As a Tallahassee city commissioner and now a candidate for mayor, Matlow has aggressively questioned city administrators, fellow commissioners, developers and others in Tallahassee government. His political brand rests largely on the argument that entrenched interests need someone willing to challenge them.

But two recent controversies raise an obvious question: Does Matlow’s standard of accountability apply to the people closest to him?

Consider Kristellys “Kris” Estanga, Matlow’s former campaign manager.

Estanga resigned in July after acknowledging responsibility for distributing damaging information about City Commission candidate Talethia Edwards through a Facebook page called “Tallahassee Conservatives.” The attack included Orlando police body-camera footage and emails in which Edwards discussed sensitive personal information.

There was also an unmistakable racial and political dimension to the episode.

Edwards is a Black Democrat. Yet the political attack against her was distributed through a page branded “Tallahassee Conservatives,” creating the appearance that conservatives—not a Democratic political operative working for Edwards’ political opponent—were responsible.

Edwards called the episode “Democrats creating a fake conservative page to attack another Democrat.” Mayoral candidate Daryl Parks went further, arguing that the tactic was designed to divide the community.

Estanga accepted responsibility and resigned.

That looked like accountability.

Except she never really left.

The Tallahassee Democrat reported Sept. 30 that Estanga remained involved with Matlow’s campaign, established a consulting company and returned to Matlow’s campaign payroll. Matlow confirmed she remained involved as a field organizer and data analyst. The Democrat article reports that her company received $4,000 from the campaign for field consulting and that Matlow’s campaign had paid her $14,000 during the election cycle.

And Estanga’s response to the renewed scrutiny was hardly contrite. Following publication of the Democrat story, she posted on social media: “I’m here to stay baby.”

Then there is Ryan Ray, Matlow’s taxpayer-funded City Commission aide.

Tallahassee Reports attributed hundreds of anonymous comments to Ray and found numerous comments overlapping his documented City work schedule. The comments repeatedly defended Matlow and attacked his political opponents, including fellow commissioners.

When Tallahassee Democrat Executive Editor William Hatfield recently asked Matlow whether he had questioned his aide about the anonymous activity, Matlow declined to engage the central issue, saying it was not part of Ray’s City Commission role.

That is a remarkable position for a politician whose calling card is accountability.

These actions provide voters with evidence about how Matlow responds when questionable political conduct involves people working directly for him.

Estanga resigned, then returned to his political operation. Ray faced serious questions about anonymous political activity overlapping his taxpayer-funded work schedule, and Matlow declined to publicly pursue answers.

Matlow has spent years demanding explanations and accountability from others.

Voters are entitled to ask why that same standard appears to become considerably less demanding when the controversy reaches his own political doorstep.

Provided below is a summary of answers to questions asked during the forum hosted by the media partners in the Capital Region News Collaborative, which includes Tallahassee Reports, and the League of Women Voters.

Are Tallahassee residents better off than four years ago?

Loranne Ausley: No. She said residents are angry and worried about the cost of groceries, gasoline and other necessities and are struggling to see how their circumstances can improve.

Jeremy Matlow: No. He pointed to high gasoline prices, Tallahassee’s roughly 25% poverty rate and the larger number of working residents struggling to make ends meet. He argued many residents do not believe government is looking out for their interests.

What is the clearest difference between you and your opponent?

Matlow: He described his candidacy as a break from the status quo, emphasizing grassroots support, opposition to “backroom deals,” developer influence and development he believes damages the environment.

Ausley: She identified three major differences: support for the Children’s Services Council, support for the TMH-FSU Health transaction despite concerns about the process, and differences in political leadership and culture. She criticized negative social-media tactics and anonymous political activity associated with people in Matlow’s political orbit.

Matlow response: He acknowledged opposing the Children’s Services Council tax while saying he supported creating a council.

What are your top two accomplishments?

Ausley: Securing state funding that helped begin the cleanup leading to Cascades Park and helping create Whole Child Leon, which she connected to the eventual creation of the Children’s Services Council.

Matlow: Adoption of Tallahassee’s clean-energy goal of transitioning to 100% renewable energy and bringing greater scrutiny to City Hall spending, decision-making and alleged wrongdoing.

Is your opponent capable of serving as Tallahassee’s chief ambassador?

Matlow: Yes. He said both he and Ausley are capable of representing Tallahassee. He emphasized his lifelong connection to the community and experience building a business here.

Ausley: She said she is prepared for the ambassadorial role but questioned Matlow’s attendance at civic events, citing his absence from the opening of the new senior center.

Matlow response: He said commissioners are sometimes excluded from events, noted that he supported the senior center, and said his responsibilities as a small-business owner also affect his schedule.

TMH-FSU Health transaction

Matlow: Opposed. He criticized the process, questioned whether taxpayers received fair market value and argued there was insufficient accountability regarding what FSU would ultimately deliver.

Ausley: Supported. She criticized how the transaction was handled but argued that an academic medical center would improve health care, create better jobs and benefit Tallahassee.

Key difference: Matlow emphasized process, accountability and valuation; Ausley emphasized the expected long-term health-care and economic benefits.

Sale of the Capital City Country Club property

Ausley: Would have supported the sale. She emphasized preservation of green space and recognition of ceremonial burial grounds and argued that maintaining a golf course preserves open space.

Matlow: Opposed. He argued that valuable public property was sold for substantially less than its value and raised concerns about the investors behind the transaction.

Data-center moratorium/ban

Matlow: Supported restricting large-scale data centers, citing water consumption, electrical demand, environmental concerns, land availability and relatively limited employment benefits.

Ausley: Agreed with Matlow that Tallahassee does not need large data centers, citing land constraints and limited job creation.

Hiring the new city manager and requiring a supermajority for termination

Ausley: Said the incoming commission should have made the city-manager decision and opposed the supermajority termination provision.

Matlow: Also argued that the new commission should have selected the manager. He went further, calling the timing a violation of public trust and arguing that the supermajority provision conflicts with the City Charter.

What is driving gun violence, and what should the city do?

