Disney and Central Florida Tourism Oversight District propose a settlement agreement bringing lawsuits to an end

Mar 27, 2024 in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Posted: Wednesday March 27, 2024 10:10am ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

The board of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District has announced that the Walt Disney Company and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District have proposed a settlement agreement that will potentially see both sides drop their respective lawsuits.

The critical points of the agreement from Disney's perspective are that the district commits to reviewing and potentially amending the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, with consultations involving Disney, and that the subsequent negotiations for the new development agreement are linked to Disney pursuing or halting its federal lawsuit against CFTOD and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

The highlights of the agreement as presented by CFTOD litigation counsel Paul Huck include:

The development agreement and restrictive covenants previously under lawsuit are to be considered null and void.
Disney will not challenge the district's view that certain comprehensive plans and land development regulations adopted in January of the previous year are invalid, recognizing the 2020 Comprehensive Plan as the current operative plan.
The district commits to reviewing and potentially amending the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, with consultations involving Disney and other relevant parties.
Both parties agree to dismiss with prejudice the claims and counterclaim in the ongoing state court lawsuit.
Disney will also dismiss with prejudice a separate state court litigation regarding public records and withdraw its pending public records request.
The labor services agreement between the district and the Reedy Creek energy services would be amended so that the term would expire in 2028 rather than 2032, and its automatic renewal provisions removed.
Disney asserts ownership of certain long-term mitigation credits, with the district agreeing not to interfere with their use. These credits stem from permits issued by multiple agencies, with Disney having funded their creation.
Concerning a federal court case Disney filed, which is currently on appeal, both parties will seek to defer briefing on the appeal while negotiating a new development agreement.
Both entities agree not to contest each other's actions prior to a specific date, with certain exceptions related to the content of the settlement agreement and potential defenses in the federal lawsuit.
Finally, the agreement includes mutual releases by both parties.

The agreement appears to be an abrupt change in direction from Disney, which, as recently as January, said, "This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law, and it will not end here. If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case."

In a brief statement this morning, Walt Disney World President Jeff Valle said, "We are pleased to put an end to all litigation pending in state court in Florida between Disney and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. This agreement opens a new chapter of constructive engagement with the new leadership of the district and serves the interests of all parties by enabling significant continued investment and the creation of thousands of direct and indirect jobs and economic opportunity in the State."

CFTOD board meeting March 27 2024

Speaking at today's CFTOD board meeting, vice chair Charbel Barakat said, "We are eager to work with Disney. I'm certainly eager to work with Disney and all other businesses to make the country's tourism destination famous for a second reason, which is good government. I'd like to thank publicly thank the district's general counsel for their Herculean efforts on this front as well as our as well as our outside counsel."

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

josiah mazelin10 days ago

I said basically. You just listed two rides at each park. My point is proven

Goofyernmost10 days ago

With the kind of promotion that they once were famous for were to be used, they can get all the hype they need and spend a hell of a lot less to do it. They have to make what they have be exciting and not worry about what others might be doing. They stayed on top for about 60 years doing that and then, I assume to give bigger bonuses to the executives, they stopped producing those things and even if they don't admit it, they are running scared at the moment, in spite of increased profits. They have to make that dominance last, but I don't see them doing that unless they fill up those empty buildings and put something good in them and promote, promote, promote. That is second only to location, location, location.

Sirwalterraleigh11 days ago

Galactic spirit Halloween was sorta in that ballpark

Sirwalterraleigh11 days ago

Nah…they’ve crossed the Rubicon on “attracting middle class families”. They’re well past that price point to make any such endeavor turn out to be anything but a “loss” to the stock wonks. That strategy was their philosophy for many years…expansion to create more traffic and sell more product across all business was Eisner 101 - essentially, but they dumped that 15-20 year ago. Limiting investment and all but eliminating expansion to cap overhead and then attempting to make more revenue/profit off what was already paid for. That strategy is incompatible with “expanding/pricing to make it more accessible”

JoeCamel11 days ago

It's non-sensical too, increase your costs to get less money per guest and do huge capital outlays? Bob sez nyet

Tha Realest11 days ago

There’s no evidence 1) this is happening, or 2) they intend to do this.

ChrisFL11 days ago

They had a 5th gate and they closed it..................DisneyQuest :p

Advisable Joseph11 days ago

Disney needs land to expand. Pulling guests from the Magic Kingdom and Epcot (or otherwise unceasing attraction supply for the guests), then lowering prices to increase volume (and income) and accessing middle-class families, while building out the other parks, is the idea. Would you consider a Magic Kingdom Colony across the Lagoon or part of the current parking lot, which guests could access with Magic Kingdom tickets, a "5th gate"? How about parking, so the park can expand into the old parking lot?

gwhb7511 days ago

Agree with this. The only unfortunate thing is that "expanding existing parks" doesn't get the same hype as "a whole new park". Now if we could only have a true expansion of existing parks (i.e. just add new things (like villains land) and not take things away first (like tropical americas in AK)).

JoeCamel11 days ago

I think a lot of the salivating over a new park is fatigue with the same offerings year after year or a dribble of something new. Stale has a stench. Fans have "done" everything in the parks time after time so they want new and "damn the cost it's what I want". Does not have to be logical or make sense it is a want and I need my wants fulfilled ipso facto TDO is going to build me a new park. Seems to point to someone who has never run a business nor cares if that business thrives to feed the stockholders

monothingie11 days ago

Forget the tremendous capital expense to build a new park. The most important thing to Disney is YOY growth. The quarterly earnings mean EVERYTHING to Bob and Wall Street. Key amongst that is that Disney cares tremendously about operational costs and maximizing LL revenue streams. While a new park may be tremendously popular, it also increases operational expenses significantly. It is also very likely that it will cannibalize a large portion of the existing guest base. LL brings in a tremendous amount of revenue for Disney. It works best for Disney with full parks, adding a new park will dilute LL revenue at the existing parks. If a new park was going to justify the build cost and not affect the OI for WDW, then shovels would have been in the ground already. They've done the analysis, and a new park is not financially viable at this point.

lazyboy97o11 days ago

Planning permission and building permission are two separate things. You need planning approval first. Comprehensive Plans (along with Master Plans, Future Land Use Plans and Zoning Plans) are also not set in stone and quite malleable.

Dranth11 days ago

I disagree with him on a number of things, but he isn't wrong on this one. They have underbuilt parks that can absorb a LOT more people if they expand them. Those parks have existing infrastructure which makes it easier and cheaper to develop and build out vs. an entire new park. They understand their main audience has limited vacation time and already know people are unlikely to extend their vacations but instead sacrifice one thing they would have done for something else. They have a strained employee pool that has never recovered from 2020 and staffing new builds in existing parks is WORLDS easier than trying to staff an entire new park. Even an entire parks worth of attractions built over the four current parks would require less staffing than the same number of attractions in a brand-new park once you factor in employees for back of house, support, utilities, security, transportation, etc. Sure, nothing is impossible, and I'll gladly admit to being wrong on this if it does happen, but it would be business malpractice to do so in Florida anytime soon. I would expect most of the other locations around the world with room to get a new gate before Florida.