The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVI (B) Discussion/ Action re: Settlement with City of Orlando re: Six-Cent Gas Tax Proposal AGENDA 2-04-97 "CENTER OF GOOD LIVING - PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE" T Lem 'H B Ocoee D. DwIa VMNVLkt,(11. o COMMISSIONERS ►4 CITY OF OCOEE RUSTY JOHNSON �� Q SCOTT ANDERSON v O 150 N.LAKES}IORF,DRIVE SCOT-1'A.GLASS PA, OCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258 IIM GLEASON 'ij, Jam? (4 00 65 6-29 22 CITY MANAGER f, OF GOOv� ELLIS SHAPIRO MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and Board of City Commissioners FROM: Ellis Shapiro, City Manager DATE: January 30,1997 RE: SIX-CENT GAS TAX PROPOSAL As you recall, we were successful last year in having the local state legislative delegation to support our position regarding the 6-cent gas tax and its distribution. As a result of the special act passed, the growth cities in Orange County were able to gain a great deal of money by the reallocation of the funds based upon current and future population. The City of Orlando took exception to the legislative decision and promised to file legal proceedings against the State of Florida to set aside their actions last year. In the interim, the City of Orlando and Orange County have discussed how a settlement could be reached so that litigation would not be filed by the City of Orlando. Recently, the City of Orlando and Orange County agreed to a settlement as discussed by the attached document drafted from Jack Douglas from the City of Apopka. As a general rule, the City of Ocoee would lose a little less than $90,000 of the money that we would have been guaranteed by the reallocation approved by the State. Keep in mind that the current distribution over the 4 year period would result in $1.6 million; the loss of $90,000 is insignificant if a lawsuit ensued. I recommend that the City of Ocoee agree with the proposed settlement as worked out with the City of Orlando and Orange County. Respectfully Su 1 .tted, ES:fdg Attachment ��/ taw: 47�010; lip wig �11 P. 0. BOX 1229 •APOPKA FLORIDA I4)701 IP29 PHONF •407 AN6 I January 29, 1997 Mr. Ellis Shapiro City Manager 150 N. Lakeshore Drive Ocoee, FL 34761 Dear Ellis : As I discussed on the phone with you in the last few days, we have a proposal to settle the 6-cent gas tax. The proposal would call for a graduated phase-out of Orlando and other cities in Orange County away from the current local agreement to a pure population distribution formula. As you are aware, this was our goal from the start . It was important that we obtain two major components in dealing with this agreement . Number one is that whatever calculation formula is used needs to be consistent and independently verifiable. We believe the most reliable source for population numbers is the Bureau of Economic and Business Research of the University of Florida, which is the acceptable data base for distribution of state revenue sharing. Number two, there needs to be some conclusion to this process . That is that we do not want to get into an agreement whereby this issue will come up every year with debates and/or disagreements on how to calculate the formula. I believe this proposal may be the best one offered to date . I am enclosing some spreadsheets for your review. The first spreadsheet compares the column referred to as "DOR, " which stands for Department of Revenue . This formula is based strictly on the distribution of population received from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Mayor: JOHN H. LAND ConnII Sor:crs: J. WI LLAM ARROWSMITH MALE R. HOLMES HOBERT S. ..Ol IN SON.JR. BILLIE L DEAN The second column, called "Orlando' s Proposal, " is the proposal on the table at this time. Then I have provided a column that will give you