Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety Training Center topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County staff unveil public-safety training center master plan; Phase 1 estimated at about $12 million without an EOC

5569060 · August 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A master plan for a public-safety training campus on a donated 60-acre site lays out burn towers, a driving pad, shooting ranges and other training infrastructure a phased build-out; staff estimate full build-out could exceed $100 million and presented a phase-1 package of roughly $12 million (excluding an emergency operations center).

Hernando County project staff presented a master plan Aug. 12 that lays out a multi-use public-safety training campus on roughly 60 acres donated by CEMEX. The plan organizes training needs for county fire, sheriff and emergency-management personnel into a phased build schedule that includes a burn tower, emergency-vehicle operations/driving pad, shooting ranges, an obstacle course, canine and mounted facilities, a training pavilion and site infrastructure.

Why it matters: County first responders currently travel for several specialty training needs; the plan aims to centralize practical training and reduce travel demands, while providing dedicated space for recurring exercises required by certification standards.

What staff presented: Projects Coordinator Eric Van de Bogard and project consultants described a master plan that: - Sited the training campus between Fort Dade and Citrus Way on a 60-acre parcel (donated by CEMEX). Staff reported the location allows use of existing topography for observation areas and for embedding training props into slopes. - Identified more than 40 training elements (burn props, driving pad, ranges, EOC backup, classroom/administration space, staging and parking) and recommended a three-stage phasing approach: short-term (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10) and long-term (10-20+). - Flagged key infrastructure needs: on-site potable water and wastewater (the nearest municipal connections are more than four miles away), electrical capacity, road access and drainage. Staff said the property's soils require targeted engineering (over-excavation and engineered fill in some locations) and that limited sinkhole activity is currently localized. - Estimated costs and phasing: staff estimated total campus build-out would exceed $100 million over many years. A Phase 1 package that excludes a new Emergency Operations Center (EOC) was estimated in staff discussion at roughly $12 million (site work, road access, basic utilities, a burn structure, driving pad and ranges); adding an EOC would increase Phase 1 costs substantially (staff cited a rough figure of a $20 million building for an EOC).

Staff cautioned that implementation depends on funding. Potential sources discussed included grants (state, FAA, U.S. Economic Development Administration), county bonding and dedicated local revenue. Staff recommended a phased approach so priority training needs (driving pad and certified range) could be delivered earlier while the county pursues larger grants or local revenue measures.

Quotes and attribution: Eric Van de Bogard summarized the technical work and phasing. Van de Bogard said, "We recommend a short-term focus on the most urgent training needs so the county can provide required certification training locally." Captain John McMurdo of the sheriff's office discussed operational priorities and catalogued equipment and facility needs during the financing discussion.

Next steps: Staff asked the board for policy direction on procurement and phasing (design-bid-build, design-build or construction manager) and on whether to pursue design for a prioritized Phase 1 before securing full project funding. Board members asked for more detail on financing options and urged caution about public perception if the county bonds a large program without voter direction.

Provenance: Presentation began with Eric Van de Bogard (projects coordinator) and consultant remarks at the Aug. 12 meeting; staff Q&A and financial discussion with the sheriff's office concluded later in that agenda segment.