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

[Notypeo]

I don't doubt that TDC is re-evaluating future plans. If you look at the trend for new sport stadiums, it's for "less capacity." They can make a larger ROI with a smaller footprint. Something I think could be applied to theme parks, boutique small parks at more than one location and charge a hell of a price.

I strongly suspect that there have been people inside the company pushing to go in this direction — multi-site boutique experiences. Starcruiser is one model, but just one. The RCID fiasco has surely strengthened the hand of people pushing for smaller, more exclusive (read, expensive) regional parks. Regardless of the company’s ultimate intentions, at some point it might leak that it’s inclined to move in this direction in order to put some pressure on the Florida powers-that-be.

 

[crazistevo]

I certainly believe the Disney lawyers dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's since the governor kindly gave them months of notice. The current board is grasping at straws hoping for a miracle or some sort of hail mary from the Florida legislators.. Personally, I wouldn't trust the current boards to oversee a lemonade stand at a garage sale..

 

[GoofGoof]

Here is the full language from the charter:

(3) Comprehensive Planning; Building and Safety Codes. The Board of Supervisors shall have the power: (a) To adopt, and from time to time review, amend, supplement or repeal, a comprehensive general plan for the physical development of the area within the District in accordance with the objectives and purposes of this Act. (b) To adopt, and from time to time review, amend, supplement or repeal codes regulating building safety, elevators, es calators and similar devices, the prevention of fire hazards, plumbing and electrical installations, the operation of amusement and recreation parks and facilities, water supply wells and drainage wells, and such other safety or sanitary codes as the Board of Supervisors may determine to be necessary or desirable. (c) To prohibit the construction, alteration, repair, removal or demolition, or the commencement of the construction, alteration, repair (excepting emergency repairs), removal or demolition, of any building or structure, including but not by way of limitation public utility poles, lines, pipes and facilities, without first obtaining a permit from the Board of Supervisors or such other officer or agency as the Board may designate, and and to prescribe the procedure with respect to the obtaining of such permit. ( d) To provide for the manner in which such comprehensive general plans, codes, regulations and restrictions shall be de termined, established and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented, changed or repealed, with or without notice and public hearing, as the Board of Supervisors may determine.

 

[GoofGoof]

I certainly believe the Disney lawyers dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's since the governor kindly gave them months of notice. The current board is grasping at straws hoping for a miracle or some sort of hail mary from the Florida legislators.. Personally, I wouldn't trust the current boards to oversee a lemonade stand at a garage sale..

Yes, it did seem unlikely that they would fumble such an obvious thing like mailing notice to a handful of landowners if it was required. People keep doubting Disney and their lawyers and they keep proving to be one or two or ten steps ahead.

 

[Chi84]

Yes, it did seem unlikely that they would fumble such an obvious thing like mailing notice to a handful of landowners if it was required. People keep doubting Disney and their lawyers and they keep proving to be one or two or ten steps ahead.

I don’t think lawyers from either side missed anything. If certain steps weren’t taken recently there was a reason for it.

At this point it’s too difficult to predict what either party will do although it’s fun to speculate.

 

[Kamikaze]

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

They need to keep earning that money. Saying ‘they got you, sorry’ doesn’t do that.

Plus a lot of the crap arguments were from the local attorneys, not the guy from Cooper & Kirk.

 

[LAKid53]

It replaced the language but it reconfigured the actual district. The board did exist. They had to keep the district to not infringe on the bonds.

Language in HB-9B specifically addressed the bonds...

"In no way shall the district's renaming under this act affect any existing agreements, bonds, or other instruments of indebtedness, liabilities, assets, rights, or obligations of the district. All lawful debts, bonds, obligations, contracts, franchises, promissory notes, audits, minutes, resolutions, and other undertakings of the Reedy Creek Improvement District are validated and shall continue to be valid and binding on the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District in accordance with their respective terms, conditions, and covenants."

SB-1604, which intends to invalidate the development agreement signed on February 8th, doesn't address that portion of HB-9B that is now law - Chapter 2023-5.

Therefore the Legislature is creating a conflict in law.

 

[GoofGoof]

Language in HB-9B specifically addressed the bonds...

"In no way shall the district's renaming under this act affect any existing agreements, bonds, or other instruments of indebtedness, liabilities, assets, rights, or obligations of the district. All lawful debts, bonds, obligations, contracts, franchises, promissory notes, audits, minutes, resolutions, and other undertakings of the Reedy Creek Improvement District are validated and shall continue to be valid and binding on the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District in accordance with their respective terms, conditions, and covenants."

SB-1604, which intends to invalidate the development agreement signed on February 8th, doesn't address that portion of HB-9B that is now law - Chapter 2023-5.

