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

[Disstevefan1]

John Classe, head of RCID operations said last night: "I learned this week that our planned expansion... of our solar power program, just one of the 75-megawatt facilities that we have in the pipeline, could be delayed because of the developer experiencing financing challenges relating to the uncertainty surrounding the legislation,”

It's too bad Florida killed RCID, I am not a fan of solar power in private homes, but I was really in favor of these solar farms RCID was doing..
Too bad... Thanks DeSantis..

 

[GoofGoof]

I apologize in advance for not reading all 225 pages, but am I missing something here? I can see Disney just letting them dissolve the district without much of a fight.

Disney only seems to be adding an attraction or two every five years. It just seems like all the major construction of theme parks/spread out hotel complexes/highways etc. that would greatly benefit from owning their own local government has already been completed. Disney no longer has to completely pay for fire, police, municipal officials, etc., so it would seem like it could have an upside.

There are pros and cons. Losing control is a big con still. Disney could allow Orange County to take over first responder costs but they will lose control. As was stated earlier if a guest needs medical care and is taken by ambulance to the local hospital they don‘t get a bill. RCID pays 100%. On infrastructure, RCID doesn’t pay for attractions but they maintain 175 miles of roads for Disney and build or manage things like the parking garages at Disney Springs and the solar power facilities on site. So Disney could foot the bill directly for this stuff but they could also just not do some of it leading to a more run down WDW and the loss of many jobs in construction and maintenance.

 

[Disstevefan1]

There are pros and cons. Losing control is a big con still. Disney could allow Orange County to take over first responder costs but they will lose control. As was stated earlier if a guest needs medical care and is taken by ambulance to the local hospital they don‘t get a bill. RCID pays 100%. On infrastructure, RCID doesn’t pay for attractions but they maintain 175 miles of roads for Disney and build or manage things like the parking garages at Disney Springs and the solar power facilities on site. So Disney could foot the bill directly for this stuff but they could also just not do some of it leading to a more run down WDW and the loss of many jobs in construction and maintenance.

You said there are pros.
What are they?
When listing. please don't include as a pro the dumping of the RCID debt on to Orange and Osceola counties.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Repercussions have started:

According to this article from the Sentinel: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...0220427-u23ndqywwvginpbhdpmpnnri4e-story.html

The RCID supervisors met last night in public forum. They said that:

1. Fitch has put RCID on Negative Watch for its bond ratings.

2. From John Classe who oversees RCID operations; "I learned this week that our planned expansion... of our solar power program, just one of the 75-megawatt facilities that we have in the pipeline, could be delayed because of the developer experiencing financing challenges relating to the uncertainty surrounding the legislation,”


I wonder if any of their current bonds have covenants about maintaining a certain rating level?

That was to be expected. And why Disney needs to not tiptoe here. And the top yutz is hiding like a little boy who stole the cookies and mom found out.

Except that there isn't much Disney can do. The issue is a government entity issue, nothing more, nothing less. Reedy Creek simply moves part of the county governance to the district. The one's really being messed with are the non-Reedy Creek taxpayers in Orange/Osceola counties. Reedy Creek provides a boundary for who gets taxed for the infrastructure bonds. Take away the boundary and it flows to the next boundaries, which are the county lines. Disney will operate the parks just fine with or without RCID.

But as I said, RCID isn't going anywhere and Disney knows it. The whole thing is theater.

I agree it will fizzle out…but you make it sound much more simplistic as far as potential impact than it is.

Who in Osceola of Orange County is paying the extra burden of Disney’s roads?

The people in the crappy apartment who pays 50% of their take home? Or the landlord scheming to take it to 60%??

Have we all forgotten that wages in Orlando are low…by design? Both Disney AND Florida want it that way. I’m getting vertigo here.

 

[chrisvee]

so we now have evidence of tangible harm to RCID

the lawyers are unfolding their game plan

 

[Andrew M]

You’re missing a lot (no foul)…

It’s not about electrical permits for rides or subverting building codes…

It’s mostly about being free of the political whims of the surrounding governments and the ability to issue bonds for the big money guzzler without them hitting their books.

Ah ah, yeah that makes sense. I need to stop thinking as a civil engineer sometimes.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Right.

I think the consensus here is that going the First Amendment route is the nuclear option, and that Disney/RCID will pursue other avenues first.

I see no reason not to make all of their arguments at once. It seems easier (and faster) to throw all the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. If they argue one thing and lose, the courts might take a skeptical view if they then come back and say, "Oh wait! We forgot about our First Amendment rights!"

 

[mmascari]

John Classe, head of RCID operations said last night: "I learned this week that our planned expansion... of our solar power program, just one of the 75-megawatt facilities that we have in the pipeline, could be delayed because of the developer experiencing financing challenges relating to the uncertainty surrounding the legislation,”

The projects could be privately owned but the developer gets RCID to sign a power purchase agreement to buy the output of the facility.

When we look for Disney advantages and control, this is a good example of that subtle control and not a direct monetary thing then.

• Disney would like cheaper power to run the parks. Both money and PR that it's green.
• Disney as the controlling tax payer in RCID can set the RCID priorities.
• RCID makes acquiring cheaper power a priority then.
• Solar development happens as RCID wants to buy it.

Without RCID, if the power is coming from a county source, the county is going to set the priority of changing it's sources. Disney still has influence as a huge tax payer. However they're not the the majority. At least not by count, they could be substantial by dollar amount. But that's not how votes for government officials are done.

Now repeat those decisions for every road project and every other public infrastructure change.

The fact that Disney hasn't dissolved the district before tells me they either see value in that control, or inertia has been pushing them and they just hadn't looked at how to dissolve it and get out. Perhaps it was to expensive to get out and the state just solved that problem. But, I'll still bet they want the control, even at the extra expense.

 

[UNCgolf]

I see no reason not to make all of their arguments at once. It seems easier (and faster) to throw all the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. If they argue one thing and lose, the courts might take a skeptical view if they then come back and say, "Oh wait! We forgot about our First Amendment rights!"

Generally speaking, yes, if they file a lawsuit they're going to bring up every possible avenue of relief. The court will decide on each avenue individually.

The only potential issue I see with bringing it up in one single case is that technically Disney may be the harmed party in a First Amendment claim (it was their speech at issue, not RCID's), whereas the bond issues etc. are more about RCID itself. I'm not sure RCID would have standing to bring a First Amendment case and I don't think Disney itself would have standing to bring a case regarding the RCID issues.

 

[Andrew M]

I see no reason not to make all of their arguments at once. It seems easier (and faster) to throw all the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. If they argue one thing and lose, the courts might take a skeptical view if they then come back and say, "Oh wait! We forgot about our First Amendment rights!"

Fantastic O&A reference, Chippa

 

[GimpYancIent]

One possible reason for Disney/RCID to stagger its arguments linearly is to “run out the clock.”

At some point, those trying to shut down RCID are going to tire of this and/or realize that they are losing political capital by continuing to push this.

Stated differently, Disney doesn’t necessarily want this to be fast, since there is no assurance that a fast resolution will be the one Disney wants.

But if this drags out long enough, then nothing changes and this might be the exact resolution that Disney wants.

Have any court filings been made yet?

 

[UNCgolf]

One possible reason for Disney/RCID to stagger its arguments linearly is to “run out the clock.”

There are dangers to that approach. If you file a lawsuit on one particular claim, and it's dismissed, you then have a dead period where nothing is in the court system before the new lawsuit is filed. That means there's no chance for an injunction or any other kind of temporary relief.

Also, courts generally don't look too fondly on parties filing multiple lawsuits about the same issue when it could have been handled in one case.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Generally speaking, yes, if they file a lawsuit they're going to bring up every possible avenue of relief. The court will decide on each avenue individually.

The only potential issue I see with bringing it up in one single case is that technically Disney would be the harmed party in a First Amendment claim (it was their speech at issue, not RCID's), whereas the bond issues etc. are more about RCID itself. I'm not sure RCID would have standing to bring a First Amendment case and I don't think Disney itself would have standing to bring a case regarding the RCID issues.

They would have a First Amendment claim because they were targeted specifically because of Disney's statements. This was admitted multiple times. As such, RCID is being targeted as a retaliatory measure. If I was arrested because my wife criticized the government, then it's still a Firat Amendment violation. Otherwise, there would be no limit to how the government could use loopholes to punish free speech.

 

[UNCgolf]

They would have a First Amendment claim because they were targeted specifically because of Disney's statements. This was admitted multiple times. As such, RCID is being targeted as a retaliatory measure. If I was arrested because my wife criticized the government, then it's still a Firat Amendment violation. Otherwise, there would be no limit to how the government could use loopholes to punish free speech.

It's not a loophole; it's a procedural issue with proper standing.

I'm not suggesting RCID absolutely would not have standing; I'm just not sure that they would. It's a weird tangle since Disney and RCID are so closely connected while technically being completely separate entities. Your example is slightly different -- although you'd also have other avenues of relief beyond a First Amendment claim -- but IIRC courts have struggled with how to apply the First Amendment to spousal speech.

 

[mikejs78]

There are dangers to that approach. If you file a lawsuit on one particular claim, and it's dismissed, you then have a dead period where nothing is in the court system before the new lawsuit is filed. That means there's no chance for an injunction or any other kind of temporary relief.

Also, courts generally don't look too fondly on parties filing multiple lawsuits about the same issue when it could have been handled in one case.

There would be different dockets and different plaintiffs though. The first amendment case is the federal case and could be brought by either RCID or Disney. Disney might also have standing as a landowner in the district regarding its rights under the law for a vote. RCID can file a claim based on the contracts. Bond holders could also file suit based on the contracts. So I don't think this will be a single court case or even a single plaintiff.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

The question is, are RCID and Disney the same party?

So far, it looks like Disney is considering going the RCID route first.

No. But RCID's legal costs would be mostly assumed by Disney as its largest tax payer.

 

[UNCgolf]

There would be different dockets and different plaintiffs though. The first amendment case is the federal case and could be brought by either RCID or Disney. Disney might also have standing as a landowner in the district regarding its rights under the law for a vote. RCID can file a claim based on the contracts. Bond holders could also file suit based on the contracts. So I don't think this will be a single court case or even a single plaintiff.

Right, that's what I said in an earlier comment -- that a First Amendment case would likely be a different lawsuit than one based on bond issues. That applies to bond holders as well.

My point was that Disney/RCID themselves would likely not want to file a series of separate lawsuits regarding the same issues using different legal strategies. RCID wouldn't want to file a lawsuit claiming the law violated an earlier law, and then if that argument didn't work, file a new lawsuit arguing the law violated the Florida constitution, etc. because courts generally do not like that at all.

 

[Animal_Kingdom_09]

That was to be expected. And why Disney needs to not tiptoe here. And the top yutz is hiding like a little boy who stole the cookies and mom found out.

I agree it will fizzle out…but you make it sound much more simplistic as far as potential impact than it is.

Who in Osceola of Orange County is paying the extra burden of Disney’s roads?

The people in the crappy apartment who pays 50% of their take home? Or the landlord scheming to take it to 60%??

Have we all forgotten that wages in Orlando is low wage…by design? Both Disney AND Florida want it that way. I’m getting vertigo here.

It is the internet, where all things are simplified down to 280 characters...

If RCID is in fact dissolved without another special district put into place, the impact will be simple and brutal. For Orange county residents, who will bear the brunt of it, the property owners will see a 20-25% increase in ad-valorem taxes. This will probably drive most of the 50% take home people out of the area, and a lot of small business owners as well.

For the rest of the state, all of us who live in a CDD with outstanding bonds will want those pushed to the counties. Let the poor pay for those gated communities!

 

[lazyboy97o]

wonder if any of their current bonds have covenants about maintaining a certain rating level?

Wouldn’t a lower rating itself be a harm? The holder is going to have trouble reselling the bond if the issuing entity has a lower rating.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Except that there isn't much Disney can do. The issue is a government entity issue, nothing more, nothing less. Reedy Creek simply moves part of the county governance to the district. The one's really being messed with are the non-Reedy Creek taxpayers in Orange/Osceola counties. Reedy Creek provides a boundary for who gets taxed for the infrastructure bonds. Take away the boundary and it flows to the next boundaries, which are the county lines. Disney will operate the parks just fine with or without RCID.

But as I said, RCID isn't going anywhere and Disney knows it. The whole thing is theater.

The pledge to bond holders is that the State “will not limit or alter the rights of the District to own, acquire, construct, reconstruct, improve, maintain, operate or furnish the projects”. That’s a specific statement of who will own and control the assets financed by the bonds. It’s not just that they will exist and that whomever owns them will make the payments, it’s that the District will own them.