Dad. Taxpayer. Problem-solver.
The following questions are presented in the same order as the original questionnaire.
My approach is straightforward. County government should protect constitutional rights, carry out its core responsibilities, spend public money carefully, and allow taxpayers to keep as much of their own money as possible.
Where a question includes a specific allegation, dollar amount, or factual assumption that requires further review of official records, I say so directly. I will not repeat an unverified claim as though it were established fact.
Answer:
Escambia County commissioners are elected, not constitutionally appointed. Escambia County currently operates as a non-charter county.
I am open to a serious, citizen-led review of charter government. Florida law permits county voters to adopt a home-rule charter, but a charter does not automatically limit government overreach. Its value depends on what it says and how it protects taxpayers.
I would judge any charter proposal by three questions:
Does it strengthen taxpayer control?
Does it improve transparency and accountability?
Does it limit government power rather than expand it?
Any charter proposal should be written publicly, debated openly, and decided by voters.
Answer:
County government should protect constitutional rights, maintain essential infrastructure, provide public safety and emergency services, enforce laws fairly, and manage public money responsibly.
Florida law gives counties broad authority to carry out county government, subject to constitutional limits and state law. Those responsibilities include roads, drainage, sidewalks, parks, lighting, public safety, waste services, planning, zoning, and code enforcement.
My priority is to handle the basics well before pursuing new projects.
Answer:
Before supporting a major county-wide expense, I will ask:
Is it a legal responsibility or a genuine public need?
Does it provide a measurable county-wide benefit?
What is the total cost, including future maintenance and operations?
Are urgent District 2 needs being neglected while the county pursues it?
A project crosses the line when it becomes a prestige project, a speculative venture, or a private benefit financed by taxpayers while roads, drainage, sidewalks, parks, and public safety needs remain unresolved.
Answer:
I will hold regular town halls throughout District 2, publish office hours, attend neighborhood meetings, provide clear contact information, and track unresolved constituent requests.
Residents should not need political connections to receive a response. I will show up, listen, and follow through.
Answer:
I will publish explanations of major votes, support public reporting for major projects, and disclose significant meetings with parties seeking county action or county funding when legally appropriate.
Major projects should have public dashboards showing approved budgets, deadlines, change orders, cost overruns, and completion status.
Florida law states that public records are open for inspection and copying unless a lawful exemption applies. Providing access is a duty of each agency.
Answer:
The line is clear. A contribution does not buy a contract, a zoning decision, a favor, or a vote.
Every proposal should be evaluated on the public record using the same standards for everyone. My responsibility is to taxpayers, not donors.
Answer:
Growth should pay a fair share of the costs it creates.
Florida law recognizes impact fees as an important source of revenue for infrastructure required by new growth. Those fees must meet legal standards, including proportionality and a reasonable connection between the development impact and the public facilities funded.
Existing families should not be forced to subsidize private profit while their own roads and drainage systems remain neglected. I support legally sound, proportionate impact fees and transparent accounting.
Answer:
I would review the specific contract, amendments, procurement documents, meeting records, legal opinions, and vote history before stating that any particular concession was improperly granted.
My principle is clear: any material change to a publicly bid agreement deserves public scrutiny. If an amendment significantly changes the financial terms, public benefit, or taxpayer risk, I would require a written legal review explaining whether a new competitive process is required.
Government should not negotiate away taxpayer value behind closed doors.
Answer:
Government should create a fair environment for businesses to succeed. It should be very cautious about gambling taxpayer money on favored companies.
I will judge any proposed incentive by its legal authority, measurable public benefit, enforceable performance standards, clawback provisions, and total taxpayer exposure.
Essential infrastructure comes first.
Answer:
I will push for a department-by-department review of contracts, consultants, subscriptions, staffing levels, vehicle use, outside-agency funding, administrative overhead, and automatic renewals.
Florida law gives county commissions authority to investigate county affairs, require records and reports, and employ an independent accounting firm to audit county funds and agencies.
