The little costs in prison add up. Phone calls cost six cents per minute. Digital messages are a quarter each. Want to send a letter? Eighteen cents for an envelope. 

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee Thursday was reviewing many of the fees paid by incarcerated people and their families, like commissary, phone calls and digital communications. This year, a single for-profit contractor will take over the commissary and the digital tablets given to most incarcerated people, consolidating what were previously two contracts. 

In 2024 alone, Vermont Department of Corrections’ commissions on phone calls and commissary raised almost $650,000, according to records obtained by VTDigger. That money, the vast majority of which comes from the commissary, pays for prison recreation coordinators and a recreation fund.

The costs and options have incarcerated people fed up. According to a survey of 212 people held at the Springfield prison, 91% either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “the costs are reasonable” at the commissary. Similarly, 85% disagreed that there were enough items to buy, and 75% disagreed that the quality of items is “good.” 

“That’s a major area of improvement for the department,” Isaac Dayno, executive director of policy and strategic initiatives at DOC, told lawmakers at the hearing.

Rep. Joe Luneau, R-St. Albans City, called out a particularly strange commissary price disparity: the Bible costs $16, but the Quran costs $27. 

“Even though the Quran is a much shorter document,” Luneau noted.

“That is for sure on (a) very high part of the list for something we’re looking at,” Kristin Calver, DOC’s deputy commissioner, said. 

Thursday’s conversation was sparked by H.294, a bill sponsored by committee member Rep. Troy Headrick, I-Burlington. In part, the proposal would make communications services like phones and messaging free for incarcerated people. 

Only a handful of state have provided free communications in prison, and as DOC officials pointed out, some of those state have seen increased use — and costs. 

Calls more than doubled in Massachusetts during the first year of free service, and in Connecticut, the state governor was proposing nixing the program to fill a budget hole. 

For his part, Headrick said he sees increased usage not as something to condemn, but a worthy goal. 

The data suggests states aren’t providing a “basic human need.” he said. “That costs money.” 

— Ethan Weinstein

In the know

Why not just knock it down? That’s what first-term Vermont Representative Shawn Sweeney said was his first thought after hearing the staggering $40 million estimated price tag on the state’s proposal for restoring the Bennington Battle Monument. 

But, then he thought there must be other cheaper, creative and more sustainable ways to address the challenges facing the monument. Taking inspiration from another monument to liberty, a giant patina green copper one in New York Harbor, he tinkered with a miniature model of the battle monument and brought his big idea to the institutions committee last week.

The Bennington Battle Monument is composed of limestone, which is currently saturated by an estimated 66,000 gallons of water. The steep cost of its repair has sparked debate over whether the state should consider other innovative, even potentially holographic solutions for the memorial to the historic Battle of Bennington.

Sweeney, D-Shelburne, who sits on the committee, proposed enclosing the monument in a ventilated copper sheath, using heat pumps to initially dry the monument out and maintain a year-round air-conditioning system.  Sweeney estimates that his proposed plan would cost $5 million to $15 million, he said in an interview. 

Read more about the committee’s discussion of how to handle repairs on the Bennington Battle Monument here.

— Greta Solsaa

On the move

Paige Kaleita found a surprise in her mail last August: a letter from the Department of Environmental Conservation saying her Richmond neighborhood was out of compliance with stormwater regulations. 

Kaleita and some of her neighbors in the Southview development live on land regulated by what’s called the 3-acre rule. Put into effect after the passage of the state’s 2016 Clean Water Act, the rule requires any site with at least 3 acres of impervious surface, or those that water can’t pass through, to obtain a stormwater permit if they hadn’t done so since 2002. 

The letters sent to the Richmond residents stated that failure to comply may result in a title encumbrance being placed on the property, impacting the homeowners’ ability to sell. 

Only some residents of the development live on land that’s out of compliance. Neighbors just up the hill from Kaleita’s home, or even a few doors down, didn’t receive such letters from the department. 

“We’re expecting it to be around $20,000 per household,” said Kaleita. She’s frustrated that only the few homeowners who live on 3-acre sites need to foot the bill for upgrades when “we all contribute” to stormwater pollution.

Legislators in the House Committee on Environment and Energy put together a bill this year aimed at addressing concerns like those in Richmond. It recently passed the House and moved into the Senate. 

The bill, H.481, includes multiple provisions to quell people’s issues with the current stormwater permitting system, such allowing more time to comply with the 3-acre rule. In addition, it would set up a study to explore creating regional utility districts to take over responsibility for stormwater compliance.

Read more about the proposed changes to the 3-acre rule here. 

— Sam Hartnett, Community News Service

Visit our 2025 bill tracker for the latest updates on major legislation we are following.