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

[JoeCamel]

DeSantis promises legislation to prevent Disney debt from falling to taxpayers

Gov. Ron DeSantis reiterated his promise that Florida's taxpayers will not take on Walt Disney World's debt when and if the Reedy Creek Improvement District dissolves in 2023, teasing that he may have some legislative measures in place to prevent that from happening.

www.clickorlando.com

Ohhhh, magical thinking - cool.....

 

[GoofGoof]

DeSantis promises legislation to prevent Disney debt from falling to taxpayers

Gov. Ron DeSantis reiterated his promise that Florida's taxpayers will not take on Walt Disney World's debt when and if the Reedy Creek Improvement District dissolves in 2023, teasing that he may have some legislative measures in place to prevent that from happening.

www.clickorlando.com

Well that seems totally legal . I’m going to dissolve the local government and then take the outstanding municipal debt and just make the local taxpayers take on that debt that existed. Not sure that could possibly be legal and “we’ll just pass some legislation to make that happen” isn’t an answer. If I lived in FL I’d be really frightened by this. What happens if he does the same for any other county or municipality? As a landowner you could just be saddled with municipal debt that could bankrupt you. I don’t think any of that is possible or legal, but just having a ”plan” like that is really eye opening.

On the part about the state taking over the district, how is that legal? We just had an extensive discussion around the way the FL constitution defines municipal governments and it doesn’t seem possible to establish a new local government but the state installs a board not elected by the local taxpayers. It’s easy to say we’re just going to take over and I get that appeals to the base from a political prospective but it seems unlikely to be possible and certainly not legal.

On a personal note, DVC owners pay roughly 20% of the taxes to RCID each year so if his plan is to dump the debt on the taxpayers of the district does that mean all DVC owners will shoulder a portion of the debt directly now? Does that go on my credit report as debt I am now responsible for? How exactly will the debt service be collected? Will it be paid back over time still or all due up front next June? 20% of $1B of debt is roughly $200M and that would be spread over thousands of owners. I think it would work out to $2-$3 per point owned but it’s still something to think about. If they try to force the debt to be paid off up front we could see a one time hit to our maintenance fees. That doesn’t address the issue with the bonds that cannot be called early, but none of this is based in reality.

 

[JoeCamel]

Does DeSantis intend to create an Independent Special District?

Referring to Florida Statute 189:

(2) “Dependent special district” means a special district that meets at least one of the following criteria:​

(a) The membership of its governing body is identical to that of the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

(b) All members of its governing body are appointed by the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

(c) During their unexpired terms, members of the special district’s governing body are subject to removal at will by the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

(d) The district has a budget that requires approval through an affirmative vote or can be vetoed by the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

This subsection is for purposes of definition only. Nothing in this subsection confers additional authority upon local governments not otherwise authorized by the provisions of the special acts or general acts of local application creating each special district, as amended.​

​

(3) “Independent special district” means a special district that is not a dependent special district as defined in subsection (2). A district that includes more than one county is an independent special district unless the district lies wholly within the boundaries of a single municipality.​

It appears that in the State of Florida, Independent Special Districts have a mix of elected and gubernatorial appointed board members:

View attachment 641533

No one knows and he isn't telling

 

[mikejs78]

Does DeSantis intend to create an Independent Special District?

Referring to Florida Statute 189:

(2) “Dependent special district” means a special district that meets at least one of the following criteria:​

(a) The membership of its governing body is identical to that of the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

(b) All members of its governing body are appointed by the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

(c) During their unexpired terms, members of the special district’s governing body are subject to removal at will by the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

(d) The district has a budget that requires approval through an affirmative vote or can be vetoed by the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

This subsection is for purposes of definition only. Nothing in this subsection confers additional authority upon local governments not otherwise authorized by the provisions of the special acts or general acts of local application creating each special district, as amended.​

​

(3) “Independent special district” means a special district that is not a dependent special district as defined in subsection (2). A district that includes more than one county is an independent special district unless the district lies wholly within the boundaries of a single municipality.​

It appears that in the State of Florida, Independent Special Districts have a mix of elected and gubernatorial appointed board members:

View attachment 641533

The obstacles for him creating an independent special district with a governor appointed board are the municipalities of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake. Independent special districts with appointed boards come from unincorporated areas with no residents or landowners that are set up for a specific government purpose.

