Only After a Public Records Request, Concerns Surface
Commissioner Katie Delaney’s District 1 office underwent an expensive renovation approaching $92,522 in total costs, yet the first documented concern from Delaney’s office about these expenditures came only after our inquiry. On April 8, 2025, The Space Coast Rocket filed a public records request seeking all costs related to the office remodel after being alerted by a county staff member of the out-of-control costs of Delaney’s office renovation demands. In response, County Facilities staff sent Delaney the compiled records on April 10 before releasing them to us. It was only the next day – after the public records request had unearthed the hefty price tag – that Delaney’s chief of staff Kristin Lortie emailed Facilities with a list of pointed questions about the renovation’s cost overruns. Prior to this, there is no evidence or records that Delaney or her team ever objected to or even scrutinized the escalating expenses. In fact, Facilities Program Manager Skip Bell noted explicitly that “no written communication exists” from Delaney’s office regarding the project scope or budget prior to this exchange. The timing suggests that the alarm bells in Delaney’s office rang only when they realized the public – and the press – were about to find out how much taxpayer money had been sunk into her new office.
- Advertisement -
Shifting Blame in Public: “I Don’t Understand… Nobody Told Me”
As the records became public, Commissioner Delaney moved quickly to distance herself from the runaway costs. In a recorded YouTube interview with a political group she is affiliated with (in an episode titled “The Commish Report” on April 13, 2025), Delaney repeatedly expressed bewilderment and frustration at her own office renovation. “I just – I don’t understand… It’s government,” she lamented, professing surprise at how the project was handled. She insisted that “nobody thought to let me know. Nobody thought to say, ‘Hey Commissioner Delaney… this is going to cost [more]’”, despite her claiming she had asked for updates: “Even though I asked them over and over again”. In the interview, Delaney portrayed herself as a commissioner blindsided by her own staff’s actions, at one point exclaiming “I’m so frustrated” at the situation. The clear implication was that county staff had expanded the project and run up the bill without her knowledge or approval. By emphasizing “nobody told me” and “I’m so frustrated,” Delaney sought to deflect accountability for the excessive spending, painting herself as a watchdog of taxpayer money caught unaware.
Internal Emails vs. Public Claims: A Contradictory Story
However, internal county emails tell a very different story – one that directly contradicts Delaney’s public absolutions of responsibility. In the April 11 email (prompted by the records request) Delaney’s chief of staff explicitly stated on the Commissioner’s behalf that Delaney “never authorized any costs, nor did she authorize an expedited project”, stressing that Delaney “would have been fine having the process take 4–6 weeks” instead of rushing. The email further asserted that Delaney “was not provided sufficient information to weigh in on the project costs in advance”. These statements were clearly an attempt to establish that any budget-busting decisions were made by others without her consent.
Yet, correspondence from Facilities contradicts those claims. In his detailed response on April 15, Facilities Manager Skip Bell recounted that “the project scope grew multiple times at the request of the District 1 office”, noting that his team “spoke many times during this project, and met on-site a few times” with Commissioner Delaney or her staff regarding the evolving office plans. The expanded scope included adding a window between Delaney’s office and the reception area, a dividing wall in the conference room, relocating plumbing for a new kitchenette, installing LED lighting, new ceiling tiles, blinds, a closet, upgraded access control and security systems, and combining two offices into one large office with luxury vinyl plank (LVP) flooring. Bell underscored: “These were all requests of the D1 office, subsequent to the original estimate”. In other words, Delaney’s own team continuously drove the upgrades and additions that caused the budget to swell. Importantly, because the renovation was funded out of the Facilities Department’s budget (not a separate line-item), “no [formal] approval was required” for staff to proceed– meaning Delaney’s verbal go-ahead during site visits was enough to green-light changes, without any paper trail. This explains why “no written communication” exists from her office prior to April; the real approvals happened in person and informally. The internal record starkly contrasts with Delaney’s public “I had no idea” narrative – it shows she and her staff were actively engaged in expanding the project, even if they never signed a formal change order. It defies logic to believe that Facilities independently made numerous and significant design changes to the project without any input or direction from the very person who would occupy the office.
- Advertisement -
The $92,522 Renovation: Extensive Line Items Emerge
The records obtained by us reveal just how extensive the renovations turned out to be – far beyond a simple office touch-up. Among the most expensive line items were flooring installation and a new security/intercom system. In fact, Tarkett luxury flooring cost $30,114.34 for roughly 1,375 square feet of space, an amount Delaney’s aide questioned as equating to about $21.90 per square foot. Additionally, the office received a World Electronics video entry and panic-button system costing $4,770.00, which Delaney claimed to have had no prior knowledge of approving. These big-ticket items were complemented by a long list of materials and labor: county work crews logged $38,385 in staff labor on the project, and dozens of separate purchases were made at Lowe’s and Home Depot for everything from carpentry supplies to fixtures. Even the window blinds became an issue – Bell noted that new blinds were on order (the originals were still functional), underscoring how even cosmetic details were being upgraded. It’s important to remember that this space was already a functional office space held by the State Attorney’s Office. The requests by Delaney’s office were renovations to customize and change the structure of the space how she wanted. As she stated, her entire premise for undertaking this project was to “save money.”
