Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
There are 77 multiple county Special Districts, but only one when I match to RCID which is RCID
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
The point was how many span multiple counties.....
Also using Adam Losey, an attorney based in Orlando.
Patcheslee
Well-Known Member
CFTOD Board of Supervisors was confirmed yesterday, but not will full support.
Several. The 5 water management districts in Florida are considered special districts and each spans multiple counties. As supported by an attorney general opinion.
That's an interesting record. There are 40 state senators. So who voted "no" on the confirmation? No seat in the Senate is currently vacant.
Isn't there a time limit on how long the board has to use the new law to to void the contract? How long after the change in board I think.
The state case is unlikely to be decided prior to that deadline. Unless it's thrown out immediately in Disney's favor with the legal equivalent of "what are you even talking about, that's not how this works".
Which, if the board is unable to use the law prior to its deadline to avoid destroying their state case, makes the law irrelevant in this dispute.
A difficult position for the board. They can continue the current state case or use the power of the new law (and the lawsuit that will spawn). It will be difficult to do both though.
I suppose they could try to add the power from the new law to the current state case, but that seems at internal odds with the rest of the claims.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I think the final wording is that the district is not allowed to comply with an agreement and has four months to review and renew it. So a new complaint to be added to Disney’s federal suit.
From SB 1604
"7) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.—An independent special district is precluded from complying with the terms of any development agreement, or any other agreement for which the development agreement serves in whole or part as consideration, which is 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 or from appointment to election. The newly elected or appointed governing body of the independent special district shall review within 4 months of taking office any development agreement or any other agreement for which the development agreement serves in whole or part as consideration and shall, after such review, vote on whether to seek readoption of such agreement. This subsection shall apply to any development agreement that is in effect on, or is executed after, the effective date of this section. This subsection expires July 1, 2028, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature."
This section of SB 1604 states that the District would be precluded from complying with the development agreement. That's not the same as legislation voiding the agreement.
So, it doesn't require some action by the new board to undo a prior contract, but instead requires the new board to take an action to confirm the prior contract is good?
That's a subtle but important difference. Much like all the subtle nuances in the RCID structure that always matter.
With that frame, I could see Disney adding this law to their suit as one more thing. I could also see the district adding it to their suit as one more thing.
With the law stating the contract is invalid without the board taking action to keep it, that would allow it to be consistent with the board's current suit that the contract is not valid.
The difference between "the law gives new boards the ability to negate a recent prior contract" and "the law negates recent prior contracts unless the new board affirms them" is an important structural difference with differences in how the actions apply.
With all the changes and new laws "not targeted at Disney/RCID wink wink", were any other districts swept up and also had their boards redefined? As this would impact them too then.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
This can’t be legal. This law basically says a government body cannot comply with a valid contract if the contract happened to be signed within 3 months of a change in power at the district. I can’t see how that can be legal to apply retroactively. How would any entity signing the contract know if/when the government board would change hands?
Chi84
Premium Member
It looks like it was put in there to make sure everyone would know it applies only to Disney.
Two different actions, legally.
1. A board doesn't have to comply with the provisions of a development agreement...or any agreement...executed within 3 months preceding the effective date of a law modifying the MANNER of selection of board members.
2. The review and readoption process applies not just to agreements executed with 3 months preceding the change in the method of selecting board members, but ANY agreement executed AFTER the adoption of this subsection of SB 1604.
Unless the Legislature reauthorizes Subsection 7, it sunsets July 1, 2028.
This would not apply to RCDI since that DA was made in February and this bill does not state it goes back in time to February, which would be illegal anyway.
scottieRoss
Well-Known Member
The Florida Constitution specifies the difference between 'local', 'general' and 'special' acts. It has to do with the way they are introduced. A Local Act is introduced as a bill from the local government. A General or Special act is introduced in the legislature. A General Act is designed to apply to all citizens of the state, like the Don't Say Gay bill, a Special Act applies to only a specific class or location in the state, like the RCID implementing legislation.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
It does require the new board to not comply with an already existing and valid agreement. So while it doesn’t require the board to take action to void the agreement, I still don't think that’s consistent with the boards’s current claim that the contract was never valid in the first place. If the contract is not valid this law doesn’t apply to it. If the contract is valid they have 4 months form taking over to review it and vote on whether to readopt it. So if they take that vote by end of June then that vote confirms the board considers the agreement as valid so weakens their state case. If they ignore the contract because it isn’t valid and then they lose the state case it will be too late to vote. I believe the way this is written is if they don’t take the vote within 4 months then the agreement is automatically readopted.
It's not changing hands, it's the manner in which members of the governing board are selected. So every legislative session, the Legislature could change the manner in which board members are placed on the board in order to stymie the effectiveness of any agreement Disney may enter into.
I can't see this standing.
That's an interesting distinction. It's a lose lose proposition then. The only option is a lawsuit. A board complying with this would be sued for violating the contract. A violation the law seems to require them to do. A board complying with the contract would be violating this law. Does the state sue them then or just press charges? What's the impact of a board ignoring this law and complying with the original contract?
They're effectively in conflict no matter what they do.
It's would be a free get out of contract maneuver for any district. Sign a deal you don't like, get the district structure changed. Rinse and repeat and do it again later.
In some bonkers world where the first two laws are declared unconstitutional but this one is just fine. Will reverting back to the elected RCID board be viewed as a change triggering this law. If the new Fire Fighters contract is signed within 3 months of that switch, this law would say the new old board cannot comply with that new contract. That would be quite the twist in this saga. (Timelines mean this is unlikely to occur as the court cases will likely not resolve until long after a new Fire Fighter contract.)
Patcheslee
Well-Known Member
The 2 attachments show who voted nay.
It's not. Complying or not complying with an agreement is different than declaring an agreement is valid or not.
The language in SB 1604 in essence gives the Board the ability to ignore the terms and conditions of the agreement without being in danger of breach.
Frankly, a dangerous path for the Legislature to go down.
"Don't worry, Board of Supervisors for OCTOD. We'll write a law saying you don't have to comply with the provisions of that pesky development agreement which we stupidly, when writing the law, confirm it IS in fact a valid contract (in spite of you voting it isn't), giving you cover for a breach of the agreement we said was valid in said legislation."