News Disney plans to accelerate Parks investment to $60 billion over 10 years

[BrianLo]

The new District agreement made it 10-15 years.

Do you have the source for this updated language? I’m still just seeing the old language on a cursory search.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Do you have the source for this updated language? I’m still just seeing the old language on a cursory search.

FISCAL IMPACT:​

WDPR intends to make significant capital investments over an extended period of years, including up to​

$17 billion dollars over the next ten (10) to twenty (20) years. WDPR is dedicated to boosting Florida’s​

economy by ensuring at least 50% of project spending is with Florida businesses, and they also committed​

to funding attainable housing projects, allocating a minimum of $10 million over ten years. CFTOD has​

agreed to make capital improvements to public infrastructure throughout the duration of the development​

agreement to support WDPR’s investment as well as the surrounding community and the many local​

commuters that travel across and thru the District daily​

Here’s a link to the full BoS packet for the CFTOD meeting on Wednesday, June 5, which includes the Developer’s Agreement between Disney and the CFTOD:

https://www.oversightdistrict.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/BOS-Meeting-6-5-24-Agenda-Packet-FINAL-1.pdf

Nice and tidy.

"We will respect each other."

$8B in 10 years.

$17B in 10 - 20 years.

 

[mrflo]

FISCAL IMPACT:​

WDPR intends to make significant capital investments over an extended period of years, including up to​

$17 billion dollars over the next ten (10) to twenty (20) years​

So this would mean WDW could potentially spend less than $17 billion in the first ten years - meaning that out of the $60 billion bucket more budget could go to other parks/resorts/etc. instead? Or do you think the $60 billion is not necessarily to be spent in 10 years and the timeframe could be extended as well?

Some insiders had argued that more than $10 billion would go to DLP - which from a pure calculation perspective and how much room/potential there is for expansion would not be unreasonable. However, seeing how busy they still are getting the current WDS projects like Frozen off the ground before 2026, I am struggling to see how DLP could ramp up and handle such a major boost in investments for such a short timeframe in the second half of the decade. Personally I think, anything in the investment range of what is planned for DLR (DisneylandForward) would be already a big win for DLP.

 

[John park hopper]

Talk is cheap ---seeing is believing ---Disney is famous for saying we're gonna do X, Y and Z and does nothing

 

[Bocabear]

they were approved to spend 17billion in expansion by the district... that doesn't mean they have to spend 17 billion or even will spend 17 billion.... but they are allowed to if they deign to.

 

[DisDude33]

So this would mean WDW could potentially spend less than $17 billion in the first ten years - meaning that out of the $60 billion bucket more budget could go to other parks/resorts/etc. instead? Or do you think the $60 billion is not necessarily to be spent in 10 years and the timeframe could be extended as well?

I believe that the $17 billion is still WDW’s cut of of the $60 billion but they’ve had the agreement worded in a way that they have more time to spend that money out over more time. Which means it will be less money for each project done over the next two decades. But I’m just guessing and could absolutely be wrong.

 

[doctornick]

they were approved to spend 17billion in expansion by the district... that doesn't mean they have to spend 17 billion or even will spend 17 billion.... but they are allowed to if they deign to.

No, they have committed to spending $17B over the next 10-20 years. They don't need approval to spend money.

 

[doctornick]

I believe that the $17 billion is still WDW’s cut of of the $60 billion but they’ve had the agreement worded in a way that they have more time to spend that money out over more time. Which means it will be less money for each project done over the next two decades. But I’m just guessing and could absolutely be wrong.

Disney has said to investors that they plan to spend $17B (out of $60B allocated to the Parks division worldwide) at WDW in the next 10 years. In their dealing with the state of Florida and the business district, they committed to spending $17B over 10-20 years - the difference is that the plans discussed with investors is current plans and intentions but are subject to change at the whim of the company, but those dealings with Florida/the business district is something that Florida could come back to them and obligate them to do (spending that money locally to get it into the local economy) which is not fully in Disney's control.

 

[Tha Realest]

They don't need approval to spend money.

Depending on how it’s spent, and if it affects infrastructure, under the CFTOD governance - yes they do.

