Below are my recommended votes on Orange County issues along with explanations. This year’s ballot is extensive. I hope this assists in your consideration of your vote on these issues.

County Commission Election District 5 – Vote for Steve Leary

• Kelly Semrad: https://kellysemrad.com/about-kelly/
• Steve Leary: https://electsteveleary.com/about/
• Orange County annual general fund budget over $4 Billion.
• Government and organizational experience needed along with objectivity.

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #1 – Revising Orange County Charter Initiative Petition Process.

• NO – Lowering percentage of voters required for Charter amendment petitions favors narrow agenda activists at the expense of the larger population of residents.

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #2 – Requiring Continued Existence of Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

• NO – Requiring an Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the Charter is window dressing as the county commission sets the rules for funding such a vehicle.

Vote YES on County Charter Amendment #3 – Write-in Candidate Effect on Timing of Charter Officer Elections.

• YES – Avoids unneeded August primary elections.

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #4 – Requiring Adoption of a Fiscal Sustainability Analysis Tool.

• NO – Requiring this in the Charter is meaningless as the county commission can always require it.

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #5– Establishing Charter Office of County Attorney.

• NO – Gives county mayor unilateral power to dismiss the county attorney. County attorney position should always require a majority vote of the country commission.

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #6 – Increasing Number of County Commission Districts.

• NO – This would enable more district gerrymandering.

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #7 – Transportation Mobility Advisory Commission.

• NO – The county commission can already create such a commission at will as needed.

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #8 – Supermajority County Commission Vote to Dispose of or Change Use of “County Protected Lands.”

• NO – Gives a minority control of land use changes. Not democratic and will contribute to economic stagnation.
• NO – Conflicts with affordable housing priorities.

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #9 – Defining a Rural Boundary and Rural Area where changes in residential density and intensity are subject to a supermajority county commission Vote .

• NO – Gives a minority control of residential density and intensity. Not democratic and will contribute to economic stagnation.
• NO – Conflicts with affordable housing priorities.

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #10 – Establishing a Process For Voluntary Municipal Annexations And Land Use in Rural Areas that requires the area be subject to Orange County land development rules, and requires a supermajority vote of the county commission to approve annexations.

• NO – Imposes Orange County land use on areas that wish to incorporate as municipalities.
• NO – Gives the minority of the county commission control over approval of municipal annexations.
• NO – Elements of this Amendment #10 likely conflict with State Law Chapter 171 and home rule authorities in State Law, that require the will of the people to incorporate as a municipality (not the will of the county commission).

Vote NO on County Charter Amendment #11 – One Half Cent Sales Surtax for School Facilities Construction, Improvement, Land Acquisition, and Technology Implementation.

• NO – The county school system does not need more money, they need less overhead.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Winter Park has a complicated and penal tree ordinance because of extreme viewpoints of city staff, board members, and commission members. You don’t need to get caught up in this regulatory tree madness.

All Winter Park residential property owners need to be aware that state law supersedes city code when it comes to tree removals. Under state law, a residential property owner can prune, trim, or remove a tree without a city permit and without penalty or tree replacement if the property owner possesses documentation from an arborist certified by the ISA or a Florida licensed landscape architect that the tree poses an unacceptable risk to persons or property.

If you don’t get the documentation required by state law you are subject to our ridiculously complicated and penal city ordinance, a revised version of which is now coming before the city commission for approval. This ordinance offers absurdly detailed rules and penalties while hiding the existence of the state law you could otherwise avail yourself of. This revised tree ordinance can even fine you if you use state law to remove a tree but fail to file the documentation with the city within 10 days of removal.

Don’t call city staff if you have a tree removal question. Call an independent certified arborist or Florida licensed landscape architect first.

This brief video is from the City Commission work session of May 23, 2024.

Commissioner Craig Russell to the left was participating from a remote location. Commissioner Todd Weaver at the table to the right is talking.

Really?

Request that the city commission repeal Ordinance 3294-24 Expanding and Extending the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). Contact the city commission here: mayorandcommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org.

Please see prior posts on this subject:

• Commission Wants $84,000,000 of Your Money
• CRA Projects In the Big Money Grab

More perspective is required by the commission in considering this CRA expansion and extension.

Only 12% of Winter Park’s population lives within the proposed expanded CRA. Why are approximately 27,000 residents (88%) being denied $84,000,000 in projected property taxes between 2028 and 2037?

