Task force says Greater Burlington shows market opportunity for a convention center but funding is the key barrier

Jeff Lawson, vice president of tourism at the Lake Champlain Chamber and co-chair of the state task force on convention centers and performing-arts venues, told the House Commerce & Economic Development Committee on Jan. 6 that a Phase 1 market study shows an opportunity for a convention center in Greater Burlington but that finding sustainable funding will be the project's largest hurdle.

Lawson said Hunden Partners’ preliminary feasibility work, funded in part by the Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation with support from the state economic development office, was aimed at answering whether larger conferences would consider Burlington as a destination. "They go through with their methodology and they take a look ... The number they come up with over the last 10 years is about $60,000,000 in business lost," Lawson said, describing the consultants’ estimate of business the region might have attracted with larger infrastructure.

The consultant work and local outreach engaged roughly 15 to 16 lodging properties in Chittenden County, Lawson said. He told lawmakers Downtown Burlington is expected to see roughly a 50% increase in hotel room inventory between 2025 and 2027, and that the region’s existing walkability, airport access at BTV and hotel density make Burlington a stronger candidate than many markets that lack leisure demand.

Why it matters: Lawson said convention centers operate differently from performing-arts venues. "Convention center is very much business travel. People wanna get in. They wanna get out," he said, arguing the region’s mix of leisure and mid-week business could be complementary. He added that convention centers are typically "loss leaders" and "tax revenue drivers," meaning one public or quasi-public entity typically must absorb annual operating deficits while the community benefits from secondary spending.

Funding challenge: The task force concluded that the most common funding lever elsewhere is county-level taxation and bonding. Lawson cited Buncombe County (Asheville) and Dane County (Madison) as examples where county governance supports venue development. "Without county governance ... we would need to have the state get involved in some way, shape, manner, or form," he said, noting Vermont’s municipal structure limits a single city’s ability to finance a project at the needed scale.

Next steps: Lawson said the group plans to move to Phase 2 within months: deeper financial modeling spanning 10 to 15 years to estimate capital costs for different facility sizes, projected tax revenues, employment impacts and operating scenarios. He offered to share the Hunden Partners feasibility report with the committee and committee staff and asked that it be posted to the committee website. Austin Davis, who identified himself as a director and a task-force member, told the committee he is available for follow-up.

Committee questions highlighted two follow-up needs: (1) identify governance and taxation structures feasible in Vermont (including whether special districts or public–private partnerships could apply); and (2) produce detailed Phase 2 financial modeling and site options so lawmakers can assess who would hold long-term financial risk.

The committee did not take action; the meeting recessed until 2 p.m. and staff said the feasibility study will be circulated to members.