Committee agrees to reallocate $419,000 toward Bennington Battle Monument planning and fence maintenance

A committee agreed on Wednesday to reallocate $419,000 remaining from a prior fiscal‑year appropriation for safety fencing at the Bennington Battle Monument to the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD) for restoration planning, design and maintenance of the safety fencing.

The decision followed testimony from Laura Tushman, the Vermont State Historic Preservation Officer, who told the committee that roughly $81,005.79 of an original $500,000 appropriation had been spent to install the fence and that high winds shortly afterward damaged the fence’s entrance and roofing. “There is 419,000 remaining in the safety fence money,” Tushman said, adding that a contractor was scheduled to repair the damage and that the insurer was involved.

Why it matters: the reallocation is intended to fund phase 1A design work to prepare schematic designs, coordinate architectural and engineering work, and produce cost estimates and bidding documents that the preservation team says are necessary before any large‑scale construction or enclosure erection. Tushman told the committee that the phase‑1A work is estimated at about $500,000 and that the erection of an enclosure system is not included in that amount and is separately estimated in the millions.

What the committee heard and decided

Tushman described the scope the preservation team is pursuing: schematic design for an enclosure “skin” and scaffolding, architectural and engineering coordination (site, civil, geotech, structural), and a cost assessment and bidding documents to take the project to construction documents. She said the design and related procurement work for phase 1A would cost roughly $500,000 and that the remaining $419,000 could be moved to ACCD and used for items 1–3 of phase 1A as well as fence maintenance. She told the committee the erection of an enclosure (the physical wrap and scaffolding) is a later phase estimated at $5 million to $10 million.

Tushman also reported a separate congressionally directed appropriation sponsored by Senator Sanders — $500,000 — that has been authorized and is intended to fund archaeological investigation around the monument, three years of vertical access for removal of loose stones, monitoring equipment (temperature, humidity, seismic), and dehumidifiers to begin drying the interior. She said those funds are separate from the capital‑bill reallocation and are being routed through the National Park Service for release.

The committee agreed to language, approved by the administration, to reallocate the remaining FY24 balance “for maintenance of safety fencing, restoration planning and design,” and to move the appropriation from the Department of Buildings and General Services (BGS) to ACCD so that ACCD can issue an RFP for the phase‑1A design work. Committee members indicated consensus to make the reallocation; no roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript.

Costs, risks and outstanding questions

Tushman and committee members rehearsed a number of open questions: the $500,000 phase‑1A estimate covers design through construction documents but not erection of an enclosure; the total project estimate widely discussed — $40 million — comes from a multi‑year, 500‑page study by national preservation professionals but is not a committed appropriation, and committee members said there is no statewide consensus to obligate that full sum. Tushman cautioned that the 40‑million figure could change after phase work and noted that designers have not yet produced a definitive total cost beyond the phase‑by‑phase estimates.

On the monument’s condition, Tushman described active water intrusion and drying needs: she said monitoring indicates the structure currently holds “66 gallons” of water (a transcript passage shows momentary confusion about that number), and the planned approach includes drying, mortar repairs and installing appropriate dehumidification systems so the stone can “breathe” rather than being fully sealed. Insurance and contractor assessments will determine immediate repair costs to the entrance/roofing of the fence; Tushman expected clearer numbers after the contractor visits scheduled later that month.

Next steps and implementation

The committee’s direction is to reallocate the $419,000 from BGS to ACCD and to use that funding for fence maintenance and to support phase‑1A design tasks (schematic design, A/E coordination, and cost assessment and bidding documents). Tushman said any difference between the available reallocated funds and the phase‑1A budget would be covered, if needed, from the preservation program’s major‑maintenance funds, though committee members noted those funds are limited. The transcript records the committee endorsing the administration‑approved language to effect the transfer and purpose change.

Ending

Committee members expressed caution about committing to the larger $40 million program without clearer funding sources; they emphasized the phased approach to reduce upfront risk and to use the phase‑1 work to refine costs before considering larger capital requests. Tushman said the preservation team is beginning the procurement and monitoring steps to inform future decisions.