Senate committee hears bill to require infant changing stations in public restrooms

Sen. Becca White presented S-16 to the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee on a proposal to require that at least one restroom in a public building or place of public accommodation contain an infant changing station and that the restroom be available for use by any individual regardless of gender.

The bill, as introduced, defines an infant changing station as a fold-down changing station commonly used for diaper changes and sets an effective date of July 1, 2025. "The point of this bill is to try to address that," White said, describing constituent reports that changing stations are commonly located only in women’s restrooms. White told the committee she intended the requirement to provide substantially equal access for fathