Surry County is moving forward with plans to build a YMCA on land adjacent to its Parks and Recreation Center at 205 Enos Farm Drive.

On June 5, county supervisors voted 3-1 to authorize County Administrator Melissa Rollins and County Attorney Lola Perkins to complete negotiations and execute a final agreement with the YMCA of the Virginia Peninsulas. The cost of the public-private partnership remains undetermined.

Supervisor Tim Calhoun cast the dissenting vote. Earlier, he’d made a motion to postpone the vote until a meeting on “financial and community/district buy-in,” which drew no second.

During the portion of the meeting reserved for public comments, two county residents said they favored the YMCA project but questioned the potential impact on county tax dollars.

Perkins said a cost estimate won’t be known until a “master development plan” is created. Once the agreement with Surry County is finalized, the Y will separately enter into a contract with Gro Development, a nationwide designer of YMCAs and other nonprofit community centers, to develop the master plan that will “identify the specific portion of the property that will be used for the new facility,” Perkins said.

“One of the reasons why the master development plan is so critical as a first step is because that is what tells us what the building is going to look like, where it is going to be placed,” Perkins said. That design will play a large role in determining “what the cost of the project will be.”

Once that plan is created, the Y will enter into a contract with an architectural firm, which Perkins said will go through the same competitive public procurement process required when local governments solicit bids, and will require county approval before an agreement is signed.

The third step is the selection of a contractor who will provide a “guaranteed maximum price,” Perkins said.

Perkins said construction would occur within 18 months of the date a development and operations agreement is executed by the county and the Y. The Surry YMCA would offer “wellness, youth, senior and family programming consistent with the YMCA’s other facilities” and a “year-round pool,” Perkins said.

Perkins said “facility fixtures and equipment” such as exercise machines and furniture would be “the responsibility of the YMCA at its sole cost” as would any walking trails, outdoor workout stations and playgrounds the Y elects to build on the facility grounds.

The county will retain ownership of the building and lease it to the Y, Perkins said. That lease agreement will require a public hearing before it’s signed. 

 

What costs are expected?

Perkins said that once the facility opens, the county will “annually appropriate $400,000 to the YMCA to support programming only” and costs for operation and maintenance would be covered in full by the YMCA. 

That figure “is based on the FY 24-25 budget” for the county’s Parks and Recreation Department, Perkins said.

The county budgeted just over $706,000 for Parks and Recreation in 2024-25 and has allocated $924,696 for the 2025-26 fiscal year that starts July 1.

The county will also “appropriate funds to the YMCA to cover the cost of design, development and construction,” under the same provision of state law that allows municipalities to make contributions to nonprofit organizations, Perkins said.

The supervisors in April discussed borrowing up to $24 million to fund the YMCA’s construction, though the county has yet to authorize any borrowing for the project. That too would require a public hearing before any money changes hands.

A representative of Davenport & Co., the county’s financial advising firm, presented multiple options in April to finance the new Y depending on whether the county borrowed $20 million or $24 million.

The plan as of April called for Surry to obtain interim financing by this summer for the first $10 million by soliciting bids for a direct bank loan. Surry would then seek a second round of financing in 2026 for the remaining $10 million to $14 million.

County Administrator Melissa Rollins said in April that Surry is currently carrying $23.28 million in debt, of which $19.46 million is principal and the remaining $3.8 million is interest.

By policy the county caps annual debt payments at 12% of General Fund revenue and expenditures, and its total debt at 3% of the total assessed value of taxable property.

According to Davenport, Surry’s current $2.2 million annual debt payment amounts to 5.78% of projected revenues and expenses, and its total debt amounts to 0.6% of the valuation of taxable property.

Taking on an additional $20 million to $24 million in debt would raise Surry’s annual debt payments to 8%, which is still well below the 12% policy threshold, and would raise its total debt to just over 1%, which is also still below the 3% limit.

Davenport advised that an influx of $384,000, or the equivalent of a 1-cent real estate tax increase, would be needed in fiscal year 2026-27, and another 1-cent increase would be needed in 2027-28, to cover the second half of the new debt. Another half-cent to 2-cent real estate tax rate increase would be needed in fiscal year 2030-31 depending on whether the second round of borrowing is for $10 million or $14 million, assuming no new growth or economic development offsets that with additional revenue.