Selling now in St. Cloud, FL
Tohoqua
2,437 parcels in the City of St. Cloud, Osceola County
The district here charges every 50-foot lot the same operating fee in all ten phases. Then it charges one phase $1,423.65 a year of debt and the phase next door $824.66, same builder, same amenity, because it weights the same house two different ways. Separately, the mailing address, the county's own property record and the district's own founding ordinance all name the wrong jurisdiction. The whole carrying cost is below.
- Area
- Osceola County, FL
- Parcels
- 2,437
- Borrowings
- Eight
- District bill
- $1,010 to $2,606
At a glance
Tohoqua fast facts
Every figure here comes from seven consecutive adopted district budgets, six years of audited statements, eight published amortisation schedules, the county's certified rate sheet and parcel roll, the school district's own boundary files, and federal and state mapping queried directly. Where two official sources disagree, we publish the disagreement rather than picking one.
- Area
- City of St. Cloud, Osceola County
- Jurisdiction
- The city, not the mailing address
- Size
- 2,437 parcels, 1,911 homes standing
- Stage
- Selling in the final two phases
- Borrowings
- Eight, across ten phases
- Cheapest district bill
- About $1,010 a year
- Priciest district bill
- About $2,606 a year
- Same lot, one phase apart
- About $599 a year, 72.6 percent
- Operating charge
- Identical in every phase, by design
- Total tax rate
- About 17.90 mills
- Unincorporated county rate
- About 13.85 mills
- County insurance average
- Not published, we could not verify it
- Homeowner association dues
- Ask before you contractGet pricing
- Current pricing and lots left
- Ask before you contractGet pricing
Figures come from the district's adopted budgets and assessment tables, its amortisation schedules and audited financial statements filed with the state, the county property appraiser's certified rate sheet and parcel roll, the school district's published attendance-zone files, and federal flood and state emergency mapping, all as of September 2026. Recorded declarations, association dues, plats, bond indentures, the assessment methodology reports and any county homeowners insurance average could not be obtained and none is published here. All details are subject to change without notice.
The most primary-looking document here is the one that is wrong.
The ordinance that created this district states that the land is situated entirely within the unincorporated limits of the county. Every current record says the community is inside the city, and that is worth about 4.04 mills a year. The county's own property record separately says the mailing city is the other city in the county, which it is, and which has nothing to do with jurisdiction. Three official sources, three wrong answers, on the single fact that moves the tax bill most.
Where it is
East of the lake between the two Osceola cities, in the corridor that has absorbed most of the county's new-home volume, with the theme parks about forty minutes west and the coast about an hour east. Most of it is built and lived in, so walk the finished streets and notice how different the phases feel, because the tax bill differs too.
How to buy in Tohoqua without leaving money on the table
The person at the builder's sales desk works for the builder. You can have a Florida agent on your side instead, touring with you, reading the contract line by line, and pushing for every incentive, upgrade and closing-cost credit the builder will give. It costs you nothing: on new construction the builder already budgets your agent's fee whether you bring one or not. The one catch is timing. You usually need your own agent from the very first visit, or the builder will not recognise them and you lose it. Start here and we will set it up.
Set up a tourWhat a local would tell you
The district counts your house one way for operations and a different way for debt
Start with the half that is admirably simple. For operations, this district publishes one uniform ladder for the whole community. A 50-foot lot pays about $1,182.64 in the first phase and about $1,182.64 in the last. Identical, by design, across all ten phases and three builders. That is unusually clean and it is worth saying.
The debt half of the same bill is not clean at all. A 50-foot lot pays about $1,423.65 a year of debt in one phase and about $824.66 in the phase next door, built by the same builder, on the same amenity, with the same operating charge to the cent. That is about $599 a year, or 72.6 per cent.
And it compounds in the same direction rather than cancelling out. The dearer lot carries about $18,000 of remaining principal against about $12,400, owes about $36,900 of remaining lifetime debt service against about $19,400, and pays for two more years. On the newer borrowing the interest still to be paid is larger than the principal still outstanding.
Now the mechanism, which is the part that is genuinely new and which we have not seen anywhere else in Florida. Normalise every product to the 50-foot lot and ask what a townhome counts as. For operations it is 0.60 of a house, everywhere, always. For debt it is 0.60 in four of the eight borrowings, 0.50 in one, and 0.2898 in another. That is a 2.07 times swing in the same physical product's weight, in one district, under one board, printed about twenty pages apart in the same adopted budget.
The consequence is arithmetic rather than opinion. Weighting 122 townhomes at 0.2898 instead of 0.60 shrinks the base carrying that borrowing by about a quarter, and everything those townhomes do not carry lands on the 94 single-family lots beside them. Re-run the same levy on the district's own operating ladder and about $25,800 a year moves off the townhomes and onto the single-family lots, which is about $339 a year for each of those owners, running to 2053. We could not obtain the methodology reports that would explain the weighting, so we can prove the effect and not the reasoning, and we would rather say that plainly.
One more thing worth knowing before you compare two homes here. Five lots in this community pay no district debt at all. Comparing the operating unit counts against the debt unit counts, borrowing by borrowing, five 50-foot lots have dropped off the debt roll because their owners bought the lien out. They pay about $1,182.64 and nothing else while the house next door pays about $2,006. Which five is disclosed nowhere a buyer would look.
So ask four things in writing before you contract: which phase and which borrowing the specific lot sits in; the adopted operating and debt assessment for that lot; whether its lien has been prepaid; and the payoff figure. The operating number will be the same wherever you buy. The other three will not.
Find out which borrowing a specific lot landed in
One phase apart is worth about $599 a year here, and about $17,500 over the life. Nothing on a price list tells you which side you are on.
The record
Two thirds of the capital programme is unfinanced, and a third of two phases is owned by one rental company
The item most worth asking about is debt that does not exist yet. The district has issued about $22.3 million against a capital programme its own audit states at about $71.9 million. That is about 31 per cent. The audit says the remainder will be funded, in its own words, by a combination of developer contributions or future bond issues. With eight borrowings already behind it and two phases still selling, that is a live question rather than a theoretical one, and no maximum per-lot figure is published anywhere we could reach.
Two structural details from the same audit. First, on four of the eight borrowings the reserve funds are contractually earmarked so that part of the reserve is released back to the developer for construction costs paid on the district's behalf, once conditions are met. The audit says that has not yet happened. Second, two of the eight borrowings were reimbursement bonds rather than construction bonds - issued, in the audit's language, to repay the developer for financing improvements already built. The district also paid the developers about $5.9 million during the most recent year and a further $3.5 million after year end for infrastructure. None of that is improper and all of it is disclosed. It is simply not visible from anywhere a buyer looks.
Now something the ownership roll shows that no listing will. Two affiliated institutional rental owners hold 216 of the 2,437 parcels here, about 8.9 per cent of the community. But it is not spread evenly. In one phase they hold 89 of 262 lots, about 34 per cent. In another they hold 44 of 131, about 34 per cent. In a third, 61 of 287, about 21 per cent. In seven of the ten phases they hold nothing at all. About 153 of their 195 improved holdings were acquired as new construction in the last two years. We are naming no entity and drawing no conclusion about their intentions or their tenants. What we will say is that the tenure mix in this community varies enormously by phase, that this is a matter of public record, and that it is a fair question to ask on a first visit.
On the taxes, the arithmetic is clean and the answer is that the city costs more. The rate here totals about 17.90 mills against about 13.85 unincorporated, and it reconciles in both directions: you add the city levy of about 5.11 and you drop the county emergency services unit of about 1.07, which is levied only outside municipalities. That is the fourth highest of 33 rate codes in the county, and about half a mill above the other city.
Against that, a genuine positive we checked hard. There is no flat fire assessment, no solid waste assessment and no stormwater assessment on the tax bill here. The district assessment is the only non-ad-valorem line. We verified that five ways: no fire column appears on any of the county's 33 rate codes; the county's own list of nine special assessment communities does not include this one; its register of non-ad-valorem rolls lists 50 districts and no county-wide charge; its published explanation of how such assessments arise describes a petition process this community has not been through; and city refuse and stormwater are billed as utilities instead. We could not obtain those utility rates and publish none.
Worked through on $400,000 of taxable value, the all-in figure runs from about $8,169 for a first-phase townhome to about $9,766 for a 50-foot lot in the dearest phase, of which between about 12 and about 27 per cent is not property tax. The same taxable value in the unincorporated county with no district would be about $5,542. So the dearest lot here pays about $4,224 more a year, about 76 per cent more, for an identical assessed value - roughly $1,618 of that is the jurisdiction and roughly $2,606 is the district.
What to ask for that is not published: the association's recorded declaration, dues and any capital contribution at closing; which phase and borrowing the exact lot is in and whether its lien is prepaid; the payoff figure; the assessment methodology behind the townhome weighting; what the district expects to issue next and against which phases; the city's refuse and stormwater rates; and an actual tax bill for a closed comparable showing every line.
The area
Two federal flood layers disagree about the same lots here, and the evacuation map does not cover this county at all
We tested all 2,437 parcel centroids against the federal flood layer rather than sampling. About 86.6 per cent return an area of minimal flood hazard, about 5.9 per cent the reduced-risk band, and about 7.5 per cent a special flood hazard area - 180 parcels at a mapped base flood elevation of 57 feet and three with no elevation determined. Not one parcel fell outside coverage, so the clear results are affirmative findings rather than gaps.
