HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 10 08 Regular 605 Athletic /Aquatic Center/Skate Park
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 605
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing
Regular X
October 8, 2007
Regular Meeting
~ C(]
Mgr. / Dept.
Authorization
REQUEST: The Parks and Recreation Department is requesting the City Commission to
consider further exploration of the feasibility and desirability of building a
Municipal Athletic and/or Aquatic Center and Skate Park.
PURPOSE: This agenda item is needed for the City Commission to determine if it desires to
further explore the feasibility and desirability of a Municipal Athletic and/or
Aquatic Center and Skate Park.
CONSIDERATIONS:
· At the September 24, 2007, City Commission Meeting the Commission received
Information regarding the new Lake Mary Swimming Pool.
· At the August 27,2007, City Commission Meeting the Commission requested additional
Community Pool and Activity Center information along with Skate Park information.
· At the August 24, 2004, City Commission Meeting the Commission reviewed
information from a Public Opinion Survey regarding the degree of public interest in
supporting and renovation for a Municipal Pool and Athletic Center.
· Parks and Recreation has obtained a current updated cost to provide a Sports Center and
Aquatic Center. Total estimated cost is almost $12,800,000.
· The current operating cost of the Sport Center is estimated to be about $650,000 and the
pool almost $500,000 for a total of $1,150,000 per year.
· The estimated revenues are estimated to be 25-35% of the total operational cost of about
$300,000 per year.
· Both the cities of Lake Mary and Oviedo have built Skate Parks.
· The estimated cost to build a small Skate Park is $400,000. The current operational costs
are $150,000 with estimated revenues of about $50,000.
· The possibility of a FRDAP Grant or CDBG Grant, or Seminole County Funding for
these projects is not very good at this time.
· A public referendum/bond may be the only source of capital funding.
· The Public Opinion Survey indicated in July, 1994 that there was more support for the
Sports Center than the Municipal Pool, however from 1/4 to 1/3 of those polled would
need more information.
FUNDING:
No additional budget authority is needed at this time.
Proiected Revenue/Cost Summary:
Athletic Center
Pool
Skate Park
Estimated
Construction
Cost
9,300,000
3,500,000
400,000
13,200,000
Debt
Service
Cost
698,000
263,000
30,000
991,000
Estimated
Operating
Cost
645,000
495,000
150,000
1,290,000
Revenue
150,000
150,000
50,000
350,000
Annual Annual Total Total
Debt Service Operating Annual Annual Surplus
Cost Cost Cost Revenue (Deficit)
991,000 1,290,000 2,281,000 350,000 (1,931,000)
1 mill
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Parks and Recreation Department recommends the City Commission decide if it desires to
further explore the feasibility and desirability of building a Municipal Athletic and or Aquatic
Center and Skate Park.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment # 1
Attachment #2
Attachment #3
Updated Sports Center Budget overview.
Floor Plan Concept.
April12, 2004, and August 27,2004 Agenda Items (results of citizen
survey).
COMMISSION ACTION:
Budget Overview
sports centre
City of Winter Springs 25 Sep 07
Construction Cost unit quantity cost total totals
Site
Parking ea 120 2500 $ 300,000
Lighting ea 18 2100 $ 37,800
Landscaping allowance 1 75000 $ 75,000
Utilities allowance 1 50000 $ 50,000
Site Subtotal $ 462,800
Gymnasium sf 32000 195 $ 6,240,000
Gym Subtotal $ 6,240,000
Pool
Pool Stadium sf 2000 160 $ 320,000
Pool Equipment sf 1000 115 $ 115,000
Competitive Pool allowance 1 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000
Tot Splash Pad allowance 1 225000 $ 225,000
Youth Water Park allowance 1 500000 $ 500,000
Training Pool allowance 1 250000 $ 250,000
Pool Subtotal $ 2,610,000
Construction Subtotal $ 9,312,800
Miscelaneous Cost
Fees and Permits 10% $ 931,280
GC OH&P 12% $ 1,117,536
Contingency 10% $ 931,280
FF&E sf 32000 15 $ 480,000
Miscelameous Subtotal $ 3,460,096
Total Capital Costs $ 12,772,896
Operational Cost category annually
BuildinQ utilities $ 120,000
maint $ 150,000
payroll $ 360,000
insurance $ 15,000
Building Subtotal $ 645,000
Pool Facility uti lites $ 80,000
heating $ 70,000
chemicals $ 45,000
maint $ 45,000
payroll $ 240,000
insurance $ 15,000
Pool Subtotal $ 495,000
Total Operational Cost $ 1,140,000
City of Winter Springs
sports centre
-.--. ,,-,. ----...--------- - poo -equipment
-.-----
~
stor
'--
~~~~~ [ youth water park
J~~~~
:S ---
81 ne Om ter "
"
.; star
con Ipeti live 001 "
t '--- trianing pool
..
8 ~~~~~
~~~~~ 17 '"
t=~ I /
---
stor
'---
~
~iLti ~ ...._ Ij Ilml -..- III ,"..,..
