Chi84
Premium Member
Don’t you wonder why the firefighters want the annual passes instead?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
Disney offers these perks for purchase to third party companies operating at the resort. Patina group, Chefs de France, AMC, Arnold Palmer Golf etc etc etc as well as RCID all buy into this program to offer these perks to their employees. There’s nothing outrageous about this.
ETA if the district decides they don’t want to buy this park anymore then fine, but to spin it as a conflict of interest is just trying to create drama. Also seems to be upsetting many of their employees.
Except annual passes don’t cost Disney anything. Cash does.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The cash doesn’t come directly from Disney.
It's my understanding that the government pays millions to Disney for these tickets? Is that wrong?
Stripes
Premium Member
Let’s say we have a family of 5. Those passes were worth $7,000/year to that family. The district wishes to replace the passes with a $1,500 stipend (may be increased slightly). Especially for larger families, the loss of this benefit is a significant pay cut.
So do many other businesses in the district, they’re buying a perk for their employees from a business, don’t see anything wrong with that. Disney buys movie passes from AMC to give as incentives to employees, is there anything wrong with that?
mikejs78
Premium Member
The other thing is that these passes were promised to retirees as part of their retirement package. Now the district is removing that and not replacing it with anything. So retirees, people who gave their whole careers to RCID, are getting shafted.
Also, even if you're talking about a family of three, three annual passes are still worth more than the stipend that the board proposed.
James Alucobond
Well-Known Member
This. For instance, my company pays for box seats with local sports teams, which employees can then utilize. It is a perk the company sees as valuable for attraction and retention; it does not mean there is some illicit relationship between my company and these venues.
CFTOD is certainly well within their rights to drop these perks, but it is wrong to frame them as if they represent illegal activity or funneling of money. It’s not hard to figure out why passes to Disney World would be a powerful hiring tool for the area.
Stripes
Premium Member
Not to mention, it wasn’t just passes but significant discounts as well, including discounts on Disney cruises, merch, etc.
The district was paying well below what regular customers would pay for these benefits and a significant number of RCID employees will be leaving due to the loss of this benefit.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
And? Your understanding is wrong in framing it as something problematic. The District also spends millions on buying health insurance for their employees. That money only goes to Cigna even if someone might prefer United Healthcare or Aetna or Blue Cross Blue Shield. If someone chooses not to get healthcare coverage they don’t get the full amount as cash.
flynnibus
Premium Member
So much wrong ...
No, the district proposed in their preliminary budget to remove the perk, and after blow back from their employees and retirees are trying to figure out an alternative model for their final FY24 budget.
And the very employees receiving the perk have told the district why they don't want that. Maybe you should try listening to their reasons?
No, the district proposed in their preliminary budget to remove the perk, and after blow back from their employees and retirees are trying to figure out an alternative model for their final FY24 budget.
And the very employees receiving the perk have told the district why they don't want that. Maybe you should try listening to their reasons?
It shouldn't. The State of Florida can create special taxing or benefit area districts where Disney or the related benefitting parties cover their own costs.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Why do people keep joining to answer the same, no longer relevant question?
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
Any decision they make about the park pass issue is almost certainly going to cost way more money than the cancelled program (assuming they can include retirees) while still leaving many employees & retirees unhappy (including the firefighters they'd like to keep on their side).
And what are the potential complications? Just one example that comes to mind: Retirees are presumably paid by their pension plan and aren't on the district's payroll system. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong and it works differently in FL.) So would they have to add every retiree to the payroll in order to send an annual stipend? Is that even something they can do? Does that new income affect the retiree's pension? (do they have clawback provisions? rules that invalidate the pension if they start receiving income again?) Maybe I'm wrong and this particular complication is actually a non-issue or really easy to address? I don't know. The problem here is that the decision-makers don't know either.
And what are the potential complications? Just one example that comes to mind: Retirees are presumably paid by their pension plan and aren't on the district's payroll system. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong and it works differently in FL.) So would they have to add every retiree to the payroll in order to send an annual stipend? Is that even something they can do? Does that new income affect the retiree's pension? (do they have clawback provisions? rules that invalidate the pension if they start receiving income again?) Maybe I'm wrong and this particular complication is actually a non-issue or really easy to address? I don't know. The problem here is that the decision-makers don't know either.
Every job has perks. E.g., all the pencils, staplers, and photocopy paper you'll ever need!
I think we're really talking about (at least) 4 separate issues here:
(1) Was the perk of park passes & discounts somehow an inappropriate/illegal deal with Disney?
I don't think so, for reasons that others have already addressed at length. It certainly wasn't illegal.
(2) Is a costly entertainment-based perk an appropriate expenditure by a government employer spending taxpayer money?
