Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Corrections Replacement Crcf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vermont officials outline plan to replace CRCF with gender‑responsive reentry facility in Essex
Summary
At a Jan. 31 hearing of the Vermont Senate Committee on Information Technology and Institutions, Department of Corrections officials and Buildings and General Services staff described plans to replace the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility (CRCF) with a modern, gender‑responsive reentry facility sited on state‑owned land in Essex.
Get email alerts on the Corrections Replacement Crcf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a Jan. 31 hearing of the Vermont Senate Committee on Information Technology and Institutions, Department of Corrections officials and Buildings and General Services staff described plans to replace the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility (CRCF) with a smaller, gender‑responsive reentry facility sited on state‑owned land in Essex and paid for in part through the state capital process.
Department of Corrections staff told the committee that CRCF is “a very dated structure, about half a century old,” has roughly 77 beds and requires large annual operating and maintenance expenditures. They said the building was built originally for short‑term detention and is not well suited to longer‑term rehabilitative programming for women.
The presentation outlined design goals drawn from modern facilities elsewhere — higher ceilings, natural light, clearer sightlines and dedicated programming and reentry space — and cited examples under review including a women’s facility in southern Maine and international models such as Halden Prison in Norway. Officials said those design features aim to support rehabilitation and reduce staff stress by improving visibility and program space.
Staff described two state‑owned parcels in Essex being evaluated, each more than 10 acres, and said the site search prioritized properties with existing infrastructure (including land owned by the Agency of Transportation) so the project would remain near the current labor force in Chittenden County. They noted constraints at the present South Burlington site — wetlands, a small footprint and adjacent residences — that make full replacement there impractical without sacrificing program space.
On cost and timing, presenters gave preliminary figures and schedules: deferred maintenance at CRCF was described as about $12,000,000, annual operating costs for the aging structure about $3,000,000, and early planning estimates for a replacement facility “at least $70,000,000.” Committee members also said the capital plan has previously shown larger amounts in extended‑range planning and that roughly $14–16 million is currently appropriated or set aside to advance the project. Officials estimated roughly three years for permitting and zoning steps before construction funding and later phases would proceed.
Committee members raised zoning and community concerns, and staff said the next steps are to work with the town of Essex on a zoning request, advance site permitting and present more detailed design and community engagement materials. No formal decision or vote was taken at the hearing; members directed staff to continue permitting and community outreach and to return with further details as planning progresses.
The discussion included programmatic goals such as dedicated child‑visitation space, vocational and culinary training, and flexible housing units intended to reduce recidivism and provide trauma‑informed care. Officials and committee members emphasized that the project remains in early design phases, that bed counts will be revisited as site and program decisions are refined, and that funding will be pursued through the capital bill process.
Background: CRCF has housed women in a facility originally built for men; presenters said Vermont currently cares for roughly 130 women in the system (about half described as detainees), and that the state has no other dedicated women’s reentry facility. The committee heard that modern, gender‑responsive facilities can require fewer staff and enable different programming models than traditional hardened prisons.
Next steps: staff will pursue zoning with Essex officials, complete permitting work, refine cost and design estimates in coordination with Buildings and General Services, and return to the legislature as the project moves toward a capital funding request.