Each department should identify:
Its core responsibilities
Its measurable results
Its recurring costs
Opportunities to consolidate or eliminate duplication
Savings should be found before taxpayers are asked for more money.
Answer:
I am not sure the description is an established fact without reviewing the CRA calculations, Children’s Trust levy records, applicable legal opinions, and county budget documents.
Florida law permits redevelopment trust funds to receive tax-increment revenue and requires those funds to finance community redevelopment under an approved plan.
My position is that voter-approved funds should be used consistently with the purpose presented to voters. I would require a public accounting and a written legal analysis before accepting any redirection of dedicated revenue.
Answer:
My presumption is that dedicated funds should be used for the purpose voters approved.
Any change should be clearly authorized by law, publicly disclosed, and supported by a written explanation. If the purpose materially changes, voters should have the opportunity to decide again.
A ballot initiative is a commitment, not a blank check.
Answer:
My core principle is that taxpayers should keep as much of their money as possible.
An ad valorem property tax is based on assessed property value. Property-tax revenue can rise when taxable assessed values rise, even when the millage rate remains unchanged. The fact that government receives more revenue does not create an obligation to spend more money. (Florida Legislature)
The Commission’s responsibility is to carry out core duties efficiently: roads, drainage, public safety, parks, code enforcement, and essential services.
Government should not expand simply because rising property values make more revenue available.
Before supporting any new tax, fee, or rate increase, I will require a documented necessity, a clear cost basis, and a public explanation of the savings considered first.
I will work to lower the millage rate when rising assessed values create room to return money to taxpayers responsibly.
Answer:
A temporary tax should remain temporary unless voters are presented with a clear, documented need and choose to renew it.
Every proposal should include:
A defined purpose
A specific public project list
A clear end date
Transparent reporting
A full accounting of completed and unfinished projects
A public explanation of why existing revenue is insufficient
Government should not assume that a temporary tax becomes permanent merely because it has existed for years.
The burden is on government to justify every dollar it asks taxpayers to provide.
Answer:
Population growth does not automatically justify government growth.
County property-tax revenue is driven by taxable assessed value and the adopted millage rate. The county budget itself is adopted annually and includes multiple revenue sources. Population growth and departmental requests may affect spending proposals, but they do not automatically justify expanding government.
The Commission’s job is to carry out core responsibilities efficiently and allow taxpayers to keep as much of their money as possible.
Any request for additional staff, new programs, or recurring expenses should be tied to:
A core county responsibility
Verified workload data
A measurable public benefit
A review of existing staffing and spending
A clear explanation of why consolidation or efficiency measures are insufficient
Technology should simplify government, not add new layers of administration.
Answer:
Our beaches are central to Escambia County’s economy, culture, and quality of life.
I respect private property rights. I also believe every person should be able to walk peacefully along the dry shoreline without being harassed, threatened with trespass, or forced into the water.
This position is further supported by Governor Ron DeSantis, who signed Senate Bill 1622 into law on June 24, 2025. The law repealed the prior statutory restrictions and restored local authority to recognize recreational customary use of Florida beaches. The Florida Senate’s summary explains that the customary-use doctrine concerns public-use rights over certain dry sandy areas of privately owned beaches.
My position is clear: Escambia County should pursue a lawful and carefully written customary-use policy that protects the public’s ability to walk the dry shoreline while respecting constitutional property rights.
Answer:
The county should pursue a clear customary-use policy designed to protect shoreline access and reduce unnecessary conflict.
Our economy and quality of life depend on the beach. Residents and visitors should be able to walk peacefully along the dry shoreline without being harassed or threatened with trespass.
Governor DeSantis supported restoring local authority when he signed Senate Bill 1622 into law on June 24, 2025.
The county should still act carefully. Before committing taxpayer money to litigation, I would require:
A written legal opinion
A clearly defined public interest
An estimate of potential legal costs
A review of alternatives
A public discussion and recorded vote
My goal is a lawful, practical solution that protects public shoreline access, respects constitutional rights, supports tourism, and avoids unnecessary taxpayer expense.