That's definitely a fair question and I think the answer is going to depend on the circumstances. Like any government expenditure, the guess the question is whether the particular perk provides reasonable value to the taxpayers for the money spent, because it's their money.
So in this case I think the determinative circumstance is what many here keep pointing out but I feel like ranting about a bit: the vast majority of the taxes are paid by Disney, a long list of businesses leasing from Disney, and a small number of businesses that own the land on which they're operating. Those businesses are obviously there because Disney is there, not just because Disney built the area up in the past, but because they get access to the tourists who come to Disney now and in the future. People keep saying 'taxpayer money' as if we're talking about average homeowners who might not know their government is offering expensive perks, or who feel powerless to do or say anything about it, but that's not who we're talking about.
The 'taxpayers' here are basically Disney and the businesses that have decided the higher taxes incurred by being within the district are justified by the income they make by being part of the Disney resort. The perk we're talking about was never a secret; in fact I understand that some of the other taxpayers use the same program to give the same perk to their own employees.
And BTW, some of those other business owners (the 'taxpayers') have attended district board meetings this year to express worries about potential tax increases. Their concerns were most definitely not related to the actions of the prior board or Disney.
Lastly, it shouldn't have to be repeated but while I'm here and feeling ranty: no one outside the district is contributing to the district taxes, plus Disney and the other district taxpayers pay county taxes, in addition to the district taxes, at the same rate as everyone else in their respective counties.
(3) However you feel about (1) & (2), did it make sense for the district to blindside their employees and pensioners by suddenly cancelling this perk without any notice or discussion, and obviously without any analysis of the potential impact?
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the district wasn't entitled to cancel it.
People may disagree about whether it was unfair, but there's a pretty good argument to be made that it was just plain dumb. This perk was worth a lot of amount of money to a lot of employees, relied upon for decades in some cases, and it's been a significant piece of the district's ability to attract and retain employees.
Even assuming, as I do, that their decision was really about impugning Disney and f#@% the employees, their failure to consider that they might anger the firefighters, whose goodwill they've been cultivating, still screams just plain dumb. The fact that they're now scrambling to convince people they can find a solution, while smack in the middle of finalizing the budget, confirms that they didn't assess the potential consequences of the decision before they made it, weren't qualified to make the assessment in the first place, and/or didn't actually care about the consequences until they got bad press in the form of distressed firefighters.
(4) Can they fix this?
I don't think they can. They won't backtrack because they won't admit there was nothing inappropriate or illegal about the program.
Any replacement they do offer may please employees who weren't using the park pass program, but it will still leave many people feeling angry and betrayed, probably cost more than the old program, and create new complications because they scrambled for a fix without properly assessing all the ramifications.
Wow, this ended up way longer than I expected and I apologize to all because I'm really just rehashing what others have said.
My main point is that there are multiple interrelated but quite distinct issues here. I think that conflating them makes it easier for the bad actors to mislead, while making it harder for genuinely curious people to assess the information they find.
*** I'm mostly just seeking information too and many of you know a lot more about this situation than I do, so everyone please tell me if I've gotten something wrong, or if I'm just generally not making sense
***
(1) Was the perk of park passes & discounts somehow an inappropriate/illegal deal with Disney?
I don't think so, for reasons that others have already addressed at length. It certainly wasn't illegal.
(2) Is a costly entertainment-based perk an appropriate expenditure by a government employer spending taxpayer money?
That's definitely a fair question and I think the answer is going to depend on the circumstances. Like any government expenditure, the guess the question is whether the particular perk provides reasonable value to the taxpayers for the money spent, because it's their money.
So in this case I think the determinative circumstance is what many here keep pointing out but I feel like ranting about a bit: the vast majority of the taxes are paid by Disney, a long list of businesses leasing from Disney, and a small number of businesses that own the land on which they're operating. Those businesses are obviously there because Disney is there, not just because Disney built the area up in the past, but because they get access to the tourists who come to Disney now and in the future. People keep saying 'taxpayer money' as if we're talking about average homeowners who might not know their government is offering expensive perks, or who feel powerless to do or say anything about it, but that's not who we're talking about.
The 'taxpayers' here are basically Disney and the businesses that have decided the higher taxes incurred by being within the district are justified by the income they make by being part of the Disney resort. The perk we're talking about was never a secret; in fact I understand that some of the other taxpayers use the same program to give the same perk to their own employees.
And BTW, some of those other business owners (the 'taxpayers') have attended district board meetings this year to express worries about potential tax increases. Their concerns were most definitely not related to the actions of the prior board or Disney.
Lastly, it shouldn't have to be repeated but while I'm here and feeling ranty: no one outside the district is contributing to the district taxes, plus Disney and the other district taxpayers pay county taxes, in addition to the district taxes, at the same rate as everyone else in their respective counties.
