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

[flynnibus]

Imagine if we allowed anyone to sign a contract and then get out of it because they claim they made a mistake when doing so.

Imagine forcing everyone to accept something someone did illegally….

 

[Chi84]

They don’t need to do anything. If the agreement was entered into in violation of the state’s open meetings laws, the contract is not binding. They can take an official action to deem the agreement null and void, and force WDPR to sue.

Section 286.011, provides that no resolution, rule, regulation or formal action shall be considered binding except as taken or made at an open meeting. They can find, and self-assert, that the agreement was entered into in violation of the open meeting act. The correction, if they so choose, is a curative attempt to have the meetings appropriately publicly noticed.

163.3235 even enables them to unilaterally revoke a development agreement If they find competent evidence of failure to comply.

I disagree with this interpretation. Compliance with the sunshine law’s requirement of open meetings requires only reasonable notice.

 

[flynnibus]

Could Disney challenge right away? The board can say things, and that’s really all their declaration will be, just them saying something. Would Disney have to wait until after land development regulations are modified and then prohibited from acting by the district? It seems if the Board was smart they could actually delay Disney’s ability to act.

I’d imagine the resolution itself would be enough.

This isn’t the district quiet quitting the deal… they are taking direct action to tear it up

But leave that for the lawyers i guess

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Imagine forcing everyone to accept something someone did illegally….

Any landowner who feels they have a valid case for being negatively impacted has the right to challenge the agreement in court based on the alleged lack of mailing, correct? So nobody is forced to accept it unless they decide to challenge it and lose. Conversely, why punish Disney for someone else's alleged failure to mail the notices, especially when the notices were published in the local paper and the contracts discussed at public hearings? If no landowners are negatively impacted then Disney shouldn't suffer. The spirit of the law matters.

 

[LAKid53]

Enforcement and compliance relate the to the terms of the agreement. They can force Disney to do something or argue that Disney isn’t doing what they are supposed to be doing. The District’s own failure to provide notice is not an issue of enforcement or compliance with the terms of the agreement.

And as you point out, even if that were the case, the avenue to do so is through the courts. There is no provision that allows a party to unilaterally declare the agreement null and void, and 163.3237 specifically requires mutual consent to cancel an agreement. There is no statute that gives special districts the power to cancel contracts. In fact, the power to cancel contracts is specifically prohibited by the state and federal constitutions.

Glad you brought up Section 163.3237. It would preclude the new Board or TWDC moving ahead with or canceling the Agreement without consent of other parcel owners who were party to the original agreement if said acts "directly modifies the allowable uses or entitlements of such owners’ property."

So if the Board's threat to nullify the agreement would modify the entitlements of the property owners within the District's boundaries, those property owners have grounds.

 

[flynnibus]

LIt only matters if they try to act as if it’s void.

I mean… just look at the last few weeks. You think the district is just gonna sit back and stay away from these topics? There gonna cross that line as quick as they can get out of their own way

 

[LivinDISLife]

Next time I drive to Flamingo Crossings I'll take a photo. As I said earlier, they remind me of dry storm water retention ponds, but the excavation is too shallow.

Sounds like you're talking about the rapid infiltration basins. The link below references them, aka RIBs. Commonly used in the water treatment process.

https://www.rcid.org/document/2021-reclaimed-water-quality-report/

 

[LAKid53]

it’s not hypothetical. It’s recommended the local government hold rehearings to fix the failure to provide notice
From the state’s Sunshine Law guide:

