
/,
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON PAGE 12
~0273~0753
ATTEST:
CITY OF OVIEDO
MARY LO(.J ~A'NDREWS. Mayor
Dat.: ~ ,~/.,
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON PAGE 13
~oz73r$oT$~
12
CITY OF SANFORD
'
Mayor
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON PA(~E 14
~0273~0755
13
SIGNATURES CONTINUE ON PAGE 15
BK0273 P~0756
14
ATTES'I~? BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
- , ~ ' SEMINOLE COUNTY FLORIDA
; 'By:
the'B-oa --'
Semi~ C,~u¢~/,' Florida.
~5~ the use and reliance of
~ninole County only. Ap- of County Commissioners at ~
As authorized for execution by the Board
2001, regular meeting
proved as to form and legal
"County Attom,y
HB\dre
05\01\01
Attachments
Exhibit A - SCHOOL BOARD Project List
Exhibit B - COUNTY Project List
Exhibit C - COUNTY and municipalities' Project List
Exhibit D - Distribution of Proceeds List
G:~CA'~USERS~C. AHI~02~D GEN SALES TAX~INTERLOCALS.DOC
15
EXHIBIT A '
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
Distribution Of Net Revenues For Educational Facility Projects
Year*
1/2002
2/2003
3/2004
4/2005
5/2006
6/2007
7/2008
8/2009
9/2010
10/2011
Overall
% tq School Board
45%
45%
45%
25%
25%
25%
25%
8% **
8%
8% **
25%
· Revenues received monthly by
Seminole County.
Upon receipt of monthly revenue
distribution from the State Dept. of
Revenue, the applicable % will
promptly be remitted to the School
Board by Seminole County.
*Year = 1 Year of the Life of the 1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
Levy, which is a calendar year.
** During Year 7, a projection update of net revenues shall be prepared by Seminole
County and provided to the School Board for review. As part of the projection update,
the percentages for Years 8 through 10 will be recalculated so as to yield a projected
distribution to the School Board at the end of the 10 years of 25% of the overall net
revenues.
A similar projection update shall be prepared and reviewed during Year 9, including a
recalculation of the final year's pementage which would be used for the first 11 months
of Year 10. The last monthly distribution of Year 10 shall be adjusted as necessary to
yield a final distribution to the School Board at the end of the 10 Years of 25% of the
overall net revenues.
1 of 2
EXHIBIT A
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
Educational Facility Projects
(by Seminole County School Board)
PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUC~'ION/EXPANSION -RENOVATION SCOPE
PRELIMINARy
SCHOOl. ORIG~ C(~NST. COST
OESCRIpTION NO. ~}DED DATE FOR E~'rtMATE
CLASSROOMS RENOVATION
SII'~S
ALTAMONTE ELEM Convert open plan m solf-containe~ classrooms; 20 1974 $8,5M
FOREST CITY ELEM ,Convar~ o~en plan to self-co,rained crassrooms 20 197'1 $8.$ M
ad~t media center, add classrooms
WINTER SPRINGS El.EM IConvart o~en plan to self-contaJ~ed classro'~ms .... 10 1974 $6'.5 I~
EASTBROOK ELEM Convert open Dian to self-confined cie, ssroorns; 10 197~ $6.S N
~VIEDO RiGN Renovate cJass~o~ns; e~cl physic~i eclucation lo 1967 ~30 N
~IEW MIDDLE SCHOOL To pro'de relief for Gree~c~l ~.akes. so New Site S22 N
iRED BUG ELEM Convert open plan o se{f-con~a~ed cl~Ls~'roor~. 1-~ 1972 $7 M
oral'all $277.75 M cepllal program of renovations and classroom additions which will add
2 of 2
EXHIBIT B
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales ,Surtax
Major Road System Projects Proposed Scope Preliminary
(by Seminole County) Cost
,, Estimate
State Road System
SR 434
From: Orange County Line Six-Lane
To: SR 436
SR 415 .... '
From: SR 46 Four-Lane
To: Volusia County Line
US Highway 17/92 ,-
From: Orange County Line Curb & Gutter $ 8.0 M
To: Lake of the Woods Boulevard
US Highway 17/92
From: Shepard Road , Six-Lane $38.2 M
To: Lake Mary Boulevard.
....US Highway 17/92 & SR 436 In,t. er,change $48.3 M
SR 434
From: Montgomery Road Six-Lane And/Or Traffic Ops $74.3 M
To: CF{ 427
SR 436 & Red Bug_ Lake Road Interchange $35.0 M (2)
US 17-92 Lake Front Roadway Protective Reconstruction (This is $ 2.9 M
a cost-shared project with the City
of Sanford; project will also have
other funding, including
approximately $5.4 M through
FDOT,)
(~) Assumes funding thrOugh other sources including, but not tim/ted to, the Transportation Outreach
Program (TOPS). Cost estimates are $10 4 M for SR 434 and $10 0 M for SR 415
(2) Th " - ' ' '
· ecostsshownare 100% estimatesbaseduponvariousscopeparametersforthecontemplated
~mprovements. Implementation of the aggregate of these State Road projects would be contingent upon
successful acquisition of an assumed overall 50% State Match.
Major County Road Multi-Lanings
-Dean Road -' -
From: Orange County Line
To: SR 426 Four Lane $30.0 M
CR 419 '
=Arterial Projects
From: Orange Oounty Line
To: Chuluota Bypass
~0Z 73 I~075 ~
S:\SCec[al Projects\l Cent Sa~es Tax, EXHIBIT B.doc/05/08/01/$;02 AM 1 of 2
EXHIBIT B
1% Local Government/nfrastructure Sales Su~ax
Major Road System Projects Proposed Scope Preliminary
(by Seminole County) Cost
Estimate
Pedestrian Overpasses
Red Bug Lake Road
Lake Mary BouLevard
Future Location
' 2 Overpasses
(1 School-Related)
Overpass
School-Related Overpass
4.0M
~8.0M
4.0M
County/City Cost - Shared Projects
Altamonte Springs
North of SR 436
Casselberry
US 17-92/Triplet Lake Drive
Oviedo
Major Widenings
· SR 426
(from SR 434 to Winter
Springs Boulevard)
· East CR419/PH i
(from SR 434 to a point east of
Division Street)
Pedestrian Overpass (This is up to
a 50% Sham, capped at $2 M.)
Pedestrian Overpass (This is up to
a 50% Share, capped at $1.5 M.)...
See City list in Exhibit C for project
details. (This is contemplated to
be up to a 50% match per project.)
$ 2.OM
$1.5M
$6.0M
Total Including State Match ;262.2 M
Total NET of State Match H60.3 M
Contingency
Other improvements may be done
if revenues and actual costs on
projects identified above allow.
Candidate examples include
intersections of County Arterials
with State Roads such as US 17-
92/CR 46-A, and additional
County/City cost-shared projects
such as East CR 419/PH II (from a
point east of Division Street to
Lockwood Boulevard, which would
complete the widening of East CF{
419)-
TOTAL
1540.1 M
;200.4 M
gl{O Z73 P60760
S:~Speci~l Projects\1 Cent Sales Tax~=XHIBIf' B.dOC~05/0W01/8:02 AM 2 of 2
EXHIBIT C
1% Local Government Infrastr, ucture Sales Surtax
Transportation Projects
(By the Seven Cities and Seminole County)
ALTAMONTE SPRINGS
Project Proposed Scope Prelimi~lary
Cost
Estimate
Dou~ilas Avenue Widen Douglas Avenue between SR 436 and Central $3.242 M
Parkway to a 3-lane urban section to reduce conflicts
created by tumin~ vehicles.
Jamestown Boulevard Widen Jamestown Boulevard between Montgomery $3,918 M
Road and SR 434 to three lanes and consider
realignment to Sand Lake Road.
Gateway Drive Construct new 4-lane roadway between Albermarle $3.292 M
Road and Keller Road to provide improved roadway
for vehicular traffic currently using Hillcrest, i
McNorton, and Keller Road.
