mikejs78
Well-Known Member
I don't think this is correct. Pretty sure RCID energy services bills Disney. @peter11435 might know.
-
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
I don't think this is correct. Pretty sure RCID energy services bills Disney. @peter11435 might know.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Yeah he is just trying to split a hair
GoofGoof
Premium Member
TWDC pays their own electric bill. Currently they are paying RCID for the power they consume. RCID acts as a municipal utility so for Disney they are the power company. RCID also provides power to several other customers within the district (hotels). RCID generates some of its own power and buys the rest from other suppliers as a wholesale purchase of power. TWDC is their primary retail customer. The Issue brought up a few pages back with Duke Energy was between Duke as the wholesale supplier of power and RCID.
RCID also provides water and sewer utility services too. If the district is dissolved all of those utility services need to go somewhere else. WDW wouldn’t go dark, they would just pay someone else for the power and water they consume.
Florida Municipal Utility Map - Florida Municipal Electric Association
www.flpublicpower.com
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That’s not how it works.
Correct, the actual company serving as the electric provider within the District is Reedy Creek Energy Services (which is actually a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company contracted to provide service in the District). Nobody in the District is being billed or serviced directly by Duke. The District buys electricity from Duke because they don’t generate enough of their own power.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
You're wrong. RCID is Disney. The purpose of RCID is to serve Disney's interests. They wouldn't try to 'force' Disney to pay things or somehow try to 'hurt' Disney. Thats the whole reason the crazy governor went after it. It was something they could target that could potentially hurt Disney. But he didn't know enough about the situation and now its where it is.
No, I think he thinks they're not partners and for some reason would work at cross purposes.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
It's funny, every time I say RCID IS Disney everyone said I was wrong.
Well, yes, we agree, RCID = Disney.As I understand it, RCID is used by TWDC so they don't have to directly pay for something or put off paying for things they know they need by issuing bonds.
Apparently, TWDC put off paying for services to the tune of 1 to 2 billion dollars in bond debt RCID is responsible for.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Your understanding remains incorrect.It's funny, every time I say RCID IS Disney everyone said I was wrong.
As I understand it, RCID is used by TWDC so they don't have to directly pay for something or put off paying for things they know they need by issuing bonds.
Apparently, TWDC put off paying for services to the tune of 1 to 2 billion dollars in bond debt RCID is responsible for.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Well, we agree, RCID = Disney anyway.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
That's also incorrect. Disney having control of the District does not make the District part of Disney. Disney could sell all of the land today and walk away from Walt Disney World and the District would remain.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Oh yes that was not you. That was someone else.
In my opinion, RCID is Disney.
My father in law worked for RCID, he got all the cast members perks including main gate passes, food tickets, huge merch discounts. party tickets, discount for DVC, etc.
His name badge looked like a cast member badge until you looked at it closely and saw the RCID logo.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Who signed his check and who paid his insurance. That is who he worked for
While Disney extends many benefits to RCID it’s just like how they extend benefits to third party participants. “The District” and “The Company” are entirely separate entireties. (Not directed at you just furthering the conversation)
They also did this for Sunglass Hut vendors at the water parks, but Sunglass Hut has no influence over water management nor hotel remodels.
I finally went back and read the entire article. It seems very light on facts and just glosses over a whole bunch of important implementation topics with some hand waiving. I think you pulled the most substantive part of it.
On the one hand, if we assume the state legislature can just do all those things with no input from the people there, what would stop them from just taking over any town they disagree with about anything?
On the other hand, if we assume that this type of alteration of the government structure requires approval from a majority of voters impacted, then there's an almost unlimited number of things Disney can do to fight this, but only AFTER action to implement is done, not before.
Another quote from the article
It's no wonder Disney isn't talking. Being silent is the best negotiating tactic they could take here.
On a purely technical level, within FL law.
- Is there a way for the state to alter the RCID board to add state appointed seats within the existing RCID structure? Meaning without dissolving an creating a new district?
- If there is a way, does that process require the current board or land owners within RCID to vote for and approve of the change?
- If there isn't a way and instead it's a dissolution and creation of a new district. Do the impacted land owners need to vote and approve being part of a new district?
- What types of restrictions are their on how a new district would collect new taxes? Would that new thing require land owner approval prior to being possible?
That's quite a prediction. If the technicalities above require approval by the land owners to create a new district with new taxing rights, I wouldn't place bets on if Disney is likely to happily accept that or not.
This part in the article is just lazy. While that's the obvious way a preemptive fight would go, on the basis that the dissolution was a direct reaction to Disney speech (which it clearly was), it's hardly the only alternative.
On the one hand, if we assume the state legislature can just do all those things with no input from the people there, what would stop them from just taking over any town they disagree with about anything?
On the other hand, if we assume that this type of alteration of the government structure requires approval from a majority of voters impacted, then there's an almost unlimited number of things Disney can do to fight this, but only AFTER action to implement is done, not before.
Another quote from the article
If that's the most likely, that's a game of chicken. It's no wonder bond holders and other creditors are worried. If RCID is just "gone one day" and it takes years to figure out who the replacement is and who is able to pay back that debt, that'll be a monumental disaster. For stuff where RCID contracts with someone, Disney can probably take over those and keep the service from failing. For stuff where RCID does it directly, or is integral to providing the service, it'll be a much bigger issue.
It's no wonder Disney isn't talking. Being silent is the best negotiating tactic they could take here.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
There are efforts to change how different bodies work in the state to give the executive branch more control or influence. An easy one that would likely be easily glossed over as "nothing" would be giving the governor the power to dismiss supervisors and fill vacancies for the remainder of the term. So even without a direct majority, the state would always be able to threaten Disney by being able to disrupt the function of the District.
The current laws for establishing a Community Development District, ostensibly what the passed law is supposed to force recreation under, requires written consent from all landowners. It's not just Disney that can throw a wrench into this idea of creating a new District. You could literally create holes in the District that not only create service and jurisdictional headaches, but also creates a situation that violates the state's pledge not to interfere with the District's work as the District's new tax base would technically be smaller than it was before being reconstituted.
flynnibus
Premium Member
I think the simple pretense unspoken but assumed in all this is that through negotiation a compromise is reached that Disney would agree to and give their blessing. Do they HAVE to? In most cases it seems not - but like most high level business it's not about what you MUST do but what is in your best interest in the end game.
Is Disney playing hard-line to the end in their best interest? That's a very loaded question... and one that could possibly see them giving a bit to ward off other potential fights.
The problem with politics though, is deals with 'Joe' don't necessarily hold up when dealing with 'Bob' years later. Disney's current entrenchment in the law is very powerful and well defended. Giving any inch could be seen as undermining that to the point of losing all defense. It's a very challenging situation because it involves gambling the future too.
And this is why I think Disney stays quiet... they are the ones actually in the driver's seat. The state is rushing at them lights blaring and screaming.. but Disney is in a better spot then they are until the courts start passing judgements to the contrary.
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
Who is going to change the law when?
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s not a decision the governor has sole discretion to decide. The action of dissolving districts was a work of the state legislature and repealing the law similarly requires a legislative act.