My best guess is the legislature has a year to deal with this and the most likely outcome is we never know what goes down in the room where it happens and some peace deal is made.
I DO think the legislation this week will pass.
If it does, the most likely outcome (barring some peace deal later) is the legislature re-authorizes the RCID before June ‘23 with the same taxing authority, assets and debts, but maybe (depending on what goes down in the room where it happens) some minor or major change to how the RCID governing board gets elected.
The reason why I say this is we all (
DVC Members) pay RCID property taxes and that’s part of the taxing authority of the ID. If RCID goes away, so does the authority to collect those taxes. I read those taxes (ours and Disney Hotel parts) is about $150 million/year. So. The legislature has 150 million reasons to keep the RCID intact even if it takes some or all control away from TWDC.
That will also solve all the concerns about moving debt to Orange and Osceola Co. Keep the current structure intact but remove TWDC’s autonomy.
So far as previously legislation requiring a vote from residents, that doesn’t mean anything. No legislature is bound to the edicts of previous legislatures. A new statute that amends a prior statute isn’t in conflict with the amended parts.
This passes and the point is made. What happens next is what matters. The RCID probably gets re-authorized before next year with either:
1. The governing board elected the same way (Disney stays at the helm).
2. Some combination of TWDC and public control. Say, 11 person board: TWDC, Orange, Osceola each get two seats, Voters in each of Orange and Osceola each get two seats, and Gov’s office gets to nominate chair.
3. Only Orange, Osceola, and the Gov’s office control the board.
But the sky is falling “all Orange and Osceola Co residents will have to pay $2,200 more in property taxes each year“ is never going to happen. Not if THEIR governing commissions want to keep THEIR seats. The bottom line is WDW foots the bill for this stuff now, and will in the future as well. Whether that’s an expense against profit or a new tax is semantics. The issue here isn’t about who pays, but who controls.