On Monday afternoon, Escambia Children’s Trust executive director Tammy Greer sent a double-edged follow-up email recarding proposed Children’s Resource Center.
At the meeting, the City of Pensacola, Lakeview Center, and Community Health Northwest Florida were told it was illegal for the ECT to give funds to the City to purchase a building for a Children’s Resource Center (CRC). Read more.
- The board voted unanimously to request a legal opinion from Attorney General Ashley Moody.
Since the meeting, Mayor D.C. Reeves has publicly said that the felt the ECT staff, which includes Greer, had misled him and all those who have worked on the CRC proposal. Read more.
Takeaways from Greer email
1. The AG opinion will take several months.
- Greer wrote, “I will keep you updated as the AG opinion request progresses.”
2. Greer believes a “great proposal was submitted, and she supports the “idea of a resource family center, particularly when implemented with fidelity to the model.” Note: You judge whether the email’s words actually support her claim here.
3. Greers wrote that her concerns are of “no consequence as all funding decisions are up to the Board.”
———
4. However, she asked the City of Pensacola, Lakeview Center, and Community Health Northwest Florida to address four concerns she would like any “future proposal iteration” to address:
a) Services in a facility funded by ECT must be for Escambia County children only.
b) The building would serve children and families in perpetuity and would not sell it for a profit in a few years.
c) She wants to know the new and additional services that would be offered.
5. Greer attacks the proposal on two fronts, all of which should have been brought up early in the discussion process that began in late December 2022
a) Does the CRC proposal meet the definition of sole source? Should do a Request for Proposals?
b) The original campaign promised no funds to buy buildings, and this purchase would spend “roughly a third of our annual revenue.” Note: Greer ignores the Trust had a $8.2 million carryover from its first fiscal year.
6. And she throws out this question:
“Just out of curiosity, would the providers be open to having the Trust buy and own the building if we can’t fund the City to buy it?”
The email:
Good afternoon everyone,
I’m sure you are all aware of the outcome of the ECT Board meeting on August 8th at which there was still confusion as to whether or not our agency is legally allowed to give money to another entity to purchase a building. The Board directed our legal counsel, Meredith Bush, Esq., to solicit an Attorney General opinion on the matter because there is so much disagreement on the legality of it. Please note that it could take several months to receive an opinion. I will keep you posted along the way.
As I stated previously, I believe you submitted a great proposal. I support the idea of a family resource center, particularly when implemented with fidelity to the model. My concerns – which are of no consequence as all funding decisions are up to the Board – are as follows, in case you wish to address them in a future proposal iteration:
*Services in a facility funded by ECT must be for Escambia County children only.
*I do not know if we could hold the City accountable for any programming outcomes or impact as we would be funding a building, not the services rendered.
*The ECT would not have any control over the mix of services on an ongoing basis. Per our legal counsel, the contract would need assurances to ensure the building continued to serve children and families in perpetuity and that the City would not sell it for a profit in a few years.
*I was initially under the impression this would be a joint effort among the City, the County, and the Trust. I don’t know if it meets the definition of sole source anymore with it under only the City. Technically, any other city or municipality could propose to buy a building for a center, so we may need an RFI and/or an ITB if the Attorney General opines that we are allowed to award funding for a building that the Trust would not own. This was noticed only after discussions around our sole-source policy and the application of the definition of ‘sole source.’
*When we initially talked at the first and second meetings, I had not seen a proposal and assumed this would be new/additional services to more children. It now appears this represents the same services being served in a different, yet central, location. The services are being moved but not necessarily expanded. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding that. The purpose of the ECT is to expand, not supplant, services, so the comparison would be helpful.
*With the entire ask coming to the Trust and no part to the County or City, it represents roughly a third of our annual revenue. It’s not my money, and I have no skin in the game. I just want to be very clear that we’d be spending nearly $3M on a building as opposed to services. As Jim Little from PNJ found, the original campaign promised that no funds would be used to purchase buildings.
*Just out of curiosity, would the providers be open to having the Trust buy and own the building if we can’t fund the City to buy it?
Again, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort you put into the proposal and apologize that this has been such an arduous process. Please bear with us as we work through this. I do believe a central resource center for families is a terrific project, if done with fidelity to the evidence-based model. I will keep you updated as the AG opinion request progresses. Meanwhile, have a safe, cool, peaceful week. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Warm regards,
Tammy