It is very uneven by phase, and that matters more than the community average. Eight of the ten phases are 100 per cent minimal hazard. One phase is the opposite: about 51 per cent of its parcels are in the flood zone and only about 15 per cent in minimal hazard. A buyer told this community is not in a flood zone is being told something true of most of it and false of one phase.
Then the part a buyer or an underwriter can get badly wrong. Two official federal layers disagree about the same lots. The zone layer places 183 parcels in a flood zone. The map-amendment layer records eight separate determinations, issued between 2022 and 2025, removing most of those same lots from it. Both are current, both are federal, and neither carries a note about the other. The explanation is structural rather than an error: the panels covering this community became effective in 2013 and have never been revised, so every determination since is an administrative overlay the zone polygons do not know about. We confirmed zero map revisions inside the community against 45 in the metro core and 87 county-wide, so that part is a real zero.
Two details inside those determinations are worth carrying to a closing table. Seven of the eight are removals based on placed fill rather than on a map error, which attach to the structure as built and do not travel automatically. And two of them are denial-then-grant sequences: one set of lots was denied and re-filed successfully 67 days later, another was denied and only succeeded two years and eleven months afterwards. One phase has no determination of any kind covering it, and exactly one improved single-family home in the whole community sits in a mapped flood zone with nothing on file. We are not publishing which. Pull a current determination for the specific lot.
One methodological warning that changes how you should read anybody's flood claim about this community, including ours. Our first amendment query returned a false zero because it asked for a field name the service does not have, and the service answered with an empty result rather than an error. We caught it on re-run. If someone hands you a flood conclusion drawn from a bulk query, treat it with suspicion.
On hurricane evacuation we have to be careful about what the data says. This county is entirely absent from the state's evacuation zone layer - 43 of Florida's 67 counties are in it, and this one, along with the whole inland metro, is not. Our controls work: five coastal points across four counties all returned zones, and an inland point inside a mapped county correctly returned none. So the right reading is that the state does not publish evacuation zones for this county, not that this community has been assessed and cleared. On storm surge the community returns nothing at categories three, four and five with coastal controls validating each, which is the meaningful result. The category one layer returned nothing at our coastal controls either, so we do not lean on it.
On insurance we have nothing. The state regulator's county-average premium series appears to have been dropped in a website migration, and the surviving tool is interactive only. Rather than launder a brokerage's number into a regulatory-sounding claim, we publish none. Get a real quote on the actual house.
On schools we do have names, from the school district's own downloadable board-approved boundary files, with seven in-county control points each returning a different and correct school and two out-of-county points returning nothing. All 2,437 parcels are unanimous: Cross Prairie K-8, then Gateway High. The counterintuitive part is that this community is inside one city and zoned to the other city's high school, so the mailing address is right about the schools and wrong about everything else. Two caveats: the files are labelled for the current school year but their internal naming refers to a prior one, and a school site has been platted inside the community that is not yet assigned to anything. Run the exact address through the district before you rely on it.
What you need to know
Buying new construction with someone on your side
Representation is free and the timing is the catch, as above. It is worth more than usual here for one reason specific to this community: the operating half of your district bill is identical everywhere and the debt half varies by 4.75 times, and only the second one is decided by which phase you happen to buy in. That is about $599 a year between two 50-foot lots one phase apart, and about $17,500 over the life. Nothing on a spec sheet tells you.
The second reason is that this is a late-stage community with a long public record. Seven years of adopted budgets, six years of audits and eight amortisation schedules are all published, and they answer questions a sales desk cannot. Whether a lot's lien has been prepaid, what the phase's remaining principal is, and what the district expects to borrow next are all checkable before you write an offer.
On builders, we name only what a primary record supports, and here the record is unusually good: the district's own adopted budget names the builder for every phase. Pulte Homes is the current developer per the audit and holds about 344 lots, concentrated in the two phases still selling; two other national builders built the earlier phases and are named the same way. We are not naming entities. We did not search Florida regulatory enforcement records or civil dockets for any builder, so read the absence of any such note as unchecked, not clean. If that matters to you, ask and we will have it pulled properly rather than repeat a rumour.
The rest is the same everywhere and it is not complicated: hire your own independent inspector at pre-drywall, again at final walkthrough, and once more before the one-year warranty expires. Read the limited warranty booklet before you sign rather than after. And read what the purchase agreement says about completion timing, price changes before closing, and dispute resolution.
Subdiview is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Pulte Homes, any homebuilder, any developer of Tohoqua, the City of St. Cloud, or Osceola County. The builder is identified here because it is a builder of this community, which is a statement of fact and not a representation of any relationship. Community names and marks are the property of their respective owners and are used for identification only. Subdiview is operated by a real estate broker licensed in Illinois. We are not your agent, we do not represent you, and we perform no real estate brokerage services in this state. No one at Subdiview is licensed in this state. If you join an interest list, your information is referred to a real estate professional licensed in the state where the property is located, who will contact you directly. We are compensated by that professional's brokerage, not by you. Pricing, plans, inventory, district, tax and approval details on this page carry the dates shown, are as published, proposed or reported rather than committed, and are subject to change without notice.
Questions and answers
Tohoqua FAQ
What is Tohoqua?
It is a community of 2,437 platted parcels on about 780 acres in the City of St. Cloud, built across ten phases by three national builders and served by a single community development district and a single amenity centre. About 1,911 homes are standing, so it is roughly 78 per cent built, and the pace has been rising: the most recent full year was its biggest ever at 481 completions. What is left to sell is concentrated in the last two phases, where the developer still holds about 98 per cent of one of them.
Is it in Kissimmee or St. Cloud?
St. Cloud, and three official-looking sources will tell you otherwise. Every mailing address in the community says Kissimmee. The county property appraiser's own location-city field says Kissimmee on all 2,437 parcels. And the ordinance that created the district states in terms that the land is situated entirely within the unincorporated limits of the county. All three are wrong as to jurisdiction today. We tested every one of the 2,437 parcel centroids against the federal incorporated-place boundary in two vintages and got 2,437 of 2,437 inside St. Cloud, with three known city halls returning correctly and five known unincorporated points returning nothing. Four further sources agree: the appraiser's own tax-district code, the district's audited statements, the federal flood programme's community identifier, and the fact that the city itself owns 45 parcels inside the subdivision. The likeliest explanation is an annexation after the district was created. It is worth about 4.04 mills.
Why do two identical lots here pay such different district bills?
Because the district uses one definition of your house for operations and a different one for debt, and applies the second inconsistently across its own eight borrowings. For operations it publishes a single uniform ladder for the whole community, so a 50-foot lot pays about $1,182.64 whether it is in the first phase or the last. For debt it does not. A 50-foot lot pays about $1,423.65 a year in one phase and about $824.66 in the phase next door, built by the same builder, on the same amenity, with the same operating charge to the cent. That is about $599 a year, or 72.6 per cent more. It compounds too: the dearer lot carries about $18,000 of remaining principal against about $12,400, owes about $36,900 of remaining lifetime debt service against about $19,400, and pays for two more years.
What is actually causing that?
Not the interest rate, though the rates did move. The bigger driver is the weighting. Normalise every product to the 50-foot lot and the townhome counts as 0.60 of one for operations everywhere in the community, always. For debt it counts as 0.60 in four of the eight borrowings, 0.50 in one, and 0.2898 in another. That is a 2.07 times swing in the same physical product's benefit weight, in one district, under one board, printed about twenty pages apart in the same adopted budget. The effect is arithmetic: weighting 122 townhomes at 0.2898 instead of 0.60 shrinks the base carrying that borrowing by about a quarter, and everything the townhomes do not carry lands on the 94 single-family lots beside them. Re-run on the district's own operating ladder, about $25,800 a year moves off those townhomes and onto those single-family lots. It runs to 2053. We could not obtain the methodology reports that would explain the weighting, and we say so.
Do some homes here pay no district debt at all?
Five of them do. Comparing the district's own operating unit counts against its debt unit counts, borrowing by borrowing, five 50-foot lots have dropped off the debt roll entirely. Those owners bought the lien out. They pay about $1,182.64 of operations and nothing else, while the house next door pays about $2,006. The audit confirms the mechanism, recording prepaid assessments and mandatory redemptions. What is not disclosed anywhere a buyer would look is which five. There is also a figure we cannot reconcile: the audit reports $15,000 of principal prepaid on one borrowing, the budget removed two lots worth about $1,550 of annual assessment, and that borrowing's own ratio of principal to levy implies about $24,733 for two such lots. We report the gap rather than pick a side.
Is the city address more expensive?
Yes, by about 4.04 mills, and it reconciles cleanly. The rate here totals about 17.90 mills against about 13.85 unincorporated: you add the city levy of about 5.11 and you drop the county emergency services unit of about 1.07, which is levied only outside municipalities. This is the fourth highest of 33 rate codes in the county and the higher of the two cities, by about half a mill. One good piece of news: there is no flat fire, solid waste or stormwater charge on the tax bill here. We checked five ways, and the district assessment is the only non-ad-valorem line. City refuse and stormwater are billed as utilities instead, and we could not obtain those rates.
Before you walk into a sales office
Get your inside track on Tohoqua
We will connect you with a real estate professional licensed in Florida who represents you rather than the seller, who can register you before your first visit, and who will get you the answers this page could not: which phase and borrowing a specific lot sits in and what it costs, whether its lien has been prepaid, the payoff figure, the association's dues and recorded documents, a real tax bill for a closed comparable, and what the builder will actually give on incentives at your price point.
It costs nothing, creates no brokerage relationship by itself, and does not obligate you to anything.