Board revisits Lake Marion land purchase as board members weigh infrastructure costs and timing

District facilities staff reintroduced the proposal to acquire the Lake Marion site in northeast Polk County as a land-banking opportunity to meet long-range needs for maintenance, warehousing, transportation and potentially a K–8 campus.

The presenter said parts of the Poinciana area are pre-entitled for development and that Tohopekaliga (the local utility provider) is extending water and wastewater lines, but added the timing of utility extensions and road improvements will drive when lots can be developed. Staff provided recent building-permit counts for the Poinciana area and said several thousand units remain pre-entitled for future build-out.

Board members pressed staff on how quickly the district could surplus or develop acquired property. Staff cited a recent surplus example that took about 180 days for due diligence and subdivision, and said entitlement and zoning for a development could take 4–6 months; the time to begin construction depends on procurement and the chosen project-delivery mechanism. "For entitlements, it could take anywhere just for zoning purposes 4 to 6 months and then, to actually start turning dirt ... it takes time until we identify which mechanism," a staff presenter said.

Several board members raised practical concerns. One member noted that large portions of acreage in the northeast are held by the South Florida Water Management District and may not be developable, and questioned whether traffic, road widening and the cost of extending a 16,000-foot force main make the site unsuitable for a school. Another member said the site may be more appropriate for a maintenance depot or bus facility and suggested reducing acreage if a non-educational facility is chosen.

Staff said the county has identified a road-straightening and signalization project at Lake Marion Creek Drive and Cypress Parkway, and that county partners had voiced no objections to development proposals presented so far. Board members asked to review revised contract language and requested staff provide responses to legal and risk-management questions; staff agreed to bring back an updated contract with additional protections.

No vote was taken. The board asked staff to return with additional due-diligence information, revised contract language and clearer cost estimates before proceeding with a purchase recommendation.