News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[mmascari]

They're just getting out of the middle. They'll expect Disney to contract things itself.

Note we haven't seen the budget to see if they are getting out of contracting the counties all together (unlikely) - the quote from Garcia was about OVERTIME spending for police presence at Disney-exclusive properties.

Is the some amount of official police activity going on at Disney properties that should really be security guard stuff? Presumably there is still official police activity that will need to go on. Disney should not be contracting for that directly.

Easy example. Disney decides that you're being a jerk and wishes to remove you for trespassing. Charging someone with tresspassing and removing them from the property is an official police activity. Asking you to nicely leave is a security guard function. But, if they're a huge jerk and will not volunteerily go, forcing their removal is an official police responsiblity. A directly Disney funded security guard (as it cannot be a private police force) that forceably removes you will be guilty of assulting you. An official government police force that hand cuffs and drags you away by force will not be guiltly of assult as you'll be resisting arrest.

And that’s just it, Disney isn’t going to want that so they are almost certain to go ahead and pick up the tab. There’s almost no chance they let things deteriorate that far. They don’t want stories about poor police response time or deputies being laid off because Disney isn’t paying.

I agree. I think the municipalities will quickly step in and contract for the services. It'll just be a change in funding from the district to them. Since both the district and the municipalities recieve almost all funding from Disney, it'll be a wash to Disney.

Thats what makes this such a shrewd move. They figured out a way to stick it to Disney and really only Disney while they also get to crow about lowering taxes and being fiscally responsible.

What surprises me more is that CFTOD looked like it had been trying to consolidate power and remove responsiblity from the municipalities. This shift would seem to give the municipalities more responsibilty, and one that would make it difficult to remove again later.

They can explain the reduction in tax rate by the reduction in sevices easily enough. We all know Disney is going to sue about the new property valuations to keep them lower. If Disney wins that, there will be no going back and raising the rate again since the reduction is tied to reducing services.

 

[flynnibus]

They're related though. The whole thing is a huge social contract that we all agree too, mostly.

if you want to move the conversation to "what will the policing levels be if..." - you can have that separate discussion. But that is more about the idea of proactive presence and procesecution. Your hypothetical was an automobile accident - something that is handled through dispatch, not typically proactive policing.

With no district and no municipality funding and servicing the area

Again - that wasn't what today's comments said. He talked about overtime spending in police coverage.

the county not wanting to provide services for free since they are not budgeted and set up to provide them. What's enforced will become murky.

Even if the district went as far as saying they are getting out of the contracting of police entirely (which wasn't what was covered today) - the responsibility would revert to the municipalities. And if they didn't carry through, eventually some of the residents would sue.

If someone were to go on a violent rampage in Disney Springs, I'm sure the county police force would respond. Funding or not, they're not going to just ignore that.

If someone is driving recklessly or causes a minor accident with no injuries, the stakes are signifigantly lower. The county could easily ignore that.

Not going to happen. The county isn't going to deny services to people and get all that flak over what is internal billing fights between municipalities. You'll hear lots of FUD, even complaints about quality of service, but they aren't going to deny services and just let people fend for themselves over budgets. There will be no thunderdome at WDW.

 

[lazyboy97o]

In Florida, if a traffic accident occurs in an unincorporated county jurisdiction in Florida, Highway Patrol will respond - but Sheriff's Office can and will assist if there are injuries or hazards to other road users (while FHP does the reporting)

On property, Disney Security started, but I called 911 and insisted on FHP, because I felt that my insurance company would prefer that. After speaking with the claims team, it turns out that I was right.

The county sheriff’s departments can also respond. They have overlapping jurisdiction. There are some places where FHP ends up handling most cases and others where the county does.

 

[flynnibus]

I get the tax free money to build the parking garages, but how is paying for OCSO to patrol the district considered "laundering of services", given that Disney was far from the only beneficiary of this.

paying for something via tax dollars means you can get a tax advantage for that spend because it's taxes owed. Paying a private security contract is just a regular business expense. Nevermind there probably is a cost advantage for the services contracted via inter-government vs to private entities.

 

[mmascari]

This is where the conversation is going off the rails - The comments did not infer nor include cancelling all policing contracting by the district.

I think I asked that earlier, I'm just reading what was reported here and it isn't clear what that $8M refers to.

Which gets to this question then:

Is the some amount of official police activity going on at Disney properties that should really be security guard stuff? Presumably there is still official police activity that will need to go on. Disney should not be contracting for that directly.

Is CFTOD suggesting that Disney has been using official police capacity for security guard resposbilibties to the tune of $8M a year?

There will always be official police capacity that is required on Disney property that cannot be done by Disney paid security staff.

paying for something via tax dollars means you can get a tax advantage for that spend because it's taxes owed. Paying a private security contract is just a regular business expense. Nevermind there probably is a cost advantage for the services contracted via inter-government vs to private entities.