Therefore the Legislature is creating a conflict in law.

These clowns literally passed a bill which validated the same development agreement (which is a contract) they are now furious about existing. You can’t make this stuff up

 

[crazistevo]

These clowns literally passed a bill which validated the same development agreement (which is a contract) they are now furious about existing. You can’t make this stuff up

I was standing in line with my daughter for Ratatouille, when the news broke the Disney made the agreements with the old board. It was hilarious reading all about it while standing in line and It's amazing what a strong legal department can do for you.

 

[JAB]

These clowns literally passed a bill which validated the same development agreement (which is a contract) they are now furious about existing. You can’t make this stuff up

They were so focused on making sure Disney couldn't get out of paying for the bonds, services, etc. that they didn't think about the fact that it would also lock the new board into any agreements RCID made with Disney in the interim, and now it may be coming back to bite them.

 

[LAKid53]

These clowns literally passed a bill which validated the same development agreement (which is a contract) they are now furious about existing. You can’t make this stuff up

Much was done in haste by the Legislature. The original legislation that abolished RCID effective June 2023. That had to be undone when someone realized the existing bonds would be affected. HB-9B corrected that, amongst other problems. It included the language I bolded. Disney then, with proper notice, based on the Charter that created RCID and Chapter 163, negotiated and executed a Development Agreement with RCID that would stand under HB-9B, which is now law. None of that was done at the 11th hour.

I don't see any language in SB-1604 that repeals the portion of Chapter 2023-5 with regards to contracts executed with RCID prior to February 23, 2023. It only addresses portions of Chapter 163. There were other agreements adopted at that meeting -license agreements, restrictive covenants and labor agreements.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

These clowns literally passed a bill which validated the same development agreement (which is a contract) they are now furious about existing. You can’t make this stuff up

"Looks like those clowns in congress did it again, what a bunch of clowns."

 

[Vacationeer]

Can citizens of neighboring counties do anything?

Property values, local businesses and infrastructure could be collateral damage.

Any way to question the intent and expected outcome of all these actions singling out WDW?

 

[LAKid53]

Just read the most recent analysis of SB-1604. It increases the two required local government comprehensive planning periods from 5 and 10 years to 10 and 20 years. And prohibits any local government that fails to update its plan within the 7 year evaluation and appraisal process from considering and adopting ant public initiated amendments. That's going to affect county comprehensive plans and public input on those plans. I'm surprised environmental groups such as Audubon or Sierra Club haven't come out in opposition to the bill.

 

[GoofGoof]

Just read the most recent analysis of SB-1604. It increases the two required local government comprehensive planning periods from 5 and 10 years to 10 and 20 years. And prohibits any local government that fails to update its plan within the 7 year evaluation and appraisal process from considering and adopting ant public initiated amendments. That's going to affect county comprehensive plans and public input on those plans. I'm surprised environmental groups such as Audubon or Sierra Club haven't come out in opposition to the bill.

What’s the real reason for this one?

 

[LAKid53]

What’s the real reason for this one?

The bill itself? Void the Development Agreement executed February 8th.

But staff on the Community Affairs and Rules Committees noted that when analyzing the bill.

 

[scottieRoss]

Notice requirement

View attachment 712528

This is not for notice for meetings of the Board or Public Hearings. This is for a meeting of the Landowners. This is a meeting for the Landowners to vote on something. This has nothing to do with the meetings in January or February, or even the new board.

 

[GoofGoof]

The bill itself? Void the Development Agreement executed February 8th.

But staff on the Community Affairs and Rules Committees noted that when analyzing the bill.

Was that the only purpose? I thought there was an original bill already out there and they just added an amendment that allows them to void the development agreement that specifically targets Disney.

 

[LAKid53]

This is not for notice for meetings of the Board or Public Hearings. This is for a meeting of the Landowners. This is a meeting for the Landowners to vote on something. This has nothing to do with the meetings in January or February, or even the new board.

It's important to include the exact citation - Section title and number - of a 75+ page agreement. There are several provisions within the Charter that address notices of meetings.

 

[LAKid53]

Was that the only purpose? I thought there was an original bill already out there and they just added an amendment that allows them to void the development agreement that specifically targets Disney.

That analysis was done after the 4/20 amendment to the bill. That amendment added the language to allow the board of supervisors to ignore any agreement "executed within 3 months preceding the effective date of a law modifying the manner of selecting members of the governing body of the independent special district from election to appointment..."

The was a floor amendment to the bill filed at 7:32 PM this evening that addresses design review. But no action has been taken on the amendment.

Disney lobbyists are certainly earning their pay keeping up with this piece of legislation.