Where, however, a public board or commission does not merely perfunctorily ratify or ceremoniously accept at a later open meeting those decisions which were made at an earlier secret meeting but rather takes “independent final action in the sunshine,” the decision of the board or commission will not be disturbed. Tolar v. School Board of Liberty County, 398 So. 2d 427, 429 (Fla. 1981). Accord Bruckner v. City of Dania Beach, 823 So. 2d 167, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (Sunshine violations “can be cured by independent, final action completely in the Sunshine”). And see Monroe County v. Pigeon Key Historical Park, Inc., 647 So. 2d 857, 861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (adoption of the open government constitutional amendment, Art. I, s. 24, Fla. Const., did not overrule the Tolar “standard of remediation”). Cf. Board of County Commissioners of Sarasota County v. Webber, 658 So. 2d 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (no evidence suggesting that board members met in secret during a recess to reconsider and deny a variance and then perfunctorily ratified this decision at the public hearing held a few minutes later); B.M.Z. Corporation v. City of Oakland Park, 415 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (where no evidence that any decision was made in private, subsequent formal action in sunshine was not merely perfunctory ratification of secret decisions or ceremonial acceptance of secret actions).
Thus, in a case involving the validity of a lease approved by a board of county commissioners after an advisory committee held two unnoticed meetings regarding the lease, a court held that the Sunshine Law violations were cured when the board of county commissioners held open public hearings after the unnoticed meetings, an effort was made to make available to the public the minutes of the unnoticed meetings, the board approved a lease that was markedly different from that recommended by the advisory committee, and most of the lease negotiations were conducted after the advisory committee had concluded its work. Monroe County v. Pigeon Key Historical Park, Inc., 647 So. 2d 857, 860-861 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
Similarly, a school board remedied an inadvertent violation of the Sunshine Law when it subsequently held full, open and independent public hearings prior to adopting a redistricting plan. Finch v. Seminole County School Board, 995 So. 2d 1068, 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). And see Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Sarasota, 48 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 2010) (any possible violations that occurred when county commissioners circulated e-mails among each other were cured by four subsequent public meetings involving discussion of multiple proposals); Jackson v. City of Tallahassee, 265 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (public city commission meeting to fill a vacancy on the commission, which included a full discussion of the appointment, candidate presentations, more than an hour of public comment, and numerous speakers, cured any purported violation that may have occurred during the application process). Cf. Anderson v. City of St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d 548, 553-554 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), noting that “even when an illicit action is ‘cured’ it does not absolve a public body of its responsibility for violating the Sunshine Law in the first instance; it simply provides a way to salvage a void act by reconsidering it in Sunshine.”
It must be emphasized, however, that only a full open hearing will cure the defect; a violation of the Sunshine Law will not be cured by a perfunctory ratification of the action taken outside of the sunshine. Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc. v. Centrust Savings Bank, 535 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). See also Anderson v. City of St. Pete Beach, 161 So. 3d at 553 (city failed to cure Sunshine Law violation since it merely perfunctorily ratified in public session what had already been decided in closed meetings).

Neither of the two meetings were secret. Notices were published for both in the Orlando Sentinel. Reporters from the three local network affiliates (ABC, CBS, NBC) were at the meetings. It's in the meeting minutes.

 

[MrPromey]

Yes but what your position ignores and why it’s garnered so many responses… is the stuff on their shoe is from the government… not the public.

That’s the difference here. Disney isn’t being singled out by individuals- but by the florida gop abusing their office

Think you made a typo - FTFY.

 

[Chi84]

It might help to clarify that there are two separate notice requirements being discussed here. Violation of the open meetings law will make any actions taken non-binding, but that law requires only reasonable notice, which is likely satisfied by publication.

The second notice requirement involves the development agreement. That’s the notice that needs also to be mailed to affected parties and failure to do so will not in itself “void” the agreement. More is required.

Apologies to those who are already familiar with this, but there seems to be some confusion. I hope I’m not adding to it lol.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Imagine forcing everyone to accept something someone did illegally….

But that isn’t what is happening. An “affected property owner” can challenge the validity of the agreement by saying they should have been notified. The statute itself does not define “affected property owner.” The board isn’t acting on any specific complaints. It’s a hypothetical that the district’s prior determination of affected parties requiring notice was incorrect. I don’t think governing bodies should be precluded from re-evaluating their conduct, but it seems a flimsy argument for undoing previous decisions that are without complaint.

 

[flynnibus]

Any landowner who feels they have a valid case for being negatively impacted has the right to challenge the agreement in court based on the alleged lack of mailing, correct? So nobody is forced to accept it unless they decide to challenge it and lose. Conversely, why punish Disney for someone else's alleged failure to mail the notices, especially when the notices were published in the local paper and the contracts discussed at public hearings? If no landowners ate negatively impacted then Disney shouldn't suffer. The spirit of the law matters.

Imagine this hypothetical…

District employee enters into a purchasing agreement with a vendor that is not legal because of some unmet requirement or conflict… lets say it was a deal with his own company. The district employee is fired. The deal is beneficial to the vendor… so they aren’t gonna sue to void the deal.. You think district management is now forced to respect the deal because it was done by the now former district employees and the district can’t act against their contract because of their own deficiencies?

 

[Chi84]

Imagine this hypothetical…

District employee enters into a purchasing agreement with a vendor that is not legal because of some unmet requirement or conflict… lets say it was a deal with his own company. The district employee is fired. The deal is beneficial to the vendor… so they aren’t gonna sue to void the deal.. You think district management is now forced to respect the deal because it was done by the now former district employees and the district can’t act against their contract because of their own deficiencies?

An illegal contract would be void. A failure to meet conditions would likely only make it voidable. (Exceptions and exclusions apply.)

