Escambia County School Board approves 2025–26 budget and 5.359 total millage after 3–2 votes

5766736 · September 17, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Escambia County School Board on Sept. 16 approved the district'wide final budget for fiscal year 2025'6 and a total millage of 5.359 after a series of votes that split the board 3'to'2 on key items.

The Escambia County School Board on Sept. 16 approved the district'wide final budget for fiscal year 2025'6 and a 5.359 total millage rate after a series of roll-call votes that produced several 3'to'2 outcomes. The board approved the general fund, capital projects, and a local capital improvement millage increase tied to a 1.5 mills capital outlay rate intended to generate an estimated $52 million for the district.

Board supporters said the adopted tax and budget package was a budgeting necessity to preserve the district's fund balance and avoid short-term borrowing that could force deeper cuts later. Board opponents said the timing placed an undue burden on taxpayers already facing high inflation and questioned the size of the increase.

Board member Williams said he had collected constituent feedback and would oppose increasing millage for his district, saying, "Tonight, I will be voting against the increase in millage rates for that reason. I represent the people of District 5." Board member Fesco defended the capital outlay increase, saying the district might otherwise deplete reserves: "I am voting for this local capital improvement to go from 1.004 to the 1.5. I am voting for it because if I don't, there's $52,000,000 that we're gonna depend on to be able to operate and to be able to stay and have that fund balance there so we don't go in the red."

Board members discussed several statewide funding mechanics during the meeting, including the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), state-passed voucher dollars that are routed through school budgets, and the district's declining student enrollment. One board member said the district currently has about 5,000 fewer students than in earlier years but still faces fixed costs for facilities, transportation and utilities that do not fall proportionally with enrollment declines.

The board took the following recorded votes during the special meeting: - Prior period funding adjustment (0.007): approved 5'to'0. - Discretionary operating millage (0.748): approved 5'to'0. - Capital outlay (local capital improvement) at 1.5 mills: approved 3'to'2. Two members recorded no votes on the capital item citing opposition to raising property taxes. - Total millage (5.359): approved 3'to'2. - General fund budget $400,486,660.51: approved 3'to'2. - Capital projects fund $223,823,462 (capital projects fund adoption): approved 3'to'2. - Total district budget $857,164,775.73: approved 3'to'2. - Final resolutions adopting revenue, millage and the final budget (Res. 2026-03 and Res. 2026-04): each passed 3'to'2.

Board members who voted in favor noted rising costs for transportation (the board cited recent 10-year price increases for 77-passenger buses), retirement and insurance obligations, and the practical need for a fund balance to cover payroll and start-of-year cash needs before state disbursements. Opponents emphasized constituent opposition in certain districts and said they would not support property-tax increases; one said the board should pursue a referendum requirement to exceed rollback rates.

The district also approved special-revenue budgets (food services, federal programs, CRRSA relief) and other funds with unanimous or near-unanimous votes. Several board members said they would continue to press for state-level changes to address voucher funding and related reporting so local budgeting more accurately reflects funds available to district-operated schools.

The board's actions are final for this fiscal year and will be forwarded to the county property appraiser and the Department of Revenue as required for collection and implementation.

Notes: The board's votes repeatedly split 3'to'2 on measures tied to local capital millage; some operating and special-revenue funds passed unanimously. The board's discussion repeatedly referenced FEFP mechanics and voucher pass-throughs as drivers of budgetary pressure.