(3) However you feel about (1) & (2), did it make sense for the district to blindside their employees and pensioners by suddenly cancelling this perk without any notice or discussion, and obviously without any analysis of the potential impact?
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the district wasn't entitled to cancel it.
People may disagree about whether it was unfair, but there's a pretty good argument to be made that it was just plain dumb. This perk was worth a lot of amount of money to a lot of employees, relied upon for decades in some cases, and it's been a significant piece of the district's ability to attract and retain employees.
Even assuming, as I do, that their decision was really about impugning Disney and f#@% the employees, their failure to consider that they might anger the firefighters, whose goodwill they've been cultivating, still screams just plain dumb. The fact that they're now scrambling to convince people they can find a solution, while smack in the middle of finalizing the budget, confirms that they didn't assess the potential consequences of the decision before they made it, weren't qualified to make the assessment in the first place, and/or didn't actually care about the consequences until they got bad press in the form of distressed firefighters.
(4) Can they fix this?
I don't think they can. They won't backtrack because they won't admit there was nothing inappropriate or illegal about the program.
Any replacement they do offer may please employees who weren't using the park pass program, but it will still leave many people feeling angry and betrayed, probably cost more than the old program, and create new complications because they scrambled for a fix without properly assessing all the ramifications.
Wow, this ended up way longer than I expected and I apologize to all because I'm really just rehashing what others have said.
My main point is that there are multiple interrelated but quite distinct issues here. I think that conflating them makes it easier for the bad actors to mislead, while making it harder for genuinely curious people to assess the information they find.
*** I'm mostly just seeking information too and many of you know a lot more about this situation than I do, so everyone please tell me if I've gotten something wrong, or if I'm just generally not making sense
***
Last edited by a moderator:
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
100% and I'm convinced the very minor other tax payers in the district benefit by district employees spending money in their establishments even at the AP discount price when on property.I think we're really talking about (at least) 4 separate issues here:
(1) Was the perk of park passes & discounts somehow an inappropriate/illegal deal with Disney?
I don't think so, for reasons that others have already addressed at length. It certainly wasn't illegal.
(2) Is a costly entertainment-based perk an appropriate expenditure by a government employer spending taxpayer money?
That's definitely a fair question and I think the answer is going to depend on the circumstances. Like any government expenditure, the guess the question is whether the particular perk provides reasonable value to the taxpayers for the money spent, because it's their money.
So in this case I think the determinative circumstance is what many here keep pointing out but I feel like ranting about a bit: the vast majority of the taxes are paid by Disney, a long list of businesses leasing from Disney, and a small number of businesses that own the land on which they're operating. Those businesses are obviously there because Disney is there, not just because Disney built the area up in the past, but because they get access to the tourists who come to Disney now and in the future. People keep saying 'taxpayer money' as if we're talking about average homeowners who might not know their government is offering expensive perks, or who feel powerless to do or say anything about it, but that's not who we're talking about.
The 'taxpayers' here are basically Disney and the businesses that have decided the higher taxes incurred by being within the district are justified by the income they make by being part of the Disney resort. The perk we're talking about was never a secret; in fact I understand that some of the other taxpayers use the same program to give the same perk to their own employees.
And BTW, some of those other business owners (the 'taxpayers') have attended district board meetings this year to express worries about potential tax increases. Their concerns were most definitely not related to the actions of the prior board or Disney.
Lastly, it shouldn't have to be repeated but while I'm here and feeling ranty: no one outside the district is contributing to the district taxes, plus Disney and the other district taxpayers pay county taxes, in addition to the district taxes, at the same rate as everyone else in their respective counties.
(3) However you feel about (1) & (2), did it make sense for the district to blindside their employees and pensioners by suddenly cancelling this perk without any notice or discussion, and obviously without any analysis of the potential impact?
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the district wasn't entitled to cancel it.
People may disagree about whether it was unfair, but there's a pretty good argument to be made that it was just plain dumb. This perk was worth a lot of amount of money to a lot of employees, relied upon for decades in some cases, and it's been a significant piece of the district's ability to attract and retain employees.
Even assuming, as I do, that their decision was really about impugning Disney and f#@% the employees, their failure to consider that they might anger the firefighters, whose goodwill they've been cultivating, still screams just plain dumb. The fact that they're now scrambling to convince people they can find a solution, while smack in the middle of finalizing the budget, confirms that they didn't assess the potential consequences of the decision before they made it, weren't qualified to make the assessment in the first place, and/or didn't actually care about the consequences until they got bad press in the form of distressed firefighters.
(4) Can they fix this?
I don't think they can. They won't backtrack because they won't admit there was nothing inappropriate or illegal about the program.
Any replacement they do offer may please employees who weren't using the park pass program, but it will still leave many people feeling angry and betrayed, probably cost more than the old program, and create new complications because they scrambled for a fix without properly assessing all the ramifications.