Edit: Reedy Creek is already technically an independent special district under the law As it spans more than one county it is not dependent on any particular county. I don't think this dependent versus independent classification really matters all that much in this context. Regardless of the proposal, the two municipalities are going to pose a huge problem for any kind of state or appointed control.

 

[mikejs78]

Sam Ackley: Reedy Creek âsets the stageâ for the Disney experience

Can the Governor preserve the Disney magic without any costs?

floridapolitics.com

 

[mikejs78]

Here's the rub with Reedy Creek, and this is what it all comes down to at the end of the day. The current law dissolves the special district. By creating a new special district, all the ordinances and rules of the original Reedy Creek District go away. That includes the high property tax rate.

The legislature cannot impose higher tax rates than the constitution allows without a vote of residents or landowners. Disney would have to agree to restore the property tax rate to the Reedy Creek current standard.

The state also can't just create some new tax that applies to Disney either. New taxes can only be implemented by a supermajority vote in the legislature. The Republicans don't and probably won't have that after this year's elections.

So despite whatever DeSantis wants to do, unless Disney agrees, the taxes to support the bond debt and operations will fall somewhere else. Either on the counties themselves or on the state.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So despite whatever DeSantis wants to do, unless Disney agrees, the taxes to support the bond debt and operations will fall somewhere else. Either on the counties themselves or on the state.

Which puts the State in violation of their pledge and we’re right back to the status quo having to be maintained.

 

[GoofGoof]

Does DeSantis intend to create an Independent Special District?

Referring to Florida Statute 189:

(2) “Dependent special district” means a special district that meets at least one of the following criteria:​

(a) The membership of its governing body is identical to that of the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

(b) All members of its governing body are appointed by the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

(c) During their unexpired terms, members of the special district’s governing body are subject to removal at will by the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

(d) The district has a budget that requires approval through an affirmative vote or can be vetoed by the governing body of a single county or a single municipality.​

This subsection is for purposes of definition only. Nothing in this subsection confers additional authority upon local governments not otherwise authorized by the provisions of the special acts or general acts of local application creating each special district, as amended.​

​

(3) “Independent special district” means a special district that is not a dependent special district as defined in subsection (2). A district that includes more than one county is an independent special district unless the district lies wholly within the boundaries of a single municipality.​

It appears that in the State of Florida, Independent Special Districts have a mix of elected and gubernatorial appointed board members:

View attachment 641533

189.031 section 4c says:

c) The Governor and Cabinet may create an independent special district which shall be established by rule in accordance with s. 190.005 or as otherwise authorized in general law. The Governor and Cabinet may also approve the establishment of a charter for the creation of an independent special district which shall be in accordance with s. 373.713, or as otherwise authorized in general law.

190.005 says:
190.005 Establishment of district.—
(1) The exclusive and uniform method for the establishment of a community development district with a size of 2,500 acres or more shall be pursuant to a rule, adopted under chapter 120 by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, granting a petition for the establishment of a community development district.
(a) A petition for the establishment of a community development district shall be filed by the petitioner with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The petition shall contain:
1. A metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the district. Any real property within the external boundaries of the district which is to be excluded from the district shall be specifically described, and the last known address of all owners of such real property shall be listed. The petition shall also address the impact of the proposed district on any real property within the external boundaries of the district which is to be excluded from the district.
2. The written consent to the establishment of the district by all landowners whose real property is to be included in the district or documentation demonstrating that the petitioner has control by deed, trust agreement, contract, or option of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the district, and when real property to be included in the district is owned by a governmental entity and subject to a ground lease as described in s. 190.003(14), the written consent by such governmental entity.
3. A designation of five persons to be the initial members of the board of supervisors, who shall serve in that office until replaced by elected members as provided in s. 190.006.
4. The proposed name of the district.
5. A map of the proposed district showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls if in existence.
6. Based upon available data, the proposed timetable for construction of the district services and the estimated cost of constructing the proposed services. These estimates shall be submitted in good faith but are not binding and may be subject to change.

So I am still not seeing where the Governor can create a special district and appoint the board without the consent of the landowners. #3 above clearly states that the initial board of supervisors can be designated by the state but will only serve until replaced by elected members. If the landowners gave consent and set up a charter that does not include elected officials I think that would be legal, but the landholders have to approve the charter.