I
West T(~w'n Parkway Extension Extend West Town Parkway northeestedy'~rom the~ $'2,392 M
intersection of West Town Parkway and LaureJ Street
to Orange Avenue. The right-of~way has been
dedicated to the City as part of the west Town Center:
Development of Reg{ona[ Impact.
Intersection Improvements SR 436 and Boston Avenue turn lanes; SR 436 and $1,465 M
Hattaway Drive turn lanes; Central Parkway and
Palm Springs southbound turn lanes: Central
Parkway and Douglas Avenue turn lanes; Central
Parkway and Montgomery Road turn lanes; SR 434
and West. Note: Funds will be in addition to
developer/D RI- related impro.ve, ments.
.SR 436 Corridor Feasibility Perform a Feasibility Studyfrom SR 434to US 17-92 $.992 M
Study to determine capacity alternatives for both
roadway/intersection, and multi-modal altemative to
enhance capacity. Note: Total cost is estimated at
$2 million with additional funding from Transportation
Outreach Program, the County Incentive Grant
Program, or et, Ilar state or county funding progrartls.
Multimc~dal improvements Construct pedestrian connections between uses and '$1.592 M
modes of transportation; transportation circulator
systems; and multi-modal congestion management
systems.
.. TOTAL $16.893 M
CASSELBERRY
Alternate Connector Seminola Boulevard to SI~ 434 $8 M
US 17-92 and Triple.t I~'ke Drive Intersection Improvements $1.5 M
Additional Safety add Level of Service improvements $1.5 M
Roadway/Intersection
Improvements .
TOTAL $11 M*
*TOTAL exc~eeds projected share ($9.278 M) for the City. if/as necessary, balance of project costs would be
f_..unded through other legally available city revenues. __ n - -
EXHIBIT C
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
LAKE MARY
Project Proposed Scope' Preliminary
Cost
Estimate
Sand Pond Road; Skyline DHve East o~-Greenwood Boulevard to Emma Oaks Trail;
urban mad improvements with C~os®cJ drainage. $4,07{5 M
Evansdale Road / Pine Tree Sidewatk and drainage improvements. $,622 M
Road
TOTAL $4.698 M
LONGWOOD
Dirt Road 'Paving East Warren Ave.; E. est Bay Ave.; East Pine Ave.; * $5.636 M
Oleaneer St.; Myrtle St.; Oak St.; Longwood St.;
Jessup Ave,; Magnolia Ave.; Ridge S{~.; Oak Lane;
Credo St.; Overstreet Ave.; Hardy St.; Wooclcock ,St.;
Evergreen Ave,; Tullis Ave.; Oxford St.; Florida Ave.;
Rosedale Ave.; Lakeview Dr.
': TOTAL .... $~.636 M
~0273 ~07&2
S:tSOeclal Projecm\l Cent Sales TaX,EXHIBIT C.d~=f05/08/0118:03 AM 2 of 9
EXHIBIT C
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
OVIEDO
Project Proposed Scope Preliminary
Cost
Estimate
INTENDED PROJECTS: IN PRIORITY OI~DER
Franklin Street/Division Street/ Construction of Franklin Street - Lake Jesup Avenue $.3 M
CR 426 ! to the intersection of Division Street and CR 426, and
reconstruct Division Street from the same
intersection to CR 419. Also, improvements to the
intersection.
Lindsay Lane Extension DiviSion Street (Central) to SR 434; construct road. 2.7 M
North/South One'-way Pairs Construct North/South one-way pairs in downtown 21.8 M
area using Garden Street, Station Street, and
Raitroad Street; and realign Geneva Road
intersection @ RR Crossing.
CANDIDATE PROJECTS; IN PRIORITY ORDER
SR 426 Widening Construct two additional lanes from SR 434 to Winter
Sf~rings Boulevard (including purchasing for offsite
retention/detention). Total Project Cost Estimate: $8
M, which includes match from the County/City Cost- $ 4 M
Shared Projects component of the Major Road
System Program shown in Exhibit B.
East CR 419 Widening Phase I; Construct two additional lanes from a point
east of Division Street to SR 434 (including
purchasing for offsite retention/detention), Total $ 4 M
Project Cost Estimator $6 M, which includes match
from the County/City Cost - Shared Projects
component of the Major Road System Program
shown in Exhibit B.
TOTAL 210.8 M* '
"TOTAL somewhat exceeds projected share ($10.790 M) for the City. If/as necessa~, bale'nee of project cOStS"
woul~ be funded through other legally available city revenueS. Other Candidate Projects may be un0ertaken if
revenues and/or actual costs on the projects identified above allow. Specific priorities are; widening of East CR
419 from Lockwood Blvd to a point east of Division Street (Phase II; $4 M total cost estimate); West Mitchell
Hammocl< widening/improvements ($7 M total cost estimate); East Mitchell HammOck wideningAmprovementS ($8
M total cost estimate). These projects are also eligible for match from the Cost - Shared Projects component of
the Major Road System Program shown in Exhibit B.
~OZ73~O7&3
S:\Speclal Projec~s\l Cent Sates TaX~,EXHIBIT C. cloc/05/0~01/8:03 AM 3 Of 9
EXHIBIT C
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surta~
SANFORD
Project Proposed Scope Preliminary
Cost
, Estimate
Collector System North of West ! v-~iden pavement, add drainage (Including; White $3.701 M
SR 46 Cedar Avenue, Chumh Street, others)
Mulberry Avenue Extension 14'n Street ic Country Club Road; $1.194 M
new extension - 2 lane urban section.
Downtown Circulation Location and scope -TBD by study. $1.790 M
Improvements
Intersection Improvements Add turn lanes, upgrade signals, align lanes, add $3.164 M
PaCl X:Walks etc. to hi.~h accident intersections.
Lakefront Roadway protective Reconstruction $2.388 M
Sidewalks Rehabilitate deficient sidewalk installations and add $2.568 M --
E..._xisting and New to citywide network, based on plan. I
Upgrade Railroad Crossings [ Miscellaneous locations. I $895 U
TOTAL $15.7 M
WINTER SPRINGS
Town Center Collectors Hickory Grove; Spine Road $1.7 M
Traffic ~ignal Installations
, $.9 U
Moss Road Reconstruction $1.3 M
SR 419/SR 434 Intersection improvements $-2 M
Arterial Lightin'g SR 434; SR 419; Tuskawilla Road $.959 M --
New Sidewalks $,5 M
SR 434 Raconstruction;'JntersectJon improvements $1.5 M
(includes Village Walk)
Residential ROad $1.6 M
Reconstruction & Traffic ~
Calminq
Ranchlands Dirt Road $1.4 M
Alternative Surface Tre.atment
Fisher Road Improvements $.725 M
Winter Springs Boulev~.ard Reconstruction; Turn Lanes $1.8 M --
Bahama Road Improvements $.4 M
"TOTAL $12,984 M
.S:~Speclat Projec~s\l Cent Sales TaX~EXHISlT C.d0C/05108/01/8:03 AM 4 Of 9
EXHIBIT C
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
SEMINOLE COUNTY
Major County Projects/Collector Reconstructs '
Project Proposed Scope Preliminary
Cost
Estimate
CR 426 Division Street~0 Snow Hill Road; pave 5' shoulders $ ,75 M
Marry/Nancy & Cadillac w. Cadillac to W. Lake Brantley Rd; pave roadWays $ .50 M --
with drainage imp,
Sabal Palm Drive Wekiva Springs Rd to 1300 ft. north; rebuild road $ .25 M
· ,, with structural imp.
