After hub presentation, Montpelier council narrows Country Club Road lease option; requests bonding and shorter option term

The Montpelier City Council heard a detailed presentation Aug. 26 from the Community Sports Hub on a phased lease and development proposal for the Country Club Road property and instructed the acting city manager to continue negotiations with a narrowed option schedule and added financial protections.

Why it matters: The 134‑acre Country Club Road site has been a multi-year city priority for a mix of recreation, conservation and housing. A long-term lease that commits part of the land to a private nonprofit recreation facility would change development options, generate site activity and create revenue but also carries long-term risks the council must manage.

The hub, which has renamed itself the Community Sports Hub, described a three-part proposal: a building lease modeled on an existing Turtle Island lease (phase 1 would be about 1,600 square feet for a 10‑year initial term with two five‑year extensions and roughly $21,000 annual rent), an option to lease 1.5 acres adjacent to the building (the hub proposed paying $14,000 to secure a five‑year option), and, if the option were exercised, a long-term ground lease to build an indoor “sports barn” (the hub discussed a multi-decade lease with staged rent that would begin modestly during construction and rise once the barn opened). Hub representatives said their near‑term goal is to open a smaller simulated-sports and snack-bar operation this winter while fundraising and pursuing grants and loans to finance eventual construction of the larger indoor facility.

Councilors and staff focused on three concerns: (1) financial viability and fundraising in a tight grant climate, (2) how much site control the city would cede during the option period and while the hub seeks financing, and (3) protections the city should require if a private nonprofit constructs a building on city-owned land. Councilor Ben and others asked whether the hub could advance the project without a long exclusive option; hub members repeatedly said obtaining site control (an option) is essential to secure large loans and philanthropic pledges.

After the hub presentation and an executive‑session negotiation, Councilor [mover unspecified] made a motion instructing the acting city manager to continue lease negotiations under a set framework. The council modified the hub’s proposed schedule by replacing the hub’s multi‑renewable five‑year option with a single three‑year option to advance to a multi‑decade land lease; the council also required the hub to provide an assurance/surety bond or comparable financial guarantee before the city would enter a long-term ground lease. The motion passed on a council vote.

What the council asked staff to do next: city staff will continue negotiations to reflect the council’s changes (three‑year option, bond requirement and clearer default protections), finalize lease language with municipal counsel, and return to council with a revised, legally reviewed lease for further action (staff said a revised lease could appear at a future meeting). Hub leaders said the shorter option still allows fundraising and does not preclude joint grant applications with the city, but both sides acknowledged the project faces financing and grant‑eligibility challenges.

Ending: Council members said they want protection that would allow the city to reclaim or purchase improvements if a project failed, and asked staff to return with a redlined lease that incorporates those protections before council approval of any final long-term ground lease.