 

[lentesta]

189.031 section 4c says:

c) The Governor and Cabinet may create an independent special district which shall be established by rule in accordance with s. 190.005 or as otherwise authorized in general law. The Governor and Cabinet may also approve the establishment of a charter for the creation of an independent special district which shall be in accordance with s. 373.713, or as otherwise authorized in general law.

190.005 says:
190.005 Establishment of district.—
(1) The exclusive and uniform method for the establishment of a community development district with a size of 2,500 acres or more shall be pursuant to a rule, adopted under chapter 120 by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission, granting a petition for the establishment of a community development district.
(a) A petition for the establishment of a community development district shall be filed by the petitioner with the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. The petition shall contain:
1. A metes and bounds description of the external boundaries of the district. Any real property within the external boundaries of the district which is to be excluded from the district shall be specifically described, and the last known address of all owners of such real property shall be listed. The petition shall also address the impact of the proposed district on any real property within the external boundaries of the district which is to be excluded from the district.
2. The written consent to the establishment of the district by all landowners whose real property is to be included in the district or documentation demonstrating that the petitioner has control by deed, trust agreement, contract, or option of 100 percent of the real property to be included in the district, and when real property to be included in the district is owned by a governmental entity and subject to a ground lease as described in s. 190.003(14), the written consent by such governmental entity.
3. A designation of five persons to be the initial members of the board of supervisors, who shall serve in that office until replaced by elected members as provided in s. 190.006.
4. The proposed name of the district.
5. A map of the proposed district showing current major trunk water mains and sewer interceptors and outfalls if in existence.
6. Based upon available data, the proposed timetable for construction of the district services and the estimated cost of constructing the proposed services. These estimates shall be submitted in good faith but are not binding and may be subject to change.

So I am still not seeing where the Governor can create a special district and appoint the board without the consent of the landowners. #3 above clearly states that the initial board of supervisors can be designated by the state but will only serve until replaced by elected members. If the landowners gave consent and set up a charter that does not include elected officials I think that would be legal, but the landholders have to approve the charter.

Could the law establishing the new RCID just waive the requirement in 190.005.2 and .3 by saying something like "notwithstanding the language in 190.005.2 and 190.005.3, the board of directors of New RCID shall be apppointed by the governor", or something like that?

I'm told that "notwithstanding" is the catch-all for "we want this law to superscede any conflicts with other parts of Florida law". Then the only barrier would be if the new law is somehow prohibited by the FL constitution.

Also, does the new RCID *have* to be an independent special district?

 

[mikejs78]

Could the law establishing the new RCID just waive the requirement in 190.005.2 and .3 by saying something like "notwithstanding the language in 190.005.2 and 190.005.3, the board of directors of New RCID shall be apppointed by the governor", or something like that?

I'm told that "notwithstanding" is the catch-all for "we want this law to superscede any conflicts with other parts of Florida law". Then the only barrier would be if the new law is somehow prohibited by the FL constitution.

Also, does the new RCID *have* to be an independent special district?

They could write that but I believe that doesn't always pass muster with the courts. But there are other obstacles.

Frst there's the second clause in the Reedy Creek act. I don't think a notwithstanding will work there as the act itself requires a specific repeal.

Second there's the multiple provisions in the state constitution that prevent government powers being transferred to a new entity without voter consent. Not to mention that even if the legislature could create a new district, they couldn't charge the taxes needed unless approved by the voters in the district (another FL constitutional provision).

 

[lentesta]

Second there's the multiple provisions in the state constitution that prevent government powers being transferred to a new entity without voter consent. Not to mention that even if the legislature could create a new district, they couldn't charge the taxes needed unless approved by the voters in the district (another FL constitutional provision).

Thanks, Mike! You mind citing the relevant parts when you have a sec? Super interesting.

 

[GoofGoof]

Could the law establishing the new RCID just waive the requirement in 190.005.2 and .3 by saying something like "notwithstanding the language in 190.005.2 and 190.005.3, the board of directors of New RCID shall be apppointed by the governor", or something like that?

I'm told that "notwithstanding" is the catch-all for "we want this law to superscede any conflicts with other parts of Florida law". Then the only barrier would be if the new law is somehow prohibited by the FL constitution.

Also, does the new RCID *have* to be an independent special district?

I suppose that could be the plan. I’m not a lawyer, but that seems really problematic from a common sense standpoint. Disney is already a taxpayer paying a full share of property taxes to a local county. How could it be possible for the state to establish a special district covering their property, assess additional taxes and give the landowners no say in how the district is run? If that is done what is to stop the Governor from doing that to any other neighborhood or any area where a majority of landowners speak out against him.

 

[mikejs78]

Thanks, Mike! You mind citing the relevant parts when you have a sec? Super interesting.

Sure. I did a quick pass of the FL constitution a while back and this is what I found. Probably isn't all-inclusive, but from my reading there are numerous constitutional obstacles to the governor's suggestion.

Regarding transfer of powers (emphasis mine)

Article VIII, SECTION 4. Transfer of pow ers.—By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.

I saw it theorized somewhere that using the above provision, Disney could transfer most of the powers from Reedy Creek to Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake before the dissolution

Now, even if they could get a new special district set up (from Article VII, Section 11):

Ad valorem taxes, exclusive of taxes levied for the payment of bonds and taxes levied for periods not longer than two years when authorized by vote of the electors who are the owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation, shall not be levied in excess of the following millages upon the assessed value of real estate and tangible personal property: for all county purposes, ten mills; for all municipal purposes, ten mills; for all school purposes, ten mills; for water management purposes for the northwest portion of the state lying west of the line between ranges two and three east, 0.05 mill; for water management purposes for the remaining portions of the state, 1.0 mill; and for all other special districts a millage authorized by law approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation. A county furnishing municipal services may, to the extent authorized by law, levy additional taxes within the limits fixed for municipal purposes.

Disney's current tax rate to Reedy Creek is more than the 10 mills described above, so in any new special district it would be capped at 10 mills,.unless Disney voted for a higher rate. (This is also where the bond issue plays in. )

Finally, the state also can't just create new taxes. It would require a supermajority vote of the legislature, which the GOP doesn't have.

Article VII, SECTION 19. Supermajority vote required to impose, authorize, or raise state taxes or fees.—
(a) SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE OR AUTHORIZE NEW STATE TAX OR FEE. No new state tax or fee may be imposed or authorized by the legislature except through legislation approved by two-thirds of the membership of each house of the legislature and presented to the Governor for approval pursuant to Article III, Section 8.
(b) SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO RAISE STATE TAXES OR FEES. No state tax or fee may be raised by the legislature except through legislation approved by two-thirds of the membership of each house of the legislature and presented to the Governor for approval pursuant to Article III, Section 8.

 

[lentesta]

Thanks @mikejs78!

Regarding transfer of powers (emphasis mine)

Article VIII, SECTION 4. Transfer of pow ers.—By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.

I think the clause at the end - "or as otherwise provided by law" - gives the governor an opening.

Here's my hypothetical scenario. Assume that any new law passed includes enough language like "notwithstanding..." so that it superscedes any other Florida statute.

1. The governor and legislature revoke the previously-passed RCID dissolution bill. That's easy.
   
   -and either-
   
   
2. The governor and legislature pass a new bill. That bill says that the governor gets to appoint a majority of members to each special district's Board of Supervisors.
   
   -or-
   
   
3. The governor and legislature write a law that:
   1. Creates a new special district
   2. Has a Board of Supervisors appointed by the governor
   3. Transfers the governing power of RCID to the new special district

Everything else about RCID stays the same, so the bond and contract issues become irrelevant. There are no questions about the legality of dissolution or recreation, because the RCID is neither dissolved nor recreated. That effectively gives the governor control of RCID.

My question is: What in the FL constitution prevents Step 2 or Step 3 from happening?


ETA: Florida Constitution Article VIII Section 2(b) says this about municipalities (emphasis mine):

POWERS. Municipalities shall have governmental, corporate and proprietary powers to enable them to conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions and render municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as otherwise provided by law. Each municipal legislative body shall be elective.

But the Florida constitution consistently refers to municipalities and special districts as separate entities, so I don't think Artivle VIII.2.(b) applies.

 

[GoofGoof]

Thanks @mikejs78!



I think the clause at the end - "or as otherwise provided by law" - gives the governor an opening.

Here's my hypothetical scenario. Assume that any new law passed includes enough language like "notwithstanding..." so that it superscedes any other Florida statute.

