Thanks. The former says: > (2) Notwithstanding s. 189.072(2), any independent special23 district established by a special act prior to the date of24 ratificat

Thanks. The former says: > (2) Notwithstanding s. 189.072(2), any independent special23 district established by a special act prior to the date of24 ratification of the Florida Constitution on November 5, 1968,25 and which was not reestablished, re-ratified, or otherwise26 reconstituted by a special act or general law after November 5,27 1968, is dissolved effective June 1, 2023. I.e., the legislature in 2022 does not feel bound by the legislature in 2021, and just to be sure they came up with a specific constitutional rationale for that beyond the traditional one. It also says that the Reedy Creek district can re-apply to become an independent district again. In any case, SB-4C doesn't address the bond issue at all, and it doesn't say that 189.072 doesn't apply as to bonds. 189.072 says, about bonds: > (4) DEBTS AND ASSETS.—Financial allocations of the assets and indebtedness of a dissolved independent special district shall be pursuant to s. 189.076. and 189.076 says: > (2) Unless otherwise provided by law or ordinance, the dissolution of a special district government shall transfer the title to all property owned by the preexisting special district government to the local general-purpose government, which shall also assume all indebtedness of the preexisting special district. So I assume that continuity will be provided: the financial obligations of the special district will become the financial obligations of the two counties spanned by Disney's special district. That doesn't seem in the least mysterious. I'm sure there will be court cases, but ISTM that the text in question is pretty straightforward.