Last Thursday, the Escambia Children’s Trust asked the Board of County Commissioners to negotiate an interlocal agreement on how to spend the CRA dollars given to them. At stake was $690,684 of Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) dollars that the Trust refused to pay at its last board meeting.
- The total bill was $1,134,025, but the ECT board only authorized payment of tax increment revenues owed for the 2023 tax year in the principal amount of $443,341.00. The board declined to approve payment of the $690,684 owed for the 2021 and 2022 tax years into the county’s nine CRA districts.
Commissioner Lumon May, who serves on the Trust board, presented the request at the end of the commission’s Nov. 7 meeting. Citing Mayor Reeve’s announced intention to develop an interlocal with the Trust, May said, “We’re seeking to allow for our administrator and our attorney to work with the Children’s Trust to work out an interlocal…with monitoring and measurements and working with the children of Escambia County.”
District 2 Commissioner Mike Kohler pushed back. “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. And I’m going to put that out there. That’s why I have a problem with it. I told you that Lindsay when we sat down and I asked to come up with a plan. Neighborhood Services put a plan together and out of the 330,000 folks, the majority of it’s in the city. Commissioner May may have no problem with that, but that does not represent–I don’t even think Commissioner Bergosh has one program in his district, and I think you have one, Commissioner Barry. That’s not equitable.”
He complained that District 2 had no representation on the Trust board. “That may be my fault. I don’t know, but the bottom line is there’s no representation. And when I got the only failing school in Escambia County in Pleasant Grove… I’m having a hard time getting there, man.”
May understand Kohler’s argument. “Mike, I concur with you…Listen, I don’t have a middle school in District 3. I have the highest crime in District 3 … And so I’ve said this publicly in Children’s Trust meetings, the very children that we utilized for the collateral material, particularly black and brown children from the inner city– whether it be your inner city, of my inner city–quite frankly is how we passed the tax. As soon as the tax was passed, it became for all children. And you know what it is for all children, but you have to have a starting point somewhere. And quite frankly, I believe that we have to go to where the greatest need is. I think this is an opportunity to have further discussion.”
Kohler responded, “We’re only asking for 5% for Neighborhood Services. We’re not asking for 90%. I went back and looked at the numbers. You guys (addressing Trust Executive Director Lindsey Cannon) can still do all that with the other 95%. The sheriff wanted the money for cameras, and I supported the sheriff on that.”
- Commissioner May softened his stance, “If we can’t come to a resolution of an interlocal, then I think that we do reserve the right to make sure that our CRAs are safe because I do believe that if kids don’t have sidewalks to walk to school, if they don’t have cameras for their safety, if they can’t walk to parks, if they don’t have lights, then none of these programs are any good.”
But he added that he wanted to avoid litigation. “But I think that there’s an opportunity for us to work together to make that happen. And this is an olive branch between the Children’s Trust and the county, in my opinion, to be able to work together.”
District 4 Commissioner Ashley Hofberger asked, “Would an interlocal agreement allow us to work with you to lay out priorities district by district?”
Cannon said, “Yes, interlocal agreements that have happened in other areas of the state are typically the way that you manage this situation. We have two statutes. You don’t know which one supersedes which. So this is the way you work through that is an interlocal agreement, and so it can be done a variety of ways. They have ones that say, take all of this money and make sure that you put it towards some sort of children’s service within this particular area. And it can be all of it or it can be some of it. When you break it out over nine CRAs, you’re talking $443,000, some’s going to get a hundred thousand, some are going to get, I don’t know, $800, $900.”
May said, “And so to me, actually, that money has a state within those geographical areas (CRA districts) because that’s what it’s identified for whether we allocate or whether we allow for the Trust to allocate it. But in my opinion, Ashley, if you’re asking the question for my vote as we’re waiting on a precedent from the city is that how do we identify those priorities, work with the Trust and then allow for the Trust to help us manage where those dollars are going.”
“There’s competing statutes related to how we can spend those dollars, and our obligation is to spend them on children’s services, and so there’s a fine line for us,” Cannon responded. “We’re wanting to do the right thing. We’re not trying to be argumentative. We want to work in partnership, but we do have a conflict that we want to work through. The way other Trusts in their counties or their cities have worked through this problem has been an interlocal agreement where you’re able to say I get a hundred thousand let’s say in the Warrington CRA. I’d like you to find, I don’t know whether it’s afterschool youth employment, whatever it is, you can direct it, but we’re still the ones that manage it for you.”
Kohler said, “I don’t know if I need someone else managing (CRA dollars). I already have Neighborhood Services.” The commissioner asked County Attorney Alison Rogers, “Is there a difference in the statutes that she’s saying between what we can do and what they’re saying?”
“Yes, so if the board has the money, it is going to have to be obligated to the CRAs that it was accrued from, and CRAs have very specific uses that you’re allowed to spend that money on. Essentially, you cannot spend it on what I would call programming,” Rogers said. “So if the county has it and it goes into your CRA, you can spend it on things like sidewalks or playground equipment, but you can’t spend it on things like basketball teams and basketball jerseys. That’s more like programming. They (Trust) can spend money on that. They would not legally, in my opinion, be obligated to spend that money within the CRA geographical areas, but politically that may be if the board is willing to negotiate.”
Commissioner May said he would be most comfortable with the Trust using the CRA dollars for programs in the appropriate CRA district. Kohler argued that he didn’t see the need for another layer in the process and would not support an interlocal agreement giving the money to the Trust.
“Poor kids don’t get nice parks. Poor kids don’t get sidewalks. Poor kids don’t get to go to swim club. They don’t have a ride there. Poor kids don’t get to go to sailing with Satori (Foundation). I know because I tried to get ’em there,” said Kohler. “When we’re talking such a small amount of money out of the Children’s Trust to help the environment of kids walking through garbage from the Pines and try to make the environment better. I think the statute’s clear that we have the right to do it. I don’t need another layer. You (Trust) still have 95% of your funds coming in from all of the taxpayers in the county to do a lot of great things.”
The commmission had no interest backing off the demand for the $690,684. “I just don’t think it’s right.”
Barry and May tried delaying collecting the remaining dollars to give the county administrator and Rogers time to work out an interlocal to bring back to the BCC, but Kohler wasn’t interested.
“I’m going to make it simple for me,” he said. “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. He’s still got a lot of money to help all the kids that I have very little control over. All we get by statute legally is that we can put very little bit of that money into the poorest areas of our county.”
He continued, “I am actually not surprised you’re not asking us to take it–I’ll be honest, man–instead of fighting us because we’re talking about the poorest areas of Escambia County. I just can’t believe I’m having to defend this that hard. But anyways, I am for moving forward (with collection of the CRA funds).”
Commission Chair Steven Barry made one more attempt. “What about this, Mike? You’re very passionate about the issue, and I understand that and none of our districts are the same and we each have our challenges and you’ve articulated some of the challenges in District 2 very well. And with this issue, you’ve also made a very passionate plea for the action that the board took previously.”
He asked, “What if we, without undoing anything that the board did, give 90 days or 120 days to try to work out an interlocal agreement to have more communications. Commissioner May is our representative on the Children’s Trust. And I think regardless of the outcome of the discussion, I think the discussion that you and he have had tonight is very healthy. And it’s probably maybe informative somewhat both ways because it informs each of you about your positions that you may not have known previously. Commissioner May is very public on the Trust. He has to take part in meetings, but you and I don’t get to sit at that table, so it’s different. And without coming off of your position, but just allowing a bit more time that we take that action, and that seems like a reasonable outcome for a discussion tonight if you can live with that.”
Kohler replied, “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I get what you’re saying, and I’m walking on hot coals here, but only because I am a little upset because honestly, I’m surprised the statute allows for it. Why the board didn’t just automatically set that money aside for the CRAs? I find it exhausting that I have to plead for money for kids for 5%. Why do I have to come back for an interlocal agreement when I have a Neighborhood Services department that the statute allows?”
The discussion continued for another 15 minutes without resolution. Commissioner May said, “My commitment is I would like to see consensus on the board, but I’m not going to try to force a vote against my colleague.”
The meeting adjourned.
Lots of talk about a conflict of laws. The obvious solution is for the the County Attorney to ask the Florida Attorney General for an Advisory Legal Opinion. The request could address all the issues of the Escambia Children’s Trust, the Escambia County Community Redevelopment Agency and the Pensacola Community Redevelopment Agency. Such an “opinion” – and it would only be an opinion albeit far better than what we have now – would frame the legal issues and provide some greater legal certainty all parties still able to seek a ruling from the Court. Trying to avoid tackling the legal issues head-on seems a bad idea.