 

[LAKid53]

But that isn’t what is happening. An “affected property owner” can challenge the validity of the agreement by saying they should have been notified. The statute itself does not define “affected property owner.” The board isn’t acting on any specific complaints. It’s a hypothetical that the district’s prior determination of affected parties requiring notice was incorrect. I don’t think governing bodies should be precluded from re-evaluating their conduct, but it seems a flimsy argument for undoing previous decisions that are without complaint.

Section 163.3215, F.S., provides both method of remedy and defines "aggrieved or adversely affected party".

"(2) As used in this section, the term “aggrieved or adversely affected party” means any person or local government that will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or furthered by the local government comprehensive plan, including interests related to health and safety, police and fire protection service systems, densities or intensities of development, transportation facilities, health care facilities, equipment or services, and environmental or natural resources. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in common with other members of the community at large but must exceed in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons. The term includes the owner, developer, or applicant for a development order."

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Imagine this hypothetical…

District employee enters into a purchasing agreement with a vendor that is not legal because of some unmet requirement or conflict… lets say it was a deal with his own company. The district employee is fired. The deal is beneficial to the vendor… so they aren’t gonna sue to void the deal.. You think district management is now forced to respect the deal because it was done by the now former district employees and the district can’t act against their contract because of their own deficiencies?

That's a completely different scenario. Your hypothetical example involves an employee entering I to a contract without the authority to do so. Government entities can't just enter into contracts like that. There are bidding processes and approvals to obtain specifally to avoid such ethical violations. In the case of Disney, the board voted to accept the contracts at public hearings, so there was no such lack of authority and no secrecy. All we have is an allegation from the new combative board that affected landowners weren't mailed notices, but no such landowners have actually come forward to claim they actually are affected negatively and oppose the contracts.

 

[flynnibus]

An illegal contract would be void. A failure to meet conditions would likely only make it voidable. (Exceptions and exclusions apply.)

And that’s what the board is asserting here… the contract was done illegally.

They aren’t trying to void it over agreement compliance or a impacted party raising a concern… they flat out assert the paper itself was invalid.

Right or wrong… that’s their basis. Claiming it has all these defects that make it void. Not terminating the contract from with it… but calling the wrong thing void on pretenses.

 

[flynnibus]

That's a completely different scenario. Your hypothetical example involves an employee entering I to a contract without the authority to do so. Government entities can't just enter into contracts like that. There are bidding processes and approvals to obtain specifally to avoid such ethical violations.

And when those processes aren’t followed - then what? Hour retort is essentially’thsts not allowed’…. But does not address shat happens afterwards. They are not bound to a contract that they found to done incorrectly… especially done illegally.

In the case of Disney, the board voted to accept the contracts at public hearings, so there was no such lack of authority and no secrecy.

But that’s just it… that’s what they are contesting… that the deal was done with ghe correct authority, notice and with all these other impairments. They are trying to tear up the piece of paper… not enforce it’s exit clauses.

All we have is an allegation from the new combative board that affected landowners weren't mailed notices, but no such landowners have actually come forward to claim they actually are affected negatively and oppose the contracts.

The lawyer outlined many more impairments (in their opinion). The vote to move to void the deal did not rely (or name) just that one defect iirc

 

[LAKid53]

Imagine this hypothetical…

District employee enters into a purchasing agreement with a vendor that is not legal because of some unmet requirement or conflict… lets say it was a deal with his own company. The district employee is fired. The deal is beneficial to the vendor… so they aren’t gonna sue to void the deal.. You think district management is now forced to respect the deal because it was done by the now former district employees and the district can’t act against their contract because of their own deficiencies?

The contract in this hypothetical is voidable. Furthermore, government employees have to annually disclose any outside employment, including volunteering, that would be deemed a conflict.

And no "district employee" would be authorized to execute an agreement on their own.

 

[tissandtully]

Stories like this certainly aren’t helping, offers no explanation except the state’s side:

Florida board says it discovers another '11th hour' agreement with Disney — Reuters

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' new oversight board has discovered another "11th hour agreement" that allows Walt Disney Co to set its own utility rates at its Orlando theme parks, the board's chairman said on Wednesday.

apple.news

 

[lazyboy97o]

but no such landowners have actually come forward to claim they actually are affected negatively and oppose the contracts.

I think the point @flynnibus is making is that the notice requirement is not just for those negatively impacted. The point isn’t for the Board to predetermine who is negatively impacted but to solicit input into the decision making process. Someone should be able to object on the principal of lack of notice alone as that is the rule.

It’s a strong ideal but one that becomes muddier in practice. “I oppose this agreement that will benefit me because I wasn’t properly told about it” is a principled position but not one we expect to hear. There’s a nobility to saying you’ll start all over if anyone was missed, but it also lacks practicality if you’d be using additional resources to reach the same outcome because the missed party agrees with the decision.