~_If
rr shower team ~" "'" ;...l!.:; .....
locke-fl nOCker rt.i3, meeting ..""" food - I :r.rl >--
-='-'n' ....
~'... ,< I, Ye:
t-- \\' I, :,
" 'I ';(: >
Ii I
I
{; ~nj .... .....
-
t weight I' dance
C p 1,1
Ci:J Ii,
_,.u~ Ie' ~
" r"l
- -
. ,! <' aerobics
karate fl,
...... I
I ~
I
floor plan concept
Planning and Architecture Inc
~u- Ranaldi
---j
082304_ COMM _Regular_51 0 _Joint_ School_City _Athletic ]acility
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 510
Consent
Informational
Public Hearing
Regular X
August 23. 2004
Regular Meeting
If
Mgr. / Dept.
Authorization
REQUEST: City Manager on behalf of the Winter Springs High School Booster Club is
requesting the Commission to consider further exploration of the feasibility and
desirability of building a Joint High School/Municipal Athletic and Aquatic Center.
PURPOSE:
This agenda item is needed for the Commission to determine if it desires to further explore the
feasibility and desirability of a referendum on the question of financing and constructing a Joint
High School/Municipal Athletic and Aquatic Center.
CONSIDERATIONS:
On April 12, 2004, the City Commission discussed the possibility of a Joint High
School/Municipal Athletic and Aquatic Center and requested staff to bring back additional
information.
The Winter Springs Booster Club agreed to fund a public opinion survey to determine the degree
of public interest in supporting such a referendum.
The public opinion survey has been concluded by the Institute of Government at the University
of Central Florida demonstrating strong support for the Athletic Facility and moderate support
for the Aquatic facility. Based upon this information it appears that a referendum on this
question could have strong support from the public.
082304_ COMM_Regular _510 _Joint_ School_ City-Athletic ]acility
The Institute of Government will be present to provide the Commission with their analysis of the
public opinion survey.
If the Commission desires to further explore the feasibility and desirability of this project staff
will bring back a resolution to the Commission at the next meeting establishing the study
program and process. It is anticipated that the final recommendations of the Study Committee
would be published with the Commission at its first meeting in March 2005.
FUNDING:
No additional budget authority is needed at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Commission decide if it desires to further explore the feasibility and
desirability of scheduling a referendum on the question of financing and constructing a Joint
High School/Municipal Athletic and Aquatic Center.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. July 12, 2004 Agenda item
2. Public Opinion Survey
COMMISSION ACTION:
041204_COMM_Regular_509 _RFP _Aquatic_Center
COMMISSION AGENDA
ITEM 509
Consent
Information
Public Hearing
Regular X
April 12. 2004
Meeting
MGR.
/Dept.
REQUEST: Commissioner Miller requesting the Commission to authorize the City
Manager to issue a Request for Proposal to develop a preliminary plan for development of
an Athletics/Aquatics Center for joint use by the City and Winter Springs High School.
PURPOSE: This agenda item is needed for the Commission to determine if it desires to support
the development of a preliminary plan for development of an Athletics/Aquatics Center for joint
use by the City and Winter Springs High School.
CONSIDERATIONS:
See attached letter
FUNDING: None for issuance of an R.F.P. It is anticipated that the cost will be $10,000 for the
preliminary plans.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the Commission determine if it desires to support Commissioner Miller's
request to authorize the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals to identify a competent
design firm to develop a preliminary plan for development of an Athletics/Aquatics/Center for
joint use of the City and Winter Springs High School
ATTACHMENTS: Commissioner Miller's Letter of March 29, 2004.
COMMISSION ACTION:
Views of Winter Springs Registered Voters on Proposed New
Athletic Facilities for the Winter Springs High School and
Community:
Results of a Survey
By
James D. Wright, Director
J ana L. Jasinski, Assistant Director
Institute for Social and Behavioral Science
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
In cooperation with
Marilyn Crotty, Director
Florida Institute of Government
University of Central Florida
Orlando, FL
July 29,2004
DRAFT REPORT: Not for citation, quotation or reproduction without permission.
1
Introduction
The Winter Springs High School Athletic Booster Club, with the support of the Winter
Springs City Manager's Office, has proposed a City referendum to fund a new Indoor
Multi-Purpose Athletic and Aquatic Facility, to be built at Central Winds Park adjacent to
the Winter Springs High School, and to be used as a joint school-City athletic and
recreational facility.
The Booster Club contracted with the Institute of Government and the Survey Research
Laboratory of the University of Central Florida to conduct a poll to assess the opinions of
registered voters in Winter Springs about this facility. This report documents the results
of that poll.
Key Results
In all, 250 registered voters were surveyed. For percentages near 50% and using the
customary 95% level of confidence, the survey margin of error is :!::6.16%.
After a brief introduction, survey respondents were presented with three options for the
new facility: the Indoor Multi-Purpose Athletic Facility only, an Aquatic Facility only,
and a combined Indoor Multi-Purpose Athletic and Aquatic Facility. (Exact wordings for
every question, and the response frequencies, are shown in Appendix One.) For each
option presented, respondents were asked if they would "support the City's building a
facility of the sort I have just described, oppose it, or would you need more information
before you could state an opinion?" Results for these three key questions were:
Total Sample
Athletic Facility
Only
Aquatic Facility
Only
Combined
Facility
Would Support
Would Oppose
Needs More Information
(N = )*
44.9
21.6
33.5
(245)
40.7
33.3
25.9
(243)
37.6
36.4
26.0
(242)
Of those with an opinion
Athletic Facility
Only
Aquatic Facility
Only
Both
Would Support
Would Oppose
(N = )*
67.5
32.5
(163)
55.0
45.0
(180)
50.8
49.2
(179)
*Number answering each question.
2
Two observations bear emphasis in these overall results:
(1) A plurality of registered voters in Winter Springs would support all three options,
although this plurality is razor-thin for the combined Athletic and Aquatic Facility and
well within the margin of survey error.
(2) A large minority of registered voters, ranging from a quarter to a third of the total, say
they would need more information before they could make up their minds. The outcome
of a referendum on these issues would obviously depend a great deal on which way these
undecided voters eventually decide to go. (A later section of this report discusses what
undecided respondents told us when we asked them, "What questions would you need to
have answered before you would have an opinion about this facility?)
Survey Methodology
Sampling. A systematic random sample of3,000 registered voters in Winter
Springs, Florida, was purchased from Survey Sampling International, LLC, of Fairfield,
Connecticut. SSI is the supplier for all telephone samples utilized by the UCF Survey
Research Lab.
Human Subjects Review Considerations. This survey project was reviewed by the UCF
Institutional Review Board and approved on July 9, 2004.
Sample Disposition. Of the 3,000 numbers in the sample, 2004 calling attempts
were made, occasionally involving callbacks to the same number, before the target
sample size was achieved. Interviewing for the study began on July 9, 2004, and was
completed on July 25. The disposition of those 2,004 calling attempts was as follows:
Of numbers that were answered (N = 542)
Number Percent
996 49.7
55 2.7
411 20.5
542 27.1
Number Percent
113 20.8
179 33.0
250 46.2
Phone never answered, or answered by an answering machine
Phone busy
Phone not in service, number changed, business number, etc.
Phone answered
Asked to call back
Refused survey, too busy, not convenient time
Completed survey
Sample Characteristics and Potential Biases. As is almost always the case in
telephone surveys, women are over-represented among respondents. In the 2000 Census,
the Winter Springs population was 51.5% female. In the survey data, 166 of the 250
respondents (66.4%) are women. Normally, one would weight the survey data to adjust
the sex ratio statistically. In the present case, however, it turns out than men are slightly
3
more favorable to all three options presented than women (see below, Subgroup
Analyses). Adjusting statistically for the over-sampling of women would thus increase
the apparent support for the options presented. It is important to note, then, that because
women are over-represented and are slightly less supportive of the options presented than
men, the "key results" summarized above tend to understate the level of support in
the community for these new athletic facilities.
Compared to the results of the 2000 Census, the survey also over-sampled
homeowners (as opposed to renters) and persons living in more expensive homes. It
cannot be said, however, whether this is a sampling bias or a simple result of the
differences between registered voters and Winter Springs residents in general.
Subgroup Analyses
Appendix Two shows how responses to the three key opinion questions varied by
characteristics of respondents.
Gender. Men are consistently more likely to support all three options given,
whereas women are consistently more likely to state that they "need more information"
before they could decide. Since women are over-represented in this sample, so too are
women's opinions. This implies that in the general population of registered Winter
Springs voters, more people would support all three options, and fewer people "need
more information," than shown in the survey results. Note further that while the
differences by gender are consistent, they are not large.
Age. Support for all three options is consistently highest among respondents aged
45 or less and falls off considerably among older cohorts. Persons over 60 are also least
likely of all age cohorts to say they "need more information." Among those with
opinions, seniors are particularly opposed to the combined Athletic and Aquatic Center,
(which 61.4% of seniors with opinions oppose). On the other hand, a clear majority of
those under 60 support the combined facility.
Does Respondent Have School-Aged Children? Respondents with children age
18 or less in their homes are consistently the most supportive of all three options, usually
by substantial margins. They are also consistently the most likely to say they "need more
information." Of those with opinions, very large majorities of respondents with school-
aged children support all three options (majorities ranging from 64.0% to 85.4%).
Among those with opinions and without school-aged children, a majority supports only
the Athletic Facility and small majorities (51.2% and 54.7%) oppose both other options.
Have Respondents "Heard Anything About This?" Right after the brief
introduction, as a preface to the opinion sequence, the survey asked respondents, "Have
you heard any discussion of anything like this?" About one respondent in four indicated
that they had. Interestingly, the relatively small number who said they had heard about
these possibilities were consistently more favorable towards them. (Oddly, however,
they were about as likely as other respondents to say they "needed more information.")
