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

[mmascari]

I wonder if they think they're covering their bases (even though the board's current position contradicts the need for legislation) in the event that the court declares the contracts valid.

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]

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.

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.

 

[LAKid53]

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.

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.

 

[mmascari]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

It looks like it was put in there to make sure everyone would know it applies only to Disney.

 

[LAKid53]

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.

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.

 

[seascape]

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.

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]

It's both. There was a "local bill" on the calendar today for the Lake Padgett Estates Independent Special District. Regarding your making a distinction without a difference, when signed by the Governor, it will be both a "special act" and a "local act". Why? It's a local bill about an independent special district, just what the RCID was.

View attachment 714528

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]

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.

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.

 

[LAKid53]

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?

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.

 

[mmascari]

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.

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.

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?

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]

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.

The 2 attachments show who voted nay.

 

[LAKid53]

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. 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."

 

[LAKid53]

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.)

As I said in a subsequent post, it through law gives a board of supervisors the ability to breach a VALID agreement with no consequences.

Turning contract law on its head...

 

[LAKid53]

The 2 attachments show who voted nay.

Yet the record of who voted Yay lists the names of the Democrats as voting "yes". Which the following clearly shows they didn't.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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.

I don’t think it’s consistent because the law says they can’t comply with agreements that were in effect. The District says the agreement was never in effect.

Either way, the District still actually has to comply with the agreement because the agreement is based on the still existing land development regulations. The board has no alternative comprehensive plan on which to base new land development regulations.

 

[mmascari]

I believe the way this is written is if they don’t take the vote within 4 months then the agreement is automatically readopted.

The 4 months part seems mostly useless.

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.

Nothing there sounds like anything is automatic. It reads like they're supposed to review within 4 months, with the ability to adapt the agreement as-is. Doing nothing would seem to mean they are directed to not comply. Waiting longer than 4 months, it is unclear what would happen if they want to adopt the agreement then. The board would be out of compliance with this law by waiting longer or not reviewing. But, that's just back to what is the impact of being out of compliance with this law? They would be the same out of compliance if they comply with the agreements instead.

It seems rather sloppy. And very unconstitutional too.

 

[harry58]

Just had CNN on in the background. This new bill and the ability to void contracts made it to their headlines. They claim that the legislature could go all the way back and void the original RCID bill. Is this true?

 

[LAKid53]

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.

As the legislation stands, it does. The Development Agreement was executed February 8, 2023. The bill (SB 9B) changing how the members of the board are selected was signed into law by the governor on February 27, 2023.

Until a court of competent jurisdiction rules that Subsection 7 of SB 1604 violates the Contract Clause or is ex post facto law, it stands. While laws on face may be unconstitutional, they in law aren't until a court declares them as such.