Lawmakers raised concerns about the cost of proposed firefighter bunkhouses included in House Bill 5 after staff said construction bids out of a recent solicitation ranged from about $1.3 million to $1.7 million while the construction budget in the request is $900,000 per building.

Why it matters: Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) officials and A&E witnesses told the committee the bunkhouses support seasonal firefighting crews in remote locations and may be used roughly nine months of the year at some sites. Committee members questioned whether high capital costs are economically justified for seasonal use and asked about alternatives.

Evidence and committee discussion

• Bids versus budget: Witnesses said they received multiple bids in the $1.3M–$1.7M range and rejected them because the request was budgeted at $900,000; they are redesigning the scope to get back under budget.

• Operational use: DNRC representatives and subcommittee members noted some bunkhouses would be used seasonally and that workers may be staged many miles from local housing; proponents said on‑site housing helps recruitment and operations in remote regions.

• Modular options: Several legislators suggested modular or prefabricated units as a lower‑cost, movable alternative; Sen. Reuss asked whether vendors that build modular or portable facilities were contacted and the architecture witness agreed to pursue that research and report back to the subcommittee.

• Possible shared approaches: Lawmakers suggested exploring standard designs that could be built in bulk or moved from site to site depending on seasonal needs, and asked staff for a memo with options and cost comparisons for executive action or appropriations.

Ending

The subcommittee asked staff to reconvene with DNRC and produce a memo describing modular options, cost comparisons and timing; members signaled interest in seeking alternative procurement approaches rather than automatically accepting construction bids that exceed budgeted amounts.