Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Essex County proposes $3.69 million connector to use adjacent meeting house for jurors and improve security
Summary
Essex County and judiciary officials seek $3,685,910 to build a connector between the Guildhall courthouse and an adjacent meeting house to create indoor jury staging, add ADA upgrades and a sally port for detainee movement.
Essex County and the judiciary presented a $3,685,910 request on Jan. 31 to connect the Guildhall courthouse to the neighboring meeting house to improve jury handling, security and ADA accessibility.
Greg Mosley of the Vermont Judiciary said the county currently uses a meeting house about 100 yards from the courthouse as jury staging space and that jurors must walk outside to reach the courthouse for trials. The proposed connector would create indoor jury staging, separate “front of house” public circulation from a lockable “back of house” area for staff and judges, add ADA-compliant restrooms and replace undersized historic facilities, and include a sally port and upgraded holding cell functionality for criminal courthouse operations.
Mosley said the project was modest in construction complexity — essentially a one-level breezeway and modest foundation work — and that the county obtained design funding in the prior year from federal COVID-era dollars to prepare plans. The county has locally budgeted $360,000 for interior fit-out and expects the design to be construction-ready quickly if state capital funds are approved; Mosley and county assistant judge Ken Stransky said contractors and bids are in hand and counties are prepared to finish interior fit-up.
Committee members asked about historic-preservation review and ADA triggers; Mosley said ADA and historic-preservation requirements were addressed in the design and that Historic Preservation had approved the scope. The committee also sought confirmation of contingencies and inflation assumptions; Mosley said the estimate included a contingency (he expected around 20%) and that bids were recent.
The committee did not approve funding at the hearing. Members asked BGS and county officials to confirm contingency amounts, whether the county would contribute additional funds, and a construction schedule before the project is considered for the capital bill.
