I couldn't find my original source for this, but in finding another one[0] (that wasn't crazy -- searching for Disney and the CIA bring up a lot of crazies) I actually found an interesting take on why EPCOT wasn't legally viable as a city while maintaining the control of the land that Disney (the company and the man) wanted:

>Indeed, Walt's comments on a May 23, 1966, memo suggest that he himself had privately backed away from the model city vision before he died. In the memo, which was found in Walt's desk and is now kept at the Disney Archives in Burbank, Calif., Florida attorney Paul Helliwell sketched out the problem of allowing permanent residents at Epcot. If people lived there, they would vote there, diluting the company's political control of the property. It seems that Walt's thoughts were headed in a similar direction: On the memo, every time Helliwell referred to "permanent residents," Walt crossed it out and substituted "temporary residents/tourists."

[...]

>In that memo, Helliwell expressed concern about state and local laws that might limit the company's "freedom of action" in developing its 43-square-mile property. He proposed a Disney-controlled government with regulatory powers "superseding to the fullest extent possible under law state and county regulatory authorities." There was just one hitch: Under Florida law, as Helliwell explained, planning and zoning authority could only be exercised by a popularly elected government. To escape external land-use controls, the company had to submit to control by voters. Disney attorneys, however, found a clever way to avoid this fate.

[...]

>To acquire such powers, the company had to convince the Florida legislature that Epcot would be a bona fide community. Paul Helliwell, acting as lobbyist, frequently used the term "resident" in describing the company's plans. Disney lobbyists also told lawmakers that Disney would include "public school sites and other public needs in their two cities," according to an April 22, 1967, article in the Orlando Sentinel-Star. And Helliwell told legislators, few of whom had read the thick Reedy Creek charter, that the company was not asking for anything "that had not been done before." At best the statement was half-true: The charter combined the powers available in three kinds of special districts. But Florida had not combined those powers in one district before.

The CIA is actually hosting a formerly secret letter by Helliwell here[1] (you can find a full PDF on the linked page), but that's technically concerning the CIA predecessor the OSS. For a strictly CIA connection, we have to go pack to another Washington Post piece[2]:

>Castle Bank was set up and principally controlled by the late Paul Lionel Edward Helliwell, a Miami lawyer. Helliwell, who had longstanding ties to the U.S. intelligence community, was instrumental in helping to direct a network of CIA undercover operations and "proprietaries." (A proprietary is a concern secretly set up and controlled by the CIA, ostensibly as legitimate business.)

I haven't found a good source establishing Helliwell as a CIA recruiter -- my memory is that he was, but my memory is made of water and I haven't found bits and bytes backing it up yet, so who knows. It's late here, and I've gotta get some sleep. Hope that helps!

[0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/19...

[1]: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/0005657712

[2]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/04/24/c...