4
One possible inference from these results is that as discussion of the options increases,
support in the community will grow.
Do Respondents Have Their Own Swimming Pool? When this survey was first
being discussed with the Booster Club, it was hypothesized that the large number of
Winter Springs residents who have their own swimming pools would be less favorable
towards these options, especially to the Aquatic Center. Contrary to this hypothesis,
respondents with their own swimming pools are consistently more supportive of all three
options than other respondents, often by substantial margins. For example, among those
with opinions, support for the Aquatic Center by itself is voiced by 60.4% of those with
their own pools, vs. only 49.2% of those without pools. Likewise, the combined facility
is supported by 58.3% of those with pools but only 37.1 % of those without. (This is no
doubt partly an age effect, as elderly persons are significantly less likely to have pools
and also less likely to support all options given.)
Assessed Home Value. It was also hypothesized that owners of more expensive
properties might be less supportive of all options since the annual cost to them would be
higher. In fact, differences in opinion according to the assessed value of homes proved to
be trivial.
What Undecided Voters Want to Know
In addition to allowing respondents to voice support or opposition for these athletic
facilities, all three opinion questions included as one option, "... or would you need more
information before you could state an opinion?" Those who chose this response were
then asked, "What questions would you need to have answered before you would have an
opinion about this facility?" Interviewers recorded responses to these follow-up
questions verbatim and these verbatim responses are reproduced below in Appendix
Three.
As can be seen, responses were "all over the map" but did strike a few common themes.
Probably the most common response was a generalized sense of wanting either more
information about the proposed facilities or more time to think about the information
provided in the survey. Our interviewers reported that many respondents seem to feel as
if they had been caught "off guard" by the questions we were asking and rather than
make up some opinion on the spot, simply responded that they "needed more
information." Note too that many tried to express generally favorable views in their
open-ended remarks, as in the respondent who said that she wanted to know "just a little
bit [more] about everything overall, but it sounds like a good idea." More than a few
respondents felt that there needed to be community-wide discussion of these issues,
perhaps in an open Town Meeting, before they could formulate a thoughtful opinion.
Next to a generalized desire for "more information," the most commonly expressed
theme in the open-ended materials was the matter of fees for citizen use of these
facilities. And here the predominating sentiment seemed to be that if these facilities were
to be built with increased property taxes on Winter Springs residents, there should be no
5
further charge to residents to use the facilities. (A few also wondered if the facilities
could be paid for entirely through usage fees, thereby avoiding the need to increase
property taxes.)
Many respondents also had questions about scheduling. On what hours and days would
these facilities be open to the public? Would resident uses take priority or would the
needs of Winter Springs student athletes be paramount?
Several respondents expressed concerns about the actual need for these facilities in the
community and about what had been done to assess that need. Some clearly felt that
existing facilities (other school facilities, the Y, the Tuskawilla Country Club) were
adequate for the need.
Two final themes that surfaced more than once were (1) concerns about increased traffic
around Winter Springs High School and (2) concerns about the effects of any increase in
property taxes on elderly residents of the community living on fixed incomes.
Our interviewers also reported, essentially unanimously, that people who said they
"needed more information" about the first option presented to them said likewise about
the second and third options, i.e., that the "need more information" respondents were the
same people in all three cases, and moreover, that the information they said they needed
was the same in all three cases. Hence, there is considerable redundancy in the open-
ended remarks.
Conclusions and Implications
Taking all factors into consideration, especially (1) the over-sampling of generally less
supportive female respondents, (2) the fact that many people who said they "needed more
information" also expressed generally favorable opinions in their open-ended remarks,
and (3) the favorable majority or plurality registered on all three opinion questions, if a
referendum were held today on whether or not to proceed with these new facilities, even
the combined Athletic and Aquatic facility, it would probably pass. Certainly a
referendum to build just the new Indoor Multi-Purpose Athletic Facility would pass, as it
is consistently the most popular of the three options presented.
To increase the odds of passage, the following steps seem sensible:
(1) Initiate at once open public discussion ofthe need for these facilities in the Winter
Springs community, not just the needs of athletic programs at Winter Springs High
School but the wider community need for facilities to house the sport and recreation
programs of the City's Recreation Department.
(2) Be forthright and explicit in these discussions about matters of usage fees, scheduling,
parking, and related logistical details.
6
(3) Since women are generally less favorable but also more undecided than men, stress in
public discussions aspects of these facilities that might appeal to women, e.g., aerobics,
dance, community meeting space, and the water-sports facilities for youth and toddlers.
(4) The most consistent opposition to these facilities comes from the City's senior
citizens. If the Recreation Department has programs specifically for the elderly and if
these programs would stand to benefit from these new facilities, then these points should
also be emphasized in public discussions.
7
Appendix One
Survey Questionnaire and Marginal Frequencies for all Survey Items
Winter Springs High School Booster Club Survey
Are you a City of Winter Springs resident or do you live in the unincorporated portion of
Seminole County?
