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

Surferboy567

Surferboy567

Well-Known Member
DCBaker said:
From a recent OBJ article.

"The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District — formerly called Reedy Creek Improvement District — is inviting scrutiny.

The governing entity that oversees Walt Disney World's land published a request for proposals on Dec. 27. The bid opportunity is for an operational assessment that may kickstart widespread changes to the district, even creating new opportunities for Central Florida contractors that sell products and services Disney needs.

The invitation to bid was posted on PlanetBids, the vendor portal adopted after Reedy Creek Improvement District dissolved. Orlando Business Journal requested more information from the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, but the district had not responded by the afternoon of Dec. 29."

-----

"Questions about the project are due Thursday, Jan. 11, and answers will be posted on PlanetBids. Bids are due Thursday, Jan. 18, at 2 p.m. Proposals will be subject to a rating system; a shortlist of applicants will be created followed by an initial evaluation to narrow the field to the two highest-rated proposers, which will be examined further.

In the end, the highest-rated contractor will win a one-year contract to assess the current organization and develop a “prioritized list of reform strategies with associated action plans for implementation.” If the reform strategies proposed by the winning contractor are approved by the district, the $130 million allocated annually for operating expenses could be spent differently.

The activity attached to the contract appears to address the entire scope of Central Florida Tourism Oversight District operations, from finance to technology to procurement. Other areas scoped are:
  • Building
  • Safety
  • Construction management
  • Environmental sciences
  • Facilities
  • Fire department
  • Human resources
  • Planning
  • Engineering
  • Public affairs
  • Security
  • Emergency management
Preference will be given to veteran-owned businesses and local businesses.

Typically, competition for an award of this kind would favor businesses certified in the Minority/Women Business Enterprise and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs. However, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District eliminated most of its diversity, equity and inclusion programs in August — though preference for veterans remains secure."

Full article at the link below.

See the listing on PlanetBids at this link - https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/62171/bo/bo-detail/112846
Click to expand...
How do these things typically go? I don’t imagine Disney is going to like a third party picking around.
 
Stripes

Stripes

Premium Member
DCBaker said:
From a recent OBJ article.

"The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District — formerly called Reedy Creek Improvement District — is inviting scrutiny.

The governing entity that oversees Walt Disney World's land published a request for proposals on Dec. 27. The bid opportunity is for an operational assessment that may kickstart widespread changes to the district, even creating new opportunities for Central Florida contractors that sell products and services Disney needs.

The invitation to bid was posted on PlanetBids, the vendor portal adopted after Reedy Creek Improvement District dissolved. Orlando Business Journal requested more information from the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, but the district had not responded by the afternoon of Dec. 29."

-----

"Questions about the project are due Thursday, Jan. 11, and answers will be posted on PlanetBids. Bids are due Thursday, Jan. 18, at 2 p.m. Proposals will be subject to a rating system; a shortlist of applicants will be created followed by an initial evaluation to narrow the field to the two highest-rated proposers, which will be examined further.

In the end, the highest-rated contractor will win a one-year contract to assess the current organization and develop a “prioritized list of reform strategies with associated action plans for implementation.” If the reform strategies proposed by the winning contractor are approved by the district, the $130 million allocated annually for operating expenses could be spent differently.

The activity attached to the contract appears to address the entire scope of Central Florida Tourism Oversight District operations, from finance to technology to procurement. Other areas scoped are:
  • Building
  • Safety
  • Construction management
  • Environmental sciences
  • Facilities
  • Fire department
  • Human resources
  • Planning
  • Engineering
  • Public affairs
  • Security
  • Emergency management
Preference will be given to veteran-owned businesses and local businesses.

Typically, competition for an award of this kind would favor businesses certified in the Minority/Women Business Enterprise and Disadvantaged Business Enterprise programs. However, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District eliminated most of its diversity, equity and inclusion programs in August — though preference for veterans remains secure."

Full article at the link below.

See the listing on PlanetBids at this link - https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/62171/bo/bo-detail/112846
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised if this is an attempt to create some cover for more grifting opportunities.