Deleon Street Florida Avenue to Howard Avenue; rebuild road/12' $1.06 M -
_ travel lanes
General Hutchinson ' US 17-92 to 300' west of intersection; repair guardrail $ .13 M
a.n~.include a turn lane
~'°ngwood-Lake Mary Road CFi 427 to Green Way Blvd.; pave 5; shoulders $ .31 M
Longwood-Lake Mary Road- Humphrey Rd. to Green Way Blvd.; rebuild road with $ .45 M
3 lane section
Greenwood Blvd. to Longwood-Lake Mary Rd.; $ .30 M
Lake Way Drive Irebui}d road with sidewall(s
Old Mime Road --' SR 46 to CR 426; rebuild road ,, $ .30 M
Longwood-Markham Road L Markham Road to SR 46; reconstruct to 1:~' travel $ .50 U
lanes an_d shou{ders
Markham Road Longwood Markham Fiead to Orange Boulevard; $ .63 M
reconstruct to 12' tr~vel lanes, and shoulders
CR 431 (Orange Boulevard) CR 46-A to SR 46; reconstruct to 12' trove! lanes, '$ .56 M
and shoulders
Snow Hill Road Brumley Road to'~R 4'6; pave 5' shoulder $ .19 M
County Home Road US 17-92 to Hospital Road; median turn lane $ .50 M
CR 426 CR 419 to Division Street; median turn lane i "$1,~0 M
Celery Avenue US 17-92 to SR 41-~; ~trofit improvements $2.50 M
Country Club Road "' @ Mayfair; rebuild road $ .38 M ---
Beardall Avenue Kentucky Street to SR 46;~e~r~fit & rebuild roadway $ .94 M
Intersection Improvements CR 415/Celery-~v~nue; Lake Mary Boulevard @ $2.59 M
Longwood Lake Mary Road; McCulloch Road O
Lockwood Boulevard; CR 426 @ Lake Charm; CR
426 @ Snowhill Road; Lake Mills Road @ CR 419;
._Slavia Road @ SR 426
Various Roadway Retrofits, New Tribes; Brlsson Avenue; Red Bug Lake Road;
including culvert/channel and First Street; Penelope Road; Sipes Avenue: Rand . $3.54 U
safety rehabs Yard; Slavia Road; Richmond Avenue; Sand Dollar;,
Pine Way, Bass
0273 07&5
S:~,Speclal Projeet~l Cent Sales T~'AEXHIBiT C,dOClOS/OS/01/8:03 AM 5 Of g
EXHIBIT C
1% Lo. cai Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
Project Proposed Scope Preliminary
Cost
Estimate
Paving of Various Roadways ~nciuc[es paving dirt roads requiring major associated $2.50 M
drainage:
Intended:
Palm Spdngs Road - SR 434 to dead end; S.
Beardall Avenue - Kentucky Street to dead end
Candidate:
Lazy Acres Lane - eastern connector Longwood Hills
Road to western connector LongwOod Hills Road
I Other P~ojects intended: (Various Structure Replacements) $3.52 M
Palm Way/Mellonvi[le Rd.; Palm Way; Pine Way;
Cameron Ave. S; Wekiva Springs Rd.; Kentucky St.
Candidates:
Horselovers Lane Outfall; Spring Lake Outfall; Elder
CreekJC15; Cassel Creek Blvd.; SR 436 box culvert;
Elder ditch;' Beth & Tangelo Dr./46A Ouffall; Lincoln
Heights; Red Bug Lk. Rd., E. of SR 436; Oxford Rd.;
Loch Arbor;, W. Crystal Dr.; Nebraska Ave.; Borrow
Area, W. of I-4; Jewitt cuirass; Old Monroe culvert;
Virginia Dr.; Eagle Pass Rd.; Aider Ave.; Baymeadow
Rd.; Lochart-Smith, SR 46 to I-4; Michigan Ave.
OutfaJl; Delaware St.; Willow Ave.; Brisson Ave.;
Alhambra
Total $23.40 M
Collector Safet and Capacity Enhancement' I~rojects
Markham Woods Road EE Williamson Road to Springs Landing Bouleva~; $'~ .0 M-
,. median turn lane
Lake Emma Road Lake Mary Boulevard to Sand Pond Road; raised $1.5 M
medians & install curb incJudes LMB intersection eval
& imp.