The commission’s latest 10 year financial projections show a continuing decline of our reserves to finance ever increasing expenses EVEN WITH the addition of the current CRA revenue in the General Fund beginning in 2028 (that will not exist if the CRA expansion and extension is finalized)! Click below to review the commission’s financial projection.

The overhead this commission has created combined with an approval of this CRA expansion and extension will necessitate a tax rate increase in the near future. This is not rational policy, especially given the ill defined CRA projects, none of which incentivize any increase in the tax base.

Our retiring Mayor, Phil Anderson, called the CRA expansion and extension “a big deal.” If Orange County approves this it will be “a big disaster” with no benefits for 88% of Winter Park residents and unnecessary tax rate increases for all Winter Park residents.

Contact the commission and request repeal of the CRA expansion and extension: mayorandcommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org.

Challenge our commission members to explain how their CRA extension and expansion plan benefits the residents of Winter Park. Demand they put this plan to a citizen referendum. Contact them here: mayorandcommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org. (See my prior post on this subject.) I also encourage you to attend the City Commission meeting this Wednesday, March 27 to comment in opposition to this plan (the vote on the second reading should be about 4 PM).

Again, this plan takes $84,000,000 from residents of Winter Park. This is the anticipated city property taxes taken by the CRA from our General Fund from 2028 through 2037, where it could otherwise be used to reduce taxes and/or increase investments for the entire city (that is, actually benefit the residents). The existing CRA has been accumulating property value since 1994. Winter Park residents need to receive the tax benefit of the accumulated valuations in 2028 and beyond.

Here is commentary on the “projects” contemplated in the proposed CRA plan. Do you think any of these benefit you as a resident?

$9,350,000 on Affordable Housing – Winter Park is 10 square miles. Orange County is 1,000 square miles. Winter Park already has a disproportionately high number of subsidized housing units for its size and population. Why do we need to subsidize more housing when this is an Orange County responsibility? How does this serve the interests of Winter Park residents? It does not. It would just add more people and more traffic in Winter Park.

$16,500,000 on underpass/overpass/crossings – I have no idea why we need an underpass or overpass. Do you? Where? Who uses them? How does this serve Winter Park residents? It does not. Street crossing improvements can be paid for using General Fund revenue.

$27,740,000 on Fairbanks (US 17-92 to Pennsylvania Ave- Streetscape) – This presupposes the city uses eminent domain to purchase the properties along Fairbanks. Why would we spend money on this when Fairbanks is a State road and the majority of Fairbanks traffic is cutting through Winter Park? How does this serve Winter Park residents? It does not.

$18,000,000 on Morse Boulevard (Streetscape US 17-92 to New York) – What is wrong with the current streetscape on Morse Boulevard, what changes are planned, and with what benefit for Winter Park residents? Another case where spending money offers no benefit to the vast majority of residents.

$17,000,000 on parking improvements – Where? On whose land? To benefit whom? Again, pie in the sky with no underlying need or benefit to Winter Park residents.

$8,400,000 on stormwater improvements – This commission recently increased the annual stormwater fee by about $700,000 per year and spent $750,000 for stormwater consulting. This in itself was a gross over reaction after hurricane Ian in 2022 as only about 60 properties experienced water damage (which is the property owners responsibility) and 35 cases of temporary street flooding were reported. There are sufficient resources within the Stormwater Fund and General Fund to address any and all stormwater issues.

$7,500,000 buying the USPS land on New York Avenue – This is a long simmering wish list item for some people that should be the topic of a citizen referendum if and when the USPS decides to put their property up for sale.

Challenge our commission members to explain how their CRA extension and expansion plan benefits the residents of Winter Park. Demand that they put this plan up for a citizen referendum. Contact them here: mayorandcommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org.

Bet you didn’t know the city commission has approved an $84,000,000 money grab from you. Read their expanded CRA Plan and let them know what you think here: mayorandcommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org. This plan needs to be approved by Orange County before becoming effective.

CRA stands for Community Redevelopment Area. Within this area, county and city property taxes, net of those based on valuation prior to formation of the CRA, must be spent within the CRA area in accordance with the CPR Plan approved by Orange County. When the current CRA expires at the end of 2027, all county property tax revenue goes back to the county and all city property tax revenue goes into the city’s General Fund for any use, but only if we stop the CRA expansion.

The city commission wants to expand the existing CRA to include Fairbanks at 17/92 to Minnesota to I4, and extend it’s expiration from 2027 to 2037. Click here for a larger map showing the current CRA area and proposed expansion.

