[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6188459,"mediaKeyId","5062421-75a60e95d7ff40e5997ed3dd06870bf1","parentId",5062421,"title","District hires market analysis to value core sites; consultants say market, interest rates determine best reuse","audioSeconds",587,"startMs",4728000,"endMs",5315000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5062421-75a60e95d7ff40e5997ed3dd06870bf1&start=4728&end=5315","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5062421-75a60e95d7ff40e5997ed3dd06870bf1/thumbnail_4728000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6188459/Florida/District-hires-market-analysis-to-value-core-sites-consultants-say-market-interest-rates-determine-best-reuse","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188459-047ad8dad79fcc1bad45c7e86d833184/orig.mp4?Expires=1770832989&Signature=Y7viL9LKuKSZF63ZXpbObds2h7vGOoCZHCnVDl1ybI3jU1uDuDlpvRKXXUw5piFuu7~bRf9GMQLZUvvJEFgyvfB09s8kNbf0Pg7thS65c4ldGULggfJm4VCNLNGLpyncycNj2K50uzeyTFYG7sarRNV6~XKCRJEaSkryxsgIQ1--a4iDWjP4d2E3iVRWq3QmEiXxYaIjyE6M6uHrVvMGYEbiy9qiwY0YpBElZ9lms8UZiNCGGwOw3U0AA9G7UYgfVcE5cKq9BsoSUXH4SvPyG0l0ZRbTDWTvwhEBYAKKa~N7FLrtyq2p8822~gBEjwbcKezah81ttQFRKevLJTIx3w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Hillsborough County Public Schools, FL","date","2025-06-24T16:09:42Z","article","The Hillsborough County School Board on June 24 received a market assessment of several district-owned properties and a description of the evaluation method consultants use to estimate reuse value and revenue potential.

Andrew Wright of Franklin Street reviewed the firm’s methodology and principal findings. Wright said the review considered land use, surrounding market demand, and the “highest and best” development option for each site: examples included multifamily, hotel, office, townhomes or adaptive reuse of the existing buildings. “An acre of land is not an acre of land,” Wright said, emphasizing that zoning, utility access and allowable density govern what a site can support in value, not just its size.

Wright and staff said five district properties were reviewed at a high level: Rosack (a downtown property), the Rampella Garage, Brewster (Tampa Heights area), Jefferson High School and a parking lot near Leary. The presentation included simplified pro‑forma models showing a completed project’s stabilized value and then backing down to an indicative land value. Consultants warned that local market conditions — notably higher interest rates and 2024’s unusually large multifamily deliveries — have reduced rents and paused many development plans, affecting near‑term options.

Board members pressed staff about constraints on disposition options. Staff noted that a school site cannot simply be sold if it remains needed for education; if a school is relocated, the district may use land swaps or structured agreements rather than a straight sale. Board members also asked for stronger policy guardrails on how any lease or disposition process would run; several members requested a formal RFP process and clear policy language to guide future transactions.

