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

[Smiley/OCD]

Road construction on major highways in the state, especially construction that would close most of the lanes or on/off ramps, is conducted at night. If construction progress that evening needs inspection before the next step, I'm sure an inspector is available. The state doesn't want to amend contracts to add days to completion due to delays. And yes, I know delays are written into the contract. But it costs $$$.

Ok, so you want to pull inspectors that work on roads overnight that affect MILLIONS of Floridians to inspect monorails at Disney? That should get a whole new group of citizens pi**ed off at Ron…

 

[LAKid53]

The charter is a statute written by the legislature and signed by the governor. The original charter did have language exempting it from certain existing laws. It also had a provision exempting it from future laws that created conflict with the charter, unless the charter/statute was specifically amended or repealed.

In this case, the original district charter had its own requirements for public notices, public hearings and how the Board of Supervisors were to conduct their business. If Chapter 163 doesn’t amend the charter, then it seems that it’s public notice requirements may conflict with the charter’s and per the charter it’s rules are the ones to be follow.

This is why I find it curious that the legislative findings don’t seem to make a lot of reference to the original enabling legislation.

I'm not a mind reader, but I'm wondering if whoever prepared that analysis for the new board thought that SB-9B did just that. Repealed the entire Charter. That's a major oversight on their part.

 

[UNCgolf]

Also wouldn’t everyone just prefer them to replace the monorails with the sky liner at this point?

Good god no. The Skyliner is awful.

Replacing the monorail with some kind of efficient resort wide mass transit (light rail?) would be okay, though.

 

[LAKid53]

Ok, so you want to pull inspectors that work on roads overnight that affect MILLIONS of Floridians to inspect monorails at Disney? That should get a whole new group of citizens pi**ed off at Ron…

Did I say that? I'm just saying that inspectors do work outside of 8-5. As do other state employees.

 

[tissandtully]

Good god no. The Skyliner is awful.

What’s it’s like to be completely wrong?

 

[UNCgolf]

What’s it’s like to be completely wrong?

I wouldn't know; it hasn't happened yet!

 

[peter11435]

No, FDOT will send the inspectors that work the midnight to 8AM shift.

But why would they do this? Ask yourself why are they sending inspectors at all? It’s not about safety.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I'm not a mind reader, but I'm wondering if whoever prepared that analysis for the new board thought that SB-9B did just that. Repealed the entire Charter. That's a major oversight on their part.

HB-9B did replace the entirety of the previous charter, but it was not law at the time the agreements were entered into. A number of the legislative findings are in reference to HB-9B which suggests they are trying to apply it instead of the previous charter.

 

[mikejs78]

If statute exists at the time of the charter execution, does the charter have the power to supercede existing state statute? Only the Florida Legislature.. and the courts...can amend existing statute. The charter would have to contain language that would specifically exempt the entity created.

 

[LAKid53]

HB-9B did replace the entirety of the previous charter, but it was not law at the time the agreements were entered into. A number of the legislative findings are in reference to HB-9B which suggests they are trying to apply it instead of the previous charter.

I've argued that HB-9B repealed the entirety of Chapter 67, but have been shot down. And that at the time of the execution of the Development Agreement on February 8, 2023, neither the OCTOD or its Board of Supervisors existed, so they could not have been a party to the Agreement at the time of its execution.

Chapter 163 didn't create RCID. It was done under the provisions of Chapter 298.

 

[LAKid53]

View attachment 712524

And the Board hasn't argued this point?

 

[mikejs78]

HB-9B did replace the entirety of the previous charter, but it was not law at the time the agreements were entered into. A number of the legislative findings are in reference to HB-9B which suggests they are trying to apply it instead of the previous charter.

Exactly. The development agreement was entered into while the old charter was still in effect, so that law is the controlling law in this case. Any references to HB-9B in regards to the development charter are irrelevant.

 

[mikejs78]

And the Board hasn't argued this point?

It would hurt their case to void the agreement.

My suspicion is that this is argument #1 in Disney's eventual lawsuit.

 

[LAKid53]

Exactly. The development agreement was entered into while the old charter was still in effect, so that law is the controlling law in this case. Any references to HB-9B in regards to the development charter are irrelevant.

I cannot believe the $795/hour lawyers the Board hired missed this critical fact.

 

[GoofGoof]

Exactly. The development agreement was entered into while the old charter was still in effect, so that law is the controlling law in this case. Any references to HB-9B in regards to the development charter are irrelevant.

And that’s why they are looking to pass new legislation that allows a new board to retroactively void contracts entered into by the old board. If they could just void the contract due to issues with notice there would be no need for new legislation. I think the board already knows this is likely going to fail.

 

[LAKid53]

It would hurt their case to void the agreement.

My suspicion is that this is argument #1 in Disney's eventual lawsuit.

I would agree.

What a mess the state created...for itself.

 

[LAKid53]

And that’s why they are looking to pass new legislation that allows a new board to retroactively void contracts entered into by the old board.

That won't fly...or it shouldn't.

 

[mikejs78]

And that’s why they are looking to pass new legislation that allows a new board to retroactively void contracts entered into by the old board.

Too bad for them there are those pesky state and federal constitutions that should stand in the way of that.

 

[Tha Realest]

View attachment 712524

Did FL have a mechanism under state law for the enactment of a development agreement in 1967? IIRC the agreement cited to section 163, which has specific notification provisions.

 

[GoofGoof]

That won't fly...or it shouldn't.

I agree, but it looks like that is the plan they are going to follow. Unless the legislature stands up to the guy having a tantrum and refuses to vote on the bill.