Paying for actions via tax conveys the abiltiy for some actions to be accomplished while paying for private security restricts what actions can be done. A priviate security force cannot charge someone with a crime.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I agree. I think the municipalities will quickly step in and contract for the services. It'll just be a change in funding from the district to them. Since both the district and the municipalities recieve almost all funding from Disney, it'll be a wash to Disney.

What surprises me more is that CFTOD looked like it had been trying to consolidate power and remove responsiblity from the municipalities. This shift would seem to give the municipalities more responsibilty, and one that would make it difficult to remove again later.

There is almost no chance anything gets done through the municipalities. That’s a land mind.

 

[flynnibus]

Is the some amount of official police activity going on at Disney properties that should really be security guard stuff? Presumably there is still official police activity that will need to go on. Disney should not be contracting for that directly.

Correct - your normal public safety element of policing, that the cities are chartered to provide. But again, that isn't necessarily what Garcia highlighted today.

Easy example. Disney decides that you're being a jerk and wishes to remove you for trespassing. Charging someone with tresspassing and removing them from the property is an official police activity. Asking you to nicely leave is a security guard function. But, if they're a huge jerk and will not volunteerily go, forcing their removal is an official police responsiblity. A directly Disney funded security guard (as it cannot be a private police force) that forceably removes you will be guilty of assulting you. An official government police force that hand cuffs and drags you away by force will not be guiltly of assult as you'll be resisting arrest.

Again, this isn't really what was highlighted today. You're talking about a normal police call. Something that can still be covered even with reduced staffing of a policing contract... and even without proactive police presence.

Disney has a heightened police presence during their operating hours above and beyond normal policing. How much of that is by choice of the counties or via contractual is something we aren't really privy to, but is most certainly a combination of both.

The police can't just hang out there and force a bill on Disney. And they (today) can't apply some requirement that Disney hire all that same additional police presence. The solution they have today is obviously very much at Disney's bequest and benefit.

 

[flynnibus]

I think I asked that earlier, I'm just reading what was reported here and it isn't clear what that $8M refers to.

Just watch it - time cued -

Which gets to this question then:

Is CFTOD suggesting that Disney has been using official police capacity for security guard resposbilibties to the tune of $8M a year?

No, it simply said the district was paying 8 million in police overtime that was only being used for Disney properties. No more, no less.

Paying for actions via tax conveys the abiltiy for some actions to be accomplished while paying for private security restricts what actions can be done. A priviate security force cannot charge someone with a crime.

I have no idea what relevance that has to the post being responded to. The question was 'what benefit does disney get for paying for the police via the district instead of directly'. In both cases, the hired entity is still the same Sheriff, who still has the same authority, regardless if he was being paid by a district contract, or by Disney paying the Sherriff's office for their services.

 

[lazyboy97o]

They're just getting out of the middle. They'll expect Disney to contract things itself.

Note we haven't seen the budget to see if they are getting out of contracting the counties all together (unlikely) - the quote from Garcia was about OVERTIME spending for police presence at Disney-exclusive properties.



Not what his statement was - nor (to my knowledge) have we seen the actual proposed budget. Am I wrong?

According to Garcia the L’Enfant Plan wasn't a thing. Cutting $8 million is a supermajority of the current spending levels.

 

[mkt]

The county sheriff’s departments can also respond. They have overlapping jurisdiction. There are some places where FHP ends up handling most cases and others where the county does.

They can and do - but the reporting and investigation falls to FHP.

They respond as in, "is everyone ok? no injuries", call Fire/EMS, and park behind with lights on while FHP and fire/EMS arrive.

But unless something has changed since 2021 (the last accident I was involved in - as a passenger), county police don't report or investigate.

 

[mmascari]

Just watch it - time cued -

Looks like the embed is turned off and it lost the time cue when going to youtube. Thanks for cuing it up, not your fault they broke it.

No, it simply said the district was paying 8 million in police overtime that was only being used for Disney properties. No more, no less.

Interesting. I hear that as the police force is understaffed for the level of service required.

I have no idea what relevance that has to the post being responded to. The question was 'what benefit does disney get for paying for the police via the district instead of directly'. In both cases, the hired entity is still the same Sheriff, who still has the same authority, regardless if he was being paid by a district contract, or by Disney paying the Sherriff's office for their services.

It matters because it's not the same. The Sheriff cannot just go out and offer a private policing force to anyone.

Lots of companies hire off duty police to act in a security function. If they were funneling that type of arrangement through a tax structure, I would agree that it is incorrect. Likewise, if they were using official police staff to peform security officer responsiblities, I would agree that is incorrect. Both of those would look like some type of financial fraud.

Just like everything else related to Disney and the District, the technical differences and details matter.

The ability to police, and take actions that are restricted to the police is a government monopoly. Different government entities can contract with each other to provide that service explicitly because they are both government entities. A private company cannot hire the police to perform policing actions. The fact that they're highering a government actor doesn't covey that right and the government entity isn't able to sell that rigth to someone who doesn't have it already. Likewise, the government entity responsible for the policing function cannot deny performing that fucntion if you do not pay for it privately. The benifite Disney gets by paying for policing via taxes instead of directly is specifically the ablity for police actions to occur at all.