Wow, this ended up way longer than I expected and I apologize to all because I'm really just rehashing what others have said.
My main point is that there are multiple interrelated but quite distinct issues here. I think that conflating them makes it easier for the bad actors to mislead, while making it harder for genuinely curious people to assess the information they find.
*** I'm mostly just seeking information too and many of you know a lot more about this situation than I do, so everyone please tell me if I've gotten something wrong, or if I'm just generally not making sense
For a board that's supposedly supposed to bring in customers and encourage spending in the district to me they are doing everything in their power to do the opposite of that
With Disney being the (vast) majority tax payer of the district. Yeah,...you are right, this put's the ethics of this in...I dunno,....an "odd" or "unusual" or "rare" circumstance??I think we're really talking about (at least) 4 separate issues here:
(1) Was the perk of park passes & discounts somehow an inappropriate/illegal deal with Disney?
I don't think so, for reasons that others have already addressed at length. It certainly wasn't illegal.
(2) Is a costly entertainment-based perk an appropriate expenditure by a government employer spending taxpayer money?
That's definitely a fair question and I think the answer is going to depend on the circumstances. Like any government expenditure, the guess the question is whether the particular perk provides reasonable value to the taxpayers for the money spent, because it's their money.
So in this case I think the determinative circumstance is what many here keep pointing out but I feel like ranting about a bit: the vast majority of the taxes are paid by Disney, a long list of businesses leasing from Disney, and a small number of businesses that own the land on which they're operating. Those businesses are obviously there because Disney is there, not just because Disney built the area up in the past, but because they get access to the tourists who come to Disney now and in the future. People keep saying 'taxpayer money' as if we're talking about average homeowners who might not know their government is offering expensive perks, or who feel powerless to do or say anything about it, but that's not who we're talking about.
The 'taxpayers' here are basically Disney and the businesses that have decided the higher taxes incurred by being within the district are justified by the income they make by being part of the Disney resort. The perk we're talking about was never a secret; in fact I understand that some of the other taxpayers use the same program to give the same perk to their own employees.
And BTW, some of those other business owners (the 'taxpayers') have attended district board meetings this year to express worries about potential tax increases. Their concerns were most definitely not related to the actions of the prior board or Disney.
Lastly, it shouldn't have to be repeated but while I'm here and feeling ranty: no one outside the district is contributing to the district taxes, plus Disney and the other district taxpayers pay county taxes, in addition to the district taxes, at the same rate as everyone else in their respective counties.
(3) However you feel about (1) & (2), did it make sense for the district to blindside their employees and pensioners by suddenly cancelling this perk without any notice or discussion, and obviously without any analysis of the potential impact?
I don't think anyone here is arguing that the district wasn't entitled to cancel it.
People may disagree about whether it was unfair, but there's a pretty good argument to be made that it was just plain dumb. This perk was worth a lot of amount of money to a lot of employees, relied upon for decades in some cases, and it's been a significant piece of the district's ability to attract and retain employees.
Even assuming, as I do, that their decision was really about impugning Disney and f#@% the employees, their failure to consider that they might anger the firefighters, whose goodwill they've been cultivating, still screams just plain dumb. The fact that they're now scrambling to convince people they can find a solution, while smack in the middle of finalizing the budget, confirms that they didn't assess the potential consequences of the decision before they made it, weren't qualified to make the assessment in the first place, and/or didn't actually care about the consequences until they got bad press in the form of distressed firefighters.
(4) Can they fix this?
I don't think they can. They won't backtrack because they won't admit there was nothing inappropriate or illegal about the program.
Any replacement they do offer may please employees who weren't using the park pass program, but it will still leave many people feeling angry and betrayed, probably cost more than the old program, and create new complications because they scrambled for a fix without properly assessing all the ramifications.
Wow, this ended up way longer than I expected and I apologize to all because I'm really just rehashing what others have said.
My main point is that there are multiple interrelated but quite distinct issues here. I think that conflating them makes it easier for the bad actors to mislead, while making it harder for genuinely curious people to assess the information they find.
*** I'm mostly just seeking information too and many of you know a lot more about this situation than I do, so everyone please tell me if I've gotten something wrong, or if I'm just generally not making sense
In any other municipality, like,...I dunno....Anaheim, (or any other US city) this would be a massive "no no" and a clear conflict of interest. Could you imagine Anaheim giving their firefighters free annual passes to Disneyland? How about free hotel nights for their police to Disney's Grand Californian or Disneyland Hotel?
This might be a legitimate "rules for thee...but not for me" circumstance.
But,..the way this crazy district was setup in the late 60's....I guess it would be OK to look the other way on this one.
Let's just hope this is the ONLY conflict of interest that is ever discovered. (Florida's IG is digging now)
If this is the worst thing we have to worry about?.....than no big deal....carry on...as you were...