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

GoofGoof

Premium Member
US Trust Co vs New Jersey suggested a three-part test for a state to invalidate a contract to which it's a party:
  1. The state has to identify a specific, compelling public interest
  2. There has to be no other "less drastic" way for the state to achieve the same goal
  3. Only the smallest part of the contract that conflicts with that specific goal can be voided
ETA Context: IIRC, the canonical example is from some landfill dumping contract in Maine. The state awarded a contract to a company to dump waste in the landfill. Later the state enacted legislation prohibiting the dumping of ... I think it was radioactive waste? ... in landfills. The company sued but the law was upheld. I think the company got minimal damages.

It's worth asking if SB 1604 contains all three of the elements identified in US Trust. I've read it and I don't think it addresses any of them.

I think parts of US Trust were re-examined later in the 2nd Circuit, but we're in the 11th, and I don't think there's been a later case that took up US Trust in the 11th. I could be wrong.
I think it will be interesting to see what the public interest would be that they identify. Since development agreements are not uncommon it’s difficult to argue that the existence of the development agreement itself is against public interest. If they somehow won that argument then I would think 2 and 3 would result in the whole contract being void. If they more narrowly define the issue with this particular contract then when you get to 2 that could be a problem and even if they get to step 3 it would likely only lead to a partial cancel of the contract.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Michael Sasso, aka "" from the CFTODB spent the weekend at the Magic Kingdom. This will surely annoy dear old Bridget.


In all seriousness, this is probably a good thing.

We know that the reason these people were appointed was for political gamesmanship, but it would be a good thing if any of them decided that they should ACTUALLY do a good job with the responsibility they've been given.
 

lentesta

Premium Member
Public Comments Section

Rainforest Cafe/T-Rex/BOATHOUSE at the CFTOB meeting! Let's see what their concern is.

ETA: It seems like they're reminding the board that talk of additional taxes, fees, and regulations will impact businesses in the district other than Disney.

Next up are small-business owners from Disney Springs: Splitsville, Homecomin', and Everglazed. Reminding the board that small businesses are impacted by the board. They employ 450 people, according to the speaker, and pay $3M in property and sales taxes.

Wine Bar George (George M and his wife) spoke next. 90 employees. Says changes in "business climate" affect those employees. Labor costs, maintenance costs are up since pandemic. They think they've raised prices as much as they can. Says that if the board makes it more costly or difficult for the business or the employees, it would be bad. Asks for board to look at cost savings instead.

Next is Retail Concepts of Minnesota(?) president Shawna Henniger(?). Owns Basin at Disney Springs, Basin outlet at Grand Flo, and a place at UK Pavilion. 89 employees in Florida, plus suppliers in Florida who are small, family-owned businesses. Concerned about proposed regulations and taxes that the board is talking about. Says Disney has been best partner they've ever worked with. Calls out board for its proposal about tolls - says employees can't afford tolls, and if Basin has to increase pay it'd be an unfair burden on their business. COVID, inflation, and potential of recession is enough worry for them. Taxes and regulations matter to businesses.

Next up is Richard Devler from Palmas Restaurant group. 14 locations in WDW, with 700 employees. Runs Mexico pavilion at EPCOT, plus locations at Disney Springs and Coronado Springs. Challenges include high labor cost, inflation, supply chain - it's not cheap to operate and build in RCID. Wants to see collaboration come back between governor, board, and small businesses.

Next is John (?) from Reedy Creek Firefighters, regarding a firefighter who died in 2017. Apparently there was a dispute with the old RCID about federal firefighter benefits. The board said (as its first speaker asked) that it'll cooperate with getting those forms filled out. Also says that there hasn't been a contract for 4 years, but a tentative agreement is being voted on shortly for the board to consider. Thanks the board, the governor, and the legislature for putting the new board in place.

Next is Debra McDonald, a resident of Osceola County. Says "uncertainty and fear" make it difficult to live now. Says Disney was great during the pandemic when, as a member of a hospital board, she asked them for help. Says the disagreement between governor and Disney is affecting residents.

