From Staff Reports
In Summary:
Friday’s Facebook discussion of The Apopka Voice’s Thursday report returned to Commissioner Nadia Anderson’s allegation that the city wasted millions. Anderson defended the concert, alleged that Mayor Nick Nesta and Commissioner Sam Ruth tried to stop it, and criticized proposed budget expenses. Readers kept requesting supporting records, while the follow-up's written comments did not identify specific expenditures totaling millions in waste.
*****
Commissioner Nadia Anderson tried to close the book on a concert controversy Friday, but readers kept turning back to the same unfinished page: her allegation of millions in wasteful city spending.
In comments following The Apopka Voice’s Thursday article, Anderson defended the concert, accused Mayor Nick Nesta and Commissioner Sam Ruth of trying to stop it, and urged residents to focus on other city priorities. Several readers responded by asking her to identify the spending behind the allegation that prompted the report.
Related: Anderson alleges millions in wasteful city spending.
The article’s post on The Apopka Voice’s Facebook page had drawn 24 likes, 46 comments and three shares at the time of this follow-up. Friday’s exchanges extended a dispute that began with approximately $13,000 in city support for the event and grew into a broader argument over public spending and accountability.
Anderson’s responses introduced new allegations and identified budget proposals she opposed. But the written comments reviewed for this report did not identify specific expenditures totaling millions of dollars in wasteful spending.
From concert costs to a broader allegation
The original article grew out of a Facebook discussion on Apopka resident Robin Faro’s page. Responding to criticism of the concert’s public support, Anderson alleged “MILLIONS” in documented taxpayer waste under Nesta’s administration.
When The Apopka Voice requested details, Anderson described her statement as a generalization about the budget. Despite follow-up requests, she did not provide supporting records before Thursday’s article was published. Nesta disputed the allegation, while Ruth questioned the value of commissioners’ discretionary spending.
Gordon Hudak called for documentation to support the discussion.
“Generalizations don’t work, and it’s a waste of time,” Hudak wrote. “Bring receipts next time for a discussion based on substance.”
Friday’s discussion repeatedly returned to the difference between disagreeing with budget priorities and documenting wasteful expenditures.
“Can we please get back to the facts that you stated about the millions in wasteful spending,” Todd Bengtson wrote. “Can you give just one million dollars worth of wasteful spending that Mayor Nesta did?”
Mikki Monique Zaferatos made a similar point, writing that Anderson “still did not answer the questions posed in the article.”
Anderson said she invited the entire commission to participate during her agenda review, but no other commissioner expressed interest or attended to support the concert. She argued that the event had benefited residents and businesses.
“The residents who attended enjoyed the concert,” Anderson wrote. “Vendors had an opportunity to generate revenue, and the event brought thousands of people to Apopka, creating economic activity and bringing business to our community.”
The material reviewed did not include attendance figures or an economic impact analysis substantiating those claims. Anderson nevertheless maintained that the event deserved recognition for bringing people and business to Apopka.
She also urged a shift toward city leadership and financial management, pointing to what she described as vacancies in the finance director and city administrator positions.
“The concert is over,” Anderson wrote. “It’s time to move forward and get back to the business of serving Apopka.”
Readers press for answers
For several commenters, moving beyond the concert did not resolve the spending allegation. Michael Duran questioned whether Anderson’s responses matched her stated commitment to transparency.
“The article raised questions about her evidence of this new administration's spending of millions of taxpayer dollars,” Duran wrote. “She continues to evade that question, yet states she advocates for transparency.”
Duran argued that residents should have received a clear explanation of the public costs, taxpayer benefits, and any benefiting nonprofit before the event was approved. He also challenged Anderson’s characterization of efforts to review the policy, describing the discussion as an opportunity to establish safeguards.
Thomas Wilson asked whether concert promoters pay for use of the amphitheater and whether records from previous editions of the event could clarify who paid which expenses. Faro said her own questions remained unanswered.
“I have simply asked questions that have gone unanswered,” Faro wrote. “These are not hard questions, and as a taxpayer, I deserve to know where my tax dollars are going.”
Anderson points to proposed budget expenses
In her reply to Duran, Anderson accused him of favoring Nesta and rejected his suggestion that residents were not the priority in planning the event.
“As for your claim that residents were an afterthought, you are 200% wrong,” Anderson wrote. “The residents were never an afterthought. This was always the plan.”
She contrasted the scrutiny of approximately $13,000 in concert support with what she described as “millions of dollars in proposed spending” in the mayor’s budget. She cited salaries for proposed positions that she considered excessive and an attempted property tax increase she characterized as nearly 30%.
Those examples clarified some of Anderson’s budget objections, but they did not establish that millions of dollars had already been spent wastefully. A proposed expense, an approved appropriation and an actual expenditure represent different stages of the budgeting process.
Anderson also encouraged critics to request records about the city’s Saturday Sounds concert series.
“If we are going to scrutinize public spending, let’s scrutinize ALL public spending—not just the expenses that fit a particular narrative,” she wrote.
At the same time, she said she would not continue answering questions about the concert she supported, arguing that critics had already reached their conclusions.
Key Points:
- Article sparks discussion: The Thursday article’s Facebook post had received 24 likes, 46 comments, and three shares at the time of the follow-up.
- Readers request documentation: Several commenters asked Anderson to identify expenditures supporting her allegation of millions in wasteful spending.
- New allegations emerge: Anderson said Ruth sought the concert’s cancellation in an email and alleged that Nesta pursued a policy review to prevent the event from proceeding.
- Budget objections outlined: Anderson criticized proposed salaries and a proposed property tax increase, distinguishing opposition to planned expenses from evidence of actual wasteful spending.
- Anderson draws a line: She said she would no longer answer questions about the concert and encouraged residents to examine spending on Saturday Sounds.
Editor’s note: Robin Faro’s Facebook page was the source of the original discussion and quotations that prompted Thursday’s article. This follow-up examines Friday’s written comments on The Apopka Voice’s Facebook page.