Wekiva Springs Road Wekiva Lane to Sabal Palm Drive; raised medians & $2.25 M
install curb
Wekiva Springs Road Fox Valley Drive to County Line; add raisec{ me(lien $;J .~-M
with turn lanes
Lake Mary Boulevard 15o0' E of Rinehart Road to US 17-92; Pavement $4.75 M
rahab/traffic lanes improvements
Bear Lake Road SR 436 to Orange County Line; roadway retrofit, incl. $1.0 M
drainage
E. Lake Brantley Road Wekiva Springs Road to SR 434; retrofi{ 'l~'oadway $ .75 M
with drainage and sidewa]k
Markham Woods Road EE Williamson road to Lake Mary Boulevard; rebuild $1.75 M
road with median turn lane section
-Markham Woods Road Lake Mary Boulevard to Markham Road; pave 5' ' $ .5 M
shoulders
..... '" 'Total "$15.00 M
B0273 ~0766
. $:\Special Pfojects\l Cent $~ies Tax~EXHlelT C.doC/05/OS/01/B:O3 AM 6 Of 9
EXHIBIT C
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
Project
Program based on Seminole
County Sidewalk Inventory
Needs Assessment Report
(Berryman & Henigar, 2000)
County Sidewalk Program
Proposed Scope
Address sidewalk gaps within 2-mile school radius
along Countywide Arterial/Collector Roadways
[~ncluding inside Cities], and along Local
Unincorporated Area Roads. ~
Arterial/Collector, -167 lineal miles @ $24 M
Intended Examples:
North/Charlotte St. - CR 427 to Raymond; W. Lake
Brantley - SR 436 to Marty Blvd.; Dike Rd. - Bassin
Lane to Princess Gate Blvd.; Raymond Ave. - North
St, to SR 434; Old Lake Mary Rd. - Palmeto St to
Airport Blvd.; Longwood Hills Rd. - Lake Emma Rd.
to CB 427
Unincorporated Local, primarily Non-Sudivision,
-182 lineal miles @ -$16 M (-25% of total need);
Intended Examples:
Fairview Ave,- Spring St. to North St,; Lake Reservoir
Lane - Live Oak Blvd to dead end; Magnolia Dr. -
Aim Dr. to Manor Ave.; Railroad Ave. - SR 434 to
dead end
Preliminary i
Cost
Estimate
$40 M
School Circulation Projects
Total
Traffic Operations/Safety
Keeth E~ementary/Indiana Trail Middle
Lake Mary Elemental/
Greenwood Lake Middle School
Oviedo Hio~h School
Lake Howell High School
Carillon Elementary/Lawton Chiles Middle
Wilson Elementary
Lake Mary High School
Woodlands Elementary
Heathmw Elementary
Sterling Park Elementary
Stenstrom Elementary
$40 M
$1.6 M
~{02731~0767
S:\Special Projects\l cent Sales T~X'tEXHlelT 0.~oc/05108/01/8:03 AM 7 of 9
EXHIBIT C
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
Project
Traffic Safety & Efficiency, and
Railroad Highway Crossings
Proposed Scope
Safety/efficiency projects are generated from crash
histories and traffic concerns reported by the
citizens. Road-F~ai{way Crossing projects are
generated based upon reportecJ rough crossings
and ~ack of safety gates at some crossings.
Intend._ed Projects:
Turn Lanes
McCulloch Rd. @ Lockwood Blvd.; Lk. Mary Blvd.
@ LK. Emma Rd.; Bear Gully Rd. @ Old Howell
Branch Rd.; Markham Wds. Rd. s. of He&ii, row
Elam.; Old Geneva Rd. near Osceola Rd.; CR 426
@ Oklahoma St.; SnowhiH Rd. @ Wilderness Trail;
CR 426 @ Van Arsdale St.
Intersection Improvements
SR 436 @ Bear Lk. Rd.; Orange Blvd @ Markham
Rd.; CR 426 @ Old Mires; Olcl Lockwood @
McCulloch Rd.; CR 426 @ Wilderness Trail/Bart St.
Gates, Signals, or Rubberiz~ Crossings
RR Crossings on Hester Ave.; S. Sanford Ave.
Other Improvements
McCulIoch Rd. e. of SR 434-median imp.; Celery
Ave. w of SR 415-geometric imp.