 

[doctornick]

Depending on how it’s spent, and if it affects infrastructure, under the CFTOD governance - yes they do.

Well, sure. I mean in the sense that it is not like the governance can tell them "you aren't allowed to invest at WDW" and they need permission for it. Certainly, they need approval to do certain specific things but not in a broad sense of being about to invest in their property.

 

[Disstevefan1]

No, they have committed to spending $17B over the next 10-20 years.

It seems to me they can spend $17B in 20 years just the costs in operating WDW; maintenance, staff, all other costs, etc.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Well, sure. I mean in the sense that it is not like the governance can tell them "you aren't allowed to invest at WDW" and they need permission for it. Certainly, they need approval to do certain specific things but not in a broad sense of being about to invest in their property.

How is that different from any other business on the planet? Any location within the US is going to have permitting restrictions, building code requirements, traffic impact studies, environmental plans/restrictions. But I don't know of any business anywhere that there are restrictions on in the broad sense saying a company isn't allowed to invest in their property.

 

[DisDude33]

Disney has said to investors that they plan to spend $17B (out of $60B allocated to the Parks division worldwide) at WDW in the next 10 years. In their dealing with the state of Florida and the business district, they committed to spending $17B over 10-20 years - the difference is that the plans discussed with investors is current plans and intentions but are subject to change at the whim of the company, but those dealings with Florida/the business district is something that Florida could come back to them and obligate them to do (spending that money locally to get it into the local economy) which is not fully in Disney's control.

Yes, but when Disney first announced the investment it sounded like WDW’s cut of the investment would be spent within 10 years but they way future investments are described the CFTOD it looks like it will be $8 billion between now and 2034 and the rest between 2034 and 2044.

 

[eddie104]

It seems to me they can spend $17B in 20 years just the costs in operating WDW; maintenance, staff, all other costs, etc.

I don’t why posters are being purposely obtuse about this when they said themselves it’s for new capacity as well.

 

[Tha Realest]

I don’t why posters are being purposely obtuse about this when they said themselves it’s for new capacity as well.

Because

1) there have been scant specifics on those numbers,
2) the granular details keep changing,
3) “capacity” can mean a great many things to different people.

To that last point, when the GP hears “capacity increase,” they think, “new rides and attractions!” But does a ride that replaced, say, Primeval Whirl increase capacity? They’re down in terms of capacity from where they were. Does a replacement attraction that is more popular and in demand than what it replaced an increase in “capacity,” even though the THRC for both old and new attractions is 1:1? Some would argue they are.

Do exclusive enclaves such as DVC lounges or DVC resorts increase capacity? Some would argue yes.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I don’t why posters are being purposely obtuse about this when they said themselves it’s for new capacity as well.

We hope they add capacity and not just new DVCs over the next 20 years.

20 years is a long time. I will mostly likely be dead or if I am alive I will not be going to WDW.

 

[DisDude33]

I don’t why posters are being purposely obtuse about this when they said themselves it’s for new capacity as well.

About 70% of the overall $60 billion is earmarked for new experiences but a good part of that is going to building new cruise ships and the rest is spread out across all the theme parks, hotels, restaurants. So it’s not being obtuse to think that WDW isn’t getting a lot of shiny new toys to be impressed about. New stuff and rides? Absolutely, those things being well funded and living to their full potential? Time will tell.

 

[Dranth]

But does a ride that replaced, say, Primeval Whirl increase capacity?

Yes, because it had pathetic capacity and was skipped by a large portion of visitors. All that aside, all indications are for actual increases as well, not just higher capacity replacements. Obviously we need to see these projects get under way before anyone gets too excited but when was the last time they even mentioned adding capacity?

 

[flynnibus]

they were approved to spend 17billion in expansion by the district... that doesn't mean they have to spend 17 billion or even will spend 17 billion.... but they are allowed to if they deign to.

No

They entered a legal agreement with the district committing to make that level of investment.

The district on their part are committing to a comprehensive plan for the district that will allow up to certain thresholds of development… including the cited hotel and park counts.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This is all talk. I will believe it when I actually see work happening.

And even at that, Disney takes SO LONG to do ANYTHING! I am not hopeful.