Our district and schools are on SUMMER HOURS until Friday, July 27, 2018. Our summer district office hours are 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday. School hours vary by location. Schools and district offices are closed on Friday during summer hours. Our district will return to regular business hours Monday, July 30, 2018.

Skip Navigation
Divisions

School Board

HCPS publishes minutes of School Board meetings after Board approval. Although the online minutes do not include signatures, citizens may arrange to review the official documents by completing a public records request with the Communications Department.

MINUTES
SCHOOL BOARD OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
901 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa
Tuesday, April 18, 2017

The School Board of Hillsborough County, Florida, met in Workshop Session Tuesday, April 18, 2017, at 1 p.m., in the School Board Auditorium, 901 East Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, with Superintendent Jeff Eakins, and Board Members, April Griffin (arrived 1:36), Sally Harris, Tamara P. Shamburger, Melissa Snively, Cindy Stuart, and Susan Valdes present.  Chair Cindy Stuart presided.

Absent: Lynn Gray 

Others present:

Board Attorney – James Porter                          

Chief of Staff:  Alberto Vazquez, Ed.D.

Deputy Superintendent:  Van Ayres

Chief of Schools, Administration:  Harrison Peters

Assistant Superintendents/Division Chiefs:

      Academic Support and Federal Programs –Tracye Brown

      Business – Gretchen Saunders

      Diversity – Minerva Spanner-Morrow

      Operations – Chris Farkas

      Outreach – Larry Sykes, Ed.D

      Educational Access, Opportunity, and Alternatives – Wynne Tye

      Teaching and Learning – Debbie Cook

Communications and Media Officer – Teresa Peterson

External Communications Manager – Tanya Arja

Administrative Secretary (Recording) – Kandee King

News Media Representatives:

      Tampa Bay Times – Marlene Sokol

      Fox 13 – Lloyd Sowers

      ABC Action News – Lauren Rozyla

Approximately 30 people were in the audience, including other school district personnel.

Chair Stuart called the meeting to order at 1 p.m.

       (1)  Presentation of the Long Range School Planning Study Prepared by Tindale Oliver (Operations)

This workshop was held to provide the School Board and district staff the preliminary findings of a study conducted by Tindale Oliver. 

Chris Farkas, Chief Operating Officer, began the discussion welcoming everyone and introduced Lorraine Duffy-Suarez, General Manager, Growth Management and Planning.  Ms. Duffy-Suarez gave a brief overview of the workshop and introduced Steve Tindale and his team from Tindale Oliver. 

Steve Tindale provided a Power Point presentation which consisted of background, purpose and finding, and next steps.

Background

After a period of economic decline, Hillsborough County has started to experience an economic rebound.  The impact of growth is especially significant in the case of educational facilities due to the requirements mandated by the State of Florida through the Class Size Amendment legislation, as well as, Hillsborough County’s adopted level of services standards for School Concurrency.  Given these requirements of providing public education to all school-age children, school districts have to continue to build classrooms and schools that comply with the standards established by the Constitution and School concurrency.  Although efficient design characteristics and operation adjustment can help reduce the cost associated with this process, the school system is still the only public infrastructure type that is subject to capacity-related requirements imposed by the State of Florida.

On September 6, 2016, the School Board of Hillsborough County retained Tindale Oliver to prepare a long range school planning study that would address the following:

  • Growth management and infrastructure plan; and
  • Funding alternatives available to build and maintain the needed infrastructure

The purpose of this Long Range Growth Plan is to provide the school district with a planning tool to address the impacts of upcoming growth.  It is based on sources that are endorsed by the state government and used by other local governments/entities in Hillsborough County and Florida as well as upcoming development activity data in the county.  This plan includes a range of potential growth the District will need to be prepared for in order to maintain and improve the quality of public school education in Hillsborough County.

The study methodology included the following approach:

  • Review of trends in population, age distribution, and student generation rates in Hillsborough County;
  • Review of future population projections by the State of Florida and Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization for Transportation;
  • Review of planned/proposed development in Hillsborough County and the municipalities;
  • Evaluation of student generation rates of all homes versus new homes;
  • Impact of increasing charter school enrollment on traditional schools;
  • Review of existing capacity by attendance boundary;
  • Review of anticipated growth by attendance boundary and school level;
  • Estimated cost of building new schools and acquiring/leasing portables;
  • Review of funding needs for maintenance and outstanding debt service payments; and
  • Developing a cost/revenue analysis showing available and potential revenues versus the anticipated costs.

Some of the key findings of the study include the following:

  • Hillsborough County projected growth at an annual rate of 1.3 percent through 2045, adding a total of 22,000 persons per year.  It is estimated that an average of 10,000 new homes per year will be permitted over the next 15 years.
  • Most of this growth is anticipated to occur in South County.
  • Student generation rates of new homes is approximately 15 percent higher than the generation rate of all homes.  This difference varies by land use, single family homes experiencing the largest difference with new homes generating almost 35 percent more students than existing homes.  For planning purposes, this study utilized the student generation rate of new homes.
  • Trends indicated that while charter schools absorbed an average of 450 new students per year between 2000 and 2011, this figure increased to 2,300 new students per year between 2012 and 2014, then decreased to 1,350 students per year over the past three years.  This study assumed that of the new students, 1,350 would be absorbed by charter schools annually.  If this absorption level decreases, the school district may have to build more schools.  Alternatively, if it increases, the District will need to add less capacity.
  • Charter schools house primarily elementary school students, followed by middle school students.

 Capacity Needs

  • A review of available capacity compared to enrollment levels suggested that it is appropriate to create three sub-planning areas.
    • North/West County
    • North/East County
    • South County
  • Of these planning areas, North/West County appears to have sufficient capacity to accommodate estimated growth in this area over the next 15 years with minimal additions.  North/East County will experience some level of deficiency, while the largest need will be in South County.
  • Two levels of capacity needs were developed:
    • Minimum:  The District will build new schools only when the shortfall of permanent capacity reaches a level sufficient to fill another school completely (i.e., school is at 200 percent of its capacity).  Under this scenario, the District will build 23 schools over the next 15 years, or 1.5 schools annually.  Also, the District will need to redistrict available capacity in each sub-planning area and add approximately 15,000 portable student stations.
    • Probable:  This scenario suggests that the District will start building schools when a school reaches 150 percent of its capacity.  This approach reduces the need to redistrict and add portables, and results in 38 new schools over the next 15 years, or 2.5 schools annually.  With redistricting in subareas, this scenario requires only about 1,800 additional portable stations.
    • Between 1994 and 2014, the district built an average of three new schools per year.  Between 1999 and 2009, this figure increased to five new schools per year. 
    • The minimum scenario of 23 schools, 14 will be elementary schools, 3 middle schools, and 6 high schools.  Under the probable scenario, 25 elementary schools, 5 middle schools, and 8 high schools.
    • In terms of location the minimum scenario of the 23 schools, 20 will be needed in South County, 3 in North/East County, and none in North/West County.
    • The probable scenario, 38 schools, 31 in South County, 6 in North/East, and 1 in North/West County.
    • Previously, North/West County had sufficient capacity with limited growth over the next 15 years.  There is a large amount of middle school capacity in the area that could accommodate shortfall in elementary or high schools through remodeling middle school buildings.