District staff and the consultants recommended further, site‑level analysis and asked the board whether to proceed with deeper due diligence and community outreach. The board asked for one‑on‑one briefings, additional valuation estimates and a return workshop focused on individual sites. No sales, leases or contractual directions were authorized at the workshop.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","School Board Workshop June 24, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Hillsborough County School Board received a market assessment June 24 of several district properties and a description of the valuation method consultants use to estimate reuse value and revenue potential.","taxTitle","Hillsborough, School Districts, Florida","taxId",14619,"location","Florida","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6188463,"Consultants tell Hillsborough board half‑penny sales tax, impact fees and borrowing shape capital capacity",758,892000,1650000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5062421-75a60e95d7ff40e5997ed3dd06870bf1&start=892&end=1650","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5062421-75a60e95d7ff40e5997ed3dd06870bf1/thumbnail_892000.jpg","/articles/6188463/Florida/Consultants-tell-Hillsborough-board-halfpenny-sales-tax-impact-fees-and-borrowing-shape-capital-capacity","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188463-0ad71131a6ea28c7ed3b031d1ae297b1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770832989&Signature=S6RCnoMvUA8z7cS7wWZ6M8V1P7eXVQRGb9GuKTwNg~UbxAFOHBpwSy6H~2anIoJrcqnR35NghCGezsj6Kel3uN11sp3IZ4cGmgPT6DIPIh4VIAiGsHwnHno3UAJ2i845Xgxv7--DxR5qbKIndX16By-m3oqiyAziUDey6Kl5R~~9xVJgKAPfdhiSbBQoCVb4LHowmEi-3lBARexV3ElXOf6LplM40cNkb0hd3GhYTSvKIeK4PQe3AOWDeBy68Vj8K6eolLDnJALTpWMrB9YB-pdmiXQlAjgcnOihT~gCUbhOIN5n2MlbedgFJEdxFijcifavAkILeaDl1DZg3XbrvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Consultants and district finance staff told the Hillsborough County School Board on June 24 that the district’s capital program rests primarily on four revenue streams — the local capital‑improvement millage, the half‑penny sales tax, the Community Investment Tax (CIT) and impact fees — and that each source has distinct limits and uncertainty.

John Ford of Ford and Associates, who led the revenue overview, said the district’s local capital‑improvement millage (the 1.5‑mill levy) is a substantial recurring source and that fiscal‑year 2025 receipts were estimated at roughly $263 million under the modeling assumptions used in the presentation. Ford said the half‑penny capital outlay surtax produced about $206 million in the past 12 months, based on Department of Revenue receipts, and he flagged the tax’s scheduled expiration at the end of 2028 as a “big hole” in projected funding if the tax is not renewed.

Ford and district staff emphasized the volatility of impact fees and pointed to a county‑supplied county estimate the presentation used: about $40 million in the current period with a projection of $30 million in subsequent years, and a note that the technical study’s estimate can move substantially. Ford cautioned the board that any long‑range projection depends on assumptions that are likely to be wrong in specific years and that the district must reassess frequently.

The board heard a comparison of funding approaches. Pay‑as‑you‑go (using accumulated cash) avoids interest and issuance costs but limits how much the district can build at once and leaves the district exposed to construction‑price inflation if projects are delayed. Debt financing spreads cost over time and can let the district build sooner, but it introduces interest expense and transactional costs and can constrain future annual budgets. As one numerical example, Ford used a twenty‑year financing illustration at a recent all‑in cost estimate of about 4.41 percent, which he said would translate to roughly $6 million a year in annual debt service per $100 million borrowed under that assumption.

The consultants discussed certificates of participation (COPs), lease‑purchase agreements and other market structures used by Florida districts. Ford said COPs remain common in Florida and that Hillsborough’s credit ratings (single‑A by S&P and Fitch; A2 by Moody’s with a positive outlook, as described in the presentation) influence borrowing costs. The presentation noted higher issuance and debt-service costs for conduit or third‑party lease‑build structures compared with district‑issued COPs.

Board members asked for more granular fiscal modeling and asked staff to prepare a funding dashboard and follow‑up materials showing how various revenue scenarios would affect capacity to build new schools. No formal financing decisions were made at the workshop; presenters asked the board to consider options at future meetings.","At a June 24 workshop, financial advisers detailed the district’s major capital revenue streams (local capital-improvement millage, the half‑penny sales tax, Community Investment Tax share and impact fees), warned the half‑penny’s 2028 expiration could create a funding gap, and outlined pros and cons of pay-as-you-go funding vs. debt financing.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6188468,"Hillsborough school leaders outline growth-management tools, warn impact-fee cap limits revenue",1423,77000,1500000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5062421-75a60e95d7ff40e5997ed3dd06870bf1&start=77&end=1500","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5062421-75a60e95d7ff40e5997ed3dd06870bf1/thumbnail_77000.jpg","/articles/6188468/Florida/Hillsborough-school-leaders-outline-growth-management-tools-warn-impact-fee-cap-limits-revenue","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6188468-d93c1afa66a83a95a15faeb3abf0b45a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770832989&Signature=GGlqC4UFQSFdR70sGQTHbmLLrJEqlwniMf64V8z6x9c-M7Mcj-JGOXL4IYCax255atCUWZMngSg15KZ-VJTaOHCAvolpTllPVPnvtod2s-TsP1qFynOgCx-iHnxCB5RsdCIEPjTH1AlMWDukRdcza3mgZComBUily1pbNjNRgHvRaoHzu-5kcND9PdLXeDbRtKeKWInJOB0m8itI0gUgTywXLrTRp4J5Mk3WCTOmIgNyT7BkwKOtVl~1NMVb6eOB2VfPgbD4Q9UxUxYx2pP-Bo5aADNSCUZITMyHx2qzTCRufScRGE1H4Yl4Zk65kC5cwqs~~h9JUeWsR0TE2rTmbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Hillsborough County School Board heard a detailed briefing June 24 on how growth management, student-generation rates and county impact fees shape the district’s ability to fund new schools.

Deputy Superintendent Farkas told the board the workshop would “level set” the group on a complex, multi-part topic and stressed that the session was for information, not to produce decisions. He said the district’s growth-management team coordinates the five-year facilities plan, school siting, boundary work and county development tracking tied to school concurrency.

The discussion matters because rapid residential approvals in parts of the county — most notably the South County urban service-area expansion north of Plant City — are expected to produce thousands of new dwellings and, by the district’s generation-rate model, hundreds to thousands of new students.

Presenters explained key tools and limits. The district tracks a 40-day enrollment snapshot used for concurrency and FISH capacity (the state-defined facility capacity measure). Staff showed example generation rates and a 100-home illustration the presenters used to explain variability: roughly 20 elementary, nine middle and 14 high‑school students in the scenario, with actual results varying widely by neighborhood and time of build-out. The Plant City area was used as a local example: the district reported more than 500 student reservations for that planning area and said roughly 9,400 approved dwelling units already exist or are pending in the Plant City planning areas referenced.

Farkas and staff also reviewed impact fees, which county commissioners set and collect. The district’s 2020 impact-fee schedule shows a student-generation assumption and a per-unit fee that was $8,227 in 2020. A district study preview shown at the workshop produced a higher technical estimate — roughly $17,842 per single-family-equivalent unit — but presenters noted a statutory constraint: Florida law (cited at the meeting as 163.31801) prevents a county from raising the fee by more than 50 percent in a single update cycle, which would limit the effective maximum under that estimate to about $12,340 in the presenters’ example. Farkas emphasized the board itself does not set the fee and that adoption is the county commission’s responsibility.

Board members pressed staff on how long approvals can sit before build-out (staff noted approvals can be in place for 10–15 years before construction) and asked for more granular data. Members requested a draft of the district’s long-range planning study, which staff said would be available for the board to review in July or August, and asked for regular updates on growth-management indicators.

Staff flagged follow-up steps including a public draft of the long-range planning study, continued development-tracking reports and future workshops on individual financing and site‑level decisions. No formal actions or votes were taken; presenters repeatedly described the meeting as an informational workshop and asked the board to provide direction in later sessions.

The district plans additional briefings and localized material to show which specific neighborhoods and school sites are likely to be affected as county development decisions proceed.","At a June 24 workshop, district staff and consultants reviewed enrollment projections, student-generation rates and the county-controlled impact-fee process, and warned that a state statutory cap will limit how far county impact fees can rise even if a district study recommends a much larger increase.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

District hires market analysis to value core sites; consultants say market, interest rates determine best reuse

Consultants tell Hillsborough board half‑penny sales tax, impact fees and borrowing shape capital capacity

Hillsborough school leaders outline growth-management tools, warn impact-fee cap limits revenue