Senate Appropriations Committee approves H.480 appropriation report after debate over BOCES grants, Guard tuition benefit, phone‑free schools and AED plans

The Vermont Senate Committee on Appropriations voted to approve its appropriation report for H.480, a miscellaneous education bill, after members discussed changes to grant timing, use of an existing National Guard tuition benefit and school safety provisions.

Senator Weeks, who walked the committee through the bill, said the committee was not changing funding amounts in the sections discussed but was adjusting when or how existing funds can be used. “We’re not increasing the grant. We’re not decreasing the grant,” Weeks said, describing a change that would allow a potential BOCES to use a $10,000 formation grant earlier in the formation process rather than only after formation is complete.

The nut graf: Committee members pressed staff on fiscal impacts and implementation details but the committee’s fiscal reviewers said there was no fiscal note attached to the version before the committee. With that caveat, the committee moved and passed the appropriation report for H.480.

Most important provisions discussed

BOCES formation grant timing — Weeks described a provision in section 7 that affects a $10,000 BOCES formation grant. The change would allow funds to be used during the formation phase rather than only after a BOCES is formally established. Weeks said the amendment “doesn’t increase or decrease the grant.” Committee members also noted an underlying reference to a $70,000 sum in related law; that total was not changed by the bill as presented.

Vermont National Guard tuition benefit — Section 11 clarifies allowable uses of an existing tuition benefit administered by the Vermont National Guard. Weeks said the language does not increase funding but would permit the Guard to use the benefit for recruiting and retention purposes and to expand the kinds of programs eligible for the unchanged fund. Weeks said the Guard is “experiencing a recruiting and retention problem” and would use existing funds to try to address that challenge. Committee discussion included how often Guardsmen seek out-of‑state programs; Weeks said it is “rare” but that roughly 20% of Vermont Guardsmen live out of state and that bordering‑state programs may be relevant when an in‑state degree is not available.

Phone‑free school policy and Agency of Education model — The bill asks the Agency of Education to develop a model phone‑free (or social‑media‑free) policy for schools and, at a later point in the statute, would require districts either to adopt their own policy or use the state model. Weeks told the committee this provision is not a mandate that districts purchase subscription technologies or other equipment; adopting technology is one option, not the only way to comply. Weeks said about 60% of Vermont schools already have some form of phone‑free policy.

Emergency operations and cardiac response plans — Section 12 would move toward uniform emergency operations and cardiac response plans in schools. Weeks said roughly 60 of about 250 Vermont schools already have such plans and have automated external defibrillators (AEDs) on site; the bill would create a more uniform system and point schools without AEDs to grant programs, with priority for schools that currently lack devices. Questions from the committee centered on whether the requirement carried an associated cost; Weeks and other presenters said the language itself does not create an immediate fiscal estimate and that grant programs exist to help schools that need equipment.

Energy performance contracts and voter approval threshold — Members also discussed a provision in section 14 that would remove the requirement for voter approval for certain long‑term school energy performance contracts, effectively allowing districts to extend payback terms from 10 years to up to 20 years to make projects more financially viable. Weeks described the change as a tool to make performance contracting more palatable for districts; the bill language does not itself appropriate new money for such projects.

Fiscal note and staff response — Committee members asked staff about the bill version on the committee website and whether it matched the version that had passed other committees. Miss Victor, a staff member answering fiscal questions for the committee, said there was no fiscal note attached to the current appropriation report because she did not see a direct estimated fiscal impact to the general fund from the changes as drafted. “There’s no fiscal note associated with it because there’s no direct estimated physical impact,” she said.

Formal action — After discussion, a member moved to pass the appropriation report and the committee conducted a roll call vote. Senators who recorded “yes” votes in the roll call were Senator Norris, Senator Watson, Senator Baruth, Senator Westman, Senator Brennan and Senator Pertschlegg; the committee approved the report.

Context and next steps — Weeks told the committee several elements had been considered in prior sessions and that some elements (such as cellphone policy and cardiac response language) had been added relatively late in the process after testimony from schools and families. The bill remained at the appropriation committee stage, with the committee’s report now approved and the underlying policy provisions already considered previously by the Education Committee.

The committee did not attach a fiscal note to the appropriation report for the bill version it considered; staff advised that grant programs exist for schools that need equipment such as AEDs and that several fiscal questions depend on later program guidance or funding decisions. The committee adjourned after approving the report.