Financial Analysis

  • The minimum scenario is estimated at approximately $1 billion while the minimum scenario is estimated at approximately $1.2 billion.
  • In addition to the new capacity needs, the current outstanding debt service payments amount to $1 billion over the next 15 years while maintenance/renovation funding needs are estimated at $2.5 billion through 2032, including the current maintenance backlog of $914 million.
  • Of the current revenue sources, capital millage and Capital Investment Tax (CIT) revenues are dedicated to paying debt and a minimal portion of maintenance needs.  These two sources are estimated to generate $2.3 billion over the next 15 years.  Given this amount is less than the sum of debt service and maintenance needs, approximately $1.2 billion of the maintenance needs will continue to be unfunded.
  • Impact fees are dedicated to new capacity.  At the current adopted rate, this revenue source is estimated to generate $565 million over the next 15 years.  Preliminary analysis indicates that impact fee levels are currently below full cost recovery and if they were adjusted to a level closer to full cost recovery they could generate up to $890 million through 2032, or additional $325 million compared to the current fee levels and revenues.
  • School districts have used half-cent School Infrastructure Tax.  If approved by the voters thru a referendum, this tax is estimated to generate $1.9 billion over the next 15 years for Hillsborough County Public Schools.

It is recommended that the District review the enrollment growth patterns on an annual basis and adjust future school projects and needs.  Hillsborough County is projected to experience a high level of growth and large levels of investment needed for school infrastructure, it is important to review and adjust the long range plan on a regular basis along with existing and potential funding options.

Summary of Needs and Funding Options

Category

                 2018-2032

 

          Minimum

Probable

Cost Related to New Capacity:

New Schools

$768,732,000

$1,181,941,000

Portables *

$226,140,000

$     26,460,000

Total Cost

$994,872,000

$1,208,400,000

Existing Revenue Available for New Capacity:

Impact Fees (at current adopted level

$565,510,000

Shortfall/surplus (New Capacity)

-$429,362,000

-$642,890,000

Potential Revenue for New Capacity:

Impact Fees (at Full Cost Recovery Level)

$888,407,000

Shortfall/surplus (New Capacity)

-$104,465,000

-$319,993,000

Cost Related to Maintenance & Debt:

 

Maintenance Needs

$2,509,049,000

Outstanding Debt Service Payments

$1,009,839,000

Total Cost

$3,518,888,000

Revenue Available for Maintenance & Debt:

Capital Millage

$1,852,644,000

Community Investment Tax

$465,000,000

Total Revenue

$2,317,644,000

Shortfall/surplus (Maint & Debt)

-$1,201,244,000

Potential Revenues for New Capacity, Maintenance & Debt

½ cent School Capital Outlay Surtax

$1,889,678,000

  *Portables cannot be funded with impact fee revenues.

There was a general discussion to include:

  • Adding to existing schools would increase the population from 900 to 1200 students in an elementary school.  This would increase traffic in areas around schools.  This study did not address this option within the first five years at elementary. 
  • Currently classrooms are being built at East Bay and Newsome High Schools.  The cost to build classrooms in high schools is much more cost effective than building a school.
  • Current projections indicate in four to six years we will not have enough seats and will need to look at building both and elementary and middle schools.
  • We could possibly adjust the boundaries in the northwest and northeast sections of the county.  At this time we cannot do a districtwide boundary adjustment.
  • This plan did not address renovations or rebuild for those schools beyond their life.  At this time we do not have the capital millage dollars to support renovations.
  • With the current $2.5 billion budget shortage for maintenance, our maintenance department is currently doing the best they can to patch air conditioning systems and general maintenance repairs.
  • Our sites are doing a great job maximizing space.  Early childhood sites are being creative using every available space, even looking at leasing space.
  • We will have to use portables, or look at the possibility of double session. 
  • There is a need to put out a plea to the community to think about a school improvement tax.
  • Look at having a joint workshop with our County Commissioners, and the City Council.  The school district does not generate permits, this is governed by the county, which also means impact fees are managed by the County Commission.  This would help create a plan of action in moving forward.
  • Take a look at what we have and what works best for each school. 
  • Leasing our schools, which would require the district to bond. 
  • In the 90’s we built 60 schools in 10 years.  The Board should look into the option of leasing instead of building schools. 

With no further discussion the workshop adjourned at 2:43 p.m.  (Audio recording on file.)

HCPS publishes minutes of School Board meetings after Board approval. Although the online minutes do not include signatures, citizens may arrange to review the official documents by completing a public records request with the Communications Department.

Schools
Search for School
Find a School
School Locator

Locate your attendance area school

School Locator