1
2
9
Per Cent
100.0
Valid Percent
N/A
Winter Springs resident
Unincorporated Seminole County
DK/NA
N=
(250)
Record respondent's gender.
Per Cent
Valid Percent
o
1
Male
Female
N=
33.6
66.4
(250)
N/A
Okay. Let's get started. As you may have heard, the City of Winter Springs is thinking
about partnering with the school board to build a new joint use athletic facility at Central
Winds Park, adjacent to Winter Springs High School. The facility is needed due to the
current lack of space that is available for youth athletic programs in the city and at Winter
Springs High School. The City Recreation Department would use the facility for athletic
programs, and the high school would use the facility for high school athletic school
programs.
First off, let me ask, Have heard any discussion of anything like this?
Per Cent
Valid Percent
1
o
9
Yes
No
DK/NA/Can't say/Maybe/I think so
N=
26.0
73.2
0.8
(250)
26.2
73.8
(248)
Now, let me describe the options being considered and the cost associated with those
options. Then I will ask you if you think any or all of those options sound like good
ideas. The first option would be a new Indoor Multi-Purpose Athletic Facility.
This facility would have competition and leisure athletic activities including basketball,
volleyball, wrestling, aerobics, weight training, dance, martial arts, class rooms related to
athletic training and education, locker rooms and showers. This facility would be usable
by Winter Springs residents involved in city recreation department programs and high
school students involved in the high school athletic programs.
8
The estimated cost for the Indoor Multi Purpose Athletic Facility is about $59 per
hundred thousand dollars of assessed value, so if your home was assessed at $100,000,
you would pay an extra $59 in property tax each year.
Would you support the City's building a facility of the sort I have just described, oppose
it, or would you need more information before you could state an opinion?
Per Cent
Valid Percent
1
2
9
Would support
Would oppose
DKlNAlNeed more information
N=
44.0
21.2
34.8
(250)
67.5
32.5
(163)
IF "9": What questions would you need to have answered before you would have an
opinion about this facility? See Appendix Three for all verbatim responses to the follow-
up question.
A second option is an Aquatic Center. The Aquatic Center would contain an Olympic-
sized competition pool for use by the high school swimming and water polo teams. The
Aquatic Center would also contain a youth water park, including a training pool and
splash pad for smaller children. These facilities would be mainly used by Winter Springs
residents not involved in competition swimming. By itself, and not including the
Indoor Multi Purpose Athletic Facility, the estimated cost for the Aquatic Center is
about $41 per hundred thousand dollars of assessed value, so if your home was assessed
at $100,000, you would pay an extra $41 in property tax each year for the Aquatic
Facility.
Would you support the City building a facility of the sort I have just described, oppose it,
or would you need more information before you could state an opinion?
Per Cent
Valid Percent
1
2
9
Would support
Would oppose
DKlNAlNeed more information
N=
39.6
32.4
28.0
(250)
55.0
45.0
(180)
IF "9": What questions would you need to have answered before you would have an
opinion about this facility? See Appendix Three for all verbatim responses to the follow-
up question.
The final option is a facility combining the Indoor Multi Purpose Athletic Facility with
the Aquatic Facility. This combined facility would cost about $105 per hundred thousand
dollars of assessed value, so if your home were assessed at $100,000, this option would
add $105 to your property tax bill each year.
9
Would you support or oppose a combined Indoor Multi Purpose Athletic and Aquatic
Facility as I have just described it, or, again, would you need more information before
you could state an opinion?
Per Cent
Valid Percent
1
2
9
Would support
Would oppose
DKlNAlNeed more information
N=
36.4
35.2
28.4
(250)
50.8
49.2
(179)
What questions would you need to have answered before you would have an opinion
about this facility? See Appendix Three for all verbatim responses to the follow-up
question.
Do you rent or own the home where you are currently residing?
Per Cent Valid Percent
1 Rent 3.2 3.3
2 Own 93.2 96.7
9 No answer/breakoff 3.6
N= (250) (241 )
OWNERS ONLY: Into which of the following categories does the assessed value of
your home fall?
Per Cent
Valid Percent
1
2
3
4
8
9
Less than $100,000
Between $100,000 and $200,000
Between $200,000 and $300,000
$300,000 or more
Refused
DKlNA
N=
(228)
10.0
40.0
24.0
17.2
1.2
7.6
(250)
11.0
43.9
26.3
18.8
Does the home where you are currently residing have its own swimming pool?
Per Cent
Valid Percent
o
1
2
9
No
Yes
Yes, a community pool (volunteered)
DKlNA
N=
32.8
52.0
11.6
3.6
(250)
34.0
53.9
12.0
(241 )
10
Are there any children under age 18 living with you in your household? IF YES: How
many children under age 18 live with you?
Per Cent Valid Percent
0 No, none 65.2 67.9
1 Yes, one or more 30.8 32.1
9 DK/NAlRefused 4.0
N= (250) (240)
Of those with children (N = 77), the average (mean) number of children is 1.9, standard
deviation of 0.84.
