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

flyakite

Well-Known Member
Gilzean has been paid $20K per month by CFTOD as a consultant until December. Not sure if Orlando Sentinel article is behind paywall. Maybe someone can help if it is.

 

DCBaker

Premium Member
Gilzean has been paid $20K per month by CFTOD as a consultant until December. Not sure if Orlando Sentinel article is behind paywall. Maybe someone can help if it is.


Here's the article:

Florida’s Disney World oversight district is paying Orange County Elections Supervisor Glen Gilzean $20,000 a month through December as part of a consulting agreement quietly inked when he stepped down as administrator.

Gilzean left his $400,000-a-year job leading the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District in March after less than a year of service. Gov. Ron DeSantis appointed Gilzean, one of his political allies, to serve as Orange County’s supervisor of elections. That position has an annual salary of $205,000.

What wasn’t publicly known during the transition nor submitted to the district’s board for approval or discussion was that Gilzean signed a consulting agreement from April 1 through the end of the year.

Stephanie Kopelousos, another DeSantis political ally who replaced Gilzean, authorized the agreement. The district’s board approved her hiring on March 27.

The Orlando Sentinel made numerous inquiries into Gilzean’s status with the district since he stepped down, but the district never provided answers until now.

Between his elections job and consulting contract, Gilzean is drawing a taxpayer-funded income of about $37,000 a month.

State Sen. Linda Stewart, D-Orlando, said she is concerned about Gilzean juggling consulting and election duties.

“I think he should concentrate on one job and do it well and not have two jobs,” she said. “He should relinquish that contract. There is an election coming up, and he needs to concentrate on that.”

Gilzean didn’t respond to a phone message and email on Thursday. As elections supervisor, he is responsible for overseeing voting in this year’s presidential election in Orange County.

In a March 11 interview with News Spectrum 13, Gilzean said he would cut ties with the district when pressed on whether he would devote his full attention to the elections supervisor job.

“The goal is to have a very seamless transition,” Gilzean said. “It is not fair to the taxpayers over in the district [for me] to be in two different areas at the same time.”

Gilzean has not said if he will run for the elections job, which will be on the November ballot. He has until June 14 to qualify.

Recently, he has faced criticism from several candidates who say he kept them in the dark on petitions that would allow them to qualify to run without paying a filing fee.

District leaders defended the contract.

Gilzean’s services were needed to ensure “the continuity of government functions,” and the contract is mirrored after similar arrangements with previous administrators, district spokesman Matthew Thomas Oberly said in a prepared statement.

“With his experience and understanding of our organization, Mr. Gilzean provides valuable knowledge that will aid in a successful transition,” Oberly said.

District officials provided a copy of the consulting agreement. They also released monthly reports for April and May from Gilzean that detail outreach work he did with veteran-owned businesses as part of the district’s program to provide contracting opportunities to local companies.

“To date, Mr. Gilzean has provided valuable insight regarding outstanding projects to Administrator Kopelousos,” Oberly said. “Per standard practice, consulting agreements do not go before the board.”

The agreement doesn’t include a list of specific tasks for Gilzean, although it notes that requested services will be performed on a “part-time basis and shall not interfere with … other full-time employment obligations.”

The district can terminate the agreement early with or without cause, according to the terms.

The Disney district’s five-member, DeSantis-appointed board named Gilzean to the administrator post in May 2023 as part of a state overhaul. He served in that role until March when DeSantis picked Gilzean to fill a vacancy created by long-time Democratic elections chief Bill Cowles’ retirement.

Charbel Barakat, acting chairman of the district’s board, said he was aware of the consulting agreement but was advised it did not require a vote.

“We wanted to make sure there was no disruption. … This is in a lot of ways one of the most complex local governments in the state,” he said. “There are a lot of moving pieces.”

Gilzean’s predecessor, John Classe, stayed on as a special adviser as part of a one-year employment agreement that the board approved in May 2023 when Gilzean took over.

Under that agreement, Classe continued to earn his $355,000 annual salary, which equates to about $29,500 a month. But the district terminated the agreement early on Aug. 30.

