Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee hears $500,000 monitoring plan and uncertain larger cost estimates for Bennington monument restoration
Loading...
Summary
State historic preservation staff told the House Corrections and Institutions Committee that monitoring and engineering design work is underway for a deteriorating stone monument in Bennington, that immediate elevator safety work is a priority, and that larger restoration costs (widely quoted as $40 million) remain unverified pending phase 1b design work.
Chair (S2) convened the House Corrections and Institutions Committee on April 23 to hear an update from Laura Trishman, the state historic preservation officer, on efforts to stabilize a long‑neglected stone monument in Bennington. Trishman said monitoring equipment is installed and a congressionally directed grant plus state funds are being used to move the project into design and limited construction.
Trishman told the committee she had given members a “road map of informed stewardship” and that a 15‑specialist team completed an assessment. She said a federal allocation described during testimony was intended to cover seismic evaluation, temperature and humidity monitoring, tilt meters, crack monitoring and safety inspections. “The monitors for the temperature, tilt, and cracking have all been installed, but I’m still waiting for the data to be analyzed,” she said.
Why it matters: the monument is a state‑owned historic resource that draws tourism and public interest in Bennington. Committee members pressed staff for costs, schedules and contractor accountability after years of deferred maintenance exposed safety problems and accelerated stone loss.
Immediate safety and elevator repairs: Trishman said the monument’s elevator dates to 1953, has exposed and frayed traveling cables and lubrication problems, and presents a safety risk if run without a thorough modernization. A specialist from contractor Lurch Bates recommended replacing the traveling cable, instituting annual rope retention inspections and installing an auto‑lube machine; Trishman said she will not reopen the elevator until the work is done. She described the auto‑lube as inexpensive to buy and quick to install, but said the labor for cable replacement and modernization could be the larger cost.
Funding and phased work: Trishman described a phased approach. Phase 1a is preparation and engineering — geotechnical studies, site safety design and enclosure system (scaffolding and wrapping) engineering — and she said a secured state fund and a separate roughly $500,000 federal grant would cover that stage’s design work. Phase 1b would encompass drying, mechanical systems, mock‑ups and the start of repairs; Trishman said estimates for phase 1b range widely and that the commonly cited $40 million figure originated as a broad comparison using other large monuments, not a detailed, local line‑item spreadsheet. “The $40,000,000 estimate never should have been just thrown out there like this is what it’s gonna take because we just don’t know that,” Trishman said.
Cost ranges and uncertainty: Committee members attempted to reconcile several figures mentioned during the hearing. Trishman cited a midrange plan that combines prior expenditures (about $988,000 to date), the federal monitoring grant and projected costs for enclosure and early construction; she and members discussed combined totals in the low‑to‑mid tens of millions (one speaker said 13 million as a working figure), while acknowledging substantial uncertainty until phase 1b defines scope and quantities.
Contractor performance and procurement: Members asked about the performance of the statewide elevator contractor; Trishman said the contractor had delivered what she called “Band‑Aid” repairs and that the department is working with BGS and counsel to pursue specific contracts targeted at the elevator work or rebid the service if necessary. Trishman said the state may retain its own elevator contract for the monument rather than rely on the statewide vendor.
Engineering sequence and preservation risk: Committee discussion focused on whether to install an HVAC/mechanical drying system first or to erect a full wrapped scaffolding enclosure and dry the stone from the outside. Several members said industry firms can provide ballpark estimates and advise on HVAC sizing; Trishman replied that stone specialists must work with mechanical engineers to avoid making past mistakes (she cited earlier elevator mechanical work that introduced heat and worsened corrosion). She said phase 1a should develop the drying strategy and mock‑ups so mechanical work in phase 1b is properly specified.
Public engagement and next steps: Trishman said the project team plans additional public workshops (in‑person and virtual) to solicit Vermonters’ preferences — options range from full restoration to partial repairs or decommissioning — and intends to return to the committee with more detailed design and cost estimates after phase 1a. She said she hopes design work for the scaffolding/enclosure will be completed by the end of the calendar year and that the elevator estimate should arrive in roughly a month.
Trishman also stressed that she does not expect large amounts of state funds to be used going forward and that the team is pursuing federal grants, donations and fundraising. The committee scheduled further consideration of related floor business and other agenda items following the hearing.
