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

[lewisc]

…honestly…they’re still well paid for Florida…don’t make it a big deal.

How are they paid, compared to Orange County?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I agree that consideration is probably the weakest argument but not for the reasons the attorneys you spoke with think.

As others have suggested, the implied consideration for development contracts is to improve land in order to increase tax revenue. Arguably, this is the primary reason for development contracts.

The actual wording in the development contract is:

Provision of Necessary Public Facilities. In order to facilitate the implementation of and provide adequate levels of service for the Maximum Development Program, certain public infrastructure systems will require new facilities and/or expansions of existing facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Facilities"). The Public Facilities are listed in the Capital Improvement Element of the Comprehensive Plan a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as EXHIBIT 3, and will be funded, designed and constructed or cause to be constructed by RCID. Any land required for the Public Facilities that is owned by Master Developer shall be dedicated to RCID, or other public entity, as required. Compensation for said land dedication shall be negotiated between parties at the time of transfer but in no event shall Master Developer request payment for the land in excess of fair market value as determined by a Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI) real estate appraiser, jointly selected by the Parties.​

This is garbage.

Disney is saying in effect, "If we build something and it requires a new road, bridge, sewer, etc. to support it, you RCID must pay for it but, hey, we're gonna sell you the land you need to build this at fair market value."

This is no consideration at all!

If the district attempted to take more than the "land required", Disney would certainly fight them in court.

If the district refused to build this infrastructure, Disney would take them to court.

If the district, for example, tried to take control of the entrance into the Magic Kingdom by eminent domain, Disney most assuredly would fight it.

Disney has given the district nothing, other than "permission" to pay for and build infrastructure Disney needs for projects that Disney decides to build.

Again, the true consideration is increased tax revenue from land improvement.

The contract assumes the district is operating in good faith. So yes, removing barriers and streamlining the process is a benefit to the district, along with the inherent benefits assumed by a development agreement.

 

[disneylandtour]

Fundamentally speaking, anytime you alienate even a small portion of your customers, it is bad for the bottom line.

So there's a counterpart to this that Disney has no doubt considered. Is alienating a small portion of your customer base offset by an increase to your customer base elsewhere or by an increase in another area that has financial value, such as loyalty of employees? There's a calculation here, but you're only focusing on one aspect of it.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No, the way this contract is written, the district has become a vassal of Disney.

Disney gets to build whatever projects it wants without input from the district, and the district must build and pay for the infrastructure to support those projects. Otherwise, Disney will take them to court for breech.

This development agreement completely flips the traditional relationship between local government and business.

These types of agreements aren’t new. Universal said they wanted a bridge and Orlando had to build it because that’s the structure of their agreement. They have agreements to get other services as well. There’s no point to a development agreement if at any time the local government can effectively renege by not providing required services.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

No, the way this contract is written, the district has become a vassal of Disney.

Disney gets to build whatever projects it wants without input from the district, and the district must build and pay for the infrastructure to support those projects. Otherwise, Disney will take them to court for breach.

This development agreement completely flips the traditional relationship between local government and business.

In the end, Disney would be "demanding" to pay more taxes in such a scenario. Hardly a negative for the District.

 

[Rhinocerous]

I may be misunderstanding the situation, but couldn’t the Fire Department thing be read as one more way for the board to shaft Disney while ingratiating themselves to the firefighters?

What I mean is won’t Disney ultimately be paying for the new contract via increased taxation and fees? If this is the case (and it may not be) then the board is sticking the big D with an added expense it has been fighting while generating goodwill with the hose slingers. At virtually no cost to them.

This is IF I grasp the situation correctly, which I may not.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

How are they paid, compared to Orange County?

…should be much less…
Cause they don’t have to clean up GSWs on OBT…

Are we not all in agreement that the RCID lego firehouses are the “Champagne division” of firefighters?

What am I missing?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

No, the way this contract is written, the district has become a vassal of Disney.

