Over the last three days, campaign tactics by three of the candidates provided a look into how they plan to make their case to the voting public.

Walt McNeil

Mr. McNeil has been very blunt about his strategy. In his advertising, Mr. McNeil pushes the fact that Leon County has been number one in crime for the last two years. He also reminds voters that the incumbent, Sheriff Mike Wood, was appointed by a Republican governor. Over 53% of Leon County registered voters are Democrats, while 28% are Republicans.

Mr. McNeil advanced the crime-rate part of his argument again this past weekend by running an advertisement on Tallahassee.com which made potential voters aware of how the Leon County crime rate impacts the local economy.

Charlie Strickland

Mr. Strickland, who is running as a Republican, unveiled a campaign video of Machelle Campbell, former Sheriff Larry Campbell’s widow, endorsing Mr. Strickland for the position her husband held for 18 years.

Mr. Strickland, who sees the rare opportunity of winning an election running as a Republican in Leon County, is seeking to build support with moderate Democrats and independents. If he holds Republicans in his column, Strickland could win depending on how the other three Democrats split the remaining votes.

Sheriff Mike Wood

Mr. Wood announced the support of a number of elected leaders in a press conference on Monday. The elected leaders included City Commissioners Nancy Miller and Gil Ziffer and County Commissioners Jane Sauls, Mary Ann Lindley, and Bryan Desloge.

City Commissioner Gil Ziffer spoke at the press conference and said “We all agree that the job of safeguarding our community shouldn’t come down to the political party we most prefer but rather the person best equipped to do the job.”

TR talked to a a number of local politicos, who wished to remain anonymous, about this race, and specifically the Mike Wood endorsements. Here are their impressions.

A number of people felt this race could end up driving a wedge between blacks and whites in the local Democratic party. It was striking that not one black elected official from the city or county commissions came out to endorse Mike Wood.

“Wood has written off the black vote and the press conference was an attempt to appeal to white Democrats and Republicans,” said one consultant. “It was a bold move by candidate who understands the numbers.”

The experts found it shocking that elected Democrat leaders would publicly come out against McNeil. One consultant said, “they must really not like Walt McNeil.”

Another person thought it was hypocritical for these leaders to now be calling for non-partisanship in the Sheriff’s races when some of the elected leaders stoked partisan division to get elected.

A political expert said “this race is uncomfortable for a number of people in the community. Usually the Democrat establishment gets behind one candidate and others are discouraged against running to avoid public disagreements. Maddox leaving the Superintendent race made that race a lot easier, but this Sheriff’s race will create wounds that the local Democratic political establishment is not used to dealing with.”

And finally, one veteran political operative told TR ” Miller and Ziffer just guaranteed viable African-American opponents in their races in two years.”

Candidate Tommy Mills, who came close to defeating Larry Campbell four years ago, will be featured in future reports about the race.

Well, no need to call them now.

Ahead of the City Commission’s scheduled reconsideration of the vote tomorrow, leaders at FSU, FAMU, and TCC, have sent a letter to Mayor Gillum and the City Commissioners and their position is clear.

They said, “We were surprised when the City Commission voted in January to extend the establishments’ hours.  As committed community partners, we hope that you will take the opportunity to correct this error. ”

And they added, “We would like to make it clear – extending the closing time for these establishments sends a message to our students, and it is the wrong message.”

The letter, provided below, was signed by the Vice Presidents for Student Affairs of FSU, FAMU and TCC.

Back in January, Mayor Andrew Gillum, City Commissioners Nancy Miller and Curtis Richardson voted for the change, while City Commissioners Gil Ziffer and Scott Maddox voted against the proposal based on public safety concerns.

The three that voted in favor of the extended hours showed little concern about the public safety issues during the debate.

The letter was also signed by the Chiefs of Police of FSU, FAMU, and TCC.

TR  will have a report on the vote tomorrow.

The concessions came out of a meeting with the developer, the City and the representatives of the Killearn Homeowners Association.

The item had been delayed from a previous meeting after concern was raised over language in an agenda item that included references to a “development agreement” and the “comprehensive plan”.

Why such language just to demolish the Inn?

Suspect homeowners in the neighborhood felt that the developer was trying to clear the way for further development, not just razing the Inn. And emails obtained by TR, that were part of discovery in the ongoing court case, supported their concerns.

