By Reggie Connell, Managing Editor
In Summary:
At the final debate of the campaign season, Apopka City Commission candidates tackled concerns over budget amendments, utility failures, development pressures, and downtown revitalization. Incumbents defended the current fiscal process and emphasized trust in professional staff, while challengers called for forensic audits, earlier public input, and stricter oversight of development impacts. With infrastructure under strain and economic leakage continuing, the March 10 election will determine which vision for managing growth voters believe can keep pace with the city’s expansion.
*****
Everyone agrees that Apopka is growing. But who is best suited to manage that growth in the coming years?
At the final debate of the campaign season, moderated by the Apopka Involved Voters group and hosted at Victory Church, seven candidates for the Apopka City Commission took on the challenge of how to rein in spending, how to pace development, and how to keep $235 million in local dollars from slipping down U.S. 441 and out of town. The debate made one thing unmistakable — Apopka’s next chapter won’t be written in broad promises. It will be addressed in budget workshops, development approvals, water meters, and the question of whether the City Council can keep pace with the city it governs.
Related: Apopka's final mayoral debate shows three governing styles — and one candidate still fighting old battles
And while the tone remained largely civil, candidates differed in how they would manage spending, address development pressures, and strengthen Apopka’s economic base.
Budget process under scrutiny
Questions about budget amendments and long-term fiscal planning prompted detailed responses from incumbents and challengers alike.
Seat #2 Commissioner Diane Velazquez described the city’s budget process as structured and staff-driven, explaining that commissioners review departmental needs during workshops before final approval.
“I have to trust our finance directorand staff — this is what their specialty is, and if there are any concerns that we have about some infrastructure issues that we feel that we know already, we want to make sure that they have money allocated for it, funds allocated for it, and usually a timeframe,” she said.
Seat #1 Commissioner Alexander Smith defended the city’s use of budget amendments and pushed back on criticism that they reflect poor planning.
“I’m not sure that they’re all unnecessary budget amendments,” Smith said. “Some of the budget amendments are from funds that are carried over that were not spent from the previous year, and until we get an earmark as to where that budget expense is at that point, we’re not able to carry those funds over, so some of those amendments are for those items.”
Several challengers argued that the process needs earlier public involvement and clearer explanations.
Seat #4 candidate Malika Harrison described budgeting as an ongoing review process and suggested more accessible documentation for residents.
“I would also suggest having what I would consider an executive summary and a briefing that would accompany the budget so that the public, the residents, and council members can very much see clearly at the onset what some of those changes are year over year, rather than taking the onus of digging through,” Harrison said. “Leaning on our expertise from the finance department, input from the public, as well as making sure that our resources and our dollars are being leveraged correctly, is how I would envision the budget maintaining its balance and being used adequately.”
Seat #2 candidate Dr. Angela Turner said she would expand community input before budget decisions are finalized.
“I would reach out to the voters and the residents to find out what they think is important, what they think we should be spending our funds on, and allocate the funds accordingly to what the residents feel,” Turner said.
Seat #4 candidate, Yesenia Baron, called for a deeper financial review to ensure departments are properly funded and accountable.
“I am a proponent of the forensic audit to make sure that we are supporting each department, meet with each department head, and make sure that we are allocating enough funds to support them to make sure they have the proper resources,” Baron said.
Seat #1 candidate Sam Ruth criticized what he described as a repetitive spending pattern that lacks deeper analysis.
“All you know is every department’s gonna spend all their money in July so as they can get reappropriated in October, and it’s copy and paste,” Ruth said, arguing that commissioners should conduct a more detailed early-year review. “What I want to do is do a deeper dive, and that’s the reason we need a professional manager, so that we can sit down and nail these loose items and determine what’s not working right in the city. And if it’s broken, we can fix it.”
Infrastructure and development pressures
Infrastructure dominated much of the discussion.
Velazquez said utility issues are among the most pressing concerns she hears from residents. “The utilities: the water, the reclaim. That has been a burden for our residents,” she said.
She added that she has asked for regular reports on shutoffs and meter performance, noting that at times “over 2,500 meters are still not functioning.”
Seat #2 candidate George Smith proposed slowing development as a way to relieve infrastructure pressure. When asked what specific policies he would support to curb urban sprawl, Smith responded succinctly: “Moratorium. Just slowing things down in regards to the urban… and also addressing the issues that we have now.”
Ruth argued that growth is outpacing infrastructure capacity and should be sequenced more carefully.
“Growth is what’s killing our infrastructure,” he said. “We gotta back up and fix what’s broken.”
Baron cited state legislation she believes limits local control over development decisions.
“I call that the Trojan Horse… SB-180,” she said, arguing that the legislation has allowed development patterns that strain local systems. She added that developers must be held accountable for impacts.
“I want to make sure that they’re just not going to put in their roads, put in their development and leave,” Baron said.
Downtown revitalization and local spending
Candidates were also asked about a retail recruitment report showing that an estimated $235 million in resident spending occurs outside Apopka.
Velázquez emphasized job creation and business recruitment as a long-term solution.
“We don’t have enough businesses that are keeping our residents to live, work, and play,” she said, adding that attracting employers would help reduce outbound commuting.
Baron said revitalizing downtown remains key to keeping dollars local.
“I want to make our downtown walkable,” she said, explaining that improved lighting, crosswalks, and support for local businesses could strengthen the city center.
Ruth expressed frustration over the pace of redevelopment efforts.
“We’ve been promised downtown for 20 years,” he said, arguing that the city must remove barriers and support investors who want to build in Apopka.
Harrison said the city should look to other municipalities for proven ideas.
“Looking at some best practices from our sister cities and being able to leverage what has worked well and make that our own,” she said. “But we don’t have to do it from a blank slate.”
Commissioner Smith said residents also share responsibility for supporting local establishments.
“There are businesses that are here that we can support,” he said, citing several restaurants and small businesses that have closed due to lack of patronage.
Public comment and meeting decorum
Commissioner Smith addressed the past controversy over moving public comment to the end of council meetings.
“Public comment was moved to the end of the meeting because decorum was not being adhered to,” he said, explaining that disruptions and personal attacks had become a concern.
He recounted a personal experience that influenced his view.
“I had a grandson who called me and asked me why I was being called a Sambo, and when he looked up Sambo, he said, ‘That’s a racial slur, so why are they calling you that?’” Smith said, adding that the change was intended to restore order while preserving the right to speak.
Other candidates stressed collaboration and civility as essential to governing.
Harrison said, “It’s collaboration and communication. It’s also the respect that we have for our fellow colleagues and the way that we create that harmony on City Council will then extend itself to our community members.”
Velazquez added, “Our service is to the people of our city and not for personal agendas.”
George Smith described transparency as ongoing communication with residents. “Continue communication… keeping the residents abreast of what’s going on,” he said.
By the forum's conclusion, a theme seemed to emerge. Apopka is growing, and that growth is reshaping everything from infrastructure to economic development. But who among these seven can take on these challenges
Voters will have the final say on March 10.
Key Points:
- Budget transparency divides candidates:
Incumbents defended amendment-heavy budgeting as procedural, while challengers pushed for forensic audits, executive summaries, and earlier public engagement.
- Utilities and infrastructure are top concerns:
Water meters, traffic congestion, and development sequencing emerged as central issues throughout the debate.
- Development pace remains contentious:
Some candidates called for slowing growth or stronger developer accountability, while others emphasized structured review and impact fees.
- Downtown and economic leakage highlighted:
Candidates responded to reports showing $235 million in resident spending occurs outside Apopka, with proposals ranging from walkability improvements to business recruitment incentives.
- Civility and governance matter:
Public comment procedures and decorum were addressed, with candidates emphasizing respect, transparency, and collaborative leadership.
