The ongoing disagreement between the Escambia Children’s Trust (ECT) and the Escambia County Commission has continued to escalate since late 2023, centering on whether the Trust should contribute tax increment revenues to the county’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) districts and how those funds should be used.
The Commissioners have asked ECT Executive Director Lindsey Cannon to return on July 10 with an interlocal agreement addressing all past-due and current CRA funds.
Origins of the Escambia Children’s Trust
The Escambia Children’s Trust was established by voter referendum in 2020, creating a special property tax to fund children’s services throughout Escambia County. Voters approved the Trust with the understanding that its funds would directly support programs and services benefiting children in the county.
The Legal Framework
At the heart of this dispute lies conflicting Florida statutes. Under state law, special taxing districts like ECT must contribute a portion of their revenues (tax increment funds) to Community Redevelopment Agency districts, which are designated to address blight and promote redevelopment in specific areas. However, the Trust also operates under a mandate to use its funds specifically for children’s services.
Early Warning Signs: December 2023
The first public indication of the issue came in December 2023 during ECT’s executive director search. While interviewing for the position, candidate Walker Wilson pointed out that ECT owed over a million dollars to County and City CRAs and needed to adjust its budget accordingly. Wilson noted that other special districts, like the Downtown Improvement Board, had been paying into the CRA as required. Despite this warning, the ECT board voted 6-3 to hire Lindsey Cannon as executive director instead.
The Exemption Request: September 2024
By September 2024, the issue had reached a critical point. The Escambia County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a public hearing to consider ECT’s formal request for an exemption from the statutory obligation to contribute to CRAs. The Trust argued that its funds should be used directly for children’s programs rather than general CRA infrastructure projects.
The BOCC denied the exemption and required ECT to pay $1,134,025 in outstanding increment revenues for tax years 2021, 2022, and 2023. While they waived penalties and interest, commissioners insisted on payment, with $400,000 from the Montclair CRA already allocated to the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office for security cameras.
Partial Payment and Delay: October 2024
In October 2024, the ECT board decided to only partially comply with the county’s demand. After a 50-minute discussion and consultation with their attorney, the board voted to pay only the incremental value for 2023 ($443,341) while refusing to pay the $690,684 owed for 2021 and 2022. Instead, they sought to negotiate an interlocal agreement with the county.
ECT Executive Director Lindsey Cannon sent a letter to the county commission requesting “specific examples of how the approved community redevelopment plans will benefit and have benefited, the purpose for which the special districts were created.” She also offered to meet privately with each commissioner to discuss how Trust funds were being used in their districts.
County Commission Response: November 2024
The confrontation intensified at the Nov. 7, 2024 county commission meeting. Commissioner Lumon May, who also serves on the Trust board, presented ECT’s request to negotiate an interlocal agreement similar to what Pensacola Mayor D.C. Reeves had mentioned for city CRAs.
Commission Chair Mike Kohler strongly opposed the idea, expressing concern about District 2’s lack of representation on the Trust board and arguing that his district’s needs weren’t being adequately addressed. “I have a problem with it because I know I have some really poor areas in District 2, and I don’t think they’re getting represented at all.”
The debate highlighted fundamental differences in philosophy:
- ECT Position: The Trust argued that, as a voter-approved entity for children’s services, it should direct how CRA funds are spent on children’s programming within those districts.
- County Position: Commissioners, particularly Kohler, insisted that the county’s Neighborhood Services department should control CRA funds to address infrastructure needs in low-income areas, including sidewalks, lighting, and security cameras.
County Attorney Alison Rogers clarified the legal distinction: If the county retained the money, it could only be spent on infrastructure within CRAs, not on programming. If the Trust controlled the funds, they could provide programming but would not legally be required to spend it within the CRA geographical areas.
Despite attempts by Commissioners Barry and May to delay the collection of the remaining funds to work out an interlocal agreement, Kohler remained firm: “Another layer of government not going directly through our Neighborhood Services, where I can go talk to him, I’m not interested in it. It’s 5%, and I’ve committed the sheriff; he wants ‘em.”
The meeting adjourned without resolution, but with the county position firmly established: they expected payment of the full $690,684 for 2021 and 2022.
Dramatic Escalation: May 2025
By May 2025, the dispute had escalated further. The ECT board requested an exemption for the current fiscal year’s tax ($495,157.18), leading to another contentious debate at the county commission meeting.
In a dramatic turn, Chair Mike Kohler suggested putting the Escambia Children’s Trust back on the ballot, questioning whether voters still supported the tax-funded entity. He asked County Attorney Rogers, “Is there a way for us to put this back on the ballot in 2026 as a referendum to see if the people actually want it?”
Rogers explained that the Trust had been granted 10 years of taxing authority by voters, outlining three possible ways to revisit its existence:
- Allow it to reach its natural end after 10 years
- Have the state legislature pass a special act to dissolve it
- Pass a county ordinance to dissolve it, contingent upon voter approval in a referendum
The Central Conflict: Public Safety vs. Children’s Programs
The heart of the disagreement became clearer during this meeting. ECT leadership maintained that using children’s tax dollars for infrastructure like security cameras and streetlights violated both the spirit of the voter-approved Trust and statutory requirements that funds be used for children’s services.
Cannon explained, “The entirety of that money went to infrastructure, which is not what the citizens voted on when they voted.”
Kohler countered that state statute entitled the county to use the funds for CRAs, emphasizing the need for public safety measures in low-income communities: “I believe in public safety. I think it’s pivotal. I think it’s part of Maslow’s hierarchy.”
The Compromise Proposal
Commissioner Lumon May attempted to bridge the divide by proposing that funds go directly to youth programs rather than infrastructure. He argued that dividing CRA money among nine districts would result in insufficient funds for meaningful infrastructure projects but could make a significant impact if directed toward youth programming.
Budget Director Stephan Hall provided specific breakdowns of how the $495,000 would be distributed among nine CRAs if the waiver was denied, with amounts ranging from $27,000 to $104,000 per district.
Current Status and Future Implications
After extensive debate, the commissioners voted unanimously to continue the matter to their July 10 meeting, giving the Children’s Trust time to develop an interlocal agreement covering three years of funding for summer youth programs.
Chair Kohler concluded, “Let’s make a motion to continue this to the July 10th meeting. At that time, hopefully, we will have an interlocal that will support three years of summer youth programs.”
Despite the contentious nature of the discussion, both sides expressed a desire to work together to benefit children in Escambia County, though with different perspectives on how best to accomplish that goal.
The possibility of a future referendum on the Trust’s existence now looms as an additional consideration for all parties, potentially threatening the future of the voter-approved entity if a resolution cannot be reached.