TR reviewed documents that indicate the developer is planning to build a 60 bed assisted living facility where the Inn is now located. In an email dated January 13, 2015, a real estate representative informed Barton Tuck, the golf course owner:

“Attached is the footprint for the memory care facility. They would have an interest in doing that and waiting out the deed restrictions to potentially do the apartments later.”

It is believed the “do the apartments later” refers to a proposed development on land where holes 7, 8 & 9 are now located.

Tallahassee Reports reached out to the Killearn Homeowners Association and a representative said he was not aware of the proposed development agreement.

After concerns were voiced, the City Commission delayed the item until after a meeting with interested parties.

In the end, the agenda item was cleared of the “development agreement” and “comprehensive plan” language and City Commissioners made it clear their vote only allowed the owner to demolish the Inn and did not afford him any new development rights.

In fact, the current zoning of the property would not allow the developer to build anything without the full approval of the City Commission after a number of public hearings.

However, Commissioner Gill Ziffer went one step further.

“I want everyone to know I will not vote for anything that changes the expectations that the current homeowners had when they bought a house on the golf course.”

The appellant and appellee are same-sex partners who married in Massachusetts in 2010 and subsequently relocated to Florida.  The couple separated in October 2013 and appellant filed for divorce in Florida in January 2014.  The parties voluntarily entered into a collaborative marital settlement agreement in March of 2014, and appellant filed an amended petition for dissolution seeking to have the agreement incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution.

In March, a Hillsborough County judge, citing Florida law that expressly provides that same-sex marriages will not be recognized in Florida, ruled against the same-sex couple seeking a divorce, setting up an appeal of the state law that bars same-sex marriage. More here.

On August 27th, the Second District Court of Appeal asked the Supreme Court of Florida to rule on the case because of “great public importance.”

On September 5, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction of the Shaw v. Shaw case pending before the Second District Court of Appeal as a question of great public importance and handed the case back to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings.

On September 10, 2014, the Second District Court of Appeal granted an order permitting the filing of an amicus curiae brief in support of recognizing the parties’ marriage and granting the appellant’s petition for divorce.

The following jurisdictions comprise the Florida governmental entities joining in the friend of the court brief: the City of Tampa, the City of St. Petersburg, the City of Orlando, the City of Miami Beach, the City of Wilton Manors, the Village of Biscayne Park, and Broward County.  The amici curiae brief was filed on October 10, 2014.

As the basis for their interest, the friends of the court, stated the following as to their identity and interest:

Amici are a broad cross section of Florida county and city governments that have individually resolved that marriage discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people is inimical to our citizens’ health and welfare, is detrimental to our efficiency and effectiveness as employers, and denies our taxpayers hard-earned tourism revenue at a time when we can least afford it.

The City agenda also noted the amici further elaborated on areas in which they have sought to prohibit discrimination against LGBT people in the community, including: prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations against lesbians and gay men within their jurisdictions; creating boards or committees to hear complaints of unlawful discrimination; establishing domestic partnership registries; providing benefits for domestic partners of their employees; and some requiring that their contractors provide equal benefits to domestic partner couples.

The issue will be addressed at the City Commission meeting to be held on November 12, 2014.

The City Commission appointed a citizen Ethics Advisory Panel (EAP) that first convened on November 8, 2012.  The EAP was charged with examining the various City policies, procedures and practices relating to ethics, financial disclosures, and transparency of the government.  The City Commission accepted the final EAP report on July 10, 2013.

On November 20^th, 2013, the City Commission adopted a number of the EAP recommendations. However, consensus could not be reached on a number of issues and Staff was directed to gather more information.

A review of the documents prepared for the upcoming meeting by Tallahassee Reports finds two important changes brought forward from the last meeting.

First, grandfathering of certain items related to elected officials was discussed in the prior workshop.  However the staff recommendation states that “based on consensus of the Commission from that workshop, none of the items addressed includes a grandfathering clause.” This means that once adopted, current elected officials will be required to follow the new rules.

The second change addresses the most controversial recommendation from the Ethics Advisory Panel and that is the creation of an Ethics Officer as an Appointed Official.

The Chairperson of the EAP, Martha Barnett, has stated previously that the appointed Ethics Officer was a crucial part of the recommendation. After much debate, the EAP voted 5-2 for an appointed Ethics Officer.

Back in November, 2013, during the first workshop, the City Staff recommended against the EAP recommendation of an Appointed Ethics Officer and instead offered that the Ethics Officer report to the City Auditor or another existing appointed official.

Since that time, the EAP recommendation has remained the same, however, the City Staff’s recommendation has changed.