Answer:
Property rights are fundamental.
Regulation should be tied to a legitimate public purpose such as safety, drainage, nuisance prevention, environmental protection, or compatibility between neighboring uses.
Florida law gives counties authority over planning, zoning, flood control, conservation, drainage, and related local responsibilities, subject to constitutional and statutory limits.
Rules should be clear, proportionate, lawful, and consistently enforced.
Answer:
The phrase “unfunded mandate” is a policy characterization, not language used in the statute.
Florida law prohibits a county or municipality from authorizing or otherwise allowing regular public camping or sleeping on public property, subject to a limited designated-site process.
The county must comply with the law, protect public spaces, and coordinate with municipalities, nonprofits, faith-based organizations, law enforcement, and service providers.
The county should not build an open-ended social-services bureaucracy that taxpayers cannot sustain.
Answer:
A designated site should not become the default answer.
Florida law allows a county, by majority vote, to designate certain property for public camping or sleeping for a continuous period of no longer than one year, subject to Department of Children and Families certification and statutory conditions.
Before supporting any site, I would require:
A legal analysis
A full cost estimate
A security plan
A sanitation plan
A neighborhood-impact review
An analysis of nonprofit and regional alternatives
Any site should be temporary, accountable, and narrowly focused.
Answer:
Law enforcement must address unlawful conduct and protect public safety. But jail should not become the default answer to every social problem.
Deputies should not be expected to replace qualified service providers.
We need a disciplined approach that distinguishes criminal conduct from human need.
Answer:
Florida law provides a process under which certain residents, business owners, or the Attorney General may seek an injunction after written notice and a five-business-day opportunity for the county or municipality to take all reasonable actions within its authority to cure an alleged violation.
I will push for a documented response protocol, clear departmental responsibility, prompt legal review, and tracking of complaints from receipt through resolution.
Ignoring the law is not a strategy.
Answer:
Florida law provides limited confidentiality for certain economic-development information, proprietary confidential business information, and trade secrets. Those protections are defined by statute and are not a blank check for secrecy.
Confidentiality should be narrow, lawful, temporary, and no broader than necessary.
Public subsidies, infrastructure commitments, water demands, power demands, and long-term taxpayer exposure should be disclosed before taxpayers are bound.
Answer:
Companies may seek confidentiality to protect site-selection strategies, proprietary information, competitive plans, or trade secrets.
That does not justify blanket secrecy.
I will support only legally authorized and narrowly tailored confidentiality, with disclosure of public commitments as soon as the law allows.
Answer:
Government may coordinate planning and evaluate impacts.
Private development should pay a fair share of the costs it creates. Existing residents should not be forced to subsidize a major private project without a documented public benefit, transparent cost allocation, performance standards, and protection against overruns.
Answer:
A project is not a success if taxpayers inherit pollution, depleted resources, infrastructure failures, or cleanup costs.
I will require a realistic review of water use, drainage, environmental risk, emergency-response demands, and long-term maintenance obligations.
Jobs matter. Property values, public health, and quality of life matter too.
Answer:
I would verify the exact cost, funding source, scope, contract terms, and technology involved before repeating those details publicly.
My position is firm: I am strongly opposed to mass surveillance and government incursions into personal privacy.
I can appreciate the limited use of live cameras to provide visual confirmation of immediate traffic congestion, parking conditions, or a specific public-safety situation.
But I do not support turning routine camera feeds into permanent tracking systems.
Routine public-space monitoring feeds should not be recorded, stored, analyzed, or used to build a history of where law-abiding citizens travel.
Answer:
The Fourth Amendment should guide every decision involving surveillance technology.
Government should not collect information merely because technology makes it possible.
I do not support systems that routinely record license plates, track movements, create travel histories, or store data on law-abiding citizens who are not suspected of a crime.
Public safety must be pursued without treating every citizen as a potential suspect.
Answer:
My first question is whether the technology should exist at all.