1. The governor and legislature revoke the previously-passed RCID dissolution bill. That's easy.
   
   -and either-
   
   
2. The governor and legislature pass a new bill. That bill says that the governor gets to appoint a majority of members to each special district's Board of Supervisors.
   
   -or-
   
   
3. The governor and legislature write a law that:
   1. Creates a new special district
   2. Has a Board of Supervisors appointed by the governor
   3. Transfers the governing power of RCID to the new special district

Everything else about RCID stays the same, so the bond and contract issues become irrelevant. There are no questions about the legality of dissolution or recreation, because the RCID is neither dissolved nor recreated. That effectively gives the governor control of RCID.

My question is: What in the FL constitution prevents Step 2 or Step 3 from happening?


ETA: Florida Constitution Article VIII Section 2(b) says this about municipalities (emphasis mine):



But the Florida constitution consistently refers to municipalities and special districts as separate entities, so I don't think Artivle VIII.2.(b) applies.

I think that is likely “the plan”. One issue I think is that RCID has a tax rate above the limit allowed under FL law.

Article 7
SECTION 9. Local taxes.—
(a) Counties, school districts, and municipalities shall, and special districts may, be authorized by law to levy ad valorem taxes and may be authorized by general law to levy other taxes, for their respective purposes, except ad valorem taxes on intangible personal property and taxes prohibited by this constitution.
(b) Ad valorem taxes, exclusive of taxes levied for the payment of bonds and taxes levied for periods not longer than two years when authorized by vote of the electors who are the owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation, shall not be levied in excess of the following millages upon the assessed value of real estate and tangible personal property: for all county purposes, ten mills; for all municipal purposes, ten mills; for all school purposes, ten mills; for water management purposes for the northwest portion of the state lying west of the line between ranges two and three east, 0.05 mill; for water management purposes for the remaining portions of the state, 1.0 mill; and for all other special districts a millage authorized by law approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation. A county furnishing municipal services may, to the extent authorized by law, levy additional taxes within the limits fixed for municipal purposes.

Based on the bold sentence wouldn‘t the landowners need to vote to accept a higher tax rate than is otherwise legally allowed? Unless the Governor’s plan is to assess taxes at the maximum allowed rate, use almost all of the taxes to pay the debt and provide little or no services to the special district but I am not even sure that’s legal. That still means fire and emergency response as well as utility and water management falls to the local county. In theory they could just do no road repairs or new road projects. I also assume once the Governor controls the district and the district’s assets he can slap a large parking fee on the garages at Disney Springs to generate more revenue. As we briefly talked about earlier they may also be able to add a toll to the roads controlled by the district.

 

[GoofGoof]

I think this is where the behind the scenes negotiations come in. The Governor and legislature cannot back down now if they want to save face politically. I still don’t see a legal path forward where they take control of RCID (or a new district that replaces it) without impacting local taxpayers and where Disney pays more taxes. This is what the Governor has stated publicly will happen. Disney wants any bad PR to go away so they will work quietly behind the scenes for a solution that is best for them economically. What I don’t see Disney doing is agreeing to a situation where they have “no say“. If the plan is a Governor appointed board taxes them whatever they want and Disney has no say in the services provided then I think they would fight that to the full extent of the law.

Where I think the compromise comes in is maybe limiting RCID‘s authority to a lesser extent. So for example, remove the ability to build and operate a nuclear power plant, stuff that is completely meaningless like that. Disney has less than zero desire to build or operate a nuclear power plant so they give up nothing and the Gov and crew can take a victory lap. Maybe they even agree to a mixed board. Something like the landowners elect 4 board members and the state appoints 3. Then Disney keeps control but the Gov can spin it as taking away total control from Disney by appointing some board members directly with the rest elected by “the taxpayers”. The average person doesn‘t appreciate the fact that Disney is the primary landowner so would still have total control. I think that this is how the final resolution will go down. Disney will remain silent as they negotiate. If we start hearing from Disney publicly that probably means any path for a negotiated outcome is less likely. I also assume nothing happens until after Nov.

 

[mikejs78]

Thanks @mikejs78!



I think the clause at the end - "or as otherwise provided by law" - gives the governor an opening.

