Superintendent recommends moving ahead with Poinciana P3 high school; board raises questions on property, prior contracts and timeline

Superintendent John Hyde told the board he recommends proceeding with a public‑private partnership (P3) proposal to deliver a new Poinciana area high school and asked the board to authorize staff to negotiate agreements and perform remaining due diligence.

Hyde said the recommended developer/partner is under contract for the property and that any board authorization would allow staff to continue negotiations, complete procurement due diligence and negotiate a comprehensive agreement that defines rights and responsibilities for constructing the campus. He said the P3 model places many site‑preparation and delivery risks on the private partner.

Board questions and concerns: Several board members applauded that RADA Construction (named by a speaker) was part of the proposal and said that fidelity and price caps in the P3 were reassuring. But board members also asked why the district had not executed an earlier contract to purchase the land when the board voted in 2021 to acquire the parcels, and whether the developer (referred to as Fortress in discussion) had actually closed on the property. Hyde said staff would research and bring back records; he said Fortress had been under contract for the property but staff did not confirm an absolute purchase at the meeting.

The board also discussed a prior services agreement with the architecture firm Shingle Schulz, which some members had read as creating an appearance concern. Hyde said the earlier contract had not resulted in a prototype design or payments and that staff would review contract terms with the general counsel and return with a recommendation on whether to terminate or amend that agreement.

Wetlands and site suitability: Board members asked whether the proposed prototype can fit on the property without impacting wetlands. Staff said the partner’s preliminary layout appeared to skirt wetlands and that the P3 partner would be responsible for site work and mitigation as part of negotiations. Counsel said a comprehensive agreement would incorporate the responsibilities for mitigation, permitting and construction delivery.

What was not decided: The board did not execute a construction contract or comprehensive agreement at the workshop; the superintendent asked only to proceed with negotiations and due diligence. Counsel said staff will return with negotiated documents for board approval.

Ending: Several board members indicated they would support the superintendent’s recommendation later in the evening, while others said they remained hesitant and wanted documentation on land ownership, contract history and wetland impact before final approval.