BRADFORD COUNTY, Fla. — The Bradford County Board of Commissioners voted to allow county staff and a consultant to develop a formal proposal to offer a 30‑acre warehouse near Stark to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under an intergovernmental service agreement, a move that drew sharp questions and objections from local residents on the facility’s location, oversight and community impact.

The motion to advance the proposal was offered by Commissioner Dorothy and seconded by Commissioner Thompson; the chair called the question and the motion carried, with the clerk recording two commissioners in opposition. The vote authorizes the sheriff’s office and county staff to negotiate terms with ICE and the consultant but does not finalize any contract or transfer of ownership; any final agreement would return to the board for approval.

Why it matters: Supporters said the project would bring federal funding for construction, infrastructure upgrades and new jobs, while opponents said placing an ICE detention facility near the county’s main shopping hub and residential streets would harm community safety and local commerce.

Consultant’s pitch and oversight assurances
Darren Giaponelli (surname later pronounced “Capanelli” during the meeting), identifying himself as a representative of State Oak Consulting, told commissioners the plan would use the warehouse and surrounding 30 acres and that federal funding would pay for construction and operation under an IGSA (intergovernmental service agreement) with the Department of Homeland Security. "The concept is revenue neutral to the county," he said, adding the county would retain ownership of the property and that the sheriff’s office would provide governance and oversight.

Giaponelli described a phased build: an initial conversion of the existing building and a first operational phase of about 1,000 beds, with later phases adding roughly 1,000 beds each through modular construction. He said operations would comply with "national detention standards" and that the IGSA would include line‑item reimbursement for projected county impacts.

Public concerns and board questions
Multiple residents and commissioners said the proposed site—described in public remarks as near Walmart and other businesses—would put a large detainee population near busier streets and a residential block of about 14 homes. One resident asked, "What is that facility gonna do to Stark?" and said biracial children in the neighborhood already carry identification because they feel intimidated by ICE activity.

Commissioners pressed the consultant on staffing, pay and liability. The consultant said pay for detention officers would align with federal detention rates, detainees would arrive only after processing by ICE, and line items for county impacts (including potential legal exposure) would be negotiated as part of the IGSA. The county attorney and consultant said the consultant would not charge the county for preliminary proposal work if the board later declined to proceed.

Supporters’ case
Speakers who favored the plan emphasized economic benefits. A proponent with experience in detention operations told the board the project could create hundreds of construction jobs during buildout and an estimated 1,000–1,250 permanent positions (detention officers and supporting roles), and provide water, sewer and electrical upgrades the county might otherwise not obtain. Proponents also argued that local oversight and unannounced inspections would allow the county to monitor conditions better than a state‑run facility.

Decision and next steps
The board’s approval only authorizes the consultant and county to prepare detailed plans and to negotiate with ICE. If an IGSA is negotiated and accepted by the county and sheriff’s office, the terms would return to the board for a final vote. The clerk recorded two commissioners opposing the authorization; the item will return for additional public review and a subsequent final decision.

Meeting records show the presentation and public comment lasted through a robust Q&A, and commissioners asked staff to do additional outreach so constituents could review details before final action. The board adjourned after routine reports from the county manager and county attorney.