Here's my hypothetical scenario. Assume that any new law passed includes enough language like "notwithstanding..." so that it superscedes any other Florida statute.

1. The governor and legislature revoke the previously-passed RCID dissolution bill. That's easy.
   
   -and either-
   
   
2. The governor and legislature pass a new bill. That bill says that the governor gets to appoint a majority of members to each special district's Board of Supervisors.
   
   -or-
   
   
3. The governor and legislature write a law that:
   1. Creates a new special district
   2. Has a Board of Supervisors appointed by the governor
   3. Transfers the governing power of RCID to the new special district

Everything else about RCID stays the same, so the bond and contract issues become irrelevant. There are no questions about the legality of dissolution or recreation, because the RCID is neither dissolved nor recreated. That effectively gives the governor control of RCID.

My question is: What in the FL constitution prevents Step 2 or Step 3 from happening?


ETA: Florida Constitution Article VIII Section 2(b) says this about municipalities (emphasis mine):



But the Florida constitution consistently refers to municipalities and special districts as separate entities, so I don't think Artivle VIII.2.(b) applies.

#3 would still dissolve the district so I think that would be out.

#2 - Reedy Creek's charter calls for election of the board members. FL couldn't pass a law that appoints members to special districts that would also apply to Reedy Creek because of section 2.

 

[mikejs78]

Regarding:

Article VIII, SECTION 4. Transfer of powers.—By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.​

This has that squirrely "or as otherwise provided by law" that seems to be the legislature's get-out-of-jail-for-free card on so many provisions.

Regarding:

Ad valorem taxes, exclusive of taxes levied for the payment of bonds and taxes levied for periods not longer than two years when authorized by vote of the electors who are the owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation, shall not be levied in excess of the following millages upon the assessed value of real estate and tangible personal property: for all county purposes, ten mills; for all municipal purposes, ten mills; for all school purposes, ten mills; for water management purposes for the northwest portion of the state lying west of the line between ranges two and three east, 0.05 mill; for water management purposes for the remaining portions of the state, 1.0 mill; and for all other special districts a millage authorized by law approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation. A county furnishing municipal services may, to the extent authorized by law, levy additional taxes within the limits fixed for municipal purposes.​

We have to consider the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause as well as what the Florida Constitution says about existing debt:

SECTION 3. Consolidation.—The government of a county and the government of one or more municipalities located therein may be consolidated into a single government which may exercise any and all powers of the county and the several municipalities. The consolidation plan may be proposed only by special law, which shall become effective if approved by vote of the electors of the county, or of the county and municipalities affected, as may be provided in the plan. Consolidation shall not extend the territorial scope of taxation for the payment of pre-existing debt except to areas whose residents receive a benefit from the facility or service for which the indebtedness was incurred.​

And:

(a) POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS. The state shall be divided by law into political subdivisions called counties. Counties may be created, abolished or changed by law, with provision for payment or apportionment of the public debt.​

RCID's existing debt must be paid, while RCID's electors (presumably) had already approved a higher millage. Whatever replaces RCID (and specifically those electors) is not going to be able to avoid paying this existing debt.

You're right but they may not be able to raise the millage rate without Disney's consent. They have to be responsible for paying it but if they can't collect the taxes and they don't have the money, they won't be able to pay for it and it will fall to the state for voiding the contracts.

 

[GoofGoof]

Regarding:

Article VIII, SECTION 4. Transfer of powers.—By law or by resolution of the governing bodies of each of the governments affected, any function or power of a county, municipality or special district may be transferred to or contracted to be performed by another county, municipality or special district, after approval by vote of the electors of the transferor and approval by vote of the electors of the transferee, or as otherwise provided by law.​

This has that squirrely "or as otherwise provided by law" that seems to be the legislature's get-out-of-jail-for-free card on so many provisions.