Matlow: Focused on reaching young people early, creating productive activities and employment opportunities, measuring the effectiveness of violence-prevention programs and addressing poverty.

Ausley: Also emphasized youth intervention and community engagement, citing cooperation among law enforcement, pastors and community organizations.

Are current police staffing levels sufficient?

Ausley: Generally yes, although she said the city should examine community policing and potentially different forms of police involvement.

Matlow: Essentially yes, provided staffing is sufficient for police to answer calls and meet the levels identified by the police chief.

Does participation in the 287(g) immigration program make Tallahassee safer?

Matlow: No. He argued it makes the community less safe and cited his observations of an ICE enforcement action.

Ausley: Her answer was less definitive. She said immigration enforcement is necessary but stressed fairness and questioned the appropriate role of local police.

Should the city and county operate separate fire departments?

Ausley: No. She called for the city and county to resolve their funding dispute and preserve a unified fire service.

Matlow: No. He likewise argued that the governments should resolve their differences and maintain a unified system.

Do you support Flock license-plate cameras?

Matlow: No. He characterized the system as mass surveillance and raised concerns about tracking residents and outside access to collected information.

Ausley: Said surveillance technology has advanced faster than government safeguards. She supported the pause or moratorium until adequate protections are established.

Key difference: Matlow expressed more categorical opposition; Ausley emphasized the need for safeguards.

Should school-zone speed cameras remain?

Matlow: No. He said he opposed the program from the beginning and favors traditional enforcement and street-design changes around schools.

Ausley: Initially said she was uncertain about the relationship between speed cameras and license-plate surveillance, but after the discussion said she would vote to end the program.

Campaign Conduct and Political Culture

Is it appropriate for Matlow aide Ryan Ray to simultaneously serve as local Democratic Party chairman?

Matlow: Said he does not attempt to control employees’ political activities and that his expectation is that his aide properly performs his city job.

When specifically asked whether he had asked Ray about posting anonymous comments, Matlow said that was not part of Ray’s city commission role.

Ausley: Used the issue to make a broader argument about anonymous social-media activity, fake accounts and what she described as the political culture surrounding Matlow.

What responsibility does Matlow bear for the fake Facebook controversy involving his former campaign manager?

Matlow: Said the activity was unrelated to his campaign and involved another City Commission race. He argued that investigating candidates’ backgrounds is a legitimate function of independent media.

Ausley: Said Matlow’s response was inadequate. She argued leaders are responsible for setting standards for their teams and tied the episode to broader concerns about anonymous attacks and political culture.

This was one of the forum’s clearest personal/leadership contrasts.

Why should voters trust Ausley despite significant support from developers and business interests?

Ausley: Said she has received contributions from people across the political and economic spectrum throughout her career and that contributions do not purchase her vote or influence.

How did Matlow respond to criticism about progressive or socialist-aligned outside support?

Matlow: Identified himself as a Democrat and said Republican criticism of his Democratic affiliations is expected. He said voters should judge him by his record and Democratic values.

Do you support Amendment 3?

Ausley: No. She warned that the measure could significantly reduce Tallahassee revenue and threaten funding for essential services.

Matlow: No, but for different reasons. He opposed state interference in local budgeting while arguing that Tallahassee itself needs to reduce spending. He said the amendment’s consequences would be manageable but could simply shift costs elsewhere.

What happens if Amendment 3 passes?

Matlow: Said essential services would be protected. He would target development subsidies and other spending before reducing core services.

Ausley: Said the city would need to examine the entire budget for waste, duplication and administrative overhead while protecting police, parks, housing and other essential services.

Key difference: Both call for spending scrutiny, but Matlow identifies developer subsidies and executive spending as specific targets; Ausley emphasizes a broader budget review.

Has city government been overspending?

Ausley: Said that is a legitimate concern and called for examining waste, duplication and administrative overhead.

Matlow: Yes. He cited executive salaries, raises and expensive government vehicles as examples of spending that should be scrutinized.

Utilities and Renewable Energy

How should Tallahassee address high utility bills?

Matlow: Proposed reducing development-related utility subsidies, examining utility taxes and lowering general-fund spending to reduce pressure on electric rates.

Ausley: Said affordability and infrastructure investment both need examination and pledged to make utility costs a mayoral priority, although she offered fewer specific measures.

Do you support Tallahassee’s 2050 clean-energy commitment even if it raises rates?

Ausley: Yes. She said the clean-energy commitment is important and could help Tallahassee recruit residents and businesses.

Matlow: Strongly supports renewable energy but rejected the premise that it necessarily requires higher rates. He argued renewable energy could provide greater price stability and potentially lower bills.

Key difference: Ausley explicitly accepted the clean-energy goal despite the possibility of higher rates; Matlow argued the transition itself can ultimately lower or stabilize costs.

Housing

If you could take one action to improve housing affordability, what would it be?

Matlow: Build 500 municipal housing units during his first four years, using city-owned land, resources and permitting authority.

Ausley: Coordinate existing housing organizations and combine federal, state and local resources through organizations such as the housing authority, community land trust and lenders consortium.

Clear philosophical difference: Matlow proposes direct municipal production of housing; Ausley proposes coordination and leveraging existing housing institutions and funding.

City Commission Dysfunction

Does Matlow bear responsibility for the 3-2 split?

Matlow: He defended his approach, saying voters elected him to challenge City Hall practices. He emphasized that commissioners agree on roughly 87% of votes and said the disputes concern consequential matters such as development, taxes, environmental protection and public assets.

Who is responsible for City Hall dysfunction?

Ausley: “Everybody.” She said political anger and social media have worsened divisions and argued the next mayor should rebuild relationships and search for common ground.

Major contrast: Matlow largely views conflict as a consequence of substantive disagreements that require confrontation; Ausley emphasizes leadership style, relationships and consensus-building.

Most important environmental issue?

Matlow: Climate-driven extreme weather and clear-cutting/development of forested areas.

Ausley: Framed development around three tests: whether it provides needed housing or jobs, whether infrastructure exists to support it, and whether it protects Tallahassee’s water, tree canopy and quality of life.

Example of good and bad development?

