Please see earlier posts about the redo of the Orange Avenue Overlay (OAO) codes.

Well, they are almost done redoing the Orange Avenue Overlay (OAO) codes after almost two years of tortuous detailed consideration by five amateur city planners otherwise known as the Winter Park City Commission. (Oh Pete, can’t you be nice?) They consumed nearly two years of our planning department’s manpower on this as well.

Keep in mind there is no audience. No private interests have come forward to invest within the OAO area exactly because the new codes are not worth investing in.

The commission endlessly nit picked the codes and even created a new city board, the Orange Avenue Overlay Appearance Review Board, to oversee development proposals that do not exist and are unlikely to exist in the future.

The minutes of their November 10 meeting approving the first reading of the new OAO codes are below. Look this over to get a clear idea of the lack of leadership in Winter Park.

Minutes of the November 10, 2021 Regular City Commission Meeting

e. Ordinance – Amending Land Development Code creating language for the Orange Avenue Overlay (1st Reading)

Attorney Ardaman read the ordinance by title.

The following amendments to the ordinance as presented by the Planning and Zoning Board were discussed.

• Page 3, Item (a), Location and Boundaries. Commissioner Cooper recommended retaining the language to identify the boundaries using tax parcel identification numbers. (Agreed by consensus.)
• Page 8-9, Item i(h), Landscaping Requirements. Commissioner Cooper suggested keeping the language stricken by Planning and Zoning Board relating to shade trees and distance between. Commissioner DeCiccio disagreed and discussion followed on factors that may impact the location and distance between trees. Commissioner Weaver suggested changing the language to read “maximum of 50′ between trees.” Mayor Anderson supported keeping the language and relying on the variance process for adjustments.
• Page 9, Item (2), Block Configuration/Lot Standards Circulation – Commissioner Cooper suggested deleting in Subparagraph (a) “of Orange Avenue” so the requirements are not limited to just Orange Avenue. In Subparagraph (b), she suggested changing “where applicable” to “where possible” and in Subparagraph (d), delete the last and put in the appropriate section (Architectural Standards). (Agreed by consensus)
• Page 15, Item (3), Facades, last sentence regarding murals – Commissioner Weaver suggested deleting this clause because a mural is an adequate break-up. He clarified that he is not opposed to murals, only their use in place of articulation. (Agreed by consensus)
• Page 16, Item (c), Facades – Commissioner Cooper spoke about building length and visual impact and suggested keeping the deleted language. She believes the intent is to set a maximum building length of 300 feet and a 20-foot separation between long buildings. Discussion followed on length of blocks on Park Avenue and long buildings with façade treatments.

Commissioner Weaver said he feels it important to have the impact fee ordinance in place before adoption of the OAO ordinances and made the motion to table first reading to the December 8th meeting; seconded by Commissioner DeCiccio.

Discussion was held on the impact to the schedule, adoption and effective date of the OAO ordinances and the impact fee ordinance, which was scheduled for simultaneous adoption on December 8th.

Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners DeCiccio and Weaver voted yes and Commissioners Sullivan and Cooper and Mayor Anderson voted no. Motion failed with a 2-3 vote.

Mayor Anderson declared a recess at 9:39 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:45 p.m.

Mayor Anderson noted the consensus for Façade language on Page 16 shall read “No building shall exceed more than 300 feet of horizontal length on any street facing façade” and asking the attorney to add a provision that states there will be a 20-foot separation between extraordinarily long facades.

• Page 19, Item (10), Appearance Review – Mayor Anderson noted that deleting “of buildings over 10,000 square feet” as recommended by Commissioner Cooper would then require appearance review for external renovation of all buildings. Commissioner DeCiccio said she feels requiring appearance review for all projects is onerous to smaller business and discussion followed on impact and requirements for small businesses which are less than those for large projects. Consensus was to delete the language as suggested.
• Page 25, Item 3, Public Hearings for Conditional Uses – Commissioner Cooper suggested deleting “new construction” which would require two public hearings before
the commission for all projects greater than 10,000 s.f. Discussion was held on public hearing requirements for conditional use requests on different sized projects.
Consensus was to delete “new construction.”
• Page 27, Item (q), Contribution to Transportation and Mobility Infrastructure. Commissioner Cooper suggested leaving this provision in the ordinance but may require minor revisions. Mr. Stephenson suggested that the language may not need to specifically mention the OAO. Mayor Anderson noted the gap between the effective date of the mobility fee, which is during the waiting period prior to the effective date of the OAO ordinances (31 days after adoption). Consensus was to keep this section with revisions to be considered at second reading.
• Page 30, Subarea A, Item 3(c) – Commissioner Cooper pointed out that there are no Subarea A properties west of Denning Drive and suggested deleting “(west of Denning Drive)”. Agreed by consensus.
• Page 31, Subarea B, Item 6, Setbacks, Commissioner Cooper noted that minimum rear setback in the last sentence conflicts with Item 6(b). After discussion, it was agreed that that the language be revised to show the rear setback is 35 feet.
• Page 32, Subarea C, Item (3)(a) – Commissioner Cooper spoke about parking garage levels based on the FAR and suggested allowing a parking garage with three stories (four levels). Commissioner DeCiccio stressed the need for a parking garage at Progress Point and lengthy discussion followed on parking needs, potential height and FAR. After discussion, agreement was reached to change to 3 stories/4 levels with height to be determined at second reading.
• Page 33, Subarea D – Commissioner Cooper suggested changing the minimum setback along Orlando Avenue to 50 feet from P & Z’s 20-foot recommendation. She spoke about setbacks and viewshed to maintain openness of intersections in Subarea D and suggested adding the language in Subareas I and C regarding Intersection and Open Space Viewshed to Subarea D. Agreement was reached to change the minimum setback to 50 feet and to further discuss setbacks and viewshed at second reading.
• Page 36, Subarea G, Item (7)(a)(6) – Commissioner Cooper suggested removing the language related to workforce house due its proximity to MLK Park. Consensus was to remove workforce housing language added by P & Z Board.
• Page 19, Item 10, Appearance Review – Commissioner Cooper addressed the requirements for architectural review and presented amendments. After discussion, consensus was reached to add language clarifying external elevation drawing requirements for different sized buildings, consider adding language for smaller (less than 3,000 s.f.) and have staff look further at sidewalk design utilization (Page 24) and setbacks (Page 4, Figure 4).
• Page 7, Item (d)(7), Commissioner Sullivan suggested reinstating this provision regarding vehicle sales showroom deleted by P & Z. Mr. Stephenson stated this provision could present the possibility for car dealerships in certain locations. There was no consensus to reinsert.
• Workforce Housing, all subareas – Commissioner Sullivan suggested changing the 10% FAR increase to 20% (when used exclusively for workforce housing. Approved by consensus.
• Page 30, Item (a)(3) Commissioner Weaver spoke about stormwater treatment issues and solutions and said he would like to delete 10 c.f. and require “one inch over the impervious total if redeveloped beyond a certain point to be determined.” Mr.
Stephenson noted that it would have to address those properties that cannot physically meet the requirement. Commissioner Weaver said he would be open to allowing variances. Agreement was for Commissioner Weaver to work with staff to develop alternate language.
• Page 18, Item (7) – Solar panels – Commissioner Weaver said he would like to limit the height that solar panels can extend above the roof to six feet. Agreed by consensus.
• Page 20 – Commissioner Weaver expressed concern about the lack of easements for the Palmetto extension and center turn lane and said he would like to remove Subareas D and J from the OAO until the lawsuits are dropped or easements are granted for Palmetto. Mr. Stephenson advised that staff has been working with property owners on property for Palmetto. Commissioner Sullivan suggested leaving the subareas in the OAO with same entitlements.
• Page 21, Subparagraph (4), Off-street Parking Access Design – Commissioner Weaver felt it was important to define ” busier streets.” Consensus was to delete “on busier streets” without naming streets.
• Page 32, Subarea C, Item (7) – Commissioner Weaver asked for clarification on the need for zero front setback on Orange Avenue. Commissioner Cooper cited language on Page 12 establishing the build-to line as the greater of either the setback or the sidewalk requirement, which she feels takes care of the zero setback.
• Page 34, Subarea D, Item (c) Road Realignment – Commissioner Weaver suggested changing “right-of-way may be considered” to “shall be considered.” Mr. Stephenson advised that he spoke with property owner about the benefits of realignment and is something the city wants to pursue. Consensus was to change to “shall be considered.” • Page 35, Subarea E and Page 36, Subarea G – Commissioner Weaver suggested adding “Stormwater treatment must meet or exceed St. John’s Water Management District standards for any redevelopment.” Mr. Stephenson stated this is a requirement of redevelopment.
• Page 38, Subarea J, Item (a)(5), Setbacks – Commissioner Weaver suggested reinstating “landscape” and changing it to read “pervious or landscape buffer” (third line). After discussion, consensus was to change the language.

Mayor Anderson stated that at 2nd reading he will bring up boutique hotels where he feels some limited food service should be allowed without a conditional use. He commented on view of solar panels from the street which was limited to no more than 30% of façade, which was changed to be at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission.

Commissioner Cooper pointed out that Subarea K on Page 26 needs to be deleted since there is no longer a Subarea K.

Commissioner Sullivan addressed the Enhancement Menu (Page 41), S.1, Solar Panels. He suggested changing it to read “…solar panels and supporting structure are exempt from FAR as long as the roof is otherwise exempt from FAR” instead of listing the conditions for exemption, which could change and require amending the ordinance.

There were no public comments.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to approve the zoning ordinance on first reading recognizing that amendments will be made; seconded by Commissioner Cooper.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend Section 58-83(3)(1)a of the ordinance to maintain the original parcel list (reinstating language “… is identified by tax parcel identification number on Exhibit “A” as attached to the ordinance”); seconded by Commissioner Sullivan. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Pages 8-9, Item h,
Landscaping Requirements to reinstate language deleted by Planning and Zoning
Board; seconded by Commissioner Sullivan. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Commissioner DeCiccio voted no. Motion carried with a 4-1 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 9, Item i(2)(a) deleting the application to only Orange Avenue (amend language to read “…within pedestrian oriented street frontages.”); Item (2)(b) changing “where applicable” to “where possible” and after Item (2)(d) deleting the sentence beginning “Existing buildings…”; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote,
Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 15, Item (3), Facades, deleting the last sentence (“Murals shall be allowed to contribute toward façade breakup.”); seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 16, Item (c), revise to read “No building shall exceed more than 300 feet of horizontal length on any street facing facade.” and to include language from Director of Planning and Transportation to the effect that there will be 20-foot breaks between very long buildings. (Commissioner Weaver noted that the word “street-facing façade” should be “street-facing frontage” and motion was revised to read “street facing frontage”); seconded by Commissioner Sullivan. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 19, Item (10), deleting “of buildings over 10,000 square feet”; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Commissioner DeCiccio voted no. Motion carried with a 4-1 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, page 25, Item (3), deleting “new construction” from the last sentence; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 27, Item (q), reinstate Contribution to Transportation and Mobility Infrastructure language (deleted by P&Z) with revisions by staff and counsel (for consideration at second reading); seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 30, Subarea A, Item (c)(3) deleting “west of Denning Drive”; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 31, Subarea B, Item
6, changing the minimum rear setback from a minimum of 10 feet to a minimum of
35 feet; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 32, Subarea C, changing the parking structure to reflect 3 stories/4 levels at 44 feet acknowledging that that the Comp Plan will need to be modified at second reading; seconded by Commissioner Sullivan. Discussion was held on the calculation of height based on stories and levels. Mayor Anderson amended the motion to state 4 levels of parking and 35 feet to the parapet top; seconded by Commissioner Weaver. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 33, Subarea D, to change the setback along Orlando Avenue to 50 feet; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.
Mayor Anderson noted that language regarding viewshed to evaluate setbacks from intersections will be drafted and presented discussed at second reading.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 36, Subarea G, Item (7)(a)(6) deleting the workforce housing language (added by P&Z Board); seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Commissioner Sullivan voted no. Motion carried with a 4-1 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 19, adding:

• “External elevations of new and renovated buildings of over 10,000 s.f. gross building area visible from the public realm shall provide context drawing to scale, showing the surrounding buildings, trees and other significant feature that inform the scale, materiality and form of the proposed structure.”
• “External elevations of new and renovated buildings of over 10,000 s.f. gross building area visible from the public real shall provide a detailed architecturally rendered façade for review by the Orange Avenue Overlay Appearance Review Board.”

Motion seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio and Cooper and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Commissioner Weaver voted no. Motion carried with a 4-1 vote.

Mayor Anderson noted that staff will review Commissioner Cooper’s recommendation to amend Sidewalk Design and Utilization by changing the reference to landscape buffer to planting area with tree islands.
Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, changing the workforce incentive from 20% to 10% for the FAR bonus; seconded by Commissioner Sullivan.

Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Commissioner Sullivan voted no. Motion carried with a 4-1 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 19, Item 9, reducing the height of rooftop solar panels from ten feet to six feet; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Mayor Anderson noted that Commissioner Weaver and staff will present an alternative to the 10 c.f. for Subarea A properties at second reading.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 21, Item (4), deleting “onto busier streets”; seconded by Commissioner Cooper. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, Page 34; Item 10(c), changing “…right-of-way may be considered…” to “…shall be considered…” seconded by Commissioner Sullivan. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Commissioner Cooper voted no. Motion carried with a 4-1 vote.

Motion made by Mayor Anderson to amend the ordinance, changing ”landscape buffer” to “landscape and pervious buffer”; seconded by Commissioner Sullivan. Upon a roll call vote, Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Weaver and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Motion carried unanimously with a 5-0 vote.

Upon a roll call vote on the main motion (as amended), Commissioners Sullivan, DeCiccio, Cooper and Mayor Anderson voted yes. Commissioner Weaver voted no. Motion carried with a 4-1 vote.

The current commission is not only spending our money unwisely (see links below), they are also devaluing city property while adding to our tax burden.

• We own approximately 4 acres at the corner of Orange Avenue and Denning Drive (a.k.a., Progress Point).
• We own the former library site and building, 1.75 acres at New England Avenue and Chase Avenue.
• We own the city hall site and building, 2.81 acres at 401 S. Park Ave.

We don’t know the market value of these properties as the commission has declined to seek formal appraisals and failed to invite private interest in these properties. The best information we have is the estimated market value from the Orange County Appraiser, who (based on current zoning) estimates Progress Point is worth $4.8 million, that the former library site is worth $4 million, and that the city hall site is worth $6.2 million.

So, what does the commission have in mind for these properties totaling 8.5 acres with a likely combined private market value in excess of $15 million?

Progress Point – The commission has already spent over $200,000 on consultants and has approved over $2 million in additional tax dollars to construct a park on approximately 1.5 of the 4 acres. They have no specific plans for the balance of the property but continue to discuss a parking structure built at taxpayer expense.

Former Library Site – The recommendation of the Library Reuse Task Force was to use the building as a permanent or temporary city hall, creating future opportunities for the current city hall site. The commission, however, is going in the direction of using the old library building for “collaborative spaces” and arts and culture, and other civic uses that are ill defined and place a new cost burden on Winter Park taxpayers for building improvements, maintenance, and staffing for these uses.

City Hall Site – The commission is pursuing a formal historical designation for the existing city hall building to severely limit future changes. They intend to prevent redevelopment of the city hall site.

This commission has chosen to limit all this land to civic uses supported at taxpayer expense, when clear opportunities exist to leverage the land value for both the financial and civic benefit of Winter Park residents. That is, the commission is rejecting the opportunity to create civic amenities paid for by private interests that generate additional tax revenue. Instead, they embrace uses driven by personal notions rather than market demand, all to be paid for with our taxes.

We could easily define compatible development for Progress Point along with a significant green space requirement under a long term land lease and ask private parties to bid, eliminating the cost of improving and maintaining this land while generating new tax revenue.

We could readily convert the former library building for use as city hall and have the conversion cost more than paid for by a long term land lease on the current city hall site, subject to compatible development rules. Such rules, for example, could retain the existing green space on Park Ave while mirroring the terraced buildings across Park Avenue, adding new retail, restaurant, residential, and parking amenities private developers would pay for along with significant new property tax revenue.

The magnitude of our problem becomes especially clear when we consider the $15 million pursuit of the post office property, wasteful spending of the $15 million in Federal “Rescue” act money, along with this abandonment of private investment opportunities on the $15+ million of properties we already own.

Please contact the commission and ask them to reverse course.

Links to source material:

• Planning For Our Future or Wasting Our Money
• ?Buy the Post Office Property for $15,000,000?
• Give the Money to the Residents
• Traffic Reality
• Work Session Agenda – Library Reuse

Please contact the Winter Park City Commission and tell them to stop their current effort to buy the 2 acre USPS property on New York Avenue for an estimated cost of $15,000,000 or initiate a voter referendum to accept or reject their plan.

When the US Postal Service is ready to sell its land on New York avenue, the city can leverage the public use zoning and acquire the property at a fair market value via eminent domain. Why is the city commission trying to pay $15,000,000 for the land now when the latest formal appraisal is less than $2,000,000?

The commission’s plan is to move the post office out of downtown, giving the USPS a turnkey new building on new land all owned by the USPS and constructed at our financial risk to their specifications. The commission estimates this will cost $15 million. Click here for currently known USPS requirements.

This plan contrasts with the 1996 purchase of Winter Park Golf Course land (25 acres) for $8,000,000, financed with $5.1 million in voter approved bonds. How can they spend $15,000,000 without voter approval? Because most of the money would come from the Winter Park Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) controlled by the city commission. These agencies are controversial exactly because they can commit large amounts of taxpayer money without justification and without voter approval, as currently planned in this case.

What is the value of the post office property? The most recent formal appraisal completed in 2014 valued the property at $1.78 million based on its mixed zoning (half Parks/Recreation and half Public/Quasi Public), and $2.35 million if the entire property were rezoned to Public, Quasi-Public. The commission estimates the cost of their plan at $15,000,000 – you can do the math. The actual cost would not be know until the USPS accepts a completed new facility.

I participated in this video where four Winter Park residents discuss this issue:

Please contact the Winter Park City Commission.

When the current commission killed the original OAO codes in March 2020, I noted that their effort to revise the OAO codes was a performance without an audience.

Well, they have now spent 18 months in seclusion from their constituents, completing a revised set of Orange Avenue codes that do nothing but spend more of our money on a superfluous park that will not be used. Further, no private investment is expected in the corridor.

A recent video from former Mayor Steve Leary and three involved citizens confirms the current commission does not have a representative perspective. That is, they represent only their personal biases and dogmas, not the people of Winter Park.

Please view the video below in the context of my April 2020 post on this subject. Sour grapes or bad governance? You decide.

Winter Park deserves leaders.

Regards, Pete Weldon

With many residents complaining about traffic, our commission made hiring a traffic engineer a big political issue, touting this spending would improve traffic. Truth or political baloney?

Those believing we can stop cars cutting through Winter Park on state roads should listen to reality as credibly described by our recently hired city traffic engineer, Sarah Walter.

The reality is that traffic engineering in Winter Park has to be focused on pedestrian and cyclist safety as well as traffic calming to slow everything down. This is because Winter Park cannot limit or re-route tens of thousands of cars cutting through Winter Park daily.

Ms. Walter has her priorities correct. Let’s manage what we can control to prioritize public safety. We need to slow everything down, not try to help FDOT increase throughput by spending millions of Winter Park taxpayer dollars trying to change state roads. The heavy lifting is FDOT’s job.

With this reality now independently confirmed by our own professional traffic engineer, we can stop playing politics with “traffic.” Now, perhaps the commission can tell us why they spent $1,500,000 for 0.28 acres at the corner of Fairbanks and Denning, twice the market value per the Orange County Appraiser. I encourage you to ask them.

Related Posts:

• Winter Park Density and Traffic
• Traffic Truth

Each of us plan for our family’s future. Shouldn’t our city commission do the same for Winter Park? This commission has been spending our money without any strategic purpose or fiduciary responsibility, not planning and investing for our city’s future. Spending is easy and wasteful. Investing is hard and useful. Please review the following and let the city commission know your thoughts.

They have gone off the deep end, projecting $127,000,000 in new spending, $65,000,000 over the next five years.

$127,000,000 – Yes, that’s one hundred twenty seven million dollars. $51,000,000 of this is allocated to “traffic and parking.” Why should our taxes pay to improve roads we don’t control and provide parking for commercial interests? A further $4,900,000 is projected to build a parking garage on Orange Ave. Why are they spending our money to support commercial interests on Orange Avenue? Several of the projects on the list have already been authorized or committed as detailed below. Other projects have not been defined. No strategic rationale has been offered for any of this spending.

Authorized/Committed Projects (so far):

$15,000,000 – Authorized to acquire the 2 acre US Post Office on New York Avenue and move the Winter Park Post Office out of downtown. Last appraisal of this land was about $2,500,000 in 2014. The commission is currently paying a lobbyist $6,500/mth primarily to pressure the US Postal Service to sell their land for 3 to 6 times its value when they have told us multiple times it is not for sale. This spending alone makes it clear they don’t understand their fiduciary responsibility and it needs to be stopped.

$1,475,000 – Bought 901 West Fairbanks and 919 West Fairbanks totaling 0.28 acres for more than two times the Orange County Appraiser’s estimated market value. No appraisals were done. City assumed environmental liabilities. City to also pay to demolish existing buildings, clear and improve the property. Properties abut the Denning/Fairbanks sink hole. Commission also plans to purchase additional properties on Fairbanks at whatever price the owners want with no appraisals. No benefits of these purchases have been quantified and there is no plan. See this post.

$2,146,000 – Progress Point infrastructure and park committed dollars, so far. No definition of park boundaries, purpose, or amenities. Plan to plant $200,000 of mature shade trees (are we Disney World?). Cart before the horse here as there is no private interest to develop anything to their new Orange Avenue Overlay codes. They are spending public dollars to support commercial interests with no payback for the city or the residents, rather than work to leverage the Progress Point asset worth about $8,000,000. Why?

$2,800,000 – Spent $1,200,000 on park “improvements” with no plan and $1,600,000 for two artificial turf paying fields that primarily benefit for-profit sports leagues and non-residents. They intentionally hid this spending by using Water and Sewer reserve funds, instead of reducing General Fund Reserves. We love our parks and want our children to have first class playing fields but why didn’t they focus spending on a detailed plan to support Winter Park children and fund this through the normal public budget process? See this post.

$15,438,814 – Federal “Rescue” Act money coming to Winter Park is subject to constraints. The city commission currently plans to spend all this money on their pet projects with no public outreach and no strategic context. I ask again, why isn’t a large part of this money being distributed to Winter Park residents and businesses?

Let the city commission know your thoughts.

Tell our commission to lower taxes and spending.

The City Manager’s proposed budget and property tax rate for 2021-2022 will be voted on Wednesday, July 14. Please write to MayorandCommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org and tell them to lower the tax rate and reduce spending.

The City of Winter Park is flush with cash and financially strong. The City Commission has been spending every penny of general fund revenue without regard to demonstrated need or long-term consequences. While they like to talk about the property tax rate remaining constant, the real story is that general fund property taxes have increased from $20.8 million to $27.4 million, or 32% since 2018 based on valuation increases.

Unrestricted reserves are at an historic high, yet the commission keeps spending every penny of revenue.

General fund spending has increased from $54.2 million in 2018 to a proposed $63.7 million in 2022, despite the pandemic, as the commission spends every penny of general fund revenue increases.

Further, the city will receive at least an ADDITIONAL $12 million from the Federal “Rescue” act over the next two years, not included in the proposed budget. The commission continues to plan to spend these excess funds on ill defined personal agendas with not a penny going back to us, the people who pay the bills.

It is clear we have the money to improve city services and expand capital spending even while we reduce both taxes and spending. Let the commission know what you want.

Revenues

Spending

Regards, Pete Weldon

Sheila DeCiccio recently sent a city wide email struggling in over 1,000 words to explain how your city can stop you from removing trees on your property.

Some people want to believe trees on your property belong to them. These people concoct complicated rules and penalties related to tree removals in an effort to stop you from removing trees. There is a much simpler approach, tolerance.

The only objective of a local tree removal policy should be to encourage replanting when a property owner wishes to remove healthy trees.

Pete’s proposed Winter Park Tree Removal Ordinance (87 words):

1. A permit is required to remove trees.
2. A property owner can remove any tree on their property where 50% or more of the trunk of such tree is not within a city right of way.
3. As compensation for lost canopy, a property owner, at their option; (1) will plant one 3 inch DBH or greater tree or (2) pay $250 to the city tree fund for each healthy tree removed having a 9 inch DBH or greater.
4. The city arborist may wave any part of the compensation.

My basis for this simple policy is as follows:

• Reasonable compensation encourages cooperation and supports the city wide tree canopy.
• Residential builders and realtors understand that trees increase property values.
• The people of Winter Park spend about $2,000,000 per year maintaining over 25,000 trees in city right of ways and on other public property because we value trees.
• Most property owners plant trees voluntarily and most people move to Winter Park because they like trees. There are over 50,000 trees on private property in Winter Park.
• There is no credible basis to restrict property owners who would prefer not to have a particular tree or trees on their property.

Please encourage the city commission to adopt a simple and tolerant tree removal policy.

Regards, Pete Weldon

UPDATE AUGUST 2021: “Rescue” money for Winter Park now at $15,438,814.

Tell the city commission to distribute the $13,000,000 in “Rescue” act money directly to Winter Park residents. If distributed evenly across our 15,000 electric utility customers, your family and/or business would receive a check for about $850.

The City of Winter Park does not need $13,000,000 from the “Rescue” act, yet the commissioners currently plan to spend all of it. City revenues have not been materially impacted by the pandemic and the city has achieved record levels of reserves. The commissioners already have millions of dollars they don’t know how to spend wisely and our real estate taxes continue to increase this year and next. Please tell the city commission to distribute “Rescue” act money directly to Winter Park residents.

The City of Winter Park will receive nearly $13,000,000 in “Rescue” act funds that come to the city with limited strings attached and no responsibility for the city to pay it back. However, our children and grandchildren will have to pay it back as part of the $1,900,000,000,000 in new national debt resulting from the “Rescue” act.

The Federal Government approved the “Cares” act and other legislation and administrative actions in 2020 that provided $4,000,000,000,000 to respond to the COVID 19 pandemic. The City of Winter Park received $1,400,000 related to this 2020 legislation, and Winter Park non-profits, restaurants, and small businesses received “Cares” act funds and other funds from later legislation.

The Federal Government in the March 2021 approved the “Rescue” act, spending an additional $1,900,000,000,000. This act duplicates much of the 2020 spending and adds new spending when the economy is already recovering rapidly. The responsible course of action is for our city commission to distribute our allocation of this money to Winter Park residents so we can manage it ourselves. Click here to contact the commission.

Regards, Pete Weldon

Links of interest:
CME Group
USASpending.gov
COVID Money Tracker
Florida League of Cities
Rescue Act distributions to Florida Municipalities
Rescue Act distribution of $270,661,716 to Orange County

VOTE TUESDAY, MARCH 9th – find your polling place

The public face of the Winter Park Mayoral election is one of the typical platitudes with an occasional soap opera thrown in.

What matters, however, is policy. Sarah Sprinkel has a strong record of reasonableness and sound policy judgment in her previous nine years of service on the commission. As a person of proven character and accomplishment, she has rightly earned the endorsement of six Winter Park mayors and deserves our vote.

The current four commissioners have each been promoted and financially supported by Jennifer and Phil Anderson. All four commissioners have dutifully endorsed Phil’s candidacy. Here are a few of their policies since taking control of the commission in 2020:

• “Rescinded” the Orange Avenue Overlay (OAO) codes in violation of our own laws.
• Spent several hundred thousand dollars on consultants to redesign the OAO to their personal preferences.
• Voted to raise the property tax rate, then backed off under public pressure.
• Made backyard chickens legal in your neighborhood.
• Are currently moving to spend $6,000,000 to $7,000,000 for less than 1.5 acres of land on Fairbanks to construct a parking lot.

Contrast these policies with Sarah Sprinkel’s nine years of accomplishments.

VOTE TUESDAY, MARCH 9th – find your polling place

Regards, Pete Weldon

Pete Weldon served the city of Winter Park from 2007 to 2019 on the code enforcement board, the tree preservation board, the planning and zoning board, and on the Winter Park City Commission.