Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dc Shooting Range topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates phased reopening and fee model for county shooting range
Summary
Committee discussed whether to include shooting range capital and operations in the tentative budget and weighed models from a low‑fee community range to a commercial, fee‑for‑service model; staff recommended phasing open bays to allow limited public use while completing cameras and IT connections.
The committee spent a substantive portion of the Oct. 28 meeting discussing the county shooting range and whether to budget for immediate capital and operational costs. Jeff Hassett and other staff outlined technical needs — cameras, an internet connection to store footage and additional equipment — and said the timeline for a full public opening depends on securing those systems.
Members debated priorities for public access versus sheriff and law enforcement training: several commissioners favored giving training access highest priority, followed by public clubs and tournaments. Committee members proposed opening one or two bays to the public early, with limited hours, to provide interim access while completing the full infrastructure build‑out. "If we can get that 1 open, it would be such a big help," one commissioner said, encouraging a phased approach.
Staff presented peer fee benchmarks from nearby ranges (examples cited in the packet: $7 per hour for 50‑yard bay; $12 per person for two hours on a longer range and other market comparisons) and suggested initial membership or hourly fees could mitigate operating costs. The budget officer indicated no permanent range manager position has been added to the 2025 budget yet; a part‑time manager was discussed as a likely next step and would be a budget consideration next year.
Committee direction: staff will include the full cost in the tentative budget line (to ensure funds are available) but continue work on a timeline and sustainability model; members asked to meet this week to refine operational assumptions and fees before final adoption.
Provenance: discussion began in the budget amendment and range review and continued through the peer fee benchmarking and operational staffing conversation.