Gilzean previously served as a DeSantis appointee on the Florida Commission on Ethics. He also was president and CEO of Central Florida Urban League before joining the Disney district.

His stint on the Ethics Commission ended when media reports showed he violated a state law prohibiting members from holding public employment.

He resigned his unpaid position as ethics commission chairman in August, rather than quit his job leading the Disney oversight district.
 

flyakite

Well-Known Member
1718102017610.png

It was in the Orlando Sentinel, so I have posted it here. Not sure who is the general counsel, why they are added to the Florida Retirement System, and why it must be announced.

Actually, Kurt Ardaman and Daniel Langley are general counsel for CFTOD and maybe they are considered employees and not independent contractors.
 
Last edited:

MisterPenguin

President of Animal Kingdom
Premium Member



Disney and DeSantis Reach Agreement, Ending Protracted Fight​

Brooks Barnes = June 12, 2024, 8:37 p.m. ET​
The deal locks in a 15-year expansion plan for Disney World and clears a path for Disney to restart political donations in Florida.​
Disney and Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida have finally ended their feud, clearing the way for $17 billion in planned development at Walt Disney World near Orlando.​
On Wednesday night, the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District — an entity that Mr. DeSantis took over in 2022, ending 55 years of Disney control and sparking multiple lawsuits — gave the company a big part of what it wanted all along: a locked-in, long-term plan for expanding Disney World. At least for the next 15 years, the length of the new agreement, Disney can develop the resort without worrying about interference by Florida politicians.​
Put bluntly, state leaders can no longer use growth at the 25,000-acre resort as a political weapon, as Mr. DeSantis did two years ago after Disney said it would fight to repeal a state education law that opponents called anti-gay.​
Jeff Vahle, the president of Disney World, said in a statement that the agreement would support “the growth of this global destination, fueling the Florida economy.” It gives Disney the ability to build a fifth theme park, add three small parks, expand retail and office space and build 14,000 hotel rooms, for a resort total of nearly 54,000.​
Disney has earmarked $17 billion to expand the complex over the next decade, growth it has said will create an estimated 13,000 jobs.​
The district noted that, under the agreement, Disney is obligated to spend at least $8 billion. The company also must expand an affordable housing initiative and carry out a “buy local initiative,” with at least 50 percent of its total spending in expanding Disney World going to Florida businesses.​
Charbel Barakat, vice chairman of the district’s board, called the agreement “a monumental step.” Brian Aungst Jr., another board member, said, “Walt Disney World is inextricably intertwined in the fabric of the state of Florida, and the success of Walt Disney World is the success of Central Florida and vice versa.”​
After the district’s five board members unanimously approved the expansion plan, Disney said it would halt all litigation against Mr. DeSantis and the district.​
Disney had been battling Mr. DeSantis and the district’s board in federal court. In a lawsuit filed last year, Disney said the governor and his allies had violated the First Amendment by taking over the district in retaliation for Disney’s denunciation of the education law.​
In January, a federal judge threw out Disney’s complaint, ruling that it didn’t matter whether their actions were retaliatory. Disney had vowed to appeal.​
Separate but related litigation in state court was settled in March.​
The expansion agreement clears a path for Disney to resume giving political donations in Florida; the company halted campaign giving when Mr. DeSantis seized control of the tourism oversight board.​
Disney recently dipped a toe back into the practice by giving free park tickets to Geraldine F. Thompson, a Democratic state senator. She used Disney’s noncash contribution to increase interest in a fund-raiser for her re-election campaign.​
“Disney and Florida have finally kissed and made up,” said Dennis Speigel, the chief executive and founder of International Theme Park Services, an Ohio consulting and amusement park management firm. “The breakup was a lose-lose. It was only a matter of time.”​
 

Stripes

Premium Member
I give CFTOD 5 years. Disney will lobby for the reinstatement of RCID and landowner control over the district. Florida will give it back to them.

In the meantime, Disney’s business plans will not be impacted whatsoever.

Despite my moral objection to the blatant retaliation of a constitutionally protected right, there’s no doubt that this was the better outcome for the company given their growth plans in the imminent future. Taking this to court would’ve taken too long, delayed Disney’s plans, and harmed the company financially. It also removes the conflict from the headlines.

Disney got virtually everything they wanted. And DeSantis can say they defeated Disney’s plan to pull one over on him even though the deal they agreed to is nearly identical to Disney’s original plan.
 
Last edited:

MR.Dis

Well-Known Member
I give CFTOD 5 years. Disney will lobby for the reinstatement of RCID and landowner control over the district. Florida will give it back to them.

In the meantime, Disney’s business plans will not be impacted whatsoever.

Despite my moral objection to the blatant retaliation of a constitutionally protected right, there’s no doubt that this was the better outcome for the company given their growth plans in the imminent future. Taking this to court would’ve taken too long, delayed Disney’s plans, and harmed the company financially. It also removes the conflict from the headlines.

Disney got virtually everything they wanted. And DeSantis can say they defeated Disney’s plan to pull one over on him even though the deal they agreed to is nearly identical to Disney’s original plan.
No, that will not happen. As I said some 1000 pages ago, that ship has sailed. The truth, both parties thought it was problematic that Disney had complete control over the district. Now many have stated that there are other districts in the state--but there are none that cover some 40 square miles and generate billions of dollars in revenue. There is no way they either party is going to support Disney getting complete control again.
 

James Alucobond

Well-Known Member
No, that will not happen. As I said some 1000 pages ago, that ship has sailed. The truth, both parties thought it was problematic that Disney had complete control over the district. Now many have stated that there are other districts in the state--but there are none that cover some 40 square miles and generate billions of dollars in revenue. There is no way they either party is going to support Disney getting complete control again.
If only that were what any of this had actually been about. 🤔
 

Chip Chipperson

Well-Known Member
I really don't understand this. Can the state limit, or even want to limit, how much Disney invests in Florida? If Disney were to spend 18 billion would the be punished for that?
No, the agreement isn't a cap, it's a minimum and the actual requirement ($8B over 10 years, with the remainder over the 10 years after that) is less than the company has already stated they intend to spend. It is just a way to give Disney the agreement that the District had previously challenged while also making it look like the District's Board got a "win."
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I really don't understand this. Can the state limit, or even want to limit, how much Disney invests in Florida?

No - it was a horrible interpretation that I was hoping people would have just skipped over... but here we are.

We should all know the basics here. Disney made a commitment to spend 8 billion as part of an agreement.

There is no cap... there isn't even a punishment to NOT doing it. It just means the District would have reason to terminate the agreement.. which is a toothless thing anyway since you wouldn't know if they had spent it until the end anyway. It's just a promise as a means to justify the agreement and provide the requirement of the benefit to the district for why they are even doing the agreement.

It's pretty much a meaningless commitment - Disney's public investor messages have far more consequence and weight behind them.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
No, the agreement isn't a cap, it's a minimum and the actual requirement ($8B over 10 years, with the remainder over the 10 years after that) is less than the company has already stated they intend to spend. It is just a way to give Disney the agreement that the District had previously challenged while also making it look like the District's Board got a "win."

Thank you for the clarification, I didn't see how the original statement could have been right.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
Despite what others believe, Disney will never gain total control of the district again-as I stated above neither party will support such a move.

That's true. It would have been terrible optics for Disney to draw a hard line position that a corporation should have that kind of power. At least not outright.

But as Anaheim proves, even without the district in name, Disney will still wield immense political power and get what they want. Maybe they will end up paying a little bit more for it in the end.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Yea that’s very debatable.

Because at the end of the day they still got what they wanted.


But they didn't GAIN anything... yet they lost tons... spent millions.. and are not in a better position than when they started. So what do you suggest was their prize and 'got what they wanted'?

'At the end of the day' - Disney lost an incredible level of control and direct influence over a significant element of their operation. They also now have a court history ruling against them. They are paying for District operations that are setup in a manner THEY didn't choose.

How does one look at this and say... 'we got what we wanted'?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom