Public Safety seeks new approach for special teams facility; updates given on Rutland and Shaftesbury station replacements

At a Feb. 13 meeting of the Corrections & Institutions committee, the Vermont Department of Public Safety said it is exploring alternatives to a planned “special teams” building, provided an update on a long‑delayed Rutland field station replacement, and outlined initial planning for a replacement of the Shaftesbury field station.

The committee heard that the special teams project — originally conceived to consolidate urban search‑and‑rescue, hazardous‑materials equipment, regional fire‑safety offices and storage for seasonal assets — will not proceed this fiscal year as previously budgeted while staff search for lower‑cost options and potential co‑location agreements with other state agencies or private developers.

Commissioner Jennifer Morrison introduced the department’s presentation and identified the special teams building as a priority for the agency. She told the committee that assets currently stored at a dilapidated Agency of Transportation hangar at Fort Ethan Allen include “swift water rescue boats, shoring and structural collapse equipment, large trailers, large trucks,” and other high‑value equipment that lack adequate fire suppression or secure storage.

Design‑and‑build lease proposals were the primary avenue the department explored. Joe Ajic, director for design and construction, said the department issued an RFP for a developer to build to state specifications and lease back the facility, but initial pricing from developers exceeded the agency’s expectations. Ajic said the department is evaluating whether to reduce the program (for example by carving out certain units) or pursue other options, including possible co‑location in existing state buildings.

Committee members pressed for details about land and cost. The conversation noted that while the special teams project has $1.1 million in cash for initial programming and schematic design work, Ajic said he could not immediately recall how much of that sum has been spent. The committee was told it can be difficult to finalize a design‑build lease without a firm land plan; the developer model typically leaves the land owned by the private partner and places the long‑term cost pressure on future general‑fund lease payments.

Officials also updated the committee on the Rutland field station. The state bought land in Clarendon in 2018 for a replacement facility. Department staff described site constraints (soil conditions, leach fields, stormwater and lack of public water) and said Green Mountain Power’s planned rerouting of overhead lines may allow better use of the purchased property. Construction funding for Rutland has been pushed toward FY 2027 in the department’s projections to allow additional design and site work.

For Shaftesbury, the department requested a $150,000 bonded allotment to begin land acquisition, planning and schematic design; staff estimated the full project could total roughly $7 million in a later biennium. Officials said the Shaftesbury site would be smaller than larger barracks such as Williston and that site constraints such as nearby quarries and dust will factor into siting decisions.

Committee members discussed timing and possible flexibility in the capital plan — for example, shifting funds between projects if one project cannot proceed — and asked the department to return with clearer cost‑to‑date figures, a timeline for purchase or optioning of land, and alternative approaches to reducing lease costs for the special teams facility.

Ending: Department staff said they would provide the committee with additional details on expenditures to date, land options, and possible scope adjustments before markup. No formal appropriations votes were taken during the discussion.