Candidate Projects:
Turn Lanes
Oregon Ave. @ CR Z~$A
Gates, Signals, or Rubberize Croaelngs
RR Crossings on Bear Lake Rd.; Southwest Ave,;
Plumosa Ave.; Leonard Ave.; 18~h St.; Merriff ,St.;
OspreyTr.; C-15 @ Orange Bird,
InterseQtJon Improvement~
Orange Blvd. @ C15; SR 4.6 @ Longwood
Markham; CR 426 @ CR 41g; SR 46 @ Upsala Rd,;
Orange ~lvd. ~ Wayside; Myrtle leks Hill @ EE
Williamson; CR 426 @ SR 46; SR 426 @ Dean Rd.
Other Improvements
Palm @ Oakhurst-Radii Imp.; US 17/92-County
Home Road to N. Bush-access regret.; Bush Blvd.
@ College Dr,-partial access; CR427 @ SR 434-
median mod.
Preliminary
Cost
Estimate
$6 M
~02731lg0758
S:\Special projects\l Cent Sales Tax\EXHIBIT C.c{oc/0S/08/01/8:03 AM 8 of 9
EXHIBIT C
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax
Project Proposed Scope Prelimina~
Cost
Estimate
Traffic Signa'la & Signal This category of projects includes design anc~ $5.5 M
Systems constrtJctJon of new signals as warranted; and
reconstruction of existing Signals.
Intended:
Convert
to Maet Arm
SR 46 @ Rinehart Rd.; SR 46 @ Orange Blvd; Red
Bug Lake Rd. (9 locations); SR 436 @ US 17/92; SR
436 @ Howell Branch Rd.; SR 436 (6 locations);
HoweJl Branch Rd. (5 locations); SR 434 @
Tuskawilla
New Signals
SR 415 @ OR 415~ County Home Road @ CR 427
T~a~;c Communication Network Expansion anci capacity ~mprovement of the multi- $2 M
use fiber optic communication network.
Wekiva Spdngs Rd.- SR 434 tO Hunt CJub Blvd.; CR
427 - $R 434 to SR 436; SR 426 - Mitchell
Hammock to Howell Branch Rd,; US 17/92
Spartan to County Line; SR 434 - McCulfoch to
Tuskawiila; SR 46 - US 17/92 to SR 426; SR 46 -
CB 431 to Lake Markham; Lk. Emma Rd. -
Mary Blvd. to Sand Pond; CR 419 - CR 426 to
County Line; SR 415 - SR 46 to Celery Ave.; Bear
Lk. Rd. - SR 436 to Dutch Elm; SR 436 - Balmy
Beach to Cassleton
~TS/ATMS Traffic Management ~'ystem updates tm the next $5 M
generation traffic control system. Basic elements of
the system include the new NTCIP compatible traffic
control system, mOtOriSt information system,
detection and monJtering stations, incident
management system, regional traffic information
sharing system, etc.
Traffic Calming Design and installation of traffic'calming features on' $1.5 M
neighborhood roadways to address speeding and
_ ,, cut-throu,qh issues.
Total $21.6 M
Seminole County Projects SUB TOTAL $100 M
Contingency J j $ 24,4 M
~- TOTAL $124.4 M
B0273~076g
S;',Special P~ojec~\l Cent Sa~e$ Tax~XHlelT 0.do0/05/08~01/8:03 AM 9 of 9
EXHIBIT D
1% Local Government Infrastructure Sales Surtax:
Distribution of Net Revenues Under
Interlocal Agreement Section 2(d)
Altamonte Springs
Casselberry
Lake Mary
Longwood
Oviedo
Sanford
Winter Springs
Seminole County
3.161237374 %
1.736302049 %
.87916159 %
1.054641046 %
2.019201958 %
2.938032649 %
2.429702603 %
23.281720798 %
Total [per Section 2(d)]
37.5 %
Not~s:
· Revenue received monthly by Seminole County
· Upon receipt of monthly revenue distribution from the State Department of Revenue,
the applicable % for each municipal jurisdiction will be promptly recorded in a distinct
interest-beadn§ account by Seminole County.