For instance, I live in an unincorpated county area. If someone decides to setup a campsite on the boarder between us and our neighbor, and we both call the police to report trespasses along with pressing charges to have them removed. There's not any choices here. The county is responsible for the police responsibilty. They don't get to say, you didn't pay us directly so we're not doing it. My neighbor doesn't get to say they paid extra to get better service. I don't get to pay so I get service and the neighbor doesn't. If the campers aren't actually on my property, just close, I don't get to pay the police to act in an official police capactity and prevent them from entering my property. I could pay the police to act in a private capacity as a security guard to discourage the campers from entering my property. In that private capactiy, they'll exhaust what they can do at some point and require non contracted service provided as part of a goverment function to take official police actions.

Walt Disney World is a huge area with a huge quantity of visitors. Disney owns most of the stuff people visit within that area. People do stupid stuff that requires the police to take action instead of private security. That a large number of those police actions take place on Disney property is't a surprise. It's where the people are after all.

 

[rangerbob]

They can and do - but the reporting and investigation falls to FHP.

They respond as in, "is everyone ok? no injuries", call Fire/EMS, and park behind with lights on while FHP and fire/EMS arrive.

But unless something has changed since 2021 (the last accident I was involved in - as a passenger), county police don't report or investigate.

It must have changed. I was on hwy 50 when some moron slammed into me as I was sitting at a red light. City of Winter Garden took care of everything.

 

[mkt]

It must have changed. I was on hwy 50 when some moron slammed into me as I was sitting at a red light. City of Winter Garden took care of everything.

That's not in unincorporated orange county. Within city limits, local PD does the reporting and investigation.

 

[LAKid53]

The county sheriff’s departments can also respond. They have overlapping jurisdiction. There are some places where FHP ends up handling most cases and others where the county does.

County sheriff's offices have jurisdiction. I live in an unincorporated area of my county. LCSO respond to everything - accidents, 911, etc.

 

[LAKid53]

Garcia is an idiot.

 

[Figgy1]

Garcia is an idiot.

I'm not so polite but the site has censors

 

[mmascari]

There is almost no chance anything gets done through the municipalities. That’s a land mind.

What are the other options?

Providing police services is a government function.

One of these is on the hook to provide the service:
Tax District
Municipality
County
State

Is there another one, some other government entity that has responsibilty? Wasn't it said earlier that the creation of a municipality transfered this responsbility from the county to the municipality? And, I presume the municipality then transfered it to the district.

This all leaves us with some confusing and conflicting information.

• Either the district is pulling back from providing police service and it needs to be taken up by another government entity or they're not.
• Either the police are currently providing non police service on Disney property or they're not.

The assumptioin that the police are providing a non police servcie on Disney property and that the district will no longer pay for that doesn't make much sense. That would be financial fraud on many levels.

The assumption that a private company should pay for police (not security guard) service or they don't get it also doesn't make any sense.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The district now has $8M to spend on lawyers!!

 

[LAKid53]

What are the other options?

Providing police services is a government function.

One of these is on the hook to provide the service:
Tax District
Municipality
County
State

Is there another one, some other government entity that has responsibilty? Wasn't it said earlier that the creation of a municipality transfered this responsbility from the county to the municipality? And, I presume the municipality then transfered it to the district.

This all leaves us with some confusing and conflicting information.

• Either the district is pulling back from providing police service and it needs to be taken up by another government entity or they're not.
• Either the police are currently providing non police service on Disney property or they're not.

The assumptioin that the police are providing a non police servcie on Disney property and that the district will no longer pay for that doesn't make much sense. That would be financial fraud on many levels.

The assumption that a private company should pay for police (not security guard) service or they don't get it also doesn't make any sense.

To me, it was no different than what Publix supermarkets do in Florida. They pay for LE to be present at their stores in the evening.

Like I said, Garcia is an idiot if he thought TWDC paying OCSO to provide services was some sort of scam or nefarious.

 

[flynnibus]

According to Garcia the L’Enfant Plan wasn't a thing. Cutting $8 million is a supermajority of the current spending levels.

What I find more disconcerning from his whole transparency pulpit is...

Today they had a set a max mil rate due to the TRIMs timetable - which says they have to share their max millage rate 35 days after the assessor sets the values. The board voted based on a presentation (and unless shared elsewhere I didn't see, no other supporting detail on the proposed budget) that literally had a 4 line expenses and revenue summary. YET, from Garcia's own remarks, he has other info about the proposed budget. They voted on a revenue model without any transparency on what their expenses are really coming from. Because the proposed budgets won't goto them for some weeks.

For someone who keeps beating the horse about transparency... I'd love to hear how the Board members felt confident they could set that revenue target based on the single slide a 5min readout they heard today.