Disney gets to build whatever projects it wants without input from the district, and the district must build and pay for the infrastructure to support those projects. Otherwise, Disney will take them to court for breach.

This development agreement completely flips the traditional relationship between local government and business.

Ummm…ever been to walt Disney world?

It was built under a special agreement JUST like this one

I hear it’s worked “ok”

 

[mikejs78]

Disney gets to build whatever projects it wants without input from the district, and the district must build and pay for the infrastructure to support those projects.

I mean, the Reedy Creek charter and even the new charter state that the board is there to serve the interests of the landowners of the district. All funds have to benefit those landowners. Increased tax revenue is meaningless in a special district because all of the tax revenue is supposed to go to improvements needed by the landowner. It's the whole point of a special district.

 

[GoofGoof]

These types of agreements aren’t new. Universal said they wanted a bridge and Orlando had to build it because that’s the structure of their agreement. They have agreements to get other services as well. There’s no point to a development agreement if at any time the local government can effectively renege by not providing required services.

I would assume that most development agreements are structured similarly. So if the state prevails and the contract is voided then a lot of other development agreements are at risk too. These agreements are designed to encourage investment and growth in the state, especially around tourism and voiding them could make others pause potential investment in the state. So In their desperate, scorched Earth approach to win at all costs vs Disney these clowns could seriously hurt the economy of the state in the long run.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I mean, the Reedy Creek charter and even the new charter state that the board is there to serve the interests of the landowners of the district. All funds have to benefit those landowners. Increased tax revenue is meaningless in a special district because all of the tax revenue is supposed to go to improvements needed by the landowner. It's the whole point of a special district.

….and if that district is full of ridiculous high end retail…it generates about a BILLION in state and local sales tax a year…

…I mean they’re really sticking it to the state and counties, ain’t they?

 

[Bullseye1967]

How are they paid, compared to Orange County?

They average about 11k less than Orange CFD and 10k below Osceola CFD.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The increased tax revenue will be consumed by the infrastructure the district was required to build, and the land the district the was required to purchase.

The district nets nothing out of this. Per the district's charter, they can't:

Section 24. Ad valorem taxes.—The board of supervisors shall have the power to levy and assess an ad valorem tax on all the taxable real and tangible personal property in the district to pay the principal of and interest on any general obligation bonds of the district, to provide for any sinking or other funds established in connection with any such bonds, and to finance and defray the cost of any of the projects or activities of the district authorized by the provisions of this act or under law, provided that the district's ad valorem taxing authority shall be limited to serving or benefitting the property owners of the district.​

Any ad valorem taxes collected by the district has to be poured back into the district to "benefit the property owners of the district", i.e. Disney.

It’s a tourism district that pumps tax money out in a state that stupidly doesn’t want to collect them…

I don’t see the “problem” there? Why should reedy creek make a dime? That isn’t the point and it benefits all parties

 

[jinx8402]

The increased tax revenue will be consumed by the infrastructure the district was required to build, and the land the district the was required to purchase.

The district nets nothing out of this. Per the district's charter, they can't:

Section 24. Ad valorem taxes.—The board of supervisors shall have the power to levy and assess an ad valorem tax on all the taxable real and tangible personal property in the district to pay the principal of and interest on any general obligation bonds of the district, to provide for any sinking or other funds established in connection with any such bonds, and to finance and defray the cost of any of the projects or activities of the district authorized by the provisions of this act or under law, provided that the district's ad valorem taxing authority shall be limited to serving or benefitting the property owners of the district.​

Any ad valorem taxes collected by the district has to be poured back into the district to "benefit the property owners of the district", i.e. Disney.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting here? That the district should be able to tax and not use that to do the things that it was specifically set up for? The district was set up to provide the municipal services for the landowners within it, largely made up of a singular company.

 

[mikejs78]

The increased tax revenue will be consumed by the infrastructure the district was required to build, and the land the district the was required to purchase.

The district nets nothing out of this. Per the district's charter, they can't:

Section 24. Ad valorem taxes.—The board of supervisors shall have the power to levy and assess an ad valorem tax on all the taxable real and tangible personal property in the district to pay the principal of and interest on any general obligation bonds of the district, to provide for any sinking or other funds established in connection with any such bonds, and to finance and defray the cost of any of the projects or activities of the district authorized by the provisions of this act or under law, provided that the district's ad valorem taxing authority shall be limited to serving or benefitting the property owners of the district.​

Any ad valorem taxes collected by the district has to be poured back into the district to "benefit the property owners of the district", i.e. Disney.

Right - so what could Disney even offer in way of consideration given the District's charter? That's the point of special districts.

 

[castlecake2.0]

No, the way this contract is written, the district has become a vassal of Disney.

Disney gets to build whatever projects it wants without input from the district, and the district must build and pay for the infrastructure to support those projects. Otherwise, Disney will take them to court for breach.

This development agreement completely flips the traditional relationship between local government and business.

That’s pretty much how the district has always operated and was designed to operate, to serve the landowners of the district, not, as the new board keeps trying to imply, the greater central Florida region.

 

[GoofGoof]

The increased tax revenue will be consumed by the infrastructure the district was required to build, and the land the district the was required to purchase.

The district nets nothing out of this. Per the district's charter, they can't:

Section 24. Ad valorem taxes.—The board of supervisors shall have the power to levy and assess an ad valorem tax on all the taxable real and tangible personal property in the district to pay the principal of and interest on any general obligation bonds of the district, to provide for any sinking or other funds established in connection with any such bonds, and to finance and defray the cost of any of the projects or activities of the district authorized by the provisions of this act or under law, provided that the district's ad valorem taxing authority shall be limited to serving or benefitting the property owners of the district.​

Any ad valorem taxes collected by the district has to be poured back into the district to "benefit the property owners of the district", i.e. Disney.

The district exists to serve the landowners of the district. Why would they net anything? If they did what would they do with the funds? This isn’t a general local government that exists to serve citizens whether land owners or not.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

A special district is supposed to oversee land development, not the other way around. The way this development contract is written, the district is now subservient to Disney. Regulatory powers have been granted to Disney. This is a violation of the Nondelegation Doctrine and is outlined in Count VI of the CFTOD complaint.

And it was a puppet district before…
That was the whole point. They’re flipping it because some vagabonds are trying to use them to make quick bucks

Everyone needs to understand this: disney insisted control to develop the nothing that was central Florida…
…in exchange…is spurred ridiculous rapid growth and created one of the biggest/most lucrative tourist regions in the known universe…

…what aren’t we following?

 

[GoofGoof]

A special district is supposed to oversee land development, not the other way around. The way this development contract is written, the district is now subservient to Disney. Regulatory powers have been granted to Disney. This is a violation of the Nondelegation Doctrine and is outlined in Count VI of the CFTOD complaint.

By that logic a large number of these types of development agreements should be void then. Universal was brought up as one example. I’m sure there are more. In the past the government was actually interested in stimulating the economy and attracting business. That’s why RCID was first agreed to and I’m sure why Universal and others have an agreement as well. Maybe the state should just declare all development agreements void. Then they avoid being accused of singling out Disney for retaliation.

 

[GoofGoof]

I was simply responding to a comment that:

In the end, Disney would be "demanding" to pay more taxes in such a scenario. Hardly a negative for the District.​

This comment specified the district. Ad valorem tax collected by the district benefits landowners of the district, i.e. Disney.

The important point to remember is that the state and county should benefit from increased sales tax revenue.

The underlined is a true statement. Disney demanding more in service and then paying more in taxes is not a negative for the district. It’s not a positive either it’s just business as usual. The district doing what it’s intended to do. The state benefits from sales tax as well corporate income tax and the county residents benefit by not having to provide (pay for out of their budget) some services that RCID provides.