Deltona’s festive season was supposed to be simple: a mayoral gala celebrating civic pride and a Christmas parade bringing families together. Instead, both events have become the focus of growing concern inside City Hall, where questions about political activity, public resources, and financial oversight now overshadow the celebrations themselves. What began as routine community programming has evolved into a broader examination of governance practices, internal controls, and compliance obligations that city officials can no longer ignore.

The Mayor’s Ball: When a Civic Event Meets Campaign Law

The Mayor’s Ball was initially promoted as a City of Deltona production. City staff created the promotional materials. City facilities were listed as the venue. City equipment and employee time were used to prepare and advertise the event. For weeks, the public understood the Ball to be a government‑sponsored function, paid for and executed with taxpayer resources.

Then the ticketing page changed.

A political advertisement disclaimer appeared—one typically associated with campaign communications, not municipal events. The same page had previously been referenced publicly as part of a 2025 campaign announcement. What had been framed as a civic celebration suddenly intersected with Florida’s political activity laws, raising concerns about whether public resources had been used to support what later appeared to be a political or campaign‑related activity.

Florida Statute 106.113 prohibits municipalities from using public funds to support political campaigns or election‑related messaging. Florida Statute 104.31 goes further, restricting municipal officers from using their official authority, public resources, or coercive influence in political campaigns. Employees may participate in politics on their own time, but not while on duty, not using government property, and not in a way that creates the appearance of government sponsorship.

The shift in the Mayor’s Ball’s presentation—from a city event to a page bearing a political disclaimer—has prompted questions about whether the line between civic programming and political activity was crossed, and if so, whether the use of public resources conflicts with state law or internal policy. City officials have yet to provide a clear explanation.

The Christmas Parade: A Fee With No Authorization

If the Mayor’s Ball raised concerns about political activity, the Christmas Parade raised equally serious questions about financial oversight.

Documents and correspondence show that a “parade committee” composed of outside individuals was formed to manage aspects of the event. That committee imposed a participation fee on parade entrants. The fee was not created by the City Manager. It was not approved by the City Commission. It did not appear on the city’s fee schedule. And the funds were held by a third party before being partially disbursed back to the City.

Under Deltona’s Charter and Code, only the City Commission has the authority to create or approve fees charged to the public. Participation fees—regardless of how they are labeled—constitute a charge for access to a city‑controlled event. Such fees normally require Commission approval, inclusion in the official fee schedule, and proper fiduciary tracking under governmental accounting standards.

The City Attorney later reframed the fee as a “donation to the Deltona Firefighters Foundation.” But the fee was mandatory for participation. The event was the City of Deltona Parade. The City was the principal sponsor and naming entity. Registrants were not making voluntary contributions—they were paying for access to a city event.

Municipal finance rules draw a bright line between donations and fees. When participation is contingent on payment, the transaction is a fee, not a donation. And when a fee is charged for a city event, the city has fiduciary obligations to track, report, and account for the revenue.

Those obligations were not met.

Unanswered Questions and a Growing Transparency Gap

Despite repeated requests for documentation, several foundational questions remain unanswered. Who created the parade committee? Under what authority was the fee imposed? Why was the City Manager unaware of the fee? Why did the Commission never approve it? Why were revenues routed through a private intermediary? What fiduciary obligations apply when the City is the event principal? Why does the City assert that no GASB reporting duty exists when revenue was generated? What internal controls allowed an outside group to levy fees using a city event? And what policy permits private actors to financially intermediate a municipal program?

Each unanswered question widens the transparency gap and deepens public concern.

The Fraud Policy Connection: Not Criminality, but Compliance

Deltona’s Fraud Policy CW07‑01 defines fraud broadly: “intentional deception, misappropriation of resources or failure to account for monies collected.” The policy applies not only to officers and employees but also to vendors, partners, and any parties using city resources. It mandates investigation of credible concerns involving misuse of public assets, financial irregularities, failure to account for collected money, operational control failures, unauthorized fee setting, and third‑party handling of city‑generated funds.

The issues surrounding both the Mayor’s Ball and the Christmas Parade fall squarely within the policy’s scope—not because anyone has alleged criminal wrongdoing, but because the events raise legitimate questions about fiduciary responsibility, statutory compliance, and adherence to internal controls.

A Matter of Governance and Trust

At its core, this controversy is not about festivities. It is about governance.

Residents expect their local government to operate with transparency, accountability, legal integrity, and consistent application of policy. They expect public funds not to be used for political activity. They expect city events to follow ordinance and fee schedules. They expect financial processes to comply with GASB standards and fiduciary rules. And they expect internal controls to prevent private actors from levying fees or handling city‑generated revenue without authorization.

The concerns now facing Deltona are not abstract—they go to the heart of public trust. As the city moves forward, these issues appear increasingly appropriate for review under the Fraud Policy’s procedures. Only a thorough, transparent examination can restore confidence and ensure that future events comply with both the law and the standards residents deserve.