In what year were you born? Just the year is fine.
AGE as calculated from year of birth:
Per Cent
Valid Percent
18-29
30-45
46-59
60+
DKJRefused
N=
7.2
22.8
38.4
28.0
3.6
(250)
7.5
23.7
39.8
29.0
(241 )
Average age = 53.1 years
Standard Deviation = 16.1 years
11
Appendix Two: Selected Cross-Tabular Results
Total Sample Those with an Opinion
R's Gender = Males Females Males Females
Athletic Center Only
Support 53.6 40.4 72.6 64.4
Oppose 20.2 22.4 27.4 35.6
Need More Info 26.2 37.3
N= 84 161 62 101
Aquatic Center Only
Support 47.6 37.1 60.6 51.8
Oppose 31.0 34.6 39.4 48.2
Need More Info 21.4 28.3
N= 84 159 66 114
Combined Facility
Support 45.2 33.5 57.6 46.9
Oppose 33.3 38.0 42.4 53.1
Need More Info 21.4 28.5
N= 84 158 66 113
Total Sample Those with an Opinion
R Has Kids @ Home? No Kids Kids No Kids Kids
Athletic Center Only
Support 41.7 53.2 59.6 85.4
Oppose 28.2 9.1 40.4 14.6
Need More Info 30.1 37.7
N= 163 77 114 48
Aquatic Center Only
Support 37.4 48.1 48.8 68.5
Oppose 39.3 22.1 51.2 31.5
Need More Info 23.3 29.9
N= 163 77 125 54
Combined Facility
Support 35.6 41.6 45.3 64.0
Oppose 42.9 23.4 54.7 36.0
Need More Info 21.5 35.0
N= 163 77 128 50
12
Total Sample Those with an Opinion
Has R Heard Anything No Yes No Yes
About This?
Athletic Center Only
Support 41.6 53.8 62.2 81.4
Oppose 25.3 12.3 37.8 18.6
Need More Info 33.1 33.8
N= 178 65 119 43
Aquatic Center Only
Support 39.0 45.3 53.5 59.2
Oppose 33.9 31.3 46.5 40.8
Need More Info 27.1 23.4
N= 177 64 129 49
Combined Facility
Support 34.7 45.3 47.3 59.2
Oppose 38.6 31.3 52.7 40.8
Need More Info 26.7 23.4
N= 176 64 129 49
Total Sample Those with an Opinion
Have Swimming Pool? No Yes Corom * No Yes Comm*
Athletic Center Only
Support 35.4 52.3 44.8 50.9 77.3 72.2
Oppose 34.1 15.4 17.2 49.1 22.7 27.8
Need More Info 30.5 32.3 37.9
N= 82 130 29 57 88 18
Aquatic Center Only
Support 36.6 44.6 37.9 49.2 60.4 47.8
Oppose 37.8 29.2 41.4 50.8 39.6 52.2
Need More Info 25.6 26.2 20.7
N= 82 130 29 61 96 23
Combined Facility
Support 28.0 43.1 41.4 37.1 58.3 57.1
Oppose 47.6 30.8 31.0 62.9 41.7 42.9
Need More Info 24.4 26.2 27.6
N= 82 130 29 62 96 21
*Community pool (volunteered response)
13
Total Sample Those with an Opinion
Assessed Home Value < $200K >$200K < $200K >$200K
Athletic Center Only
Support 48.0 41.7 65.9 68.3
Oppose 24.8 19.4 34.1 31.7
Need More Info 27.2 38.8
N= 125 103 91 63
Aquatic Center Only
Support 43.2 38.8 55.1 56.3
Oppose 35.2 30.1 44.9 43.7
Need More Info 21.6 31.1
N= 125 103 98 71
Combined Facility
Support 40.0 34.0 50.5 50.7
Oppose 39.2 33.0 49.5 49.3
Need More Info 20.8 33.0
N= 125 103 99 69
Total Sample Those with an Opinion
R's Age = <45 46-59 60+ <45 46-59 60+
Athletic Center Only
Support 48.0 43.8 45.7 76.6 70.0 57.1
Oppose 14.7 18.8 34.3 23.4 30.0 42.9
Need More Info 37.3 37.5 20.0
N= 75 96 70 47 60 56
Aquatic Center Only
Support 49.3 38.5 35.7 64.9 52.9 47.2
Oppose 26.7 34.4 40.0 35.1 47.1 52.8
Need More Info 24.0 27.1 24.3
N= 75 96 70 57 70 53
Combined Facility
Support 40.0 40.6 31.4 58.8 54.9 38.6
Oppose 28.0 33.3 50.0 41.2 45.1 61.4
Need More Info 32.0 26.0 18.6
N= 75 96 70 51 71 57
14
Appendix Three:
Verbatim Responses to the Follow-Up Questions
"What information would you need or questions would you need to
have answered before you could form an opinion about" -- Option 1
(Indoor Multi-Purpose Athletic Facility only)?