“Our reform contractor recommended that we ditch our existing maintenance contractor. Let me introduce my good friend who will be taking over this contract for the district…”
 
Goofyernmost

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Question.... other than safety factors wouldn't that mean that the only recourse TWDC (WDW) might have is to just stop developing until they have some say in where their money is going. If they develop more then they come under the thumb of the state, but if they don't then there is nothing for the district to job out. They cannot build attractions or hotels without WDW planning can they? It just seems to me that the more pushback they give Disney the more it costs the state in added tax revenue (i.e. Lake Nona). Of course, the idea that taking over a smooth running operation by the government was a good idea was said by just about no one.
 
B

Batman'sParents

Active Member
Goofyernmost said:
Question.... other than safety factors wouldn't that mean that the only recourse TWDC (WDW) might have is to just stop developing until they have some say in where their money is going. If they develop more then they come under the thumb of the state, but if they don't then there is nothing for the district to job out. They cannot build attractions or hotels without WDW planning can they? It just seems to me that the more pushback they give Disney the more it costs the state in added tax revenue (i.e. Lake Nona). Of course, the idea that taking over a smooth running operation by the government was a good idea was said by just about no one.
Click to expand...
That is a possibility. Beyond maintaining rides for safety and other forms of safety, they could just choose to invest meager amounts and move monies into DCL, DLR, and international parks. Disneyland Forward makes an interesting case for more California investment.

On the other hand, they need to be prepared for expansion with EU opening up.There's no way that TWDC doesn't invest in their Florida parks as part of a multipronged response.

TWDC has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and letting the FL parks lapse is not good for business.
 
Stripes

Stripes

Premium Member
Batman'sParents said:
That is a possibility. Beyond maintaining rides for safety and other forms of safety, they could just choose to invest meager amounts and move monies into DCL, DLR, and international parks. Disneyland Forward makes an interesting case for more California investment.

On the other hand, they need to be prepared for expansion with EU opening up.There's no way that TWDC doesn't invest in their Florida parks as part of a multipronged response.

TWDC has a fiduciary duty to their shareholders and letting the FL parks lapse is not good for business.
Click to expand...
The company has included the risks posed by CFTOD and Florida’s actions in their annual report to shareholders.

The company needs development certainty before they can proceed with $1 billion+ developments. CFTOD has done everything it can to disrupt that.
 
Last edited:
M

mmascari

Well-Known Member
Surferboy567 said:
How do these things typically go? I don’t imagine Disney is going to like a third party picking around.
Click to expand...
It looks like classic management consulting. The consultant comes in and asks lots of questions of everyone, documenting what they say is the as-is condition. They ask management what they want things to be as the to-be condition. Then, write up a recommendation on how to get from the as-is to the to-be.

In theory, they're supposed to present a report where the to-be includes "industry best practices" and other things that fit regulatory required activity along with whatever special sauce the consultant is supposed to bring from their vast knowledge of how businesses work and experiences they've seen across all organizations.

Stripes said:
I would not be surprised if this is an attempt to create some cover for more grifting opportunities.
Click to expand...
Unlike the theory, this is more likely the outcome. Management, the board in this case, knows what they want to do already. They're looking for a "neutral third party expert consultant" to provide justification for doing those things.

For anyone that has the prior experience to create that expert advice credential, it's a great job. Even better if you can hire cheap new college grads to do the actual interviews and grunt work for you.

At least, that's the classic management consulting process. The alternative approach is management understanding the as-is structure and having the leadership ability to set direction without requiring the "expert advice" cover.
 
mkt

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
tissandtully

tissandtully

Well-Known Member
lazyboy97o said:
“Put another way, if a government actor’s controlling motivation behind an adverse action is gaining political benefit from punishing protected activity, the government actor flouts the First Amendment.”

A nice little sentence from the 11th Circuit today on another Florida matter.
Click to expand...
Yep, that particular case it was even ruled the government was out of line but the court had no process to make things right again. So what the government did stood.
 
C

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
tissandtully said:
Yep, that particular case it was even ruled the government was out of line but the court had no process to make things right again. So what the government did stood.
Click to expand...
Actually, yesterday's ruling gave Warren a new trial to determine if the governor improperly focused on Warren's opposition to laws he had signed. The previous ruling is what said there was nothing that could be done because the governor likely would have suspended him for some other reason anyway. I'm not sure what those other reasons may have been, but assuming there were legitimately other reasons then that could be the difference between this case and the Disney/RCID case. The governor and legislators who created the bill admitted multiple times that Chapek's comments were the sole reason that they took action, with the governor admitting that he didn't even know what RCID was before. So here, the "some other reason" doesn't exist, and even that ruling was overturned in the other case.

apnews.com

Court sends case of prosecutor suspended by DeSantis back to trial judge over First Amendment issues

A Democratic Florida prosecutor suspended by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis will get another chance to show his political advocacy was protected by the First Amendment and could not be the basis for his removal.
apnews.com apnews.com
 
D

DCBaker

Premium Member
Chip Chipperson said:
Actually, yesterday's ruling gave Warren a new trial to determine if the governor improperly focused on Warren's opposition to laws he had signed. The previous ruling is what said there was nothing that could be done because the governor likely would have suspended him for some other reason anyway. I'm not sure what those other reasons may have been, but assuming there were legitimately other reasons then that could be the difference between this case and the Disney/RCID case. The governor and legislators who created the bill admitted multiple times that Chapek's comments were the sole reason that they took action, with the governor admitting that he didn't even know what RCID was before. So here, the "some other reason" doesn't exist, and even that ruling was overturned in the other case.

apnews.com

Court sends case of prosecutor suspended by DeSantis back to trial judge over First Amendment issues

A Democratic Florida prosecutor suspended by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis will get another chance to show his political advocacy was protected by the First Amendment and could not be the basis for his removal.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...

Disney has reportedly filed a copy of this decision in its lawsuit against DeSantis.

Here's the article from the Orlando Sentinel.

Disney’s lawyers think a court ruling boosting ousted Tampa prosecutor Andrew Warren’s bid to get his job back also will help their lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis.

The entertainment giant’s legal team on Thursday filed a copy of Wednesday’s decision from the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the same First Amendment protections within it apply to the company’s lawsuit.

Both Disney and Warren, a Democrat, argue they were punished by DeSantis because of their political positions.

DeSantis suspended Warren in August 2022, citing statements Warren had signed opposing efforts to criminalize abortion and gender-transition treatments for children.

U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle largely agreed that DeSantis’ suspension violated Warren’s First Amendment rights, but he ruled he was powerless to give him his job back.

But a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said the judge could return Warren to office.

“DeSantis argues that even if Warren prevails on the merits of his claim, the district court lacks the authority to reinstate Warren. We reject this argument,” their decision reads. “The Eleventh Amendment permits federal courts to remedy First Amendment violations.”

Disney also is citing the First Amendment in its federal lawsuit against DeSantis and state officials. The suit alleges DeSantis targeted Disney because it opposed what critics called the “don’t say gay” law, which limits classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity.

After it took that position, DeSantis and his Republican allies overhauled a special district providing government services to Disney World, replacing five Disney loyalists on the board with five GOP supporters.

The two sides presented arguments last month to U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor.

Lawyers for DeSantis and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District argued the governor and the Legislature were on firm legal ground to retool a special district, calling the changes “standard, regulatory provisions.”

Disney’s lawyers countered that the move amounted to “as clear a case of retaliation against protected speech as the court will ever see.”

Jeremy Redfern, a DeSantis spokesman, said the ruling in the Warren case sets a “dangerous precedent” that could allow progressive prosecutors to ignore laws they don’t agree with.

Disney’s lawyers quoted part of a concurring opinion in the Warren case from Judge Kevin Newsom, who was nominated by former President Donald Trump.

“[F]or the same reason that the government can’t muzzle so-called ‘conservative’ speech under the guise of preventing on-campus ‘harassment’ … the state can’t exercise its coercive power to censor so-called ‘woke’ speech with which it disagrees,” his opinion read.

“The same values are at stake here,” Disney’s lawyers concluded.

Orange-Osceola State Attorney Monique Worrell is also fighting to get her job back with advocates arguing in both federal court and the Florida Supreme Court that DeSantis suspended her for political reasons.
Click to expand...

www.orlandosentinel.com

Disney cites Andrew Warren decision in lawsuit against DeSantis

Disney’s lawyers think a court ruling boosting ousted ex-Tampa prosecutor Andrew Warren’s bid to get his job back will also help their lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis.
www.orlandosentinel.com www.orlandosentinel.com
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom