Vermont National Guard outlines 25-year plan to replace aging armories with regional readiness centers

The Vermont Department of the Military told the Senate Institutions Committee on April 11 that it plans a multiyear program to replace most of the state's aging company‑sized armories with four to five regional readiness centers, starting with a Linden project and with a northwest site in Swanton already having land secured.

The plan matters because the Guard said most of its armories are Cold War‑era buildings — many more than 60 years old — that no longer meet modern training and mission requirements, and the department is seeking a mix of federal military construction funding, federal sustainment funds and state matching dollars to move projects forward.

General Hank Harvey, deputy adjutant general, told the committee, “The state of the Guard is strong,” and framed the presentation around a plan to leverage end‑of‑life armory sales to reinvest in regional readiness centers. Colonel Jacob Roy, construction and facility management officer for the Vermont Army National Guard, and other staff then described a 25‑year strategy to reduce roughly 16 company‑sized armories into larger facilities that can house multiple units and support both state and federal missions.

Officials named Linden as the immediate priority and said bids recently went out for that project. During the presentation staff described the Linden site as well‑located for rapid response to natural disasters, and they cited last year’s floods as a proof of concept for selecting sites with multiple access routes. The department said it has secured land in Swanton for the northwest regional readiness center and used proceeds from the Waterbury armory divestiture to help acquire that land.

Speakers emphasized two funding streams. For routine sustainment, the Guard expects its usual federal annual appropriations for restoration, modernization and sustainment projects but warned the amounts fluctuate with federal budgeting and continuing resolutions. For major military construction — new readiness centers — funding depends on separate congressional authorization and appropriations (for example, the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations acts). Colonel Roy told the committee that the federal government now requires land to be in hand before it will consider providing design funding for large MilCon projects.

Committee materials and presenters discussed FY26 budget items the Guard asked the state to include: an annual federal match appropriation for sustainment and a state match to secure design funds for the Swanton project. Transcript figures for FY26 appeared inconsistent during the presentation; staff described an FY26 planning figure that included an annual appropriation and a state match for design, but the exact state share and line‑item totals were not consistently stated in the record.

Officials also reviewed near‑term sustainment work planned over the next five years, including roof replacements and other repairs for armories in Morrisville, Swanton and Birchends, and a larger upgrade in Williston targeted for FY27. Projected construction costs have increased sharply: presenters said average construction cost per square foot has risen in recent years from roughly the mid‑$400s to about $800 per square foot for comparable projects, driving up total estimates and increasing the risk of bid overruns.

Asked about contingency plans if bids come in over budget, Colonel Roy said the Guard builds contingency lines into contracts but increasingly must reprogram lower‑cost projects from out years into the near term if higher‑priority bids exceed estimates. “Contingency plans are one of the hardest things to develop,” he told the committee, noting the department will stage multiple projects to allow reprogramming if needed rather than immediately canceling large projects.

Officials gave several concrete examples of state‑federal financing partnerships. They described a recent addition and renovation that added roughly 3,600 square feet to an armory project that was about $3.6–$4.0 million in total, with 75 percent federal funding and a 25 percent state match. They also showed a cold‑storage building completed in January at the Linden site funded in part by flexing federal funds on state land.

Committee members asked about the Guard’s dual federal‑state authority and the likelihood of federal funds. Presenters explained the National Guard performs both state and federal missions and that while sustainment funding is relatively consistent, large MilCon projects require congressional action and are therefore subject to more uncertainty. They noted that a continuing resolution at the federal level can delay or force resubmission of congressionally directed projects.

No formal votes were taken at the hearing. Presenters said next steps include further design and bidding work, continuing coordination with the congressional delegation for federal design and MilCon funding, and state budget deliberations on the recommended FY26 items.

The presentation combined capital planning, near‑term sustainment needs and a long‑range construction strategy; committee members indicated they would continue reviewing the items as the fiscal year budget process proceeds.