Skip to content


CRA Projects In the Big Money Grab

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 $87,000,000 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.

Posted in Policy.


Commission Wants $87,000,000 of Your Money

Bet you didn’t know the city commission has approved an $87,000,000 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 $87,000,000 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 $87,000,000 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.

Posted in Policy.


Don’t Vote for the Bogeyman!

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.

Posted in Policy.


Gas Leaf Blowers Banned

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.

Posted in Policy.


More Input On Renewable Energy Policy

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 RussellCommission Candidate Seat 2: NO, buy energy at the best market priceSee his full response here.

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

Shiela DeCiccioMayoral 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 ReevesCommission Candidate Seat 2: NO, buy energy at the best market priceSee his full response below.

Posted in Policy.


Candidate Responses On Renewable Policy

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 DeCiccioMayoral 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 ReevesCommission Candidate Seat 2: NO, buy energy at the best market priceSee his full response below.

Craig RussellCommission 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

Posted in Policy.


More On Renewable Energy Policy

Please see if you can get a direct answer from the candidates on this and let me know what they tell you.

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

In unanimously approving the renewable energy policy all five current commission members including Mayoral Candidate Sheila DeCiccio say the answer is YES. What is the position of each candidate?

Shiela DeCiccio – sheila@sheilaforwinterpark.com – Mayor (ask her to explain why)
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

This follows up on my recent post on this subject.

The policy calls for the city to buy up to 80% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2035, 100% by 2050. Mayor Phil Anderson’s comments make clear this commission wants excess electric company profits expected when undergrounding is complete in 2030 to support increased electric rates to pay for renewable energy that is not price competitive. The city consultant’s study shows our cost of energy at least doubling under various renewable scenarios when compared to competitively priced energy.

Overpaying for renewable energy means that the $7 million annual expected excess profit after 2030 (about $500 per year per electric customer) will support intangible, presumed, and unmeasurable climate promises. This money should instead be applied to tangible benefits for electric customers, including such policies as rate reduction and city wide decorative street lighting.

There is no current need for this renewable policy other than to make a political point with the hope of binding future commissions. However, the positions of the candidates on the principles involved are important as two of them will be in a position to affirm, change, or repeal the policy.

Some important aspects of this issue are:

  • The renewable policy can be changed or repealed by any commission in the future.
  • The city’s master electric power contract expires in 2027, meaning the people we elect now will likely oversee terms of new contracts.
  • The city has already committed to buy 30MW of solar power for 20 years at competitive prices, meaning we have already made a material commitment to renewables on reasoned terms.
  • Any contract for more renewable energy sources is likely to be under long term contracts, meaning any agreement to pay more than a competitive price will burden our residents for many years.
  • Large scale renewable investments will happen with or without Winter Park’s participation, meaning any possible climate benefits will occur regardless of this Winter Park renewable policy.

I fully support current city contracts to buy 30MW of continuous power (whenever the sun shines) at competitive prices from three utility scale solar fields in Florida coming online later this year and next. This is about 30% of our peak MW demand and the maximum direct solar power we can buy, as 30MW approximates our lowest constant demand. If we bought more directly from solar fields, we would be paying for power that was never used at times when demand drops below the contracted MW purchase.

However, overpaying to buy additional renewable energy sacrifices electric customer money at the alter of climate change with no tangible benefit for our residents, and as such, fails any standard of fiduciary duty.

Let’s see if our candidates can express themselves clearly on this issue.

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

Posted in Policy.


We Should Pay More? For What?

Elections should be about policy, but instead, and especially in Winter Park, are about things like, “Isn’t she nice” and, “Isn’t he good looking.” Well, here is one real issue you may have an interest in.

Please ask each of the candidates in the March 19 commission elections to state whether they support current Mayor Phil Anderson’s desire to spend over $7,000,000 each year buying overpriced renewable energy, rather than reducing electric prices and/or applying this money to projects that specifically benefit all Winter Park residents.

Our electric bills are the same or lower than those from Duke Energy in the area surrounding Winter Park. We still generate over $7 million every year that has been applied to undergrounding all the overhead lines in the city. This project is now expected to be complete by 2030.

Phil Anderson proposes that when undergrounding is complete, our city should use the $7+ million per year savings to pay for power from renewable energy sources that cost more than that currently provided to us from natural gas fired power plants and other sources in a competitive marketplace.

I see the direct benefit to all residents from the undergrounding program.

What is the direct or indirect benefit to residents from overpaying for power? Please ask Phil to answer this question.

Here is an excerpt from an interesting article on this subject:

  • “The scientific effort is noble but becoming more and more beside the point. Long before we know which climate forecasts are right, thanks to the inevitable nerds at the Congressional Research Service or Government Accountability Office we’ll know in detail how many trillions we spent on climate subsidies that had no effect on climate.”

I have a BEV and $20,000+ of solar panels on my roof. Kind of hard to claim I am a climate denier.

What I am is a realist who studies this stuff, looking for a rational approach.

Overpaying for electric power to meet an arbitrary renewable energy goal is not fiduciary governance and will unnecessarily add costs for Winter Park electric customers. Note that Phil is not thinking about electric customers, he is thinking only about those who share his faith that the planet will survive only if we sacrifice our prosperity for an unknown outcome.

Independent of the conjecture in Phil’s thinking, is the reality that all renewable energy put into the grid will be purchased for the foreseeable future regardless of whether Winter Park buys any of it. This is a reason to buy the most cost effective electric power. So, if we go the most cost effective route for our residents, we realize over $7 million per year after 2030 to be applied to things that directly benefit Winter Park residents, AND, Phil still gets to feel good about himself.

Can we please get some serious people on the city commission?

Make your vote count. Contact the candidates on this and any other issues of concern.

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

Posted in Policy.


DeCiccio Needs an Opponent

Our city would be well served by an experienced and sensible resident standing up to run for Mayor against Sheila DeCiccio. Click here for Winter Park election information. You have until December 11 to get your name on the March 19, 2024 ballot.

DeCiccio does not have the character, discipline, or common sense to be Mayor of Winter Park.

Shortly before her election in 2020, DeCiccio publicly supported the original Orange Avenue Overlay changes. Many residents voted for her because of her vocal support for the overlay. See this video.

Immediately after her election, DeCiccio worked out of public view to rescind the Orange Avenue Overlay, contradicting her electioneering posture. See this email. A recent judicial ruling pertaining to this matter confirms DeCiccio’s role in leading the rescission (see pages 3 to 7).

Since being elected, DeCiccio has continued to dissemble and intentionally withhold material facts on important issues. See this post.

In addition to her character flaws, DeCiccio has proven to be a spendthrift, aggressively pushing millions in spending without going through the public budgeting process. See this post. She also pushed to spend millions on meaningless land on Fairbanks, and recently voted to make a $6.3 million offer for land at Denning and Orange (which offer fortunately was not accepted). She also supported the waste of $15 million in “free” Federal money from the so-called American Rescue Act.

Finally, DeCiccio has pursued this wasteful spending in the complete absence of any credible plan or vision. She spends millions and adds to our overhead without benefiting our residents or our local businesses.

It is time for new leadership.

Posted in Policy.


Speak Up On Our Financial Mess

Long time Winter Park resident Pitt Warner recently wrote to the city commission (see below). Mr. Warner is 100% correct and residents need to speak up. This commission has wrecked our financial circumstances is just a few years. Read the 2024 city budget up for a final vote on September 27. The budget projects a further decline in our reserves as a percentage of our annual spending and projects further losses well into the future. I documented several of the judgment errors of this commission in prior posts and will be publishing more shortly. Please read Mr. Warner’s letter below and write to the commission telling them to reduce spending.

Mayor and Commissioners,

Inflation is a reality. Most WP taxpayers have felt the effects. Most taxpayers are cutting back a little/a lot. The 5 of you seem not to be concerned about being thrifty stewards for the taxpayers. You’re more concerned about spending money to fix imaginary problems. A greenspace shortage? A $1M traffic pacifier on Aloma? A $150,000 construction manager to oversee an overreaction to a once in 50 year rainfall? An IRP manager for electric utility? More cops/fire?  An electric riding mower that costs 3X that of a gas mower? Denning Ave. turn lane that costs a couple million to save a few seconds? (maybe get FDOT to add 10 seconds to the green light?) And the money pit that is OAO? How is it possible to screw up a prime piece of commercial real estate in one of the country’s most desirable, small cities and leave taxpayers “holding the bag!” Seriously?

And please tell the Winter Park Land Trust to buy land with their own money and not drag the taxpayers into their NIMBY campaigns. Tell them to buy land, not influence. 

All of you seem to be oblivious to the majority of WP taxpayers. Property tax revenue has increased in the last 3 years and you’ve spent every nickel. Every one!  The city’s 2020 pro-forma forecast over $27 million in property tax revenue for 2024. It’s projected in this year’s budget to be $34,000,000. A 25% difference. And every penny is spent! 

How about a 3% reduction in spending? Not everyone can brag they bought an overpriced, vanity EV (https://winterparkvoice.com/four-of-five-winter-park-commissioners-own-evs-or-a-hybrid/) so why not show the taxpayers you understand reality. Delay a few hires, chop Aloma “crisis” plan (traffic counts are slightly down in last 20 years), prioritize stormwater with that department’s annual plan, not another expensive bureaucrat, adjust traffic lights, cut out expensive consultants/reports. Tell residents that now is the time to be prioritizing savings, not spending. Set an example of responsibility. Property tax revenue increases are not guaranteed.  

Most people will appreciate the honesty.  

Pitt Warner

Please write to the commission and tell them to reduce spending.

Posted in Policy.