Staff now recommends that City Commission “Authorize the City Attorney and City Auditor to jointly hire a full time Ethics Officer for the City of Tallahassee.”

Ms. Barnett has previously stated that she was not in favor of combining ethics responsibilities with the City Attorney’s office and recommended creating an appointed Ethics Officer and advisory board with responsibilities detailed in the city’s Charter.

Sources tell Tallahassee Reports that City Staff has been working with individual City Commissioners trying to come up with a proposal that will be accepted by the Commissioners that oppose the appointed Ethics Officer recommended by the EAP.

During the first workshop, only City Commissioner Gil Ziffer offered support for an appointed Ethics Officer. City Commissioner Gillum voiced support for an Ethics Officer under the authority of the City Auditor and City Commissioner Scott Maddox voiced support for an Ethics Officer under the authority of the City Attorney.

It appears the Staff recommendation is a combination of the two proposals supported by Commissioners Gillum and Maddox.

The rebate will go to CA Student Living, a developer from Chicago, Illinois that is proposing to develop 444 College Avenue, a mixed-use student residential development on approximately 2.6 acres of vacant land between College Avenue, Park Avenue and Macomb Street.

According to their website, CA Student Living is part of a real estate investment, development and management firm “focused exclusively on creating and maximizing value through real estate investments.” In September 2012, the company sold 15 student housing properties with 6,579 beds for a price of $627.0 million.

The CRA is composed of all City Commissioners and four County Commissioners. Those voting for the project included City Commissioners Nancy Miller, Andrew Gillum, and Gill Ziffer. County Commissioners voting for the project included Kristin Dozier, Mary Ann Lindley, and Nick Maddox. The lone vote against the tax rebate was County Commissioner Bill Proctor.

City Commissioner Scott Maddox and Mayor John Marks are on the CRA board but were not at the meeting.

County Commissioner Mary Ann Lindley started the discussion by saying that the project “is what the CRA is all about.”  She recommended that the CRA add approximately $400,000 to the staff recommendation of $1.2 million to bring the total tax rebate for the developer to $1.6 million.

Under Florida law, local governments are able to designate areas as Community Redevelopment Areas when certain conditions exist. Examples of conditions that can support the creation of a CRA are the presence of substandard or inadequate structures, a shortage of affordable housing, inadequate infrastructure, insufficient roadways, and inadequate parking.

County Commissioner Bill Proctor followed Commissioner Lindley by saying “This is not what the CRA is all about. This is cherry picking and not  fair to other property tax payers.”

The proposed project will consist of 219 residential units (a mix of studio; and one, two, three and four-bedroom units), with 583 beds, 11,903 square-feet of retail space, and a 309 space parking garage that will include 38 public/retail parking spaces.

Commissioner Proctor was concerned about the glut of student housing projects and how this project would effect other student housing property owners in the area.

Proctor asked CRA staff if they were aware of housing data that showed a decline in students at both FAMU and FSU coupled with a major increase in student housing over the lasts five years.

The staff said they were not aware of any such data.

Tallahassee Reports has been able to confirm that the current President of the Tallahassee Chamber of Commerce, Ed Murray, has been giving a presentation to business groups over the last three months that shows student enrollment at FAMU and  FSU is down by 1,000 students over the last five years. During this same five year period, over 8,000 student housing beds have been added to existing stock.

Given these facts, why subsidize student housing?

The response from CRA staff and some elected leaders is that the goal is to move students closer to FSU  to cut down on traffic issues. City Commissioner Gil Ziffer told Tallahassee Reports “we want students closer to the University.”

But at what cost to the taxpayer?

Shortly after the meeting, WCTV reporter Andy Alcock interviewed a local owner of 5 apartment complexes with 325 beds between downtown Tallahassee and the FSU campus.

Phoenix South owner Babara Bumgarner said that “in the last 4 or 5 years as all the new development has come in, it’s hurt all the local businesses. We’re paying our entire taxes and we’re not getting any kind of discount.”

The $1.6 million tax rebate for the developer is being subsidized by City and County property tax payers, this include Ms. Bumgarner, the developers competition.

The preliminary $854 million budget included a General Fund deficit, but the final proposal addressed the deficit through a $2.3 million property tax increase, a $2 million increase in the electric utility transfer, and a $3 million one-time transfer from the Capital Improvement program.

This approach was not popular with some City Commissioners.

City Commissioner and Mayoral candidate Andrew Gillum asked if there was “an alternative budget.” He repeatedly voiced concerns about the additional $2 million that was added to the current $23.9 million electric utility transfer.

“I am a little surprised by the lack of justification for the electric utility transfer. This proposal did not go through the Financial Viability Committee”, said Gillum.

City Commissioner Gil Ziffer said “if we can do anything at all to avoid increasing the electric utility fund transfer I would like to see it.”

City Commissioner Maddox, who voiced concern about the property tax increase, seemed to have less problem with using funds form the electric utility reserve.

Using input from the budget workshops, which were attended by approximately 100 citizens, staff told city commissioners that the feedback from the community was to maintain or increase the level of services. Mayor Marks concurred, “we need to identify service impacts of changing the proposed budget. We are doing a good job.”

City Manager Thompson told city commissioners that service levels are being degraded in several departments due to the lack of funding. With regards to law enforcement, City Manager Anita Favors Thompson offered that “we are so far under required staff levels. Our staffing does not provide adequate back up.”

To support this point, staff handed out a document that indicated spending on city operations over the last five years has decreased from $730 million in 2008 to $685 million in 2013.

Reviewing the document, City Commissioner Nancy Miller said, “we can only be in a holding pattern so long.”

Tallahassee Reports is reviewing the document handed out by city staff and will have a report  on the spending analysis.

The next budget workshop is July 1, 2013.

Commissioner Gil Ziffer asked the city manager to look into the issue.

One week later, it is clear that Dr. Jackson has the facts on his side. Tallahassee Reports talked to staff in the electric utility department and verified that some citizens are exempt from sales tax on electricity. But here is the problem. To receive the exemption you must fill out a form and send it to the city. Also, the city, per state law, will only refund the collected sales tax for the last three years.

Dr. Jackson is upset that he had to pay a 50% commission to a company out of Atlanta to find out about the exemption he was due. “Why isn’t our own utility helping out the citizens?”  Now Mr. Jackson wants everybody to know they may be due a refund. He also wants the city to give back refunds for more than three years.

“It is unbelievable that the electric utility department has not been proactive in helping citizens and small business owners keep as much of their money as possible during this tough economic times,” said Dr. Jackson.

Dr. Jackson plans on making another presentation at the next city commission meeting on April 10, 2013.

The federal grant won by the city of Tallahassee was part of a program administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) with the goal to expand access to broadband services in the United States. The federal government provided $4.7 billion to NTIA to establish the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) to increase broadband access and adoption; provide broadband training and support to schools, libraries, healthcare providers, and other organizations; improve broadband access to public safety agencies; and stimulate demand for broadband.

The federal grant was secured by an application written and submitted to the NTIA by Carrie Blanchard, on March 13, 2010. At the time, she was the chief aide to Mayor John Marks.

After talking to sources, it has been determined that several documents have been turned over to the FBI because of concern about the relationship between Mayor John Marks and the vendors included in the grant application.

Sources indicate there are primarily three concerns. First it appears that the two vendors, Alliance Digital for Equality and Go Beyond were included in the grant application, which originated in the Mayor’s office, without a competitive bid process.

Second, Mayor Marks serves on the board of Alliance Digital for Equality and has received approximately $66,000 in compensation since 2007. And finally, Mayor Marks, on September 15, 2010, voted to partner with ADE without abstaining or disclosing his financial relationship with ADE.

On September 16, 2010 John Marks accepted the federal grant by signing a US Department of Commerce document that obligated the signer to follow specific federal rules. The federal rules the Mayor agreed to follow address how vendors are selected and the existence of potential conflicts of interest.

The federal rules state “all procurement transactions will be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition.” Sources indicate that no open competition existed for the awards given to Go Beyond and ADE. A search of Commission records revealed no evidence of a request for proposal addressing the program.

With regard to conflicts of interest, federal rules state the following:

“No employee, officer or agent of the grantee…shall participate in selection, or in the award or administration of a contract supported by Federal funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when the employee, officer or agent….has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for award.”

Federal tax filings list Mayor Marks as an Alliance for Digital Equality board member and show that Mayor Marks was paid $19,000 in 2007, $24,000 in 2008 and $23,000 in 2009. The Alliance for Digital Equality website currently lists Mayor Marks as a member of their board of advisors. Sources tell Tallahassee Reports that Mayor Marks did receive payments from ADE in 2010.

Tallahassee Reports will post supporting documents related to this story on March 29^th at 4:00 pm.

UPDATE: 1:20PM EST
More on this can be seen in a video posted on WCTV. Watch it here.