Click here to read the proposed CRA 2024 Plan. Note that all financial information provided here is based on the “Moderate” financial projections” included in the published Plan.

The essence of this CRA Plan is to:

• Use property taxes from the existing CRA to finance projects in the existing and added CRA area. Over 10 years from 2028 through 2037 only $8,000,000 of incremental tax revenue is expected in the expansion area, while $147,700,000 is expected from within the existing CRA boundaries.
• Take $84,000,000 in anticipated city property taxes from the General Fund from 2028 through 2037 where it could otherwise be used to reduce taxes and/or increase investments for the entire city, and instead;
• Spend anticipated county and city property taxes of about $147,700,000 only within in the expanded CRA on projects in the CRA 2024 Plan.

Projects within the CRA 2024 Plan include:

• $9,350,000 on Affordable Housing.
• $16,500,000 on underpass/overpass/crossings.
• $27,740,000 on Fairbanks (US 17-92 to Pennsylvania Ave- Streetscape).
• $18,000,000 on Morse Boulevard (Streetscape US 17-92 to New York).
• $17,000,000 on parking improvements.
• $8,400,000 on stormwater improvements.
• $7,500,000 buying the USPS land on New York Avenue.

Do any of the projects benefit you? Note there is no detail for any of the projects. It is purely an unsupported wish list. Why do we need these projects and why can’t we prioritize use of our city property taxes to address some of the underlying issues? (More on this in a follow-up post.)

Note that if the CRA is NOT expanded and extended, the city’s General Fund is expected to receive an additional $6,200,000 in 2028, then increasing each year, totalling $84,000,000 over 10 years. This would add about 20% to projected property taxes available for general use.

Would you like a substantial property tax cut in 2028 knowing that sufficient general fund revenue continues to be available to maintain and improve our entire city? Or, would you rather have the city commission invent projects on which to spend your money that do not benefit you?

Again, please read the city commission’s expanded CRA Plan. Challenge our commission members to explain how their CRA extension and expansion plan benefits the residents of Winter Park. Demand they put this plan to a citizen referendum. Contact them here: mayorandcommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org.

Having observed Winter Park politics for some 35 years, I am always amused that the Developer Bogeyman shows up every election. This year’s Bogeyman is brought to us by Jason Johnson.

Concerns about Jason were noted when he declined to state whether he would support buying electric power at above market prices to pursue an arbitrary goal for our electric utility to use 80% renewable energy by 2035. Instead he claimed to me and many others that “the premise of the question may be fundamentally flawed” without further explanation. Note the lawyerly obfuscation in addressing a direct yes or no question. (I’ve seen this behavior on the commission from someone else, me thinks.)

Next, Johnson sends out mailers and emails noting he is “NOT financed or supported by the big developers.” He later used the phrase “NOT financed or supported by big Winter Park developers.” What’s the distinction? More lawyerly parsing to obfuscate the facts.

It turns out that Jason Johnson is supported by “big” developers. A classic bit of political hypocrisy that should not go unnoticed at the ballot box. While the “big Winter Park developers” he alludes to as supporting his opponent(s) are typically multi-generational Winter Park families with long term social interests in the city, Johnson’s “big developer” donors are large scale high density specialists.

Husein Cumber, Chief Strategy Officer for Florida East Coast Industries (FECI), arranged for three companies he controls to donate to Johnson’s campaign while not making a personal contribution (H.A Cumber & COMPANY, Inc. – $1,000, Blue Longhorns, LLC – $1,000, JPOP Maine, LLC – $1,000). Mr, Cumber lives in Jacksonville. FECI runs the Brightline train. Part of the FECI business model is to make money on development around train stations. Note that Winter Park has a train station.

Andre Vidrine, real estate developer and former Director of Land Development at Toll Brothers, arranged for two companies he controls to donate to Johnson’s campaign while not making a personal contribution (SW 12 Investments, LLC – $1,000 and Flange Gasket Insertion Consulting Group, LLC – $1,000). Mr. Vidrine specializes in large scale residential development.

I do not question these developers. They have every right to express their support with campaign contributions from their companies.

What is disturbing is Jason Johnson’s hypocrisy, alluding to his opponent(s) taking money from “developers” as if he is not, when he is doing exactly that.

If you, like me, have had enough lack of candor, obfuscation, and hypocrisy in Winter Park elections, I encourage you to vote for one of the other two candidates in the race for Winter Park Commission Seat #2.

