House Corrections committee presses DOC contractors on $8 million billing spike
January 16, 2026 | Corrections & Institutions, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The House Corrections and Institutions Committee spent substantial time Jan. 15 pressing staff for documentation about an approximately $8 million billing request tied to contracted corrections services.
Speaker 2, chairing the committee meeting, said Kevin and Sean had met with Trevor about the request and that the amount combines delayed invoicing and contract increases. Committee members pieced the request into two parts: roughly $3 million of late invoices that were not processed last year because of automated billing or IT problems, and about $4 million to $4.55 million in amendments tied to higher staffing costs from an increased inmate population.
Committee members said testimony from January 2024 used the same per-member-per-month rates the department recently cited (year 1 $2,253; year 2 $2,476; year 3 $2,630) based on a 1,250 average daily population, and asked why the mid‑FY26 request exceeded those earlier projections. "So if they knew that it was gonna be almost 40,000,000, why is there a $4,000,000 increase in BAA?" Speaker 2 asked, urging that staff show the contract math on paper.
Several members described the $3 million as "old money" now surfacing because invoices were delayed and not paid in the prior calendar year. Members discussed short-term financial controls, including instituting a 5% holdback on invoices; one committee member observed a 5% holdback on a $40 million contract would total about $2 million.
The committee directed staff to bring back a budget or business analyst (Hailey was named repeatedly as the person who could explain the accounting) and to summon DOC staff to explain which billing system produced the delay and to produce invoice-level detail, the original contract amount, and headcount data used to calculate per-member billing. The committee also requested documentation clarifying whether the per-member-per-month figures currently cited differ from prior testimony.
The committee did not take a formal vote on the matter on Jan. 15; members said they would seek the requested documentation and call DOC and the contractor back for a fuller briefing next week.
Speaker 2, chairing the committee meeting, said Kevin and Sean had met with Trevor about the request and that the amount combines delayed invoicing and contract increases. Committee members pieced the request into two parts: roughly $3 million of late invoices that were not processed last year because of automated billing or IT problems, and about $4 million to $4.55 million in amendments tied to higher staffing costs from an increased inmate population.
Committee members said testimony from January 2024 used the same per-member-per-month rates the department recently cited (year 1 $2,253; year 2 $2,476; year 3 $2,630) based on a 1,250 average daily population, and asked why the mid‑FY26 request exceeded those earlier projections. "So if they knew that it was gonna be almost 40,000,000, why is there a $4,000,000 increase in BAA?" Speaker 2 asked, urging that staff show the contract math on paper.
Several members described the $3 million as "old money" now surfacing because invoices were delayed and not paid in the prior calendar year. Members discussed short-term financial controls, including instituting a 5% holdback on invoices; one committee member observed a 5% holdback on a $40 million contract would total about $2 million.
The committee directed staff to bring back a budget or business analyst (Hailey was named repeatedly as the person who could explain the accounting) and to summon DOC staff to explain which billing system produced the delay and to produce invoice-level detail, the original contract amount, and headcount data used to calculate per-member billing. The committee also requested documentation clarifying whether the per-member-per-month figures currently cited differ from prior testimony.
The committee did not take a formal vote on the matter on Jan. 15; members said they would seek the requested documentation and call DOC and the contractor back for a fuller briefing next week.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
