Hernando schools staff says Sunrise settlement agreements near final; board to receive formal approval items

District staff and outside counsel told the Hernando County School Board on Sept. 9 that two settlement agreements addressing the Sunrise development are largely negotiated and that staff will bring formal agreements to the board for approval pending signatures and county action.

Jim Lipsey, the district school planner, introduced attorney Chris Wilson, who told the board there are two related agreements: one between the district and the developer and a parallel agreement with Hernando County. Wilson said the agreements are structured to restore the parties to the position they would have occupied before an asserted, improper amendment of the project’s DRI (Development of Regional Impact) and to provide a mechanism to amend the development agreement to include school site or impact fee terms.

Wilson said the developer agreement calls for the developer to draft an amendment to the development agreement that would either provide a school‑site donation in exchange for credits or, if the district declines the site, require the developer to pay impact fees and a 10% upfront payment with each conditional plat. The county agreement, Wilson said, sets timelines and mechanics, including a pause on appeals while the parties seek the amendment and a procedure to restart an appeal if the amendment process does not conclude within agreed deadlines.

Lipsey and Wilson described a timeline: the developer must deliver the first draft of the amended development agreement within 30 days; the district would have 15 days to review; the developer would have a seven‑day review period thereafter; once district approval is obtained it should be submitted to the county within 15 days. Wilson said the county staff planned to take the interlocal/settlement item to the Board of County Commissioners on Oct. 7. Lipsey said staff intended to place the signed agreements on the school‑board agenda in about two weeks for formal approval if signatures were obtained.

Board members pressed for certainty about the material terms. One board member asked whether the district was getting 75 acres; Lipsey and Wilson replied that the signed exhibit that accompanies the developer agreement identifies 49 acres tied to this particular parcel and that a separate off‑site parcel included in earlier DRI materials belongs to a different developer and is not part of the current negotiated package.

Several board members sought reassurance that the settlement would lock in the negotiated terms and prevent the developer from creating additional built units during the negotiation window that would complicate remedies. Wilson said the agreements were designed to keep all parties in the same legal position they occupied before the disputed DRI amendment and to push the timeline to completion; if the amendment failed the county could restart the appeal process.

Lipsey told the board there is a conditional plat from the developer in the near pipeline that could face the same issues unless the settlement is finalized, giving additional urgency to the timeline. Lipsey said the main, substantive terms that the district needs to decide on are contained in Exhibit A of the developer agreement and that staff were comfortable moving forward toward final signatures and formal board approval.

No formal action was taken at the workshop; Lipsey said staff planned to present the two finalized agreements for formal approval in a board meeting in approximately two weeks, conditioned on receipt of necessary signatures and county scheduling. The county staff’s target date to put the related item before the BOCC is Oct. 7, 2025, per Lipsey’s recollection of a county staff comment.

Clarifying details from the workshop include the 30/15/7 calendar for drafting and reviews, the developer’s obligation to offer either a school site or impact fee payments with a 10% upfront requirement per conditional plat if the district declines a donated site, and that Exhibit A contains the material terms for the district’s decision. Lipsey and Wilson emphasized the county agreement handles the mechanics of county review and potential resumption of appeals if the amendment does not complete on the schedule.