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

[JoeCamel]

That's correct. My only point was to clarify that Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista were not some emblem of American democracy that suddenly got ripped away from the voters by DeSantis' actions.

If I rent in a county I vote in that county if I live there more than 6 months out of the year, if the state rules they will appoint the county supervisors rather than let me vote for them I don't have a vote now that I had before. I don't have to own property to be voting for who rules me just be one of the citizens in the area ruled.
The residents of the cities can no longer vote for who rules them in this case and a few minutemen objected to that 250 years ago as I do today.

 

[flynnibus]

It is an outright lie because impact fees go to specific services and have a set value.

It's not a lie - the fees don't exist, but they could have been a tool used by the district to fund initiatives.

The reality is the district chose not to use that funding vehicle and the CFTOD is trying to combine that with a lack of different services to spin the narrative that Disney and RCID shifted burden to the surrounding areas.

The real truth is it's really just another 'do it cheaper' benefit Disney had... avoiding unnecessary fees. But because it's an advantage for Disney, it seems the CFTOD wants to try to weaponize it into a narrative of unjust benefit and spin a story of how others are suffering because of it.

The fees are not insignificant - they just aren't recurring so they aren't as a big # overtime.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's not a lie - the fees don't exist, but they could have been a tool used by the district to fund initiatives.

The reality is the district chose not to use that funding vehicle and the CFTOD is trying to combine that with a lack of different services to spin the narrative that Disney and RCID shifted burden to the surrounding areas.

The real truth is it's really just another 'do it cheaper' benefit Disney had... avoiding unnecessary fees. But because it's an advantage for Disney, it seems the CFTOD wants to try to weaponize it into a narrative of unjust benefit and spin a story of how others are suffering because of it.

The fees are not insignificant - they just aren't recurring so they aren't as a big # overtime.

It was not a “do it cheaper” benefit because the district has and had higher tax rates to cover the costs associated with the services and infrastructure. Impact fees became popular and nearly ubiquitous in the 80s because it let jurisdictions raise some revenue without raising taxes. RCID didn’t have that issue because Disney just paid the taxes to provide consistent funding. Impact fees don’t go into some regional pot, they stay with the local jurisdiction. The revenues generated from the District assessing impact fees would have stayed with the district.

The whole issue is over hypothetical impact fees assessed by the counties. That only happens without not just the district but also the municipalities. The counties have received more revenue from property taxes by not being the local building authority than they would have received in impact fees.

 

[scottieRoss]

Disney should not get any seats, especially not a controlling majority of the seats. Disney is a business. Businesses should not have representation on a governing board that determines where taxpayer funds are spent.

Businesses are legal persons. But the business did not get a vote because they were a business. They got a vote because they were land owners and all landowners get a vote based on 1 acre 1 vote.

 

[scottieRoss]

That's correct. My only point was to clarify that Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista were not some emblem of American democracy that suddenly got ripped away from the voters by DeSantis' actions.

Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista are exactly an emblem of American Democracy. And the democracy in Reedy Creek most certainly got ripped away from the voters. Your entire statement is false

 

[mkt]

That's correct. My only point was to clarify that Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista were not some emblem of American democracy that suddenly got ripped away from the voters by DeSantis' actions.

People literally had the representation they voted for taken away.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

I decided to do one big post instead of bunch of small ones. No need to clog the thread!

You probably would have liked the original legislation where the district would have been dissolved. That didn't wind up happening because of the increases in property taxes that would have wound up happening partially due to the bond payments, partially because the counties would have had to take over the services.
Do you have a problem with Universal's new district? The one covering Daytona Speedway?

The new Universal district was actually a pretty clever IMO. Assuming you are talking about the Shingle Creek Transit and Utility Community Development District. That's the new district I know about (if it's another one I'd need to do research). It's clever because multiple stakeholders came together and hammered out an agreement that worked for the community. It will provide the Orlando Convention Center with a new train station, expand the public mass transit system, and provide a path for Brightline to follow. Universal had to make concessions including giving over land they owned for the project and accepting a tax. Obviously, Universal gets something out of the project. But so do Sea World, I-Drive businesses, Brightline, SunRail commuters, the Orlando mayor, and Orange County. Which is why they all endorsed it. It's accountable to the local community (Orange County) and will exist for a specific purpose.

What I just described is a lot more like the way Anaheim works with Disney. There Disneyland has to work with the community to actually hammer out a deal.

As for the argument that Orange County and Osceola County could not take on the responsibilities of the RCID without burdening the tax payers... Turn your attention to this description of the Anaheim lodging tax:

"For the privilege of occupancy in the City of Anaheim, each transient is subject to and shall pay a transient occupancy tax of 15% of the rent charged by the operator. The 15% tax MUST be separately stated from rent pursuant to Chapter 2.12 Subsection 2.12.020.010 of the Anaheim Municipal Code."

You'll note that the tax rate on lodgings is a hefty 15%. As one of our intrepid Disneyland posters will tell you (@TP2000 would do it with the most style), the Anaheim Resort District has still managed to have robust hotel demand and development over the last decade even with that high tax rate. But stop and consider, does Orange County Florida have a similar tax? Well, in fact it does:

"The Tourist Development Tax is a tax on the total consideration that must be paid by the guest for the rental or lease of living quarters and accommodations in a hotel, motel, rooming house, trailer camp, condominium, apartment, multiple-unit structure, mobile home, trailer, single-family home, or any other sleeping accommodations that are rented for a period of six months or less."

So, Orange County is already in the lodging tax business. This Tourist Development Tax, as the name implies, is levied specifically to develop tourist attractions and promote Orlando tourism. Could the areas formerly part of the RCID be covered by proceeds of this lodging tax?

"Tourist Development Tax is levied by the Board of County Commissioners and is administered by the Orange County Comptroller’s Office. Expenditures for the first four cents are limited by Florida Statutes to the acquisition and operation of convention centers, sports stadiums and arenas, auditoriums and museums, promotion and/or advertisement of tourism and funding of tourist and convention bureaus and tourist information centers."

As the laws are currently written, it probably wouldn't work. But the Florida Legislature and Orange County could amend the statutes to include infrastructure and services supporting tourist activities. Walt Disney World's would then be covered.

But wait you might be thinking. If Orange County is already levying a lodgings tax, then wouldn't adding more tax kill the hotel business? Well, about that...

"The current tax rate is 6%, effective as of September 1, 2006."

Anaheim has 2.5x the lodgings tax rate! That means Orange County has significant ability to increase the lodgings tax rate without significantly hampering market demand. I wouldn't agitate for matching the Anaheim rate. There is a reason Florida is known as business friendly while California is not. But incremental increases are well within the realm of possible.

But how much is the Orange County Tourist Development Tax currently bringing in?

"The metro Orlando area is the largest tourist destination in North America, and through Florida law, Orange County can tax 6% on hotel stays and short-term rentals. Last year alone [FY 2022], Orange County collected $336.3 million through the tax from the 74 million people who traveled from across the world to experience the county’s entertainment, including Disney, Universal, concerts and sports."

That existing pot of money is already spoken for. But what if the lodging tax rate was raised by 50% to 9%? That would generate around $150 million in additional revenue. But wait- how how much does the RCID cost to operate?

RCID Total expenditures FY 2022 BUDGET

178,736,100

How about that? Of course, Orange County wouldn't be solely responsible for that total. Osceola County would need to levy a similar tax on its lodgings to cover its part of that total.

And there you go. I have just presented a completely reasonable method of financing the current expenditures of the RCID through taxes that would not be burdensome on normal taxpayers in Orlando. The idea that the RCID is the only way to manage the territory is based on a lack of creativity. This is just one example of how it might work. Smart people could come up with other (better) ways. The problem with the way the Legislature forced through the law disbanding the RCID was that no alternative existed. It's like trying to build the airplane mid-flight. They needed to have these answers BEFORE disbanding the district. That's why passing laws as quickly as possible to get back at your political opponents is not really a good idea.

The greater community already has that with the government of Orange County. RCID was created as a way to provide additional services to Disney on top of Orange County's services in exchange for higher tax rates. I don't think that is an unreasonable arrangement for the broader community.
Just because Disney has lots of money doesn't mean they owe it to their neighbors.

This is a fair position to take. But ultimately I believe the only way to determine how much a business should be taxed by a local community is by asking the local community. The local community should be able to make that call. Some communities view it like you do (what you put in is what you get out). Other communities require firms operating within their area to pay more. Again, that is up to the community to decide.

Why should voters outside the district, who do not pay taxes to the district have any say in how RCID is developed and its funds are spent. The district isn’t spending public funds that were sourced from anyone outside the district.

I don’t have much say in how my neighboring cities, counties, or states are developed or how they spend their tax dollars. And neither do you. What you’re proposing is absurd.

For the first 5 decades RCID was the literal definition of representative government. The problem is that you seem to misunderstand who the district represents.

I'm kind of dumbfounded. We're talking about a 200 Billion dollar behemoth operating in a local community and that community doesn't have the right weigh in? Hundreds of thousands of people live within a short drive of the RCID. Disney doesn't live there, it doesn't send its kids to school, and it doesn't commute. We're talking about an actual place where actual people live their lives. I know you know this. If memory serves you live in the area as a Cast Member. Very few places on planet Earth would let a multinational firm operate without community oversight and involvement. Just because an individual or firm owns a plot of land doesn't mean that firm should be able to do whatever it wants on that land. I mean I guess I can respect a libertarian argument where everyone is out for themselves, but the RCID is not exactly an example of rugged individualism when it uses state powers.

Call me a radical, but I actually think governments should represent people. Emphasis on people. Firms have rights and deserve to have them protected. But in a choice between the peoples of Anaheim, Shanghai, Orlando, Hong Kong, or Paris and Disney I'll pick an actual community over the soulless corporation.

Suggestion:

A 7 member board.

Disney gets 4 seats, 1 is elected by the people of Orange County, 1 is elected by the people of Osceola County, and the final one is appointed by the governor.

Something like this is heading in the right direction!

The issues you have mentioned are all related to powers offered to a bog standard community development district. They are powers offered to anyone. Saying they should not be offered to Disney means you are preventing Disney from having access to powers offered to everyone else.

This is good to know. Any other multinational firm operating a similar mockery of government with no citizen oversight should be reformed or eliminated too. It's one thing if a district is created for a narrow purpose (like a utility or rail development) or for specific window of time (a builder developing land before people move in). But a mega-cap firm having complete and perpetual development control and the ability to issue bonds in area to shield CapEx is unacceptable. Give me the names and I will condemn them!

Why? Is the greater commuity paying for it?

Here's the thing: property taxes in FL are limited by the FL constitution to 10%. Disney currently pays that to Orange/Osecola counties just like everyone else and is subject to their jurisdiction. This 10% cannot be changed, except temporarily and by a vote of the electorate, but even then the tax rate would have to apply to *all* taxpayers in the county. Disney is still subject to all county regulations and laws, save for those that are reserved to the district around zoning and building codes (of which RCID's codes are stricter than general FL. building codes).

Disney pays an *additional* tax, I think around 10%, to the district. The FL constitution allows a higher tax rate to be set in law for a special district, as long as it is approved by the electorate in that district. Those taxes go to the infrastructure in that district. No funds from the counties paid by the general public go into the district.

So why should non-taxpayers in the district have a say on the infrastructure needs of those who are paying taxes in the district? It doesn't make any sense.

It's also worth noting that every single special district in the state of Florida that has taxing authority is governed by an elected board of those who either reside in the district or are landowners of the district - so Disney's situation is hardly unique. So why should Disney not be allowed to avail themselves of the same benefits that are given to Universal Studios, the Daytona Speedway, the Villages, and other Special Districts within the state of Florida?

The Villages special district is suspect NGL. I don't know the circumstances of its creation (was it the state or the county who created it, when was it made, etc.?). I could look it up. Assuming it's a mockery of government I would be in favor of eliminating it too. I know that the IRS found they were engaging in some shady practices a while back. It seems like Florida needs a thorough review of these Special Districts all across the state if they are like the RCID. It's unfortunate that they were allowed to become so widespread in the first place, but perhaps some good can come out of this whole political debacle.

This leaves out the fact that the voters of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista were chosen by Disney to live there, and can be asked to leave at the company's discretion. Not exactly what one would imagine when they think of "democracy."

Agreed.

No one had ever been asked to leave either town by “the Company”. There’s actually some sentinel articles out there with interviews with the residents who said they don’t just rubber stamp things.

The people living in the company-owned town specifically designed to perpetuate the company's control are completely free to exercise their civic rights? And those people who know they could be evicted had nothing bad to say about Disney? That's it. Nothing to see here folks.

Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista are exactly an emblem of American Democracy. And the democracy in Reedy Creek most certainly got ripped away from the voters. Your entire statement is false

Precisely. In fact, they should spread this concept all across the country. I'm currently trying to decide whether I want to live in the special district under the control of Exxon-Mobil or McDonalds. I was planning to live in the Lego special district, but I hear the dwellings can fall apart and the beds are uncomfortable.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

That's a bold stance. Certainly a novel one. So much for free markets, government choosing winners and losers, competition. Just straight out punish one of the largest sources of economic prosperity in the state. Let's see how that works out.

Sorry, I missed this. Let me clarify. I think everyone in Florida, the United States, and elsewhere should be able to operate in constructive ways without fear of harassment for their political views. I got a little cheeky.

There is something to be said for 'not operating as an island'. In reality, we expect entities to interact and work together with their neighbors. We don't expect entities to take NIMBY to the extreme, but expect them to work for the 'common good' even if that means tradeoffs or consequences for their own interests if the net gain for the union is better.

Example, counties working together to build infrastructure and sharing costs, even if not exactly proportioned to their own physical presence. Or planning infrastructure together - to create systems instead of disjointed messes. Or counties/cities collaborating on where things should go... in relation to other comparable or inter-dependent services.. instead of looking at their boundaries as uncrossable lines. Example: Where a hospital may be placed.

That said, that doesn't mean it's all charity... it doesn't mean we should expect entity A to carry entity B's bag for them.

The problem with the narrative being spun by the CFTOD board now is... they are taking these ideas to the extreme and painting the absence of something within the district as an abuse on it's neighbors. Instead of saying "creating jobs was good for the region" - they are spinning the story that RCID empowered Disney from paying it's share of it's impact to the area because the district didn't build the elements to support those jobs and allowed Disney to escape paying it's share to provide those services. Like social services, housing, etc. That the district didn't plan for supporting the burden of that development, but instead laid out a plan that served only Disney's development needs.

I mean, yes, there is a side of truth in that - the land management is setup to support Disney's initiatives - not general community development. But if that is "wrong" or not, is where the board's conclusions are completely slanted and presumptuous. Should Reed Creek have been a self-sustaining community with housing, community needs, hospitals, schools, etc? If this were just unincorporated land with a local goverment setup trying to drive growth of the population... maybe? But that's not what Reedy Creek was, and not what it's actual landowners were trying to do.

This is where the disconnect between governance and representation in the CFTOD is fatal and problematic.

What do you want your area to be? Rural Farmland? Thriving Suburbs? Urban metroplex? Every area of the country faces such debates all the time, and local governments manage these topics based on the idea of providing sound representation of their constituents and their desires. Their job is to be stewards of the common good of their constituents and that includes interacting and often interweaving with their adjacencies and inter-dependent governments. If they try to shape your region into something the residents don't want.. residents will replace them.

Reedy Creek was never a general purpose area that would be develped into general purpose self-sustaining communities. It's absurd that the CFTOD is painting that picture that RCID failed to deliver on that... because it's a false premise to begin with. And it's not what the actual constituents of the district wanted for the area either.

The whole impact fees and other planning omissions they are trying to spin into failures now are all based on false assumptions from the get go. And being done so to paint the idea of developing RCID into Disney's kingdom as an abuse -- instead of accepting it was an execution of a plan that served the audience as actually intended.

This is spot on. Any conversation about the future the RCID should begin with the following premises:
1) The RCID functioned as designed
2) Disney did nothing wrong utilizing the benefits afforded by the RCID
3) There is no evidence of corruption
4) The RCID is nearly 60 years old
5) The conditions in Central Florida have changed drastically since the creation of the RCID
6) The Walt Disney Company has changed drastically since the creation of the RCID
7) The unique privileges granted by the Florida Legislature in the 1960s might not be warranted anymore
8) Multiple stakeholders (including the Florida Legislature, The Walt Disney Company, Orange County, Osceola County) should study what elements of the RCID are essential in the 21st Century
9) The different stakeholders should come to an agreement that respects the contributions the Walt Disney Company has made to Florida and all that Florida has given to The Walt Disney Company

Nothing about the above strikes me as controversial or partisan. That's why I'm sad this whole thing devolved into this mess. They could have made a deal that would answer Disney's critics and solidify core rights. Or maybe the RCID is the ultimate way to manage Disney. Who knows? No one bothered to have the conversation.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The new Universal district was actually a pretty clever IMO. Assuming you are talking about the Shingle Creek Transit and Utility Community Development District. That's the new district I know about (if it's another one I'd need to do research). It's clever because multiple stakeholders came together and hammered out an agreement that worked for the community. It will provide the Orlando Convention Center with a new train station, expand the public mass transit system, and provide a path for Brightline to follow. Universal had to make concessions including giving over land they owned for the project and accepting a tax. Obviously, Universal gets something out of the project. But so do Sea World, I-Drive businesses, Brightline, SunRail commuters, the Orlando mayor, and Orange County. Which is why they all endorsed it. It's accountable to the local community (Orange County) and will exist for a specific purpose.

This is good to know. Any other multinational firm operating a similar mockery of government with no citizen oversight should be reformed or eliminated too. It's one thing if a district is created for a narrow purpose (like a utility or rail development) or for specific window of time (a builder developing land before people move in). But a mega-cap firm having complete and perpetual development control and the ability to issue bonds in area to shield CapEx is unacceptable. Give me the names and I will condemn them!

Make up your mind. You’ve literally gone from praising (and misdescribing) a CDD to then saying they should all be done away with.

 

[Lilofan]

Sorry, I missed this. Let me clarify. I think everyone in Florida, the United States, and elsewhere should be able to operate in constructive ways without fear of harassment for their political views. I got a little cheeky.

This is spot on. Any conversation about the future the RCID should begin with the following premises:
1) The RCID functioned as designed
2) Disney did nothing wrong utilizing the benefits afforded by the RCID
3) There is no evidence of corruption
4) The RCID is nearly 60 years old
5) The conditions in Central Florida have changed drastically since the creation of the RCID
6) The Walt Disney Company has changed drastically since the creation of the RCID
7) The unique privileges granted by the Florida Legislature in the 1960s might not be warranted anymore
8) Multiple stakeholders (including the Florida Legislature, The Walt Disney Company, Orange County, Osceola County) should study what elements of the RCID are essential in the 21st Century
9) The different stakeholders should come to an agreement that respects the contributions the Walt Disney Company has made to Florida and all that Florida has given to The Walt Disney Company

Nothing about the above strikes me as controversial or partisan. That's why I'm sad this whole thing devolved into this mess. They could have made a deal that would answer Disney's critics and solidify core rights. Or maybe the RCID is the ultimate way to manage Disney. Who knows? No one bothered to have the conversation.

Also no FL governor since 1967 had the issues that DeSantis has towards RCID because he got his feelings hurt.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

Make up your mind. You’ve literally gone from praising (and misdescribing) a CDD to then saying they should all be done away with.

Expound on this. The Shingle Creek Transit and Utility Community Development District was created as part of a deal where multiple stakeholders collaborated. The district is designed for the specific purpose of supporting rail infrastructure in the area. Now a station will be built that will improve Orange County's convention center and the local area. A noteworthy line from the act where it was created:

"The District shall not have any zoning, permitting, or land development authority regarding the use of land located within the District’s boundaries."

Does this sound like the same thing as the RCID? Give me an actual example of a firm that has RCID's sweeping powers. I will condemn that firm's mockery of government.

 

[Nevermore525]

Sorry if this was previously stated. Just want some clarification and if I’m understanding this part of the report right:

“Disney sold the RCID as one thing in the 1960s, but there was deception behind the pitch and sale. The company promised, for example, affordable housing, transportation and other social and community services.”

Is the report conflating the concept behind Walt’s EPCOT idea with the promise of affordable housing here and misrepresenting the truth, or were there actual other promises for those things?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Expound on this. The Shingle Creek Transit and Utility Community Development District was created as part of a deal where multiple stakeholders collaborated. The district is designed for the specific purpose of supporting rail infrastructure in the area. Now a station will be built that will improve Orange County's convention center and the local area. A noteworthy line from the act where it was created:

"The District shall not have any zoning, permitting, or land development authority regarding the use of land located within the District’s boundaries."

Does this sound like the same thing as the RCID? Give me an actual example of a firm that has RCID's sweeping powers. I will condemn that firm's mockery of government.

It was not multiple stakeholders. It was two stakeholders, and Universal is the dominate stakeholder which is why they control the board. They didn’t work out special particulars which can only be established by the state. They set up a community development district which is outlined in state law.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2023->Chapter 190 : Online Sunshine

Shingle Creek Utility & Transit Community Development District doesn’t need zoning and land development authority because the South Campus is already zoned as Planned Development District which more directly gives control to Universal. That’s why there hasn’t been any development review of the specifics of the South Campus.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

It was not multiple stakeholders. It was two stakeholders, and Universal is the dominate stakeholder which is why they control the board. They didn’t work out special particulars which can only be established by the state. They set up a community development district which is outlined in state law.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes :->2023->Chapter 190 : Online Sunshine

Shingle Creek Utility & Transit Community Development District doesn’t need zoning and land development authority because the South Campus is already zoned as Planned Development District which more directly gives control to Universal. That’s why there hasn’t been any development review of the specifics of the South Campus.

Exactly. This is something that is meaningfully different from the RCID. Universal has been through normal development processes and approvals for its Epic Universe project. So, bringing this up as something as being similar to RCID is not a serious argument.

And you should look into the genesis of this project. It is designed to support a rail station that will benefit the entire community. Any benefits that accrue to Universal are only secondary to the actual purpose of the district (paying to develop a new rail station for local commuters to use). Hence the "transit" in the name. Me being in favor of allowing a multinational firm to pay for a rail station that will benefit the community is not somehow inconsistent.

 

[mikejs78]

And there you go. I have just presented a completely reasonable method of financing the current expenditures of the RCID through taxes that would not be burdensome on normal taxpayers in Orlando. The idea that the RCID is the only way to manage the territory is based on a lack of creativity

Sounds good in theory, but it's not practical and couldn't happen for a number of reasons:

• You operate under the assumption that Orange and Osecola county *want* the headache of managing Disney's infrastructure needs. History indicates they don't, as it's quite a complex undertaking.
• The cross-county nature of the district would make management and coordination of any infrastructure projects rather difficult.
• The economy that supports 15% out in California may not exist in FL. The sheer volume of people who visit central Florida from elsewhere dwarfs what Aneheim supports. Disneyland, as we know, is primarily a locals park. It's not clear that you could charge the same rate in central Florida without impacting the hotel business.
• Reedy Creek's costs and the costs if the counties assumed the same duties are not 1:1. What's been shown is that special districts tend to be able to do things more efficiently and cheaply, because they are smaller, single-purpose entities. They generally spend less on general and administrative overhead. So the cost to the counties is likely higher than Reedy Creek's budget.
• You speak of changing the tax law as if it's an easy thing with no side effects.
  • If they change the code, it would not only affect Orange and Osecola counties, and they may not want that expansion of the tax code elsewhere in Florida.
  • Any changes to the tax code in FL require a supermajority of each house of the legislature. Possible, but very difficult to pull off.

Finally, and this is the most important one: the bonds. The existing bonds are revenue bonds secured based on the ability of the district to collect ad valorem taxes. This can't simply be substituted with another tax type, unless all the bondholders would agree to such a change. Sure, you can secure a bond with a sales or occupancy tax, but that represents a different risk category than bonds backed by ad valorem taxes, which means everything from the terms to the rate would be affected.

The reason an occupancy tax represents a higher risk is it is subject to wide fluctiations in the tourism market, which represents a different risk to the bondholders. You say Orange County collected $300M in hotel taxes, and would collect $450M if they raised the tax by 50%. Well, what if a recession happens and occupancy goes down 20%? That leads to a shortfall of $90M. Not small. Even a 10% shortfall would result in a $45M deficit.

Property taxes, on the other hand, are somewhat more stable. Assessments generally only go up, even in a downturn, and short of a complete housing market crash, aren't subject to wild fluctuations. Additionally, the special district has the power to raise taxes on the landowners within the district beyond the constitutional limit of 10%.

The existing bonds are predicated on four things: that the district has the power to levy ad valorem taxes, that it can raise more ad valorem taxes if necessary, that it continues to have the authority to build and manage infrastructure, and that it has the power to secure additional bonds. Untangling any of these things could put the bonds at risk of default. This is exactly the reason why the initial propsal to just dissolve the district wouldn't work, and why the legislation establishing the CFTOD made it a point to say repeatedly that the district remained as is, with all the core powers that previously existed, for the purposes of bonds.

So while the sales tax proposal may have worked initially, before the establishment of a special district, there's just too much working against it to make it a viable option today. The special district itself has to exist at least until 2039, and there are arguments that it needs to exist further into the future because the district is supposed to continue developing and can't just stand still, so it will likely need more bonds at some point between now and then.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Exactly. This is something that is meaningfully different from the RCID. Universal has been through normal development processes and approvals for its Epic Universe project. So, bringing this up as something as being similar to RCID is not a serious argument.

And you should look into the genesis of this project. It is designed to support a rail station that will benefit the entire community. Any benefits that accrue to Universal are only secondary to the actual purpose of the district (paying to develop a new rail station for local commuters to use). Hence the "transit" in the name. Me being in favor of allowing a multinational firm to pay for a rail station that will benefit the community is not somehow inconsistent.

They did not. Just the general notion of a theme park resort complex was reviewed. There was no review of a more specific plan or any individual components. There will be no development review of additions and expansion.

I’m well aware of the new district. You are being inconsistent because RCID did much the same, providing a whole host of municipal services at Disney’s expense. You are also once again misrepresenting events. The situation started because Universal wanted Brightline to be forced by the local governments to choose the old Florida High Speed Rail alignment that passed by their property. Brightline pushed back because they estimated that following that alignment would cost at least double (about $1 billion) than their preferred route to the south along FL-417. Universal then worked to develop the Sunshine Corridor where the local and state governments would spend the billions of dollars they wanted Brightline to spend for their benefit. The new District will help with some of that funding, but not anywhere close to the extra billion that Universal wanted to force Brightline to spend. And while the initial information showed SunRail service being extended across the entire Sunshine Corridor the recent public meetings only show SunRail connecting to the airport. So the current plan being presented is not a rail station for local commuters.

The name of a special district does not define its powers. For one, there is already a Shingle Creek Community Development District. The Shingle Creek Transit and Utility Community Development District was not created with specific, limited powers. It was created along a template and the district has all of those powers, even if they don’t currently intent to utilize them they exist and Universal is free to exercise them.

 

[lazyboy97o]

So while the sales tax proposal may have worked initially, before the establishment of a special district, there's just too much working against it to make it a viable option today. The special district itself has to exist at least until 2039, and there are arguments that it needs to exist further into the future because the district is supposed to continue developing and can't just stand still, so it will likely need more bonds at some point between now and then.

I think how the area actually developed challenges the idea that such taxation could have been effective. We sort of tend to forget how much development once focused along US 192. A significantly higher occupancy tax in Orange County likely would have encouraged even more development in Osceola County. This would mean that the revenue is now being generated in the wrong jurisdiction.

 

[mkt]

The people living in the company-owned town specifically designed to perpetuate the company's control are completely free to exercise their civic rights?

Yeah, they actually do. They have actual ballots issued by the Orange County Elections Department which are specific to the relevant elections to their addresses, which include Lake Buena Vista/Bay Lake/Reedy Creek issues and candidates.

They even vote in Precinct 126.

Their housing situation is irrelevant for their right to representation at a local level being taken away.

 

[flynnibus]

It was not a “do it cheaper” benefit because the district has and had higher tax rates to cover the costs associated with the services and infrastructure

That's conflating the 'alternate choice' with the statement itself. The truth is the district didn't use impact fees where as if the district didn't exist, or if the district had acted like it's neighbors, Disney would have been exposed to the fees. Full stop. So it's accurate to say they avoided those fees. The significance of the fees is not a factor in claiming it's a lie or not. And the fact the district used DIFFERENT funding strategies instead of impact fees is a discussion related to the conclusions and what you draw from these facts - it doesn't change the facts. So the claims are not lies, they are just misleading... which is conflated by the fact the CFTOD is also munging their own requirements into the development of the district which the prior RCID did not have. Which is why I've said it's this narrative the CFTOD is trying to spin.

You could make the argument that funding via property taxes vs targeted impact fees is a bad strategy - but it's a different beast entirely... and it's not really the argument CFTOD has made. It's just them grasping at tidbits they find along the way.

Impact fees became popular and nearly ubiquitous in the 80s because it let jurisdictions raise some revenue without raising taxes. RCID didn’t have that issue because Disney just paid the taxes to provide consistent funding. Impact fees don’t go into some regional pot, they stay with the local jurisdiction. The revenues generated from the District assessing impact fees would have stayed with the district.

I don't think anything the CFTOD has said is in conflict of that - they are muddying the waters by suggesting the district SHOULD have been providing those kinds of services within the district and have failed to do so -- which in themselves are controversial claims (in both scope, and in claiming failure).

The whole point is they are using facts - but spinning misleading narratives using those truths. Yes, they didn't pay impact fees, but as you said, that alone isn't damning because they are just a vehicle to do something... not the only way to do something. They cite facts they haven't done things like add schools or libraries - but the claim they should have is the misleading portion.

They are using facts - but creating misleading or false narratives from them.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The truth is the district didn't use impact fees where as if the district didn't exist, or if the district had acted like it's neighbors, Disney would have been exposed to the fees. Full stop. So it's accurate to say they avoided those fees.

Without the District then it would be up to the municipalities to decide if they wanted to impose impact fees.

I don't think anything the CFTOD has said is in conflict of that - they are muddying the waters by suggesting the district SHOULD have been providing those kinds of services within the district and have failed to do so -- which in themselves are controversial claims (in both scope, and in claiming failure).

The District does provide the services.