- Advertisement -
Cost breakdown of the District 1 office renovation, totaling over $92,000. Notable expenses include $30,114 for Tarkett flooring and $4,770 for a World Electronics security system, among dozens of other purchases. Delaney’s office only began scrutinizing these numbers after a reporter’s public records request.
Delaney’s defense has been that she “never signed off” on these costs. Indeed, no formal approval form bears her signature – but the emails indicate she was kept apprised of additions in conversations. Tellingly, one of the questions her chief of staff asked on April 11 was why she was “never requested to sign off on anything or advised prior to start of work when it was determined that the project costs were significantly more” than originally expected. In essence, her office implicitly acknowledges the costs became “significantly more,” but tries to pin that on staff for not formally alerting her. The picture that emerges is of a commissioner who eagerly requested enhancements during the build-out – and only after the fact, when the bill came due, objected that she hadn’t been made to officially approve the expenditures. It’s a convenient catch-22: by keeping the process informal, Delaney can say she never officially okayed the costs; yet by being intimately involved on the ground, she ensured the project included every upgrade she desired. It’s yet another example of a lack of experience and understanding by the D1 Commissioner’s office.
“Cost-Saving Measure” That Cost Taxpayers More
One of the most striking contradictions in this saga is how Commissioner Delaney initially framed the office move as a cost-saving measure, yet the expensive renovation undermines that claim. Delaney had justified relocating District 1’s office to a county-owned facility (the Titusville County Government building) by pointing out that it would save rent compared to the prior arrangement. (Her predecessor had operated from a space at Tom Statham Park, which was described as a community building and may have involved lease or maintenance costs shared with another agency.) In public forums, Delaney touted the move as “saving taxpayer dollars” by utilizing existing county space.
But any notional savings on rent have been wiped out many times over by the renovation’s price tag. Even if the county were paying, say, $1,500 per month in rent for a satellite office (approximately $18,000 per year), the $92K spent on renovations would equal over five years of such rent – and that’s assuming there were rental costs at all. In reality, the Tom Statham Park office was already county property, so the “savings” from moving were minimal. Delaney’s own facilities email confirms she “communicated the importance of [moving out of] Tom Statham Park quickly” and wanted her new office ready by January. Rushing to relocate in the name of efficiency, she ended up championing an overhaul that obliterated any financial advantage of using a county building. Her rhetoric of frugality – calling the move a cost-saving choice – now rings hollow in light of the bloated refurbishment costs. The renovation didn’t save money; it spent future savings in advance, and then some. In comparison, the former D3 office which was a rented space, cost less than $1,000 a month in rent and their expenditures for “renovations” over 7 years amounted to approximately $1,100. They paid $600 for window tint of the glass front and $500 for a refrigerator. However, the new D3 office, which like Delaney’s office is in a county-owned building resulted in a total of approximately $13,000 for needed renovations, 7 times less than D1.
Preaching Austerity, Practicing Excess
The office-renovation debacle also casts a harsh light on Commissioner Delaney’s broader political persona as a self-styled fiscal hawk. Delaney has often advocated for tight budgets and cuts in county spending – at times to the detriment of public services. For example, she has scrutinized expenditures on public safety; during commission meetings she questioned funding proposals for Fire Rescue and was reluctant to support pay increases for firefighters and paramedics. She has voted against a move that pushed to redirect or reduce spending, to stop funding a North Brevard economic development program, purportedly so that $3 million annually could be reallocated to Fire Rescue – the very thing she campaigned on. She did not agree with the cuts coming from her district in this case to fund the Fire Fighters. Delaney routinely talks about “living within our means” and has opposed what she calls excessive salaries or benefits for county employees, arguing taxpayers shouldn’t foot unnecessary bills.
This is why the revelations about her office makeover are so jarring. The same commissioner who balked at robust pay raises for firefighters and other staff saw fit to oversee (or at least allow) a near six-figure spend on her personal office space. The optics are bad: cut costs for others, but spare no expense for one’s own workspace. It raises an uncomfortable question about whether Commissioner Delaney’s fiscal-conservative rhetoric matches her decision-making in practice. If she did notice (as internal evidence indicates) and pressed ahead anyway, what does that say about her priorities? Either scenario – willful ignorance or willful indulgence – undermines her credibility as a guardian of the public purse.
Beyond the renovation overspending, Commissioner Delaney’s staffing choices further complicate her image as a budget hawk. A review of District 1’s November 2024 payroll shows that Delaney replaced outgoing experienced staff with a mix of political allies and newcomers, including one with no clear qualifications for the role, and another who is a sitting elected official – raising conflict of interest concerns.
Delaney appointed Kristin Lortie as Chief of Staff, replacing Adrienne Schmadeke. Lortie previously helped with Delaney’s campaign but has no documented background in local government operations or public administration. Despite that, she is earning $88,000 annually, nearly as much as her more experienced predecessor. Lortie’s lack of qualifications shows: she was the one who formally responded to Facilities about the overspending—after the public records request—and her tone reflected confusion over processes that an experienced staffer should have been able to track from the outset.
Compounding concerns, Kristin Lortie, now serving as Delaney’s Chief of Staff, brings a controversial history involving transparency and public accountability. In 2023, while living in Michigan, Lortie was issued a no-trespass directive by the Dollar Bay–Tamarack City Area Schools superintendent after she and another local resident repeatedly entered school property unaccompanied while seeking public records and questioning school finances related to a $4.7 million bond proposal. According to the superintendent, Lortie failed to follow security protocols and was described as disruptive to school operations—a characterization Lortie strongly denied, calling it “retaliation for following state Sunshine laws.” She claimed, “This paints us as unreasonable and can’t be trusted… This is retaliation for following state Sunshine laws. We have spoken. We have not been heard.” The incident reflects a pattern of conflict and poor judgment, raising legitimate concerns about her suitability for a senior role in Brevard County government—especially one that demands administrative discipline and professional oversight.
Delaney’s Chief of Staff Kristin Lortie speaking in protest at a County Commission Meeting
Another eyebrow-raising hire is Megan Moscoso, a current Titusville City Councilwoman, brought on by Delaney as a part-time Communications Coordinator at $26,000/year. Appointing a sitting official from another government body to a paid county role creates serious questions about conflicts of interest and divided loyalties. While not illegal per se, such an arrangement opens the door to blurred lines between city and county priorities—and raises the specter of political back-scratching.
Together, Delaney’s staff appointments paint a picture of political patronage and poor administrative judgment. Her office’s annual payroll is over $224,000, and yet the team’s management of the renovation project suggests a fundamental lack of oversight, understanding, or competence. That raises a key question: Is this a staffing issue—or a leadership issue?
Public records searches suggest this may be the first full-time job Commissioner Delaney has ever held. Prior to her election, Delaney is listed as a part-time horse trainer. There is no record of her managing an office, overseeing a budget, or working in a governmental capacity. That may explain her frequent confusion during commission meetings, her inability to effectively communicate about the renovation process, and her ongoing frustration with staff. Her comments—like “I don’t even know what to believe anymore” and “I’m so frustrated”—may be sincere, but they also underscore a key problem: Delaney may simply be unprepared for the job she now holds.
Watchdog Journalism and Public Trust
The saga of Commissioner Delaney’s office renovations is a textbook example of why watchdog journalism is crucial in local government. It was a public records request by us that dragged these inconvenient facts into the light of day, allowing the public to learn what their elected official was doing with public resources behind closed doors. Without that scrutiny, it’s doubtful that the commissioner’s suddenly “frustrated” stance would have ever materialized. The episode shows that elected officials may say all the right things about transparency and accountability – claiming shock at overspending and frustration with staff – but only rigorous reporting can test those words against reality. In this case, the records and emails obtained by the press proved invaluable in separating fact from spin. They revealed a pattern of decision-making that did not align with the tidy narrative Commissioner Delaney offered in interviews with her friends.
At stake is more than just one office remodel. Public trust is on the line. When an official champions austerity in theory but tolerates extravagance in practice, citizens have every right to be skeptical. The role of the press is to hold power to account in exactly these situations – to verify whether an official’s deeds match their declarations. Commissioner Delaney’s renovation imbroglio is a reminder that transparency is often hard-won, not freely given. It took dogged inquiry to expose the excessive and contradictory spending at play. Moving forward, Brevard County residents can rely on diligent watchdog reporting for shining a light on this case, and should demand that their leaders conduct the public’s business with far more candor and consistency. In the end, the measure of an elected official’s integrity is simple: do their actions line up with their words? Although Commissioner Delaney’s motives and intentions may be well-intended, it is clear she is in desperate need of an experienced and well educated mentor or staffer to guide her in accomplishing the things she wants to for the citizens of Brevard County in the way that she wants to.
