26-page arrest affidavit details city’s response and Mayor’s reaction
Arrested Kissimmee Mayor Jackie Espinosa, who was picked up by Florida Department of Law Enforcement agents on Wednesday of last week near her home off Neptune Road and arrested on felony charges of grand theft and organized scheme to defraud, left the Osceola County Jail about 34 hours later, freed on a $70,000 bond.
While leaving the jail Thursday, she told a throng of TV reporters, “What I want everyone to know is what happened to me requires everyone to go vote November 3rd. And, to the constituents of Kissimmee: we will be okay.”
The charges stem from an FDLE investigation into three local businesses run by Espinosa’s family, but owned in part by her, receiving federal COVID-19 recovery funds issued to the city through the “Business Boost 2.0” grant program.
“Mayor Espinosa allegedly played a major role in creating, promoting, and voting on the program while acting as mayor. Immediately after the establishment of the program, Mayor Espinosa and prohibited family members per Florida’s ethics law allegedly applied for and received $50,000 worth of grant funds,” a 26page arrest affidavit says, facts widely reported over the course of 2026.
Espinosa has a scheduled court date of Dec. 1 for a pretrial hearing; it will only be her legal team in attendance as Espinosa has already filed to waive her appearance.
Espinosa’s post-release statement could refer to state officials like Attorney General James Uthmeier and Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia, who held a press conference in Orlando hours after the arrest—both are up for re-election on the Nov. 3 general election ballot.
The state Department of Financial Services (DFS) conducted an audit of the city’s use of COVID-19 related funds, which turned up their possible misuse by t he mayor and her family, which in turn led to Ingoglia’s office turning over its facts to the FDLE. That department began its criminal investigation in June, the charging documents show.
Other case documents show that the arrest warrant was signed on Tuesday, Oct. 20, and, interestingly, the legal notice that the Office of Statewide Prosecution is the prosecuting authority representing the state, was filed on the 21st but dated on the 22nd; the day after the arrest was made. (There has been no reply to an email to the Attorney General’s office about the discrepancy.)
At a separate event Thursday in Polk County, Uthmeier dismissed any notion about the timing of the arrest being political, rather than legal.
“I don’t control when a judge signs an arrest warrant,” he told media.
One official who has not sounded off regarding Espinosa’s arrest, and what would follow, is Gov. Ron DeSantis. State Statute 112.51(2) gives the governor sole power to, “Suspend from office any elected municipal officer who is indicted or informed against for the commission of a state felony or misdemeanor.”
In 2025, DeSantis removed then-Osceola County Sheriff Marcos Lopez the same day he was arrested on racketeering charges in relation to his role in allowing an illegal gambling hall to operate. In 2024, he removed Orlando city commissioner Regina Hill four days after she was indicted on felony charges of exploitation of the elderly, fraud, mortgage fraud and scheme to defraud. That order came hours before the City Commission’s next meeting.
(Should he take that same action in Kissimmee, the city’s next meeting is Tuesday evening, Nov. 3—which is also Election Day. As of the press deadline for this issue, DeSantis had made no order.)
The charging affidavit states that FDLE began its criminal investigation on June 16, after receiving the audit information from DFS. FDLE interviewed several city officials over the summer, including Former City Attorney Olga Sanchez de Fuentes. After discovering three businesses owned by Espinosa family members received grant funds, she alerted City Manager Mike Steigerwald and the mayor on Dec. 5, 2025, three months after the application process began and two months after funds were dispersed that those companies accepting them violated a state statute. In response, Espinosa “told her that she did not agree with the decision and should be able to receive the benefit just like any other business owner.”
When Steigerwald recommended Espinosa return the money and issue a statement, she said that “if she needed to spend $100,000 to prove her point and create a new precedent, then she would,” according to the FDLE report.
Interviewed nearly six months after Espinosa made a motion at the Feb. 3, 2026 Commission meeting to terminate Sanchez de Fuentes that passed 3-1, the former attorney said her office was not consulted “by any city employee or public official about how the program could be carried out or if public officials could accept grant funds through the program.”
“Sanchez De Fuentes said that it was abnormal for legal to be omitted from that process and historically legal had been very involved with the process of creating previous grant programs … Sanchez De Fuentes speculated that the ARPA funds were handled differently because there were no check and balance mechanisms in place for the city to verify the funds were being used appropriately.”
She told investigators Kissimmee’s Economic Development Department’s staff was tasked with creating the program, much like the original “Business Boost” small business assistance program in 2021 under its former leadership, and ultimately approving or denying applications. According to the affidavit, one member of that staff noticed that Mayor Espinosa applied for grant funds, and emailed her boss, Economic Development Director David Rodriguez.
Yolanda Claudio noted on Sept. 17, 2025, just days after applications came in from Adanse LLC, the Kissimmee Diner, and the Real Estate Gallery, “I noticed she submitted an application for each business she has … and need to ensure it’s not a conflict of interest.”
Rodriguez replied: “Per program rules, owners of multiple businesses, all independent of each other and operating from different addresses (all located within the City of Kissimmee limits), can apply separately, one grant per business.”
In the report, the FDLE Investigator Jackson Athaide noted Claudio said during an interview that “the applications stood out to (her) as unethical.”
In his interview with FDLE, Rodriguez said he and Claudio were the only people reviewing applications.
“If hardship was proven by the applicant and they met the requirements, Director Rodriguez would then approve the application,” the report said.
When Rodriguez was asked to explain what happened when they received applications from Mayor Espinosa’s personal and family-owned businesses for grant funds, he said the applications from the mayor came in early in the process.
“Rodriguez claimed that he reviewed them personally because he did not have any specific criteria that prevented her from applying. Director Rodriguez claimed there was no conflict-of-interest guideline in the program itself, so he approved them.
“Soon after Director Rodriguez had processed the mayor’s application, he was made aware of a public records request related to Mayor Espinosa’s submission. Upon receiving the request, he claimed to have asked the city attorney if there was anything special he needed to do in order to comply with the request because it involved a sitting commission member.”
That, and public records requests from multiple residents regarding the Mayor’s companies receiving the grant funds, started the series of events involving Espinosa, Rodriguez and his department, Steigerwald, Sanchez de Fuentes that led to the attorney’s firing, complaints filed at the state level, the DFS audit and FDLE investigation.
So what made this all illegal? FDLE agent Athaide concluded Espinosa received grant funds when she claimed 100% ownership of Adanse LLC. Furthermore, her husband would still be prevented from receiving grant funds due to his relationship as spouse to the mayor, according to Florida Statute 112.313.
“Mayor Espinosa claimed that she was also entitled to the relief funds and chose not to take any corrective action … Espinosa acknowledged and understood the legal argument against her being able to receive grant funds based on the ethical rules outlined in F.S.S. 112.313 but refused to comply with or return the funds because she disagreed with the legal opinion.”