Regarding:

Ad valorem taxes, exclusive of taxes levied for the payment of bonds and taxes levied for periods not longer than two years when authorized by vote of the electors who are the owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation, shall not be levied in excess of the following millages upon the assessed value of real estate and tangible personal property: for all county purposes, ten mills; for all municipal purposes, ten mills; for all school purposes, ten mills; for water management purposes for the northwest portion of the state lying west of the line between ranges two and three east, 0.05 mill; for water management purposes for the remaining portions of the state, 1.0 mill; and for all other special districts a millage authorized by law approved by vote of the electors who are owners of freeholds therein not wholly exempt from taxation. A county furnishing municipal services may, to the extent authorized by law, levy additional taxes within the limits fixed for municipal purposes.​

We have to consider the U.S. Constitution's Contracts Clause as well as what the Florida Constitution says about existing debt:

SECTION 3. Consolidation.—The government of a county and the government of one or more municipalities located therein may be consolidated into a single government which may exercise any and all powers of the county and the several municipalities. The consolidation plan may be proposed only by special law, which shall become effective if approved by vote of the electors of the county, or of the county and municipalities affected, as may be provided in the plan. Consolidation shall not extend the territorial scope of taxation for the payment of pre-existing debt except to areas whose residents receive a benefit from the facility or service for which the indebtedness was incurred.​

And:

(a) POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS. The state shall be divided by law into political subdivisions called counties. Counties may be created, abolished or changed by law, with provision for payment or apportionment of the public debt.​

RCID's existing debt must be paid, while RCID's electors (presumably) had already approved a higher millage. Whatever replaces RCID (and specifically those electors) is not going to be able to avoid paying this existing debt.

I don’t think it’s as clear cut a get out of jail free card. There is no “otherwise provided by law” legislation in existence that would cover this. If there was already an established piece of legislation that they could point to then it would be easier to pull off. Something that is in place that already establishes an alternative way to organize a special district. The only way to use that clause would be to first pass a law to cover an alternative way to organize a special district involving taxation without representation. Yes, the Gov controls the legislature but it would still have to get past the courts. Checks and balances in our system exist to prevent something like this from happening. I don’t believe most judges would just view that clause as a “free pass” for the legislature to do whatever they want. If the law passed directly contradicts the provisions of the constitution itself it could be struck down before they can even use it. If that doesn’t happen then it’s a really dangerous precedent for the state.

 

[mikejs78]

I don’t think it’s as clear cut a get out of jail free card. There is no “otherwise provided by law” legislation in existence that would cover this. If there was already an established piece of legislation that they could point to then it would be easier to pull off. Something that is in place that already establishes an alternative way to organize a special district. The only way to use that clause would be to first pass a law to cover an alternative way to organize a special district involving taxation without representation. Yes, the Gov controls the legislature but it would still have to get past the courts. Checks and balances in our system exist to prevent something like this from happening. I don’t believe most judges would just view that clause as a “free pass” for the legislature to do whatever they want. If the law passed directly contradicts the provisions of the constitution itself it could be struck down before they can even use it. If that doesn’t happen then it’s a really dangerous precedent for the state.

A couple of other things that make this really difficult. Florida constitution requires that bills address one and only one thing - bills that address multiple things are deemed unconstitutional. Now there's a lot that you can lump in together as one thing, but there are limits.

Second, the question is whether this gets passed as a general law or a special law. Both have different requirements. A general law must apply generally, and not to one specific locality or one specific entity. It's why the dissolution act targeted districts created before 1968, because targeting Reedy Creek alone would have required a special act which is a lot more complicated.

However the Reedy Creek act itself negates any general laws that conflict with the Reedy Creek act. The only way to modify the Reedy Creek act according to the Reedy Creek act is by repealing section 2, which, under Florida law, would be subject to the voters of the district.

Special acts require 60 days notice prior to filing it with the legislature,or a referendum. So the first thing the state would have to do is repeal the general law that requires a referendum for any changes to special districts. Then once it did that, it could file a special law notice that it was going to repeal section two of the Reedy Creek act (And even that's questionable if it could be done without a referendum). Once that was done, it could either create a general law requires the governor to approve or appoint the number of board members in all special districts, or create another special law applying just to Reedy Creek, again with the notice as that is a constitutional requirement

However, Disney's ace up its sleeve is the municipalities of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake. As @lentesta noted, municipalities have additional protections under the state constitution. Now, since there is all this notice required for any special laws, that would give time for the voters in the two municipalities to vote along with the board to move powers from Reedy Creek to the two municipalities, As powers can be transferred as long as both parties (the district and the voters) agree. Then if the governor adds his appointees, Reedy Creek may have very little that it can do left other than service the debt.

I still think it will be hard to convince a court That notwithstanding clauses can be used to take away enumerated voting rights.