I will not support expensive surveillance contracts simply because a vendor presents them as modern or convenient.
Any proposed system should be reviewed publicly, including:
Purchase price
Recurring subscription fees
Renewal terms
Data-storage costs
Data-retention rules
Vendor access
Privacy risks
Constitutional implications
Exit costs
A contract should never renew automatically without a public vote and a clear demonstration that it is lawful, necessary, and narrowly limited.
Answer:
Local government should not sell personal tracking data. It should not allow private vendors to control tracking data on residents.
My preferred policy is not to collect or retain that data in the first place.
A live camera feed may be appropriate for a limited purpose such as confirming traffic flow or parking conditions. But a routine feed should not become a stored archive of people’s movements.
Privacy should be the default, not an afterthought.
Answer:
I would verify the exact amount, latest scope, operating-cost projection, and funding source from the official capital request and meeting record before repeating the figure publicly.
Animal welfare is a legitimate county responsibility. But any major facility request must compete with roads, drainage, public safety, and other urgent needs.
I would require:
A verified needs assessment
A repair-versus-replacement analysis
Phased options
An operating-cost estimate
A review of nonprofit and private-sector partnerships
I will not approve a large capital project simply because it appears in a presentation.
Answer:
The goal should be safety, humane treatment, and responsible ownership.
Enforcement is appropriate for cruelty, neglect, dangerous animals, and repeated violations.
Education, voluntary compliance, foster networks, rescue organizations, and nonprofit partnerships should be used whenever practical.
Pet seizures should not become a substitute for good judgment.
Answer:
I will use a written priority system:
Public safety
Legal obligation
Health risk
Infrastructure failure
Neighborhood impact
Long-term cost
Availability of outside funding
Roads and drainage are core responsibilities.
Secondary projects should not jump ahead merely because they are more visible or politically attractive.
Answer:
This question presents a general scenario. Any specific allegation of pollution should be supported by environmental records, testing data, and enforcement documents before blame is assigned.
Protecting public health, property values, and waterways is a legitimate local concern.
I support evidence-based monitoring and lawful enforcement.
Responsible businesses should not be punished with arbitrary rules, and taxpayers should not be forced to absorb cleanup costs caused by private misconduct.
Answer:
Florida law gives counties certain authority over zoning, conservation, flood control, drainage, and air-pollution-control programs, subject to state law and applicable preemption.
I support using lawful local authority when necessary to protect neighborhoods, waterways, and public health.
Rules should be targeted, clearly written, evidence-based, and consistent with state law.
The objective is accountability, not unnecessary bureaucracy.
Answer:
I will look at the full ledger:
Jobs
Wages
Tax revenue
Infrastructure demands
Emergency-response costs
Cleanup exposure
Property-value impacts
Documented public-health risks
A project is not a good deal if taxpayers receive short-term revenue and inherit long-term liabilities.
Answer:
The legal rule is fact-specific.
In Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public official’s social-media activity may constitute state action when the official has authority to speak for the government and purports to exercise that authority in the relevant posts.
I will clearly distinguish campaign communication from official county communication.
On an official page, I will not block or censor people merely because they criticize me.
Reasonable moderation rules should be written, publicly available, and consistently applied to threats, unlawful content, and spam.
Public office requires a willingness to hear disagreement.
Answer:
The facts should be disclosed.
I support independent review, corrective action, and consequences consistent with the law.
Legal fees, settlements, and policy failures should be reported publicly.
Taxpayers should not repeatedly pay for avoidable mistakes.
Answer:
Florida law requires public access to records and states that electronic recordkeeping must not erode the right of access.
I will support:
A searchable online portal
Plain-language instructions
Clear request tracking
Reasonable response standards
Proactive publication of frequently requested records
Charges that are lawful, reasonable, and explained
Public records belong to the public unless a lawful exemption applies.
Answer:
I would not repeat the question’s causal claim without reviewing the School Board’s adopted budget, millage notices, enrollment data, and state funding records.
Local property owners should not be treated as an unlimited financial backstop for decisions made elsewhere.
Taxpayers deserve a clear explanation of any increase, the cause of the shortfall, the alternatives considered, and the spending reductions examined first.
Answer:
The Escambia County Board of County Commissioners does not set School Board millage. The county’s official website states that commissioners authorize county-wide property taxes but not School Board, water, or municipal millage rates.
The Commission cannot control School Board millage, but it can avoid compounding the burden through unnecessary county tax increases.
I will press for fiscal discipline at the county level and work to reduce county millage where responsible.
Answer:
I would review the official grant documents, ownership structure, project agreements, development plan, and current contractual status before repeating the full premise as fact.
My preference is for government to establish fair rules and necessary infrastructure while the private sector takes commercial risk.
If the county retains ownership or acts as a landlord, taxpayers deserve:
A defined purpose
A measurable benefit
A clear exit plan
Transparent accounting
Protection against losses
Answer:
Florida law allows redevelopment trust funds to receive tax-increment revenue and requires those funds to finance redevelopment undertaken under an approved community redevelopment plan.
CRAs can be useful when they address documented blight and produce measurable neighborhood improvements.
They become problematic when they operate indefinitely, lack clear goals, or fund politically favored projects without measurable results.
I support regular performance reviews, public reporting, defined priorities, and a clear connection between spending and neighborhood benefit.
Answer:
This question does not identify a specific investigation, official finding, or record.
I will not suggest wrongdoing by any person without verified facts.
The county should preserve records, cooperate with lawful investigations, disclose conflicts, and use independent review when appropriate.
Public trust requires facts, fairness, and accountability.
Answer:
I would review the invoices, pleadings, insurance coverage, governing-board decisions, and litigation status before repeating the dollar amount or assigning responsibility.
Government should defend lawful actions.
It should not spend taxpayer money on avoidable litigation merely to make a political statement.
Before continuing a legally vulnerable policy, I would require a written legal assessment, a cost estimate, and a public explanation.
Answer:
Funding should be evaluated project by project using official budget records, lease-related revenue, tourism revenue, toll revenue, grants, and other legally available sources.
Beach infrastructure should be funded fairly and transparently.
Mainland taxpayers should not become the automatic payer of last resort.
Taxpayers deserve a clear explanation of who benefits, who pays, and why.
Answer:
NAS Pensacola is a federal military installation. Access policies are established by federal authorities.
A county commissioner cannot order the Navy to change its security policies.
But a commissioner should advocate respectfully for practical solutions that recognize national security, tourism, and the effect on District 2 businesses.
I will work with Navy leadership, federal representatives, tourism officials, and local businesses.
Advocacy is appropriate. Empty promises are not.
Answer:
Responsibility should follow the evidence.
Any claim about causation should be established through environmental records, engineering analysis, ownership records, and applicable law.
If public infrastructure caused the problem, government must address its share.
If a private party caused harm, taxpayers should not automatically absorb that liability.
I support grants, responsible-party recovery, and long-term infrastructure planning.
Answer:
Regulation should protect safety and neighboring property rights without becoming a barrier to honest work.
Before naming a rule for repeal, I would identify the specific local requirement, its legal basis, its cost, its practical effect, and whether the county has authority to change it.
I will support a public review of:
Permitting timelines
Duplicative forms
Inconsistent interpretations
Unnecessary local requirements
Stalled applications
Code-enforcement bottlenecks
I will vote to repeal rules that are unnecessary, duplicative, or unsupported by a legitimate public need.
Answer:
County authority is subject to the Florida Constitution and state law.
Escambia County commissioners remain responsible for adopting and adjusting the county budget, authorizing expenditures, setting county-wide property taxes, establishing county policies, and overseeing county government responsibilities.
My job is to use the authority the county actually has, not pretend it has powers it does not possess.
I will manage county resources responsibly, protect constitutional rights, deliver essential services, advocate for District 2, and explain the law honestly.
Roads, drainage, parks, code enforcement, public safety, transparency, and accountability remain local responsibilities.