State preservation officials outline phased plan to dry out Bennington Monument; $525,000 RFP in capital bill

State historic preservation officials told the House Corrections and Institutions Committee on April 17 that the immediate next step for the deteriorating Bennington Monument is an RFP funded in the capital bill to design a system to dry and monitor the structure.

"That is really the next step that has to occur," said Laura Trishman, State Historic Preservation Officer, referring to $525,000 included in the capital bill to allow the State Historic Preservation Office to solicit designs and technical approaches. Trishman said the goal of the RFP is to identify how to "dry out the monument" and to define a scoped design that will inform later budgeting and repairs.

The RFP will target a temporary building-enclosure and mechanical drying strategy — including scaffolding to support a scrim or waterproof top, dehumidifiers, and fans to move air — so conservators can dry masonry, test repairs and monitor changes over time. Jamie Duggan, Director of Preservation for State Historic Sites, said the enclosure would provide a framework for temporary mechanical systems and instruments already purchased, such as humidity monitors, crack sensors and tilt meters.

"It's really important for us to get the monument dry so we can start mocking up and considering some of the repairs that would need to happen," Duggan said. He described a likely sequence: scaffolding and scrim to protect the monument during drying, mechanical drying and monitoring during the temporary enclosure phase, then exterior repointing and follow-up work once the masonry is stable.

Federal support was discussed separately: Trishman said the National Park Service is "very involved" because the monument is nationally significant, and that Congress provided a roughly $500,000 directed appropriation to fund archaeology, vertical access work, additional monitors and removal of loose exterior material. Preservation staff told the committee that the federal funds cannot be used for the design study; instead those monies will pay for on-site preparations and monitoring once contracts are in place.

Committee members pressed staff on cost estimates and timelines. Preservation staff said an earlier, high-end figure of $40 million has been used as a ceiling, but that figure lacks detailed back-up and should be refined through the design process. Duggan said more targeted, order-of-magnitude figures for near-term work are likely to fall in a lower range: scaffolding and a building enclosure could be in the mid-single- to low-double- million-dollar range, with a notional scenario mentioned in the meeting of $5 million to $10 million for an initial protection phase and up to $10 million as a plausible near-term project cost. Staff emphasized those numbers are preliminary and that the RFP will produce more precise cost estimates.

Preservation staff said drying the monument could take years: the committee heard estimates that monitoring and drying might last up to three years while conservators observe how repairs hold up and calibrate a long-term maintenance plan. Duggan said the project team expects to keep monitoring instruments in place "in perpetuity" to track humidity and cracking after repairs are made.

Officials raised risks tied to any permanent enclosure or major alteration. Trishman warned that significant changes to the monument's fabric could jeopardize its federal designation and accompanying assistance: "If we start changing it, we could possibly jeopardize that designation, which would mean we would be giving up all federal dollars," she said. Preservation staff said alternative approaches — partial dismantling, enclosure in a new material such as copper, or full removal — will be evaluated only after the drying and assessment phases produce data on structural condition and stone performance.

Committee members also discussed revenue and visitation. Trishman said the monument attracts roughly 34,000–40,000 visitors a year during its May–October season and last year generated about $276,000 in site revenue. Staff noted a temporary enclosure or scaffolding will likely reduce on-site visitation for the period work is underway, and the team is considering ways to preserve public access during repairs — for example keeping the observation deck open where safe and using cameras or viewing windows so visitors can still see the structure.

On timing, staff said the capital-bill RFP money would be used for the design phase ("phase 1A"). They expect RFP responses and clearer cost estimates by January following procurement, and said the federally directed $500,000 must be obligated by early June; contracts to begin vertical access, archaeology and monitoring work will follow once that money is available. Preservation staff also said they are beginning outreach to potential private and philanthropic partners to assemble a broader funding toolbox for later phases; the governor has emphasized no new taxes or fees.

The committee reserved judgment on long-term funding and alternatives until design-level information is available. Trishman and Duggan urged a stepped approach: first design and protect the monument while collecting data, then use that evidence to choose among repair, enclosure, partial removal or other strategies. Duggan said that, if stone can be properly dried and mortared, "there's a good chance... the limestone could come back to life and it could stay there for another 200 years," but he added that the data from the RFP-driven work is required to reach that conclusion.

For now, the committee and preservation staff agreed to reconvene after the RFP and early procurement work produce cost and schedule estimates.