DeSantis-Appointed Reedy Creek Board Declares Key Disney Agreements VOID

Things at Disney World’s Reedy Creek Improvement District (now Central Florida Tourism Oversight District) have taken a turn.

Disney and the prior board entered into some agreements that would give Disney a lot of control over the land within the District for years to come (regardless of what the new board may do). The new board has called these agreements unusual and suspect and threatened to file a lawsuit against Disney (among other things), Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has criticized the agreements, and legislative amendments have been introduced in an attempt to invalidate them. But now, another step has been taken in this battle.

On April 26th, the new board of the District met to discuss a variety of topics and some of the decisions they’ve made are key to the future of the District and Disney’s agreements with the old board. Let’s go through it all now.

Disney’s Decisions With the Old Board: Declared VOID

Perhaps most importantly, in this meeting, the new board essentially declared Disney’s decisions with the old board as being VOID ab initio (void from the start).

During the prior meeting of the board (earlier in April) they had heard legal arguments from counsel about Disney’s agreements with the old board (specifically, we’re talking about a Development Agreement and some Restrictive Covenants).

During that earlier meeting, the District’s legal counsel argued that “Disney engaged in a caper worthy of Scrooge McDuck to try to evade Florida law.”

Why? They claim that Disney didn’t properly notify property owners in the District of the Development Agreement, that the agreements were invalid because they gave government powers to a private company, and that the agreements were not enforceable for a variety of other reasons.

But, beyond that, the District also appears to be looking at some comprehensive plan amendments and land development regulation amendments passed by the District and/or the cities of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista at various times in 2022 and early 2023.

The District’s legal advisors went through some arguments on these issues including that:

• The cities of Lake Buena Visa and Bay Lake didn’t have public meetings or approve the Development Agreement
• The purpose of the comprehensive plan amendments changed from when they were first discussed in 2017 to their passage in 2022
• There was a failure to attach certain attachments to documents which they feel could be an issue
• And more

One of their advisors (Alan Lawson, a Former FL supreme court justice) said that though Disney had once been given special privileges, “that era has ended.”

Ultimately, the board approved the “legislative findings” provided to them which effectively declares the Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenants invalid. It seems the issue surrounding the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and other regulations about Disney’s future use of the land in the District may be handled at a future meeting so that there can be some clarity on that (though technically those are addressed in the legislative findings that the board approved).

This served as the final straw in a way, at least in Disney’s book, and Disney has since filed a lawsuit against DeSantis and the new board of the District about this issue and many others.

Click here to read about that lawsuit

DeSantis seemed to recognize the possibility of litigation during one press conference, which is why legislative amendments have also been introduced to bills within the Florida legislature that would impact Disney’s Development Agreement.

If the bills are passed with these amendments, they could basically put the Development Agreement on pause, forbid the current board from enforcing it, and give the board the ability to examine the agreements and determine whether or not to move forward with them.

As of April 26th, those bills have not yet been passed or become law. Those bills could have issues too though. Jacob Schumer, a Florida attorney who specializes in local government law, told the Orlando Sentinel that voiding the agreement “could put the state on shaky legal ground because it would impair a contract.”

In fact, a legal analysis of one of the bills (the one in the Senate) warns that “To the extent this language affects previously recorded contracts, the bill may unconstitutionally impair contracts.” We’ll be on the lookout for updates.

“Superior Authority”

During the prior meeting, the Board also voted to give itself “superior authority” within the District regarding certain zoning and planning decisions. The second reading on the resolution for this has now been held and the board has once again voted in favor of the resolution.

What does that mean? Well, in basic terms, the board has “officially” (after 2 votes) voted to give itself superior authority within the District — that would primarily impact the 2 cities under the District (which are effectively run by Disney). Under the Resolution, the cities can’t adopt any land development regulations that are in conflict with or less stringent than those adopted by the board.

On top of that, the board has done away with the separate Planning Board that used to exist in the District. Now, the Board of Supervisors will serve as the planning board, have all of those powers, and (on those planning matters) serve as the “final decision-making authority for the District and no further administrative appeal is available.”

COVID-19 Restrictions

The board also reviewed Resolution No. 640 which has to do with masks and COVID-19. This resolution was also passed by the board and essentially prohibits businesses within the District (which would, presumably, include Disney) from requiring certain COVID-19-related restrictions and mandates. It also addresses COVID-19 restrictions within the District itself.

In terms of the District itself, the District’s employees, and the buildings “of the District,” employees and other persons cannot be required to wear a mask. But when it comes to private businesses in the District, it seems like things are a little different.

In the section addressing private businesses that operate in the District (which would, presumably, include Disney) they only note that such businesses shall not require customers to provide documents certifying COVID-19 vaccinations or a post-infection recovery.

Plus, those businesses cannot impose a COVID-19 testing mandate for access to the business’ buildings.

And There’s More

In terms of other matters, the board also heard from Disney Springs leaders about their concerns surrounding the board’s actions and DeSantis’ battle with Disney. Plus, it discussed potentially taking over other boards in the District (as it did with the planning board).

This is only the beginning. The bills with those Reedy Creek-related amendments are still pending in the legislature, Disney has quietly made some important responses to the whole debacle, and now a federal lawsuit has been filed. We’ll be looking for the latest updates so stay tuned for more.

Click here to see what Trump and Christie have had to say about DeSantis and his attempts to thwart Disney

Comments (1)