the difference between those two proposals . The spreadsheet includes the first year, second year, third year and, finally, the fourth year when everyone goes to a straight population distribution formula. The next spreadsheet is a summary of either gains or losses by individual jurisdiction over the four year phase-in proposal . Additionally I am enclosing a spreadsheet titled "Total Four Year Difference Analysis. " This compares the current distribution formula as adopted by the 1983 interlocal agreement . The second column is the DOR calculations . The third column is the proposal on the table from the City of Orlando. The final column is the differences between the current and the Orlando proposal, to give you some idea of what you can anticipate in additional revenues from the gas tax. For example, the City of Apopka will receive approximately $1 . 8 million more than what it would receive from the distribution formula under the current interlocal agreement . The City of Ocoee would receive approximately $1 . 6 million, and the City of Winter Garden would receive approximately $606, 000 over the four year period. Also enclosed is a copy of the actual proposal that was submitted by Howard Tipton, Chief Administrative Officer for the City of Orlando to Jean Bennett, Orange County Administrator. I have had a discussion with Jean, and she feels that this is probably the best agreement we can get outside of going to Tallahassee and also litigating the opinion received from the Department of Revenue, which I have previously given you a copy of. I hope this information is sufficient for you to make a decision. I look forward to your reply. Please be advised that we will need to make a decision on this fairly quickly, as it will be necessary for us to perfect any laws passed last year and/or to seek legal counsel for the purpose of demanding change to the current distribution formula through the DOR, the City of Orlando, and Orange County. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me . Sincerely, -. ' )1 ack H. Douglath Jr 7/71F ssistant City Administrator JHD/jmb Enclosures a/o First Year Orlando DOR Proposal FY 97-98 FY 97-98 Diff Unicorp County 17992997 17184355 -808642 Orlando 6261739 6958440 696701 Apopka 714276 694358 -19918 Belle Isle 203746 198063 -5683 Eatonville 87997 98843 10846 Edgewood 40038 48085 8047 Maitland 329196 392718 63522 Oakland 28029 27249 -780 Ocoee 737174 716617 -20557 Windermere 66530 64675 -1855 Winter Garden 466864 453845 -13019 Winter Park 905175 996514 91339 Total 27833761 27833762 1 Second Year Orlando DOR Proposal FY 98-99 FY 98-99 Diff Unicorp County 18364955 17873497 -491458 Orlando 6337444 6813704 476260 Apopka 746752 718560 -28192 Belle Isle 205986 198210 -7776 Eatonville 88007 95334 7327 Edgewood 40231 46376 6145 Maitland 331024 378782 47758 Oakland 28478 27403 -1075 Ocoee 776412 747101 -29311 Windermere 68535 65947 -2588 Winter Garden 482732 464508 -18224 Winter Park 919879 961011 41132 Total 28390435 28390433 -2 Third Year Orlando DOR Proposal FY 99-00 FY 99-00 Diff Unicorp County 18727899 18553021 -174878 Orlando 6435388 6660396 225008 Apopka 778722 742776 -35946 Belle Isle 208142 198534 -9608 Eatonville 87987 93686 5699 Edgewood 40409 45574 5165 Maitland 332729 372220 39491 Oakland 28913 27579 -1334 Ocoee 815080 777455 -37625 Windermere 70500 67246 -3254 Winter Garden 498314 475312 -23002 Winter Park 934161 944445 10284 Total 28958244 28958244 0 Forth Year Orlando DOR Proposal FY 00-01 FY 00-01 Diff Unicorp County 19097552 19097552 0 Orlando 6570260 6564084 -6176 Apopka 793986 794299 313 Belle Isle 212263 212305 42 Eatonville 89827 89747 -80 Edgewood 41152 42053 901 Maitland 339363 343452 4089 Oakland 29492 29492 0 Ocoee 831126 831385 259 Windermere 71813 71910 97 Winter Garden 508011 508282 