Matlow: Praised small-scale urban infill such as community-land-trust housing on Wallace Street. Criticized the Thomasville Road storage development.

Ausley: Also criticized the appearance of the Thomasville Road project but noted that it proceeded under existing regulations, suggesting the city should change those regulations if residents dislike the resulting development.

How should the city improve economic mobility?

Matlow: Reform permitting and make city government a “front door” for entrepreneurs, particularly smaller local businesses. He favors shifting economic development away from primarily recruiting large corporations toward helping residents start businesses and obtain capital.

Ausley: Focus on recruiting employers offering higher-wage jobs across a range of skill levels. She emphasized making City Hall easier for businesses to navigate and having the mayor actively promote Tallahassee.

How is the Office of Economic Vitality performing?

Matlow: Wants OEV to focus more heavily on startups, local businesses and business recruitment while moving away from subsidies he considers questionable.

Ausley: Said OEV is “not doing great,” although she did not blame its employees. She suggested structural reform so the organization operates at the “speed of business” rather than the “speed of government.”

Agreement: Both candidates favor substantial changes to OEV, although their preferred economic-development emphasis differs.

How can Tallahassee make its airport more competitive?

Ausley: Explore partnerships and incentives involving state government, FSU and other institutions, while acknowledging there is no easy solution.

Matlow: Increase demand for travel to Tallahassee through arts, culture, live music, tourism and private-sector economic development.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

Matlow: Prioritize safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure when allocating Blueprint and transportation dollars rather than concentrating resources on new road construction supporting development.

Ausley: Improve connectivity and safety of pedestrian paths, bicycle infrastructure and public transit.

StarMetro

Ausley: Opposed service cuts and argued Tallahassee needs a transit system that is useful not only to transit-dependent residents but attractive to the broader population.

Matlow: Opposed service reductions and called for increasing ridership, citing environmental and financial benefits.

Should Tallahassee and Leon County consolidate?

Ausley: No. She said she would vote against the consolidation straw poll while supporting cooperation and existing consolidated services.

Matlow: No. He characterized the proposal as effectively a county takeover of the city but said city-county cooperation should improve.

FSU and TMH announced Wednesday that they have completed lease and operating agreements and an academic and clinical framework covering Tallahassee Memorial Hospital and the future FSU Health hospital in Panama City Beach. The agreements establish the long-term governance, operational and academic structure for FSU Health.

The agreements follow the Tallahassee City Commission’s March approval of the transfer of city-owned hospital assets to FSU. The transfer was approved on a divided vote after months of debate over the future of the community hospital and concerns about local control. The legal transfer was completed in April.

The financial commitments associated with the transaction are significant. Under the original agreement, FSU agreed to provide $109 million over 30 years in recognition of the public’s investment in the hospital and committed another $250 million through 2034 for hospital improvements, clinical faculty, research and other investments.

The broader transfer agreement calls for approximately $1.7 billion in FSU investment locally over 30 years. A city economic analysis projected the arrangement could generate more than $3.64 billion in economic impact and more than 900 jobs during that period.

Despite FSU’s ownership of the hospital property, TMH will continue running the hospital. Under the newly completed agreements, TMH remains responsible for day-to-day operations at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, the planned Panama City Beach hospital, other TMH clinical locations and TMH Physician Partners. TMH employees remain TMH employees, and patients can continue seeing their existing physicians and medical teams.

“Today marks a defining step forward in our shared vision to build an academic health system that will serve our community and our state for generations to come,” FSU President Richard McCullough said.

TMH CEO Mark O’Bryant said the partnership creates opportunities to expand medical services, research and education while maintaining TMH’s commitment to community-based care.

The new agreements also address one of the issues raised during the city’s consideration of the hospital transfer — the future governance and public-service mission of TMH.

TMH’s existing charity-care policy will remain in place, while the new governance structure gives FSU the ability to nominate candidates for boards overseeing operations in Tallahassee and Panama City Beach. Deed restrictions associated with the transfer also require the Tallahassee property to continue operating as a hospital and protect charity and indigent-care commitments.

The partnership is designed to transform TMH from a community hospital system into the clinical anchor of an academic health system combining patient care with FSU’s medical education and research programs.

Plans include additional graduate medical education programs in specialties such as trauma surgery, pulmonary and critical care medicine, and minimally invasive and bariatric surgery.

FSU also plans to open its new 140,000-square-foot Health Research and Collaboration Building on the TMH campus this fall. The facility is expected to house clinical research, laboratories and dozens of health researchers.

With the latest agreements finalized, the focus now shifts from negotiating the structure of FSU Health to implementing a partnership that university, hospital and city officials have described as a multibillion-dollar transformation of healthcare in Tallahassee and North Florida.

This finding comes as candidate Inman-Johnson criticizes the current city commission and her opponent Dianne Williams-Cox for development decisions.

Early Morning Vote

At approximately 1 a.m. on September 6, 1990, Inman-Johnson, then serving as Commissioner Dorothy Inman-Crews, joined Mayor Steve Meisburg and Commissioners Jack McClean and Debbie Lightsey in a 4-1 vote to annex more than 6,000 acres of Welaunee Plantation into the City of Tallahassee.

The city also sought to include the property in the Urban Services Area, establishing the framework for extending urban infrastructure and accommodating future development on the massive northeast Tallahassee property.

Commissioner Bob Hightower cast the lone dissenting vote. “I don’t think it’s good planning to go this far out,” Hightower told the Tallahassee Democrat. “I think it’s fiction to look at this and say we’re going to plan what happens out there for the next 20 years.”

Citizens Debate Welaunee Proposal

The commission’s action followed significant public debate at an August 29 public hearing preceding the final vote. The commission ultimately approved the annexation during a late-night meeting that extended into the early morning hours.

The Welaunee proposal also carried a significant financial component. According to an August 29, 1990 Tallahassee Democrat report, the city and Welaunee Plantation’s owners negotiated an agreement under which the city could provide between $3 million and $9 million in rebates associated with construction of water and sewer lines serving the property.

The combination of annexation, expansion of the Urban Services Area and extension of water and sewer infrastructure provided the governmental framework necessary for eventual urban development of Welaunee.

A Campaign Issue

During her campaign for city commission, Inman-Johnson has ignored her previous support for development projects like Welaunee. Instead, she has been critical of the Canopy development, which was made possible with her support of the Welaunee annexation and the urban services expansion.

Also, during a 2024 candidate forum, Inman-Johnson said she would have voted against Blueprint’s Northeast Gateway project, arguing that its benefits were too far in the future and that more infrastructure dollars should instead be directed to Tallahassee’s southside.

Ironically, these positions are consistent with the central theme of the progressive slate of city commission candidates during this election cycle. The progressives are critical of what they call urban sprawl and developer subsidies. Two issues which were supported by the votes of Inman-Johnson.

The issue surfaced during the Blueprint Intergovernmental Agency Board’s Sept. 24 meeting when Leon County Commissioner Christian Caban presented an email from the Florida Office of Cabinet Affairs concerning Segment C of the Airport Gateway.

Segment C calls for approximately 1.2 miles of new roadway connecting Orange Avenue to Stuckey Avenue. The proposed divided boulevard would include pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

According to the Tallahassee Democrat, the state email said there are “no plans to bring this project to the governor and cabinet,” a necessary step for Blueprint to acquire the state-owned land. The email also indicated the state did not recommend approval because the proposal was incompatible with the current use of the property.

Caban said the message effectively ends the segment.

“Segment C is dead,” Caban said, according to WCTV.

The disclosure also raised questions about communications between Blueprint and state officials. Blueprint Director of Place Artie White told commissioners that staff was seeing the information for the first time.

“We’re reading it at the same time you are,” White said, according to the Tallahassee Democrat report.

City Commissioner Curtis Richardson, chairman of the Blueprint board, and several county commissioners called for additional verification before making a final decision. The board ultimately voted unanimously to postpone action while staff confirms the state’s position.

The decision could have significant financial implications.

Blueprint documents show Segment C carried an estimated cost of approximately $16.6 million in a May 2023 estimate, including about $2.75 million for planning and design. At that time, approximately $2.2 million was listed as encumbered or expended on the segment.

Attention is now turning to whether money associated with Segment C — and potentially other portions of the Airport Gateway — should be redirected to improvements along West Tharpe Street.

Caban has advocated shifting Airport Gateway funding to Tharpe Street, where plans include sidewalks, drainage improvements and other transportation upgrades. County Commissioner Rick Minor also expressed support for the idea.

“If we get $20 million from Segment C to Tharpe Street, that helps us with construction,” Minor told WCTV.

The Tharpe Street project faces a substantial funding gap. Recent estimates put the project’s cost at approximately $62.3 million, while Blueprint has allocated about $9.5 million, leaving a projected $52.8 million funding need through 2040.

The debate represents a significant development for the Airport Gateway, one of Blueprint’s major transportation initiatives. The overall project was designed to improve connections between Tallahassee International Airport, southwest Tallahassee, Innovation Park and downtown.

WTXL previously reported that the Airport Gateway was promoted as both a transportation and economic-development project, with officials arguing that improved connections could encourage investment in southwest Tallahassee.

However, the entire Airport Gateway is not necessarily in jeopardy.

It appears commissioners could scale the project back toward its original configuration, concentrating on improvements along Springhill Road and North Lake Bradford Road while eliminating Segment C and possibly redirecting the associated funding.

Blueprint staff is expected to return to the board after verifying the state’s position, setting up a decision over whether to continue pursuing Segment C or move millions of dollars toward other transportation priorities, including West Tharpe Street.

Minor, who has represented District 3 since 2018, is seeking a third four-year term on the County Commission. Lorch, a Tallahassee business owner and first-time candidate for public office, is challenging the incumbent in the Nov. 3 election. The County Commission contest is nonpartisan and will be decided by voters who live in District 3.

The hour-long forum was held at WFSU’s studios and was sponsored by the Tallahassee Democrat, WFSU, the League of Women Voters and media partners participating in the Capital Region News Collaborative.

The Candidates

Minor was first elected to the District 3 seat in 2018 and reelected in 2022. Before joining the commission, he served as CEO of Second Harvest of the Big Bend and as chief of staff in the Tallahassee Mayor’s Office. He also previously worked as a business and information technology consultant.

Minor holds a bachelor’s degree in business and a master’s degree from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. During his eight years on the commission, his stated priorities have included economic development, crime reduction, environmental protection and improvements to northwest Leon County, including the North Monroe corridor, Tharpe Street and the Lake Jackson Greenway. He previously served as chairman of the County Commission.

Lorch, a Tallahassee native, is making his first run for elected office. He has owned a local video production business for approximately 20 years. His campaign biography says he was born and raised in Tallahassee, attended Leon High School and has raised his family in the community. His campaign has emphasized controlling property taxes and government spending, encouraging economic growth and protecting established neighborhoods.

The race offers voters a choice between an incumbent pointing to eight years of county initiatives and a challenger arguing that District 3 needs a different approach to spending and economic development.

Fiscal Policy: Taxes, Budgets and Rising Costs

Fiscal policy provided one of the clearest differences between the candidates.

Lorch advocated tighter fiscal management and questioned the growth in county spending. He argued that county government should look for opportunities to reduce spending and consider the rollback property-tax rate while protecting essential services.

Lorch said he doesn’t support Amendment 3 but was critical of recent county spending, noting that that over the past three years, the county’s budget has increased nearly 30%.

Minor countered that increases in county spending have been driven in part by higher costs for employee health benefits, construction materials and other operating expenses. He argued that reducing revenues to the levels proposed by Lorch could require cuts to county services.

The disagreement reflects a broader theme in the race: Lorch has made limiting government spending, and property taxes a central part of his campaign, while Minor has defended county investments and argued that some spending increases are necessary to maintain services and accommodate growth.

Economic Development: Amazon and Small Businesses

Economically, Lorch says the people of District 3 aren’t?doing any better than they were four years ago. He claims the economic state of the community is in decline.??Lorch said more jobs related to the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory have not materialized years after they were discussed.

“We can talk about a lot of metrics, but when you drive down Monroe Street, I think the windshield test is the best test,” he said. “I wouldn’t feel safe having my family walk down Monroe Street, so I think it speaks for itself.”

Minor disagreed, touting efforts by the commission to bring new businesses and more jobs to the area. He said crime is down, along with homelessness. “We need to focus on making sure that we help our workforce develop or find jobs, high-paying jobs for the workforce. But things are markedly better in District 3 and throughout the county.”

Minor also pointed to the recruitment of large employers, including Amazon, as evidence that long-term economic-development planning can expand the local employment base and generate additional commercial tax revenue. He argued that major economic-development projects often require planning over periods of 10 to 20 years.

Lorch placed greater emphasis on creating an environment where existing businesses and entrepreneurs can expand. He has argued that the private sector should be given more room to drive economic growth, with county government concentrating on core responsibilities such as infrastructure, public safety and environmental protection.

Blueprint Infrastructure

The allocation of Blueprint infrastructure sales-tax dollars was another point of disagreement.

Minor pointed to millions of dollars in county and Blueprint investments in District 3, arguing that projects involving roads, parks and other infrastructure demonstrate progress during his tenure.

Lorch questioned whether northwest Leon County and District 3 have received an adequate share of infrastructure investment, highlighting issues with Tharpe Street. He argued that long-standing needs in the district should receive greater priority and raised concerns about the pace at which some projects move from planning to completion.

Infrastructure is particularly significant in the District 3 race because the district encompasses much of northwest Leon County, where transportation, redevelopment and growth issues have been recurring topics before county government.

The Sept. 23 agenda item outlines the results of a citywide review of policies, programs, expenditures, contracts, grants and official activities potentially affected by Senate Bill 1134. The law, approved by the Legislature as Chapter 2026-43, takes effect Jan. 1, 2027.

City staff is recommending commissioners accept the report and authorize administrative changes needed for compliance. The review identifies potential impacts involving the City’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion, Community Human Service Partnership grants, the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, procurement practices, special events and proclamations.

Under SB 1134, municipalities are prohibited from funding or promoting DEI or taking certain official actions related to DEI. Local governments also cannot spend money to establish, support or staff a DEI office or officer. The law allows residents to bring legal action against a municipality for violations and requires recipients of local government contracts or grants to certify that public funds will not be used for specified DEI-related instruction.

One significant change involves Tallahassee’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion. According to the agenda, the office currently handles functions including anti-harassment training, equal-employment-opportunity complaint intake and investigations, ADA accommodations and Career Mapping programs. Staff concluded those functions can continue if they are open to all city employees without reference to categories covered by the new law.

The Commission on the Status of Women and Girls presents a more direct conflict. The joint City-County commission was established in 2013 to promote issues involving women and girls. Because that mission explicitly focuses on sex, city attorneys concluded its current enabling resolution “appears to violate SB 1134” and would likely become void Jan. 1.

The City and County are working on a revised mission for the commission. Meanwhile, commissioners are being asked to extend the City’s contract with the Oasis Center for Women and Girls for administrative support through Dec. 31, along with the terms of seven commission members.

Special events could also be affected. City staff identified Experience Asia, Filipino Festival and Pride in the Park as events that may fall under the law’s restrictions. If ultimately determined to violate SB 1134, those events would no longer qualify for city-funded co-sponsorship beginning Jan. 1. The law, however, expressly permits municipalities to issue event permits in a content-neutral manner and provide public-safety services.

The City’s Emancipation Day holiday is expected to remain. The City Attorney’s Office concluded Tallahassee has a “reasonable and defensible” legal basis for continuing the May 20 paid holiday, citing its historical basis and statutory exceptions.

Procurement rules will also change. New and renewed contracts will no longer include race- or sex-based minority- and women-owned business goals, and existing MBE/WBE goal provisions will become unenforceable beginning Jan. 1. The city is reviewing procurement documents and plans to transition its MWSBE program to a race- and gender-neutral framework.

Staff also cautioned that future city proclamations will have to be reviewed individually because some official proclamations promoting activities based on protected characteristics could run afoul of the law.

The agenda lists no direct fiscal impact from the recommended actions.

In the post, Matlow did not explain the details of his proposal and has not responded to our request for specifics.

The post stated, “The utility bills are way too high. Part of that is record heat waves, part of it is global energy instability and the remainder is local government. Let’s get the taxes off of the utility bill and get to work lowering utility costs for everyone.”

In the video accompanying the post, Matlow states the first thing we do is “get the taxes off the utility bill.” He references the fire services fee and the stormwater fee.

The 2026 operating expenses for the Fire Services Fund are $65 million, and the Stormwater Fund expenses are $25 million.

During the video, Matlow never explains how the fees will be collected when moved off of the utility bill. However, a commenter asks a question about the proposal, “in property taxes? Or receive a separate bill?”

Matlow responds, “property taxes.”

Moving approximately $90 million in fees to property tax bills means that property owners will subsidize the services for non-property owners and non-profit property owners. All of these residents are currently required to pay the fees.

Complicating the issue is Matlow’s campaign proposal to cut property taxes.

How do you make property taxes responsible for millions more in new spending obligations and cut property taxes?

We have asked Commissioner Matlow this question and will report his answer if and when he responds.

The event will be held at the Capital City Country Club, with lunch beginning at 11:30 a.m. and the candidate forum scheduled to begin at noon, according to NEBA.

Derzypolski and Perez emerged from a crowded six-candidate primary for the seat currently held by Commissioner Jeremy Matlow, who is giving up the position to run for mayor.

Perez finished first in the Aug. 18 primary, receiving approximately 29% of the vote. Derzypolski secured the second runoff position following one of the closest local election contests in recent years. After machine and manual recounts, Derzypolski finished just 15 votes ahead of third-place candidate Talethia Edwards.

The two candidates have offered contrasting perspectives on several issues facing City Hall. During the primary campaign, Derzypolski, a local business owner and registered no-party-affiliation voter, emphasized fiscal responsibility, public safety and a less divisive approach to city government. Perez, a registered Democrat and former teacher, has called for changes in city priorities and has been more critical of the city’s current direction and management. Tallahassee municipal elections are officially nonpartisan.

The Sept. 22 forum comes as the candidates move into the final weeks of a campaign that could have a significant impact on the balance of power at City Hall. Seat 3 has been represented by Matlow since 2018, and the race is one of several city contests headed to the Nov. 3 general election.

NEBA regularly hosts forums featuring elected officials, candidates and community leaders, with an emphasis on issues affecting local businesses and the Tallahassee economy.

Federal Election Commission records show the Green Advocacy Project has contributed $200,000 to Lead Locally PAC since 2024 — $100,000 on April 29, 2024, $50,000 on June 12, 2025, and another $50,000 on May 1, 2026.

Lead Locally is now supporting Matlow’s campaign for mayor and has endorsed Dot Inman-Johnson and P.J. Perez as Tallahassee approaches the November general election.

The financial connection is notable because Green Advocacy Project was a major source of money for Matlow’s One Tallahassee political committee during the 2024 election cycle, when control of the City Commission was also at stake.

The records establish a recurring connection between the same climate advocacy network and Tallahassee politics. They do not establish that Green Advocacy Project’s contributions to Lead Locally were earmarked for Tallahassee or that Lead Locally PAC has made expenditures in the city’s 2026 races.

$200,000 to Lead Locally

Lead Locally PAC registered with the FEC in March 2024 as an independent-expenditure-only committee, commonly called a Super PAC. Federal records list a Los Angeles mailing address and Howie Stanger as treasurer.

The PAC’s fundraising records, including the transactions reviewed by Tallahassee Reports, show Green Advocacy Project contributing $100,000 shortly after the PAC was created and another $100,000 over the following two years.

The scale of the more recent contributions is significant. For the period from January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026, Lead Locally PAC reported total receipts of approximately $105,000. The two $50,000 Green Advocacy Project contributions documented during that period therefore account for about 95% of the PAC’s reported receipts during that timeframe. The PAC reported $140,474 in cash on hand as of June 30.

Lead Locally describes its mission in explicitly political and environmental terms. The organization says it works to elect state and local officials who will stand up to the fossil-fuel industry and support a “just green economy.” It says it has supported more than 240 candidates and helped elect more than 120.

Its website also says its work helps “recruit, train, and fundraise” for candidates seeking a transition away from fossil fuels.

A Familiar Name in Tallahassee

For Tallahassee voters, Green Advocacy Project is not a new participant in local politics.

In 2024, Green Advocacy Project contributed a total of $150,000 to One Tallahassee, the political committee created by Matlow. Green Advocacy Project founder Michael Kieschnick also personally contributed another $25,000 to the committee.

Matlow used One Tallahassee to support progressive candidates, including Inman-Johnson’s unsuccessful challenge to unseat City Commissioner Curtis Richardson. In September 2024 alone, Green Advocacy Project contributed another $75,000 as the general election approached.

The organization’s Tallahassee involvement predates 2024. Campaign-finance reporting previously connected Green Advocacy Project money to political efforts in the city’s 2018 and 2022 election cycles as well.

The newly documented Lead Locally relationship therefore provides another route through which an organization that has financially participated in previous Tallahassee elections is connected to candidates in the current election.

Michael Kieschnick Connection

The connection between Green Advocacy Project and Lead Locally also extends to Michael Kieschnick, the founder and president of Green Advocacy Project.

Green Advocacy Project’s own website identifies Kieschnick as president and a board member and notes that he co-founded and formerly headed CREDO, previously known as Working Assets.

Kieschnick has advocated using local elections as a vehicle for changing energy policy.

In a description of its electoral strategy, Green Advocacy Project said it had provided financial support to groups conducting campaigns for offices including mayor, city council, county council and port commissions. The organization said winning those elections could accelerate a transition to clean energy or block fossil-fuel infrastructure.

Green Advocacy Project describes its broader policy objective as a “rapid transition to a clean energy economy” through increased renewable energy and energy efficiency, restrictions on additional fossil-fuel infrastructure and other policy changes. The organization acknowledges that while most of its activities are non-electoral, it supports electoral efforts under some circumstances.

That strategy helps explain the potential significance of Tallahassee to national climate organizations: unlike most Florida cities, Tallahassee owns its electric utility.

Kieschnick’s connection to Lead Locally is also personal. FEC records shown in Lead Locally’s 2024 contribution data list a $500 contribution from Michael Kieschnick on October 30, 2024, in addition to the $100,000 Green Advocacy Project contribution earlier that year.

The result is a documented series of financial relationships involving the same individuals and organizations:

Green Advocacy Project/Kieschnick – One Tallahassee – 2024 Tallahassee elections and Green Advocacy Project/Kieschnick – Lead Locally PAC – organization backing Tallahassee candidates in 2026.

The existence of those financial relationships does not establish that Kieschnick or Green Advocacy Project directs Lead Locally’s candidate endorsements. It does, however, provide context about the sources financing the PAC associated with an organization now seeking to elect Tallahassee candidates.

Limited Information on Lead Locally Website

Those financial connections are not readily apparent from Lead Locally’s public-facing website.

The site extensively describes Lead Locally’s political mission, endorsed candidates, candidate-training activities and electoral successes. However, the pages reviewed by Tallahassee Reports do not prominently identify the people who lead the organization or provide a physical or mailing address.

The FEC filings provide information not apparent from those pages.

Federal records identify Lead Locally PAC’s treasurer as Howie Stanger and list its address as 1110 N. Virgil Ave. #375, Los Angeles, California. They also disclose the PAC’s contributions and expenditures, including its financial relationship with Green Advocacy Project.

There is no evidence that Lead Locally PAC has failed to make disclosures required under federal campaign-finance law. Its FEC filings are public. However, a voter visiting Lead Locally’s website to learn who is behind the organization would not readily see the Green Advocacy Project funding relationship revealed by the federal records.

Tallahassee’s Electric Utility in Focus

Lead Locally makes clear that Tallahassee’s utility is part of its interest in the mayor’s race.

On its current candidate page, the organization describes Matlow as a “progressive climate leader” and specifically cites Tallahassee’s publicly owned utility. It says Matlow has pushed the city toward renewable energy and would advocate for adding more solar rather than natural gas.

That position closely parallels Green Advocacy Project’s stated objectives.

Green Advocacy Project says it wants to accelerate renewable-energy adoption while preventing expansion of fossil-fuel infrastructure. Its earlier electoral strategy specifically identified electing mayors and city council members as a way of using local government to accelerate the transition to clean energy.

The issue takes on additional significance in Tallahassee because the five-member City Commission effectively serves as the governing board of the municipal electric utility. Commissioners make decisions involving power generation, solar projects, battery storage, natural-gas infrastructure, utility rates and long-term energy planning.

Will Outside Money Follow the Endorsements?

What happens next remains uncertain.

An endorsement by Lead Locally does not mean that Lead Locally PAC will spend money supporting the endorsed Tallahassee candidates. Nor do the FEC records demonstrate that Green Advocacy Project’s $200,000 in contributions was intended for Tallahassee.

The distinction is important because federal Super PAC money and Florida municipal campaign activity are governed by different reporting requirements, and any future spending would have to be evaluated based on the entity making the expenditure and the applicable disclosure rules.

But the history provides Tallahassee voters with context as the November election approaches.

In 2024, Green Advocacy Project supplied $150,000 to Matlow’s One Tallahassee committee, while Kieschnick personally contributed another $25,000. Two years later, federal records show Green Advocacy Project has contributed $200,000 to Lead Locally PAC, while Lead Locally is supporting Tallahassee progressives and highlighting the city’s electric utility as an important reason for electing Matlow.

Whether that support ultimately results in significant outside spending in the 2026 general election will be revealed in future campaign-finance reports.

What is already documented is that the national climate advocacy network that invested heavily in Tallahassee politics in 2024 remains connected to the city’s elections in 2026 — and the policy at the center of that involvement is one of the City Commission’s most consequential responsibilities: the future of Tallahassee’s publicly owned electric utility.

The 7-0 vote on Sept. 15 went further than the recommendation from county staff, which had proposed delaying implementation while courts consider a constitutional challenge involving automated traffic enforcement. Commissioners instead chose not to proceed with the school-zone speed detection system at this time, regardless of the eventual outcome of the pending litigation.

The decision represents a significant reversal from October 2025, when commissioners voted 6-1 to move forward with the program. Commissioner Bill Proctor cast the lone dissenting vote at the time. The county subsequently solicited proposals and selected RedSpeed Florida as its highest-ranked vendor.

The proposed county program was similar to the automated enforcement system already operating within the City of Tallahassee.

Under Florida law, local governments may use automated speed-detection systems in school zones. The systems can photograph or record vehicles exceeding applicable speed limits, with state law establishing requirements for signage, public notification and a warning period before enforcement begins.

However, legal questions surrounding automated traffic enforcement prompted county staff to recommend a delay.

A Broward County judge ruled earlier this year that a red-light-camera enforcement process was unconstitutional because it improperly shifted the burden of proof to vehicle owners. Although that case did not directly involve school-zone speed cameras, county officials noted similarities between the enforcement systems. The ruling is under review by the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Other Florida counties have also reconsidered automated enforcement programs following the ruling. Okaloosa County moved to prohibit red-light and school-zone speed cameras, while Palm Beach County commissioners rejected a proposal involving school-zone cameras.

During Tuesday’s discussion, commissioners raised broader concerns about whether motorists understand how automated school-zone enforcement works and whether the process provides adequate due-process protections.

Commission Chairman Christian Caban criticized the automated enforcement process following the vote, saying motorists can be placed in the position of having to challenge an automatically generated violation. He said he supported the commission’s decision not to accept the vendor bids.

The county’s action comes as Tallahassee’s existing school-zone camera program has generated substantial enforcement activity. According to previously reported figures, the city program had produced more than 50,000 notices of violation as of June. With violations carrying a $100 penalty, the citations represented as much as $5 million in potential collections. The city operates 48 cameras along 27 roadways covering 20 school zones.

Tuesday’s vote does not affect Tallahassee’s program because the city and county operate under separate jurisdictions.

The school-zone decision came during the same meeting in which commissioners unanimously moved against automated license plate readers on county property and rights-of-way. The two votes involved different technologies — school-zone cameras are designed to document speeding violations, while automated license plate readers collect plate information for law-enforcement purposes — but commissioners raised similar concerns about automated surveillance, due process and public trust.

Now the next question: What rules apply to political and social-media activity by a City employee during the workday?

Part 1 documented the timing: 225 of 343 comments — 65.6% — were posted between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. A review of Ray’s City timecards found dozens of comments during periods overlapping his documented City work schedule.

Part 2 examined the politics. NE Moderate repeatedly defended Matlow and Commissioner Jack Porter while criticizing Mayor John Dailey and Commissioners Curtis Richardson and Dianne Williams-Cox. Some comments went beyond policy disputes and addressed elections — advocating against candidates or discussing their prospects for winning or losing.

Florida Law: No Campaigning “While on Duty”

Florida law makes an important distinction between political activity conducted on an employee’s own time and political activity while working. Section 104.31(2), Florida Statutes, states: “An employee of the state or any political subdivision may not participate in any political campaign for an elective office while on duty.”

A violation is a first-degree misdemeanor.

But the statute also protects the political rights of government employees. Subsection (4) permits public employees to express opinions about candidates and issues and participate in political campaigns during off-duty hours, subject to other provisions of the law.

The law therefore does not prohibit Ray from supporting Matlow, Porter or other candidates, or criticizing Richardson, Williams-Cox or Dailey on his own time. The issue raised by the NE Moderate records is narrower: whether any of the anonymous activity constituted participation in an election campaign while Ray was on duty.

The distinction matters because some NE Moderate comments directly addressed elections.

On July 19, 2023, at 2:54 p.m., NE Moderate wrote about Richardson:

“Voted 3x to raise property taxes in 2023? No thanks Curtis.”

Ray’s City timecard shows his regular 8 a.m.-to-5 p.m. schedule that day.

Other posts predicted Richardson would “struggle and probably lose” and said a controversial City project would “help Curtis lose.”

Williams-Cox was also targeted. On Sept. 21, 2023, at 8:58 a.m., NE Moderate wrote that the same City controversy could “make sure Dianne is not viable for mayor in 2026.” Ray’s timecard shows a regular City workday on that date.

TR has not identified a Florida appellate decision specifically deciding whether anonymous comments on a news website advocating for or against a candidate constitute participation in a political campaign under Section 104.31.

And the timecards do not establish that every comment between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. was made while Ray was legally “on duty.” His records generally credit eight hours of work during a nine-hour span, indicating a meal period whose exact timing is not shown.

The records establish that the comments occurred during periods overlapping Ray’s recorded City workday. Determining whether individual comments were posted while he was legally “on duty” would require additional evidence gathered through an independent investigation.

A Recent Broward County Case

A recent Broward County case demonstrates how investigators have approached similar questions involving political activity, government working time and public resources.

Abiodun “Abbey” Ajayi was an operations manager in Broward County’s Records, Taxes and Treasury Division while running for the newly created elected position of Broward County Tax Collector in 2024. After Ajayi announced her candidacy, her supervisor specifically instructed her to keep campaign activities separate from her County employment.

The Broward Office of Inspector General later investigated.

Investigators reviewed Ajayi’s timecards, County email activity, campaign activity and two political podcast appearances conducted from her County office.

One podcast was recorded at approximately 10 a.m. on a Friday. Investigators determined Ajayi had not taken leave and was working her normal County schedule. During the program, she discussed her campaign and what she would do if elected.

A second podcast was recorded from her County office after working hours and included a solicitation for campaign contributions.

Investigators also determined Ajayi used her County email account for campaign-related matters 44 times.

The Broward OIG concluded that Ajayi had improperly mixed her campaign with her government employment and referred findings to other enforcement authorities. In January 2026, the OIG filed a formal administrative complaint. The matter was resolved in April 2026 when Ajayi admitted liability and agreed to pay a $4,000 fine.

The case is not identical to Ray’s situation.

Ajayi was herself a candidate and Broward County had specific rules governing County employees seeking office. Investigators also had evidence showing the use of County email, equipment and an office.

TR has not established that Ray used a City computer, City email account or City Internet connection to post the NE Moderate comments.

But the Broward investigation demonstrates the type of evidence used to answer such questions: timecards, leave records, electronic communications, devices, government facilities and the precise content and timing of the political activity.

Tallahassee Has Its Own Social-Media Policy

The City of Tallahassee also has rules governing employees’ personal social-media activity.

Administrative Policy 408 defines social media broadly, including blogs, message boards, online forums and news-media comment-sharing platforms — categories that could encompass comments posted on a news website.

The policy specifically addresses “City Employees — Personal Social Media Activity.” It states that employees using social media strictly for personal purposes outside the workplace do not need City approval.

However, it also states:

“Employees should limit time on personal Social Media accounts while at work.”

The policy goes further for City-related subjects. Employees are directed to consult the Department of Communications before discussing City-related matters through social-networking sites.

For employees whose City affiliation is publicly known, the policy says personal content should be appropriate to the public trust associated with their position. Employees are expected to be truthful, courteous and respectful and “shall not engage in name-calling or personal attacks or other such demeaning behavior.”

Those provisions are potentially relevant to NE Moderate.

The anonymous account repeatedly discussed City business, including taxes, the City Manager, police, development projects and actions taken by individual City commissioners. Some comments included disparaging descriptions of elected officials.

Whether Ray’s activity violated Policy 408 is ultimately a determination for the City. The policy’s statement that employees “should limit” personal social-media activity at work is also not the same as an absolute prohibition against all personal Internet use.

TPD Case Shows City Social-Media Rules Have Been Enforced

The City’s social-media restrictions are not merely theoretical. In 2020, Tallahassee Police Sgt. Gavin Larremore was investigated over a Facebook post he made concerning Black Lives Matter demonstrations and the City’s decision to paint a BLM mural near Gaines Street.

Larremore criticized the City’s support for the mural and referred to protesters as a “mob of thugs.”

Police Chief Lawrence Revell ordered an Internal Affairs investigation, saying he held TPD representatives to a high standard “whether on duty or off.”

The investigation substantiated violations of TPD’s social-media protocols and rules of conduct. Larremore received an 80-hour unpaid suspension, was demoted and was required to undergo counseling.

Larremore disputed the findings. He argued that the Facebook comments were made off duty, in a private capacity, and were protected by the First Amendment.

These actions demonstrate that the city of Tallahassee has previously investigated and disciplined an employee over personal social-media activity when officials determined the content violated applicable City and departmental standards.

The City’s current TPD social-media protocols continue to reference Administrative Policy 408 and state that officers are responsible for complying with social-media rules during official duties and, in specified circumstances, at other times as well.

Two Different Questions

The Ray records therefore raise two separate issues.

The first is time: Were comments advocating for or against candidates posted while Ray was legally on duty?

The second is resources and workplace conduct: Did Ray use City equipment, Internet access, accounts or working time to engage in the activity, and did the content comply with City social-media standards?

The IP-address records alone cannot answer the second question. An Internet address does not establish that a comment was posted from City Hall, through a City network or from a City-owned device.

But Florida law and Tallahassee’s own policies establish that the distinction between personal political activity and activity conducted as a government employee matters.

The Broward investigation shows how another Florida government examined that distinction by comparing political activity with timecards, leave records, government email and workplace resources.

And Tallahassee’s handling of the Larremore case demonstrates that the City has previously investigated personal social-media activity by an employee and imposed discipline after determining applicable policies had been violated.

The remaining question in the NE Moderate investigation is therefore increasingly specific:

Were Ray’s anonymous political activities simply protected personal political speech — or did activity occur while he was performing his taxpayer-funded City job or under circumstances governed by City workplace rules?