Hardee County advisory committee trims jail site list to four parcels, schedules Sept. 8 public meeting

A county advisory committee assigned to recommend a site for a new Hardee County sheriff's office and jail narrowed an initial list of nine candidate parcels to four and set an evening public meeting for Sept. 8 to produce a recommendation for the Board of County Commissioners.

Kyle Long, the county staff member who compiled the parcel list, told the committee that he screened sites only for basic, objective criteria: a minimum of 15 acres, water and sewer utilities and location in or adjacent to city limits. "I put together a potential list of potential sites," Long said during the committee's presentation, describing acreage, available utilities, flood-zone acreage and the number of residential units within 1,000 feet for each parcel.

The committee eliminated parcels in a series of votes during the meeting. It removed site No. 2 early in the session because it was similar to the county-owned site No. 1 and was not county-owned; the committee recorded that elimination as unanimous. Later votes removed parcels 7 and 9 (vote recorded 6-3 in favor of elimination), parcel 5 (motion passed; one member opposed) and parcel 3 (motion passed by majority). That left parcels 1, 4, 6 and 8 as the four sites the committee will examine next.

Why it matters: the committee is an advisory body charged with presenting one or a short list of recommended sites to elected commissioners. The county has state-appropriated funds and a timeline for permitting and planned unit development (PUD) processes. Committee members and residents raised questions about how quickly property-preparation steps (annexation, land-use map changes and a PUD) could be completed and whether property owners had been contacted about selling.

Discussion and concerns

Committee members and members of the public repeatedly raised three themes: proximity to residential neighborhoods and schools, whether the parcels are actually for sale, and the time required for annexation and the PUD/zoning process.

- Residential proximity and emergency access: several committee members, including Captain Drake of the sheriff's office, said they prioritize sites with fewer nearby residences to reduce routine emergency traffic through neighborhoods. "Residents is going to always be something that I'm going to consider," Captain Drake said. Supporters of site No. 1 pointed out it had fewer residences within 1,000 feet than other options presented.

- Owner willingness and sale status: multiple speakers, including a committee member, said Long had not been asked to confirm property owners' willingness to sell. Long said he intentionally limited his work to objective screening criteria and did not assume owners would sell. Committee members asked county staff to contact owners of the top-ranked parcels in the weeks before the Sept. 8 meeting.

- Annexation, land use and PUD timing: the county manager and planning staff emphasized the steps that would follow a site recommendation. The county manager summarized the process: annexation (if needed), a land-use map change to public/semi-public, and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) application to change zoning. The manager said that if a parcel is selected and the application runs smoothly, the local portion of the PUD process and administrative review could take roughly two to four months, and that from a committee recommendation to construction often spans many months depending on required studies and reviews.

Formal actions and outcomes

- Eliminate parcel No. 2: motion made on the floor and approved unanimously (committee recorded as unanimous).

- Eliminate parcels No. 7 and No. 9: motion to strike both parcels passed by majority (committee recorded a 6-3 vote in favor of eliminating both).

- Eliminate parcel No. 5: motion passed (one recorded opposed); committee comment cited lack of street frontage and the need to extend a public right-of-way to provide access as a key constraint.

- Eliminate parcel No. 3: motion passed by majority; committee discussion referenced splitting a current owner's larger holding and concerns about development feasibility.

After those votes the committee reported it was down to four parcels (Nos. 1, 4, 6 and 8) to study further.

Next steps and public process

The committee agreed to meet again on Monday evening, Sept. 8 at 7:30 p.m. in order to allow more public participation and to aim for a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners at the conclusion of that meeting. County staff said they would attempt to contact owners of the four remaining parcels to determine whether the properties are for sale and, where feasible, to report back on asking prices or owner willingness to sell.

Public commenters asked the committee to post the addresses or clear parcel identifiers before the Sept. 8 meeting so neighbors and property owners can attend. Several residents urged the committee to consider whether a proposed adjacent mental-health facility (Tri-County model discussed in public comments) is likely to be built alongside the jail and whether the local county infrastructure can support such a facility; county staff clarified that Tri-County funding and operational decisions are separate and that the committee—s task is site selection for the sheriff—s facilities.

Ending

The committee recessed with a clear schedule and a narrower set of parcels to analyze. The committee will ask county staff to try to confirm owner interest and will revisit the four remaining parcels at the Sept. 8 evening meeting, at which the group expects to reach a recommendation to forward to the county commission.