all of in writing and look it over
because in the past, we haven't been successful with the high school using the facilities as residents of winter springs. Skeptic;
of the high school.
because she always pays extra money for something else. Doesn't support spending a lot of money for just anything.
changed to support
depends on re-zoning of Winter Springs High School
doesn't know...just needs more info
don't know
exactly how residents might use the facility
familiar with a community that has a recreation center, and all the residents were able to go there for free or a reduced fee, and
want to make sure that he could use it as a gym, weights, aerobics, gym. If this, he would support.
general info
have to think about it
haven't seen or heard anything about this. He would like a complex, but not to pay that much per year. Would support this
option.
hear some debate on pros and cons
how available would it be to the residents? What are the fees?
how it's going to work, where it will be, exactly what will be there.
how long is it going to take to build?
how much would residents pay. See floor plan. Town meeting on layout.
how often it could be used by residents. Scheduled use time, whether school age
how schedule things with school functions and athletic functions.
I don't know.
i don't know. All the information.
I would support it.
if $59 is what it is going to stay for lifetime of facility - increases? Will the tax be removed once the facility is paid off.
is it really necessary? cost effective for the size of the city?
is there a fee? What kind of hours for the public?
is there a way to have it be a pay-per-use charge. Pay every time you use it, not people who don't use it. Don't like property ta
going up.
is there going to be a certain time for residents to use it?
just a little bit about everything overall, sounds like a good idea and place.
just what it basically is, just where it is going to be located. Who would use it more, more high school students, senior citizens.
What hours, traffic situation.
like to know why the current facilities aren't enough, because taxes already go there.
like to see it in writing, not hear it over the phone.
more general information.
more info about the cost breakdown
need more info on needs - doesn't have kids
need more information. More time to review and prepare for opinion. Put info in monthly publication. More details. More types
of programs. Additional cost associated with programs. Free if residents?
need to know if it could be used for other purposes on a need basis.
15
no specific questions. Just not enough information. Other options
not actually for her, her husband likes to check those things out. Sounds good, but just want to read about it.
not off hand
not sure at this time
not sure, just something.
need to do needs assessment. need to monitor use of existing facilities to see if need really exists. Would residents be able to
use - additional fees to use?
Pay a lot of money to send child to private school and doesn't want to pay more taxes. Definitely a need for athletic facilities -
just need different options.
regarding the use of other facilities
sounds like big YMCA.
specific info needed about what it would include- thinks there are too many facilities already
specifics. Who can use it?
tend to support but need more information. Where-
under what circumstances would it be available to city residents? Additional costs to use facility?
wants to know other ways to finance it besides property tax
well, for one thing, just making sure that everything is spelled out, as far as the sharing, to make sure there is no conflicts. Heal;
coordination so that schedules do not conflict.
well, who schedules all that, if there is a problem with the scheduling, who would work all that out, does the school get a
percentage of the time/city time?
what about the rooms that aren't used in the city and high school? There are unused resources and too much developed.
what about the unused resources? What would the fees be?
what are the different tax bases used? What responsibilities would the joint effort have?
what are they charging to use it?
what exactly is going to be in the facility?
what fees would the residents pay? What could they use it for and when?
what is the cost of everything? Who is going to be in charge?
what is the time frame? Is it being paid totally by the city? what is the cost to the school board? What are the pros and cons?
what kind of hours are they thinking about? the size? the capacity? What kinds of program?
what kind of programs are available to the residents and fees.
what need is there for the facility?
what would it look like?
where is it exactly going be located?
who could use it exactly?>
who else will pay for the facilities besides the residents?
who would be using it besides the high school students? What types of programs would be held there that need this facility?
who would run this facility? IS there a cost to using it? Is there anyone that could use it? What portion of the time would be for
the school versus the city? Any paid events held there? Who gets the revenue?
why not available to all residents?
would have to think it over
would residents be restricted from using it during school hours? Details on hours of access.
would residents have access to the facility?
would there be a charge for people to use it? When would be available for the residents (times)?
would there be charges for the residents?
would this be an income generated facility? What do are the regulations for usage?
would want to support - just more about the funding, how long.
16
"What information would you need or questions would you need to
have answered before you could form an opinion about" -- Option 2
Aquatic Facility only?
1 st sounds more needy in terms of the needs of the school.
again, what is it going to cost each person?
allocation of money info needed
any time you are giving more money, get more details. Make sure there is nothing underlying there, but thinks it is a good idea.
basically, what the usage factor would be (who would use it) and to what extent - there is a huge pool at Seminole High now,
would this have the same usage.
costs to use it and other information
don't know
don't know.
don't know
ere is it going to be exactly?
general info.
general information.
how long will we have to pay for it?
how long would it take to build?
how many high schools have these facilities? Is it needed?
how many people would use it.
how much use will it get?
