Hernando commissioners approve plan to prepare two-stage borrowing for capital projects, excluding public safety training center

The Hernando County Board of County Commissioners voted to direct county staff to prepare a bond resolution and related financing documents for a two‑phase borrowing plan to fund multiple capital projects across the county.

The board asked staff to exclude the Public Safety Training Complex Phase 1 and the Jenkins Creek Pier and bridge replacement from the initial list. Commissioners then approved preparing a financing package that would allow the county to borrow roughly $50 million in 2026 and a second issuance later, approximately in 2028, to meet staged project needs.

Commission discussions focused on three issues: which projects to include in the funding package, how to allocate the debt service across funding sources (impact fees, tourism-related taxes, tangible personal property taxes and a small general‑fund portion), and whether to wait for more certainty in the economy. Several commissioners pushed to prioritize road and economic development infrastructure; others warned against adding long‑term obligations that could restrict future boards.

Joshua Stringfellow, chief financial officer for the clerk’s office, presented an illustrative two‑issuance structure and said staff recommended staging projects so construction and design schedules align with borrowing. He said splitting the borrowing “would be the likely course that would make sense” rather than issuing debt for every project at once.

Administrator Rogers and other county staff explained funding options and legal constraints. Rogers said some projects were already budgeted or near‑shovel ready, and argued that borrowing for capital infrastructure can be fiscally prudent because it spreads costs to future beneficiaries rather than paying entirely from current cash. Opponents on the board said uncertainty — including state policy talk about property‑tax changes — counseled caution. Commissioner Champion urged the board not to bind future boards to general‑fund debt beyond clearly sustainable revenue sources.

After an initial procedural vote on whether to consider a bond issuance (which passed 3–2), the board returned later in the meeting and approved the staff direction to prepare the bond authorization with the two exclusions noted above. That second motion passed 4–1. The county will return with formal bond documents and a final resolution for board approval before going to market.

What the board approved today is authorization to prepare documents and a project list for a future bond sale; it is not a final sale or pledge of funds. Staff told the board projects that would be paid by enterprise and dedicated sources — for example, impact‑fee‑funded park expansions and tangible‑personal‑property tax‑backed economic development infrastructure — were the most appropriate to include in the preliminary package.

The board directed staff to return with more detailed project lists, updated cost estimates and the final bond resolution for a future meeting. The county’s finance team and outside advisors will continue to refine cost and debt‑service assumptions, and the board emphasized it expects each proposed construction contract or large purchase to return for separate approval before monies are spent.

Ending: County officials said the timing of the actual sale will depend on final project schedules, any grant awards and market conditions; staff will bring the formal adoption resolution back to the commission for a public vote before any borrowing occurs.