271 Winter Park 952564 952848 284 Total 29537409 29537409 0 Summary of Gains or Loss during Next Four Years FY 97-98 FY 98-99 FY 99-00 FY 00-01 Total Unicorp County -808642 -491458 -174878 0 -1474978 Orlando 696701 476260 225008 -6176 1391793 Apopka -19918 -28192 -35946 313 -83743 Belle Isle -5683 -7776 -9608 42 -23025 Eatonville 10846 7327 5699 -80 23792 Edgewood 8047 6145 5165 901 20258 Maitland 63522 47758 39491 4089 154860 Oakland -780 -1075 -1334 0 -3189 Ocoee -20557 -29311 -37625 259 -87234 Windermere -1855 -2588 -3254 97 -7600 Winter Garden -13019 -18224 -23002 271 -53974 Winter Park 91339 41132 10284 284 143039 Total 1 -2 0 0 -1 Total Four Year Differences Analysis Current Four Year Four Year Four Year Four Year Orlando Current VS Estimated DOR Compute Proposal Orlando Proposal Distribution Distribution FY 97-98 Difference Unicorp County 68878519 74183403 72708425 3829906 Orlando 34382880 25604831 26996624 -7386256 Apopka 1155038 3033736 2949993 1794955 Belle Isle 550124 830137 807112 256988 Eatonville 424066 353818 377610 -46456 Edgewcod 206296 161830 182088 -24208 Maitland 1684763 1332312 1487172 -197591 - Oakland 126071 114912 111723 -14348 Ocoee 1489925 3159792 3072558 1582633 Windermere 252143 277378 269778 17635 Winter Garden 1295087 1955921 1901947 606860 Winter Park 4274936 3711779 3854818 -420118 Total 114719848 114719849 114719848 0 (JAN-2?-97 WED 13:52 CITY OF ORLANDO C. A. 0• FAX NO. 4072463342 / P. 01 Ityd �a 4 r c T (fitu of CDrlunbU A : L c/TT HALL.ONE CITY COMMONS w0x1246 xezc OiD 0. TI 400 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE `ar NOWAADD. TvPTON I4671e46 ».z Ew[•mMlxisr N6lrv[L'^c[e ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32BOI-3302 January 21, 1997 VIA FAX: 836-7399 Ms. Jean Bennett Wfv County Administrator „p Orange County 1s Post Office Box 1393 ��u `0 lbS Orlando, FL 32802 �l Dear Jean: As a follow up to your proposal of December 27, 1996, I propose the following: 1. Orlando would receive the amount you specified through FY 2000/01 ($26,996,624). 2. Orange County would receive the amount approved previously by the County Council for the same period ($72.708,425). 3. Losing cities other than Orlando are gradually reduced over the four years as shown on the attachment. 4. All jurisdictions revert to a population formula in FY 2000/01. 5. We agree to work toward a County-wide funding base for Lynx. Sincerely, der ea . and D. ipt. • Chief Administrative Officer HDT/vw Attachment JAN-22-97 WED 13:53 CITY OF ORLANDO C. A. O. FAX NO. 4072463342 P. 02 Orange County Gas Tax Proposal I 96127 97199 98/90 99/2000 2000/01 MOH Yea Cumulative Jurisdiction Aboedon Allooatian Allaaatlon Allocation Allocation ToW Odinde 4 6.180.000 0 0,958,440 a 6.813,704 1 8.080.396 0 6,504,084 1 26,996,824 O range Cawdy 16,372,800 17,184,355 17,873,497 18,553,021 19,097.552 72,708,425 Apopka 275.008 694,358 718,500 742,770 794,299 2,949,993 Bella Isla 130,982 198.063 198,210 196,634 212,305 807,112 EetonyBN 100,966 98,843 95,334 93.086 89,747 377.010 Edgewood 49,118 48.085 46,378 45.674 42,063 182,090 Maillnd 401,134 392,710 378,782 372,220 043,462 1,487,170 Oaklend 30,017 27.249 27,403 27,579 29,492 111.721 O we* 354,744 716,617 747,101 777,455 831,385 3,072,558 Waademnare 60,034 64,675 65.947 07,248 71.910 269,778 Winter Darden 304,354 453,845 464,608 475,312 508,282 1,901,947 Winter Park 1,017,842 996,514 901,011 944.445 952.848 3,854,1315 ToW 4 27,288,000 4 27,833,760_ 4 28,390,435 I 28,958.244 IS 29,637,409,4 114,718,648 Principles: Orange County at the same amount es June 1990 proposal. Reduction for losing cities is phased in over four year period. Orlando et 026,990.024 at a minimum through FY 2000/01. All revert to population in FY 2000(01. Revenues are projected at 2% growth per year. Prapared:1116/97 Page 1