I would want to be more interested to see how it affected property values; if property value went up. Is there really a demand.
if it would be getting used - because a lot of people are affluent and have pools
If they are going to have it - want all age groups to use it
in general against just buying everything you want - is it something we really need? Is it worth the cost. Do we need a pool.
leaning for option, but needs more specific information
like to see data to see if families would use facilities. If no one is going to use - why build. How many other facilities are used tc
their max. Are we duplicating things that are already available.
lots of questions, who could use it, how much interest.
more general information.
need to know if there is availability of the Oviedo aquatic center
needs convincing evidence that she could use it.
needs to know more about what is available now and other options
no information
not as interested as indoor facility
not certain. It's hard when someone reads you stuff quickly. Would want a hard copy of the facts, and review them myself.
probably would but wonders if residents would be charged besides the property taxes.
same as before
same as before.
same type
same type of info; swimming lessons for residents; available to outside the city residents or residents only?
say residents can use it - how much can they use - school priority? If paying taxes and can't use it when they want - how good
it. Is it really worth it?
she would be for it, all family is school teachers, would want to see it on paper. Her home is over 300,000, so talking over $15C
per year, a lot of money.
so many people have pools anyhow, is there a need for this?
supporting with additional swim teams. Not option that she wants to answer
17
terms of all being considered. Concerned that options passed and property taxes more than being quoted. Relatively small
town to want to take on something of this stature.
undecided
want to know more about everything.
want to know what kind of an impact from the other counties that would have - would other people use the facility - non winter
springs residents.
well, does the high school already have a pool, where do they currently train. He'd have to be convinced that it is needed by the
community.
what's in the youth water park?
what are the exact costs? Who is going to be in charge?
what fees would the residents have to pay?
what is the total cost of the project?
what kinds of programs would be available and what fees would be charged?
who would be the people using it? How much to maintain it? Who will pay for that?
who else could pay for this? Why limited to residents?
who it is available to, programs involved
why an a big pool for swimming and water polo? They can use the YMCA.
why would one be better than the other? How it would benefit the high-schoolers? Would it be free for all residents?
will there be a swimming and diving scholarship program? What other uses would it have?
wonders if there is another way to finance it
would people from outside Winter Springs be bussed in?
would support one option -
would support, but don't like it paying this way
would the tax go up again after this?
"What information would you need or questions would you need to
have answered before you could form an opinion about" -- Option 3
Combined Indoor Multi-Purpose Athletic and Aquatic Facility?
do have YMCA so why need other options. when available to residents. What cost to residents besides taxes. Alot more Q
don't know.
general info.
general information
has concerns because of rezoning - rather see expansion of high school classrooms instead of recreational facilities.
how much usage?
how is it going to be used by the residents? What is it going to look like?
how long would it take to build?
how many people would really use it?
how would it impact the neighborhood. Time - how long would it be open. Noise it generates, traffic.
how would they accomodate parking and people? concern for traffic and saftey
I don't know.
I would like to sit in a meeting to discuss all the options.
if they are going to do it, do it right - both acquatic and multi-purpose - know how many people there are, what thier
calculation would be that would use the acquatic.
is there a need?
just need more info
leaning for, but needs more specific information. Maybe a town meeting that could answer residents questions
18
makes most sense to do both
more information on all, but would have a tendency to support all of them.
need more infor to make up mind
need more information. Most likely only one or other. Can't say without more information
needs info on cost
needs info on how much use, who could use it. Would property values be effected.
needs to know how the money is broken down and if it will be published
of the three, she would support this best. 1 - combined, 2nd - aquatic, 3rd - indoor. She likes the overall idea very much.
same
same answer as before. Need to know who uses it. She thinks pools should be at high schools anyway, without making a
big deal. Should already be there.
same answer as other two
same as before
same as before, similar questions.
same as before.
same as before. This would add $250 to his house in taxes.
same as before; not opposed but more info needed.
same questions as for the first options.
same questions as other two.
same type. other two concerns. hate to see a facility paid for used for people outside the city that would limit the access of
the residents who paid for it.
see other two comments. Would be wonderful facilities but doesn't think they need it.
want to hear discussion about pros and cons
want to know more but would want to support.
want to know why there was a price different. $59, $41 = $100. Why is this $105.
what are the exact costs? Who will be in charge?
what are the fees?
what fees would the residents have to pay?
what is exactly in it? Who is eligible to use? How long to build? How much each time to use?
what will they lose if they combine the 2 as opposed to 2 separate facilities
what would the programs be?
where exactly? When would it be ready?
where it going to be built and who is going to benefit?
who could use it? Specifics.
who else could pay for this?
who would use this facility? How much is it to maintain this facility?
why is it needed? Why wasn't it built with the school? How do they know it will be used?
why not used for resident competitions? What would it be used for?
would like to find out because she thinks if the city could make money on it, that would be good. She's thinking about
insurance and liability. There is a lot of athletic stuff going on at the school, her kids were in band, they got new things.
would people from outside Winter Springs be bussed in?
would stripe the land for it?
would taxes stay the same or would it cost more each year
would the property tax go up again after this?
would traffic become worse in that area?
19