End of Public Comments

Informational Items


1. Permitting and Regulatory Report
2. Proposed 2024 Budget Calendar

It looks like the audio has stopped on the feed, so I can't hear this part.


Other Items

Daniel Langley, Special General Counsel, says CFTOBD has eminent domain authority. Reminds everyone what that means.

New Business

8.1 Slideshow addressing the exemption from county zoning and regulation, statewide zoning, and other zoning laws.

(Audio is out again, so I can't hear this.) Here's the first slide:
Screenshot from 2023-04-26 10-25-33.png



Next slide is the act that established Bay Lake.

Next slide is the act that established Reedy Creek (House bill 487), more about zoning.

Argument seems to be that these towns had exclusive authority over comprehensive planning, not RCID. (Len says: And we just noticed this after 50 years?)

Audio is back. Outlining rationale for voiding the developer agreement. Seems to focus on the cities not approving the developer agreement.

Says the cities of Bay Lake and Reedy Creek didn't hold meetings or provide notice. Says the developer agreement is thereby void because it touches lands in Bay Lake and Reedy Creek. Says cities should've been parties do the agreement. Says the district didn't have authority to do planning inside city boundaries. Says in the past the cities and district had acted in unison to adopt same comprehensive plans. Says there's an interlocal agreement between district and cities where the district staff functions as representatives of both, but in some cases that can't happen (and this is one of those situations).

Says the new HB-9 gives the CFTOB district exclusive power over the cities, so this jurisdictional question is no longer relevant. Says the only thing the cities can do is implement more strict guidelines.

Next slide is timeline of notice and reading of comprehensive plan going back to Nov 14, 2018.

That's all I have time for today.
 
Last edited:

GoofGoof

Premium Member
In all seriousness, this is probably a good thing.

We know that the reason these people were appointed was for political gamesmanship, but it would be a good thing if any of them decided that they should ACTUALLY do a good job with the responsibility they've been given.
I assume he was just at the park as a tourist. If he was doing anything in an official capacity he probably should have been looking at roads and bridges, inspecting sewers, visiting the power stations or visiting the preserved wetlands they want to develop on. The district has little to do with day to day park operations so no reason to visit the theme parks as a board member.
 

Kamikaze

Well-Known Member
Rainforest Cafe/T-Rex/BOATHOUSE at the CFTOB meeting! Let's see what their concern is.

ETA: It seems like they're remining the board that talk of additional taxes, fees, and regulations will impact businesses in the district other than Disney.

Next up are small-business owners from Disney Springs: Splitsville, Homecomin', and Everglazed. Reminding the board that small businesses are impacted by the board. They employ 450 people, according to the speaker, and pay $3M in property and sales taxes.
Was telling that they're also mentioning that customers have said they're worried about the friction.

I would bet money Disney set this up to have these people all speak.
 

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
I assume he was just at the park as a tourist. If he was doing anything in an official capacity he probably should have been looking at roads and bridges, inspecting sewers, visiting the power stations or visiting the preserved wetlands they want to develop on. The district has little to do with day to day park operations so no reason to visit the theme parks as a board member.
Right, that's my point.

Someone who enjoys Disney as a guest is less likely to come in with a "burn it to the ground" mindset. I'm not saying he was there for work, but it's good if he LIKES the parks.

"What we see with our eyes, we value with our hearts."
 

Prince-1

Well-Known Member

flynnibus

Premium Member
wth... they want to be party to the disney lawsuits fighting property assessments?

I guess they think they will benefit from their own taxes based on those assessments..
 

esskay

Well-Known Member
Looks like a heck of a lot of springs retailers are rightfully commenting. I wonder how many employees there are across the private small businesses in springs. The lady from Basin made a good point about it affecting not just them but the suppliers too. They could annoy a heck of a lot more people than just Disney here.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom