In a dramatic turn during yesterday’s Escambia County Commission meeting, Chair Mike Kohler suggested putting the Escambia Children’s Trust back on the ballot, questioning whether voters still support the tax-funded entity. This proposal came during a contentious hour-long debate over the Trust’s request for an exemption from paying into Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs).
Kohler asked County Attorney Alison Rogers during the heated discussion:
“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 Children’s Trust, which voters approved in 2020, was granted 10 years of taxing authority. She outlined three possible ways to revisit the Trust’s existence:
- Allow it to reach its natural end after 10 years,
- Have the state legislature pass a special act to dissolve it, or
- Pass a county ordinance to dissolve it, contingent upon voter approval in a referendum.
This question from the Commission Chair signaled the serious nature of the disagreement.
Opening Statements: Framing the Request
Dr. Rex Northup, Chair of the Escambia Children’s Trust, opened by framing the request not as an exemption but as an interlocal agreement to ensure funds would be used for their intended purpose—improving the lives and well-being of children in Escambia County.
- “Children have no vote; they have very little voice. They contribute to no political action committee,” Dr. Northup stated, emphasizing his 37 years of providing pediatric services in the community.
Trust Attorney Meredith Bush followed, describing the proposed agreement as “a win-win for the county and the Trust,” with the intent of funding the county’s youth employment program.
The Central Conflict Emerges
Commission Chair Mike Kohler quickly challenged the Trust’s position, highlighting several concerns:
- The absence of the topic on the Trust’s recent agenda, despite promises to discuss it.
- The Trust’s website states it has $2.2 million in unencumbered funds.
- The unanimous support of the County Commission and Sheriff for CRA funding.
- The Trust’s previous payment for the 2023 tax year.
“I voted for the Children’s Trust. I never in my life thought I’d be fighting for low-income kids for dimes. It’s unbelievable to me,” Kohler stated. “But obviously, I appreciate some of the things you’re doing, but we have a responsibility for all the citizens of this county. They deserve equal representation from the ECT, and I don’t think that’s what’s happening.”
At its board meeting on Tuesday, Trust board member David Williams did ask about the options the county commissioners had discussed earlier this month. Cannon and Bush discouraged discussing the CRA funds for 2021 and 2022.
- “There was a lot of discussion about either doing a multi-year type of contract going forward, which would look more like our sole source type of opportunity, but that wouldn’t really pertain to the CRA dollars per se. And the situation that we’re in is that there was a discussion about utilizing our back taxes or those funds that were not requested. I know you have already voted not to push those.”
- Like Cannon, Bush reminded the board that they had voted to not pay the back taxes. Neither offered an option of reconsidering the vote and adding the back taxes to the interlocal agreement, although Commissioner May brought it up several times during the Trust board meeting.
The Impasse: Public Safety vs. Children’s Programs
A central point of contention throughout the meeting was the Trust Board’s opposition to using Children’s Trust funds for CRA infrastructure projects. Cannon and Trust leadership maintained that using tax dollars collected specifically for children’s programming on infrastructure projects like security cameras and streetlights violated both the spirit of the voter-approved Trust and statutory requirements.
- Cannon explained that the Trust had repaid CRA funds the previous year, but noted, “The entirety of that money went to infrastructure, which is not what the citizens voted on when they voted.”
She further explained the Trust’s position: “Our attempt as a group is to work in partnership like other CSCs do with their county. I know this didn’t start out well, and nobody knew what they were doing here with the CSC. I was not here. I was running a different operation, but I’m here now, and we’re wanting to work together.”
The Trust proposed using the funds for direct children’s programming through an interlocal agreement rather than infrastructure. Cannon said, “This summer youth employment program was an opportunity. It doesn’t have to be the only thing we do. If you’re wanting to serve kids in other capacities throughout the county, let us know what that is.”
Kohler argued that the state statute entitled the county to use the funds for CRAs, citing other counties’ use of similar provisions. He emphasized the need for public safety measures in low-income communities, particularly security cameras and infrastructure.
- “I believe in public safety. I think it’s pivotal,” Kohler stated. “I think it’s part of Maslow’s hierarchy.”
Background: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: A five-step pyramid showing what people need to be happy and do their best. First, you need things like food and sleep. Then, you need to feel safe. Next, you need friends and family. After that, you want to feel proud and respected. Finally, you can focus on being your best self and doing what you love. You can’t be your best self unless your basic needs are met first.
Commissioner May’s Compromise Attempt
Commissioner Lumon May, who also serves on the Children’s Trust board, attempted to bridge the divide by proposing that the funds go directly to youth programs:
- “What’s unique about this is that every dime goes to children, and that’s what I’m going to support,” May stated. “And I know you and I are not on the same page, but I’m going to support that.”
May suggested that all three years of funds (the two previous years plus the current year) should go to youth programs rather than infrastructure, arguing that dividing the CRA money among nine districts would result in insufficient funds for meaningful infrastructure projects.
Budget Director Stephan Hall provided specific breakdowns of how the $495,000 would be distributed among nine CRAs if the waiver was denied:
- Warrington: $104,000
- Palafox: $64,000
- Brownsville: $46,000
- Atwood: $33,000
- Cantonment: $27,000
- Englewood: $28,000
- Barrancas: $35,000
- Ensley: $85,000
- Oakfield: $70,000
This information led Commissioner May to question whether these relatively small amounts would significantly impact each area compared to using the total for youth programming.
Final Decision
After extensive debate, County Attorney Alison Rogers suggested continuing the hearing to give the Children’s Trust Board time to meet and potentially agree to a three-year commitment for youth programs.
“Why don’t we just continue the hearing long enough to allow their board the opportunity to meet and see if they can pull that off,” Rogers suggested. “And then if not, we can finish this conversation and grant or deny the requested waiver.”
The Commissioners ultimately voted unanimously to continue the matter to their July 10 meeting, hoping the Children’s Trust would return with 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.
