Hendry County Schools discusses selling surplus land, seeks appraisals and talks with local utility about land-for-service trade

Hendry County School Board members and staff spent the workshop reviewing dozens of district-owned parcels and discussing options to convert excess property into capital for school needs, including teacher housing and site acquisition for future schools.

Board members and staff described several specific parcels in LaBelle and Port LaBelle and discussed constraints: some tracts are encumbered by third parties (including a grant or reverter clause tied to U.S. Sugar), some are adjacent to utility infrastructure, and two-year-old appraisals were repeatedly described as out of date.

Why it matters: the board framed the discussion as an effort to generate capital for facility needs and to explore long-standing interest in teacher housing — an idea other Florida districts have pursued — while protecting taxpayers and ensuring best use of district land. Board members raised fiduciary concerns about underselling district assets and asked for objective valuation before taking any sales or transfers further.

Discussion highlights

- The superintendent and staff presented maps and parcel values, noting examples ranging from a low-value parcel appraised at $52,035 up to tracts appraised at $475,000 and $950,000. The superintendent said some parcels were effectively controlled by U.S. Sugar and therefore not usable by the district.

- Board members repeatedly requested updated appraisals. One board member said, “I wanna see updated appraisals on this property,” noting the district’s existing appraisals are roughly two years old.

- Several board members debated timing: sell now and lock in proceeds that could be lost to inflation, or hold until a concrete capital plan (for teacher housing, a new school site or other capital needs) is finalized. One board member urged an incremental approach: “Move forward with liquidating the property that we can in whatever fashion format we all see feasible. And then once we get the money in hand, then let's revisit.”

- The district and a local utility (referred to repeatedly in the meeting as the utility partner) have a long-standing operational relationship. Board members described past instances when the utility provided emergency repairs without billing the district. In turn, the utility has asked the district to sell or transfer several tracts it needs to expand water capacity. The superintendent said the utility has asked to purchase three identified parcels and that the district received an initial offer (described in the presentation) well below the district’s book values; staff reported the district was offered $350,000 for parcels with a combined appraised value noted in the presentation as over $900,000.

Board direction and next steps

- The board did not approve any sale or transfer during the workshop. Instead members directed staff to take discrete, staff-level steps before any decision: (1) contact the county to determine whether the county or utility would entertain a purchase or a land swap and to learn how they value the parcel(s); (2) obtain updated appraisals for the small set of parcels that the board identified as likely candidates for sale; and (3) ask the utility to provide an itemized estimate showing the market cost of past emergency repairs or services the utility provided to the district so the board can evaluate an in-kind credit or discount proposal. The superintendent summarized that recommendation as: “Get the appraisal on the balance of the property that we have that we want to liquidate…and then work with [the utility] to come up with what they charged us versus what the value of that was so that we can gauge what kind of discounts…they would expect.”

- Board members asked staff to prioritize one tract adjacent to existing county development in Banyan Village (repeatedly discussed as strategically important) and to report back with appraisal numbers, any county interest in a swap, and the utility’s estimate of prior work value. The superintendent said he would return with updated appraisal costs and negotiation options at a future regular meeting.

Context and constraints

- Multiple board members warned against underselling district property or committing proceeds before a clear capital plan is in hand. One member noted that some Florida counties (Collier, Broward, Miami‑Dade and others) are advancing teacher housing projects but said those counties have much larger tax bases and access to private investment, complicating direct comparisons with Hendry County.

- Staff cautioned that some parcels have legal encumbrances (for example, a reverter clause described during the presentation) that could limit immediate use or sale.

- Board members discussed the practical costs of updated appraisals: previous comprehensive appraisals for the district portfolio were described as running in the “high $8,000–$10,000” range; members suggested narrowing new appraisals to the three or four parcels likely to be marketed to minimize cost.

What remains unresolved

- Whether the district will accept any price below market value for parcels sought by the utility; board members asked the utility to quantify past and potential future services so the board can consider a possible in-kind credit but did not set any discount percentage.

- Whether teacher housing will move from idea to program. Board members asked staff to preserve options, to liquidate only those parcels judged excess, and to return later with a plan once proceeds are on hand and current needs are better known.

Ending note

Board members characterized tonight’s discussion as a workshop-level policy conversation rather than a decision meeting. The board’s immediate, staff-level instructions were limited: confirm the county/utility interest, obtain targeted appraisals on candidate parcels, and ask the utility for billed or market estimates of past services to inform any potential trade or discount.