The city commission’s ban on gas leaf blowers goes into effect July 1 of this year. The penalty for violation is as follows:

“Except as otherwise provided, a person convicted of a violation of this Code shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500.00, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 60 days, or any combination thereof. With respect to violations of this Code that are continuous with respect to time, each day the violation continues is a separate offense.”

One local contractor projects an annual price increase of $500 per customer to comply with the gas blower ban.

Please call your landscape contractor and ask them how much your bills will increase as a result of this ban. Then send the dollar amount to the city commission along with your opinion on their gas leaf blower ban.

Is this really a law that is worth the cost? Let the commission know what you think and ask the candidates for their position is on this issue.

Will they support, modify, or repeal the gas leaf blower ban if elected?

Shiela DeCiccio – sheila@sheilaforwinterpark.com – Mayor
Michael Cameron – michael@votemichaelcameron.com – Mayor
Stockton Reeves – stockton4wp@yahoo.com – Commission Seat 2
Craig Russell – crussell9293@gmail.com – Commission Seat 2
Jason Johnson – jason@jasonforwinterpark.com – Commission Seat 2

Please let me know what they tell you.

Commission candidate Craig Russell followed up today and provided his input on the renewable energy policy question posed to all candidates.

I do not want to overstay any welcome I may have in your inbox. I just think it fair to give Craig’s position the same exposure as provided the other candidates.

Should the city pay more than a competitive price for electricity? YES or NO. If yes, why?

Craig Russell – Commission Candidate Seat 2: NO, buy energy at the best market price – See his full response here.

And this repeats the responses of the other candidates for comparison:

Shiela DeCiccio – Mayoral Candidate: YES, pay more than market prices for energy to meet arbitrary renewable energy goals at the expense of electric customers. Sheila did not respond to repeated requests for clarification but voted for the Renewable Energy Policy as a sitting commission member.

Michael Cameron – Mayoral Candidate: POSSIBLE YES, pay more than market prices for energy to meet arbitrary renewable energy goals at the expense of electric customers – See his full response here.

Jason Johnson – Commission Candidate Seat 2: LIKELY YES, pay more than market prices for energy to meet arbitrary renewable energy goals at the expense of electric customers – See our email exchange here. Jason claimed the premise of the question is “fundamentally flawed” but offered no evidence and declined to clarify his position.

Stockton Reeves – Commission Candidate Seat 2: NO, buy energy at the best market price – See his full response below.

The commission unanimously approved a policy whereby, after electric undergrounding is completed in 2030, savings realized at the end of the project would be used to purchase renewable energy priced above market rates up to about $7,000,000 per year ($500 per electric customer per year). This policy is intended to move the city toward the arbitrary goal of using 80% renewable energy by 2035. This $7,000,000 could alternatively be used to directly benefit electric customers through rate reductions and direct investments in our city.

My prior post on renewal energy policy asked each candidate:

Should the city pay more than a competitive price for electricity? YES or NO. If yes, why?

On this issue, the only candidate with a clear policy to directly benefit our electric customers is Stockton Reeves for Commission Seat 2.

Here are the responses:

Shiela DeCiccio – Mayoral Candidate: YES, pay more than market prices for energy to meet arbitrary renewable energy goals at the expense of electric customers. Sheila did not respond to repeated requests for clarification but voted for the Renewable Energy Policy as a sitting commission member.

Michael Cameron – Mayoral Candidate: POSSIBLE YES, pay more than market prices for energy to meet arbitrary renewable energy goals at the expense of electric customers – See his full response here.

Jason Johnson – Commission Candidate Seat 2: LIKELY YES, pay more than market prices for energy to meet arbitrary renewable energy goals at the expense of electric customers – See our email exchange here. Jason claimed the premise of the question is “fundamentally flawed” but offered no evidence and declined to clarify his position.

Stockton Reeves – Commission Candidate Seat 2: NO, buy energy at the best market price – See his full response below.

Craig Russell – Commission Candidate Seat 2: Did not respond to repeated requests.

Be sure to get input from the candidates on issues important to you.

Shiela DeCiccio – sheila@sheilaforwinterpark.com – Mayor
Michael Cameron – michael@votemichaelcameron.com – Mayor
Stockton Reeves – stockton4wp@yahoo.com – Commission Seat 2
Craig Russell – crussell9293@gmail.com – Commission Seat 2
Jason Johnson – jason@jasonforwinterpark.com – Commission Seat 2