TEMPLE TERRACE — Five people are running for three seats on the Temple Terrace City Council, and the Oct. 13 candidate forum at the Omar K. Lightfoot Senior Center offered voters an opportunity to learn more about them.
But did it?
The candidates — current council member Alison Fernandez, Ryan Gessman, Karen Michalski, Eugene Papantoniou and Amber Treat — answered questions submitted by residents and selected randomly from a raffle drum. Each had two minutes to respond, with no follow-ups or opportunities to debate one another.
It was an orderly and fair process, but one that arguably favored the incumbent, who faced zero scrutiny of her 12-year council record. And it wasn’t always particularly informative.
Here are 10 observations from the evening:
1. Everyone loves Temple Terrace.
That much was abundantly clear. The candidates spoke warmly about the city’s neighborhoods, trees, river, schools, community organizations and small-town vibes.
Of course they would, however. Each candidate had three minutes for an introduction, followed later by a question about their connections to Temple Terrace, and finally another three minutes for closing remarks.
That’s about 40 minutes devoted to biographies, community involvement and what makes Temple Terrace special.
Those things matter, particularly in a local election. But at the forum, they took up too much of the conversation.
More interesting would have been hearing what each candidate doesn’t like about Temple Terrace, what needs improving, and what they would do about it.
2. Space between the candidates was slim
When five people generally agree on a subject, hearing five versions of the same answer doesn’t necessarily tell voters very much.
Consider the water question. Asked how they would build public confidence in the city’s PFAS response, the candidates converged: be transparent, hold town halls, praise city staff, note that the water meets current standards.
Asked about the role of a council member, nearly everyone said some version of citizen “liaison” or “board of directors.”
Asked how they would find the time for the job, almost everyone said their work schedule is flexible. Asked how they handle conflict, they said they listen.
At times, those answering last seemed to have little left to add, other than rearranging the words of those who had gone before them.
Ironically, they were also asked a question about how they would handle conflict with a co-worker, at a forum whose format went out of the way to prevent any disagreement from emerging.
If all five agree on everything — which is probably not true — voters are left to choose a candidate based on who gives the best speech or wears the snappiest outfit.
3. Scrap the basket
Drawing questions submitted by residents randomly from a raffle basket is not the way to go.
The questions were, for the most part, repetitive, trivial, predictable and too broad to produce revealing answers.
The forum would have been better served by picking through the questions for the best ones, and maybe even mixing in a few from the crowd. There were only 35 or so people there, but they took the time to show up, let a few of them ask a question.
After nearly two hours, we learned little about what candidates thought of downtown redevelopment, traffic, parks, the golf course, local schools or their long-term vision for Temple Terrace.
But we do know how each candidate resolves differences of opinion with co-workers.
4. Amendment 3
The property tax amendment, if it passes, could significantly affect the city’s property-tax revenue by millions of dollars, and produced some of the night’s clearest differences.
Michalski said she would avoid cutting services and instead raise fees to make up for the loss of funds. Papantoniou argued that fees alone wouldn’t cover the projected shortfall and that strategic cuts might be necessary.
Fernandez, the incumbent and only candidate who has voted on a city budget, said she couldn’t commit to either approach without knowing more about the city’s needs and finances.
Three different approaches. But again, the format fell short. What fees would Michalski consider raising? Which services would Papantoniou consider cutting? Which priorities would guide any decision Fernandez made?
Considering the potential financial consequences, a deeper discussion of Amendment 3 would have been among the most valuable things the forum could have offered.
5. Reluctant yes on possible tax increase
Asked later whether they would consider raising the city’s millage rate if Amendment 3 passes, all five candidates answered yes.
Most qualified their answers, however, describing a tax increase as a “last resort.”
Still, voters learned something. None of the five ruled out a property-tax rate increase under those circumstances.
That was the night’s most meaningful position, and perhaps the clearest takeaway from the forum.
6. Annexation
When it comes to annexation and what the city should do to entice property owners to ask for inclusion into the city, Michalski said the city was already attractive enough without additional incentives.
Gessman and Papantoniou favored performance-based incentives tied to jobs and investment, while Fernandez preferred evaluation proposals individually.
Those were some clear differences in philosophy about how the city should encourage growth, but the format did not allow for any further discussion.
7. Temple Terrace needs more diversity…or does it?
A question about encouraging greater diversity among city businesses was, well, interesting.
Diversity of what, exactly?
Business types? Ownership? Restaurants? Retail?
Temple Terrace already has an impressive assortment of international restaurants. You can practically throw a dart at a world map and find a restaurant serving food where it lands.
Papantoniou recognized the ambiguity, distinguishing between types of business and the backgrounds of business owners. Treat talked about encouraging women-owned and Black-owned businesses.
Others suggested open houses, rezoning, economic incentives and small-business incubators.
Some good ideas, perhaps.
Maybe the question was about the types of businesses Temple Terrace attracts. Maybe it was about who owns them. Maybe it was about both. Either way, the question was ambiguous enough on its surface, and a little clarification could have produced a much more interesting discussion.
8. Five candidates, five more questions
Asking each candidate the same question actually did them a disservice.
Why not ask Fernandez, who has served 12 years on the council, what she considers her most important accomplishment, and what she still hasn’t been able to get done?
Why not ask Gessman, who showed flashes of a sense of humor, about his background in entrepreneurship, project management and economic development and how that might dictate how he operates on the council?
Why not ask Michalski, who ran in 2024 and only fell short by 198 votes, what she has learned in the two years since and if she feels more prepared as a candidate?
Why not ask Papantoniou, a political newcomer who brought an energetic presence to the forum, what motivated him to enter the race?
Why not ask Treat how her experiences volunteering and working on the city’s Board of Adjustment has helped trigger her interest in government work?
Five people are on the ballot, two will lose, and the forum gave no clear reason to pick one over another. Those questions might have helped.
9. Do your own research
Thankfully a good many folks at the forum were there early for the meet and greet, and maybe had some of their pressing questions answered in one-on-one situations.
For those still seeking answers and deciding who to vote for, tune in to the forum on the city’s YouTube channel.
And if you need more information, visit the websites of the candidates at
Alison Fernandez: VoteAlison.comKaren Michalski: ElectKarenMichalski.comRyan Gessman: Gessman4TTCC.comAmber Treat: VoteAmberTreat.comEugene Papantoniou: EugeneForTT.com
10. Early voting starts Oct. 19. Do it. Go vote.