Escambia County commissioners have approved a major revision to the development plan for the OLF-8 property in Beulah, moving forward with a new approach that changes both the size of the land deal and how the project could be funded.
The updated agreement allows developer Chad Henderson and his Tri-W group to purchase a smaller portion of the property, while the county keeps about 171 acres. That publicly held land would be set aside for an employment district, with the goal of attracting higher-wage jobs and qualifying for infrastructure funding through Triumph Gulf Coast.
Critics argued the changes go far beyond a simple amendment.
“This is not a modification. It’s a material change,” said John Moore, who urged commissioners to void the current agreement and restart the bidding process. He warned that failing to rebid the project could expose the county to legal challenges and reduce the return for taxpayers.
Colin Gold also asked commissioners to reject the revised agreement outright, though he stopped short of explicitly calling for a new bidding process. He focused instead on the financial structure, arguing the county would take on the most expensive and uncertain portion of the project.
“That is not a coordinated approach,” Gold said. “That is socializing the risk and privatizing the profit.”
Gold warned that the county could be left paying for roads, utilities, and other infrastructure tied to the employment district, without any guarantee that businesses will ultimately locate there.
Supporters of the plan said the revision was a necessary step to unlock outside funding and make the project viable.
David Bear, a former Triumph Gulf Coast board member, said the public-private split is key to qualifying for infrastructure dollars tied to job creation.
“You’re being asked to consider keeping the portion of this property public… to enable that property to get the use of Triumph Gulf Coast funds,” Bear told commissioners.
Economic development officials echoed that point. FloridaWest CEO Chris Plate said maintaining public control of the employment land could make the site more competitive for higher-wage industries by lowering development costs.
Developer Chad Henderson said the new proposal is based on extensive due diligence and is designed to improve the project’s chances of success.
“This is not about a price reduction,” Henderson said. “This is about curating an approach that makes sure that we have the best chance to have the successful outcomes that we all desire.”
He said the 171 acres would remain part of a unified master plan, even if publicly owned, and argued the long-term value to the county could exceed the upfront sale price.
Legal concerns surfaced repeatedly during the discussion, particularly around whether such a significant change to the agreement could trigger procurement challenges.
County Attorney Alison Rogers said the amendment represents a major shift, but said that the county is not bound by a traditional competitive bidding process in this case. Instead, she said the board is operating under its broad “home rule” powers, which allow local governments to structure economic development deals if they determine those deals serve a public purpose.
Rogers advised commissioners that if they chose to approve the amendment, they needed to formally adopt findings explaining how the revised deal still meets the county’s economic development goals. She also said that the developer has agreed to indemnify the county, meaning the developer would bear financial responsibility if the agreement is challenged in court.
“You can’t stop lawsuits,” Rogers said, “but I do believe you have the authority to proceed.”
Even with that assurance, questions lingered about risk, particularly if expected job creation or outside funding does not materialize.
Commissioners ultimately voted to approve the amendment, signaling support for a strategy that relies on future growth and state funding rather than a higher upfront land sale.
But the most unexpected moment came at the very end of the discussion.
Commissioner Mike Kohler announced he had received legal advice just minutes earlier recommending that he abstain from the vote due to a recent campaign fundraiser. According to Rogers, the concern was not the contributions themselves, but how recently they were received, within roughly 36 hours of the vote, which could raise the appearance of a conflict.
“I support the project,” Kohler said. “But I’m being told by legal I should abstain… because of the timeliness of the fundraiser.”
Rogers advised him to file a formal voting conflict memo, and Kohler agreed.
The board then approved the amendment 4–0, with Kohler abstaining.
