|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Dave Soulia, for FYIVT.com
A proposal to build a $12.1 million Valley Community Center (VCC) is moving forward across multiple towns, with funding to come primarily from taxpayer-backed bonds. The project, which aims to serve Brandon, Pittsford, Leicester, Whiting, Goshen, Chittenden, and Sudbury, is expected to run at an annual deficit of $246,900, raising concerns about long-term financial burdens on local taxpayers.
Despite the high costs, many residents remain unaware of the proposal. The Otter Valley Unified Union (OVUU) School Board will vote on transferring 10 acres of public land to the project for just $1 this Wednesday, February 26, at 6:30 PM at Otter Valley Union High School. While there’s an option to view the meeting via Zoom, only those attending in person will be allowed to vote.
This critical decision will be made by a voice vote at the annual meeting, where historically, few people attend. That means a small group of residents could decide whether to give away public land—a move that could set the stage for millions in future taxpayer costs.
The Plan: A Pricey Vision for a Community Center
The Valley Community Center is proposed as a multi-use recreational facility designed to address a perceived lack of indoor sports and fitness options in the region. According to planning documents, the facility will include:
- A gymnasium with basketball and pickleball courts
- A walking track
- Weight and cardio rooms
- A multi-purpose room for events and meetings
- Locker rooms, a snack stand, and office space
The proposal estimates a total construction cost of $12,175,603.99, with funding largely coming from taxpayer-backed bonds that would be repaid over 30 years. The financial breakdown includes:
| Expense Category | Cost |
|---|---|
| Pre-Engineered Metal Building | $1.9M |
| Plumbing & HVAC | $1.35M |
| Site Work (Paving, Sidewalks) | $683K |
| Interior Finishes (Drywall, Flooring, Paint) | $968K |
| Contingency, Insurance, Fees | $1.37M |
| Total Construction Cost | $12.1M |
Once built, the center will not be self-sustaining. Annual expenses are estimated at $354,900, while revenue from memberships, rentals, and programs is projected at just $108,000, leaving a $246,900 shortfall each year—which would likely be covered by additional taxpayer contributions.
What This Means for Taxpayers
To fund the project, participating towns would take on $12 million in bonded debt, paid back over 30 years. The projected annual bond cost is $400,000, which will be passed on to residents through property tax increases.
- Bond Rate: $0.31 per $1,000 of property value
- Annual Increase per $100K of Home Value: $31.47
- For a $300,000 Homeowner: $7.87/month in additional taxes
These calculations do not include the ongoing operating deficit of nearly $250K per year, which may require additional tax hikes if revenue projections fall short.
A Controversial Path Forward
Rather than seeking full taxpayer approval first, the Valley Community Center initiative has taken a different approach—securing land before guaranteeing funding.
Their current step-by-step plan looks like this:
| Step | What’s Happening |
|---|---|
| Step 1 | Get the 10-acre parcel from the OVUU School Board for $1 |
| Step 2 | Form VCC, LLC, a private nonprofit to oversee funding |
| Step 3 | Sign interlocal agreements, locking in financial commitments from towns |
| Step 4 | Put the $12M bond on the ballot |
| Step 5 | Secure final approvals, break ground in 2026 |
But compared to how large taxpayer-funded projects are typically handled, the process appears backward:
| VCC’s Plan | How You’d Expect a Project Should Work |
|---|---|
| Step 1: Grab 10 acres for $1 before taxpayer approval. | Step 1: Conduct real public outreach—see if taxpayers even want or can afford this. |
| Step 2: Form a nonprofit (VCC, LLC) to start “fundraising.” | Step 2: Present a clear funding plan before taking land. |
| Step 3: Get towns to sign a financial commitment (interlocal agreement). | Step 3: Determine total taxpayer liability—be transparent about risks. |
| Step 4: Put the $12M bond up for a vote—hope no one notices the annual deficit. | Step 4: Ensure the project is self-sustaining and not a permanent tax burden. |
| Step 5: Lock in taxpayer funding, then break ground by 2026. | Step 5: If taxpayers approve, ensure cost controls & contingency plans exist. |
Adding to concerns about transparency, the official website listed in their presentation (www.vccvt.org) doesn’t actually work. Instead of providing clear public access to information, the link leads to a non-functioning webpage, leaving residents with no way to easily review project details.
Even more concerning, the presentation outlining this $12 million project does not list a single name of those leading the initiative. While it states that “five community members” partnered with OVAA to develop the plan, there is no public-facing board, no contact information, and no clear leadership structure. For a project that expects millions in taxpayer funding, the lack of transparency raises serious questions about who is actually responsible for oversight and accountability.
The first and most immediate concern is the land transfer vote on Wednesday, February 26 at 6:30 PM at Otter Valley Union High School.
A Vote With Low Turnout, But High Consequences
The OVUU School Board originally intended to put the land transfer on the Australian ballot for Town Meeting Day, allowing all voters to weigh in. However, state law requires that land transfers be decided by a floor vote at the annual meeting.
Historically, very few residents attend these meetings. If turnout remains low, a small group of people could decide whether to give away 10 acres of public land for just $1.
Critics argue that a decision of this magnitude should not be left to a handful of attendees. Once the land is transferred, the momentum for full taxpayer funding becomes much harder to stop.
What Happens Next?
- Wednesday, February 26, 6:30 PM at Otter Valley Union High School: The OVUU School Board will hold a floor vote on transferring the land to VCC for $1.
- If the land is approved for transfer, the project moves forward, and towns will be asked to commit financially through an interlocal agreement.
- A $12 million bond vote would then be placed on a future ballot, locking taxpayers into a 30-year financial commitment.
With construction expected to begin in 2026, supporters claim the center will fill a recreational gap in the region. However, opponents warn that taxpayers could be on the hook for millions in costs and an indefinite operating deficit.
How to Get Involved
Residents who want to have a say in whether public land should be given away for this project must attend the OVUU Annual Meeting on Wednesday, February 26, at 6:30 PM at Otter Valley Union High School.
Unlike a standard election, this decision will not be made at the ballot box—it will be decided by a voice vote in the room.
For more details, residents can contact or attend upcoming Selectboard meetings in your towns.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, Local government
Colchester has / is doing a rec center. Colchester used their 1% local sales tax revenue to pay for it. Unfortunately the revenue was short; but the town put it to a vote to bond the difference. Selectboard saw to ask voters to bond the shortfall as opposed to continue to save for entire funding.
Even though the town residents are paying for the project; if the resident wants to use it; they can, but only if they purchase a membership! Hmmm?
Also; the property is located across from the high school and 3 properties away from the Jr. high school and a grade school. Town did a major road intersection upgrade at the high school entrance complete with traffic lights and walk signals. I wonder if this all came from the school budget OR the new rec center budget? Either way; I believe the schools & students will be the major user of the rec facilities.
And that’s probably why OVUU is “selling” the land for $1. Major upgrade without touching school budget!
Residents; be advised to vote at their meeting or you will pay at lot more in taxes.
Just like Colchester.
Our fore fathers would never come up with such dumb, expensive ideas. How about you make zoning easy for the rest of us?
We are completely drunk with grant, bond and community projects.
You could modify this with a local church, skip the courts and make a dirt path, get about all the same results for $100k and be cash flow positive.
This type of thinking is rampant across our state in every fashion, we are drunk with other peoples money, surely.
Just stop, stop the insanity.
Community centers, bike paths, charging stations….bike causeways over i89, grease the wheels of Montpelier.
Nothing to make easy construction of homes under 200k, nope, nada….
Nothing for business, unless you deal drugs.
Nothing for criminals you have to hire your own security guard, and still they go free.
Fiscal insanity brings us to our current situation.
“Nothing to make easy construction of homes under 200k…”
Exactly. This will make Colchester even more Unaffordable because of the higher taxes.
^ and Brandon, Pittsford, Leicester, Whiting, Goshen, Chittenden, and Sudbury…
if it passes
If organizations and towns had to come up 30% down for any Vermont proposal, standard commercial financing before breaking ground this nonsense would stop immediately. Towns wouldn’t vote and pay for these things, why should the rest of us tax payers?
We should really have a 50-50 relationship, and little or no oversite on ideas, come up with 50% we’ll go along, otherwise don’t waste our time and money.
This is a great article, shows how the bureaucracy works for themselves not Vermonters. Nobody willing to stand up for project, project just appears and is needed, small voting groups make decisions for entire town, generally they never do this at town meeting when we are supposed to vote, huh. And if they do and lose they always have other votes at different times of year and get it in. If you get 5% of town to ask for a revote they will then raise the requirement to 10%!!!! Ask me how I know! They do this across the state.
Thanks for that, vermont44. I live in the next town over but hadn’t heard about it. The situation in Colchester is baffling, especially considering an extensive commercial rec center (largest in Vermont?) is just a few miles down the road in Essex Junction.
With a free market, only people who want the services must pay. If it were possible to do it for less, I do not doubt that “The Edge” sports and fitness center would if they could. Their price is very reasonable for everything you get, and you can customize your package and not pay for the things you won’t use.
But apparently, residents of places like Colchester “don’t like politics” and “don’t want to be bothered to get involved.” LOL Residents will pay a high price for not paying attention to what their government leaders do with their tax dollars.
If a rec center were feasible, an entrepreneur would put one in. If it’s not feasible, it’s not feasible.
Or could it be that those residents didn’t have informed consent? It sounds well-intentioned, but is someone on the board looking to make some bank?
These 7 Towns should be careful what they wish for. Orleans County opened up a similar project in 2005 called IROC, (Indoor Recreation for Orleans County). Cost was $6.3 million with $4 million raised by grants and local donations. A good sized facility with an indoor track, and swimming pool. plus team sports all winter long, I believe volleyball and more. Full time management and I think well run. The interest was $100k per year plus operating and upkeep they could not raise enough to keep it open. A few generous local residents even tossed in $50k and $100k to keep it open. It was closed in 2012 still owing over $2 million. As it turned out, people do not travel for exercise indoors during the 8 or so months when they can be outside. You can only have so many art/craft shows; car shows; home improvement, etc. You will need to set aside annually at least 5% for reserve the cost of a new roof or a new parking lot. We tried this in Orleans County at a fraction of the cost and it lasted only 7 years- now it is home to Stick and Studd Building Materials.
Quiet vote my butt. I’m sitting shoulder to shoulder in a packed auditorium voting now. Had to park on Rte 7 and walk to get here. Articles like this bother me, full of disinformation, lacking integrity. This vote is a pledge, to be carried out IF the project moves forward. Information on the folks moving this project forward is readily available to anyone who wants to spend more than 15 seconds looking for it.