Vermont superintendents tell House panel PCB testing, abatement costs are straining districts

Two Vermont superintendents told the House Education Committee on May 8 that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contamination found in several school buildings has created immediate safety, program and budget challenges for districts and that current state testing and funding arrangements leave them shouldering large, uncertain costs.

Katie Sutton, superintendent of the Hartford School District, told the committee that testing last year found two schools at “the school action and immediate action levels,” forcing relocation of three programs and off-campus placement of the culinary arts program. "We've spent, $424,662.49 out of our local budget," Sutton said, saying Hartford has not received state reimbursement under the current model and is still weighing how to use a locally approved bond for capital work amid the contamination.

Sutton said bulk-sample testing shows PCBs in source materials such as adhesives, caulk and paint and that the chemical has permeated concrete walls ‘‘between 1 to 5 inches’’ in some locations. She told lawmakers that, in her district's experience, air sampling alone under Act 74 can understate the scope of contamination because readings vary with ventilation, temperature and humidity. "We need to remove the hazard entirely," she said, adding that methods such as encapsulation and increased ventilation have not fully abated contamination in her district or in other districts' pilots.

Mandy Haas, superintendent of the Windham Northeast Supervisory Union, described a multi-year disruption at her high school that at one point required outdoor classroom tents and a prolonged period of fans and continuous monitoring. Haas said a planned $5 million HVAC upgrade funded by ESSER federal money was delayed because of PCB work; she also cited a roughly $2 million local bond tied to roof repairs. She described a range of remediation cost estimates: a full gym teardown at about $14 million, replacement of roof decking at roughly $4.5–5 million, other chemical-removal options near $12 million, and roughly $3 million to remove and abate sprayed-on fire retardant from steel columns.

Haas also said the district faces ongoing monitoring costs and financial uncertainty: "that's a cost that is gonna take away from education from kids" and "that's essentially 2 teachers if you think about it," referring to an estimated $130,000 a year for continuous air monitoring. She reported $1,127,000 in late ESSER invoices at risk of federal clawback and said the district has not seen written guarantees that proposed state PCB funding would cover those or future costs.

Committee members and the superintendents discussed the state funding picture. A committee member summarized recent budget actions in broad terms, noting that the governor's proposed PCB funding was reduced in the House version and partly restored in the Senate; the member said lawmakers expected at least $5.5 million, possibly up to $9.5 million, aimed at helping districts already affected rather than funding new testing. The superintendents said the shift from upfront state payments to a reimbursement model has left districts advancing costs and waiting for potential repayment.

Both superintendents described operational and program decisions driven by contamination and by uncertainty about funding and regulatory requirements. Sutton said additional bulk sampling and architect/engineer planning will likely cost ‘‘hundreds of thousands of dollars’’ and that full reconstruction of affected portions of buildings could run into the millions. Haas warned that federal grant terms could require repayment if a building funded with federal dollars were declared unusable, noting her district has invested almost $9 million and expects to reach roughly $11 million in federal spending on projects tied to the high school.

Neither superintendent reported a formal district decision to consolidate programs or regionalize high schools because of PCBs, although both said the issue has prompted high-level conversations with state officials and that physical capacity on existing campuses might make regional options feasible in theory.

The hearing highlighted three practical strains for districts: testing and technical work that can produce mixed results depending on sampling methods; large remediation or reconstruction costs that local communities may be asked to cover; and ongoing monitoring and grant‑compliance risks that could affect federal funds. Committee members acknowledged those concerns as the legislature considers how to allocate and prioritize any state PCB funds.

Looking ahead, the superintendents asked for clearer, written commitments on state funding and for policies that align testing methods, remediation standards and funding so districts can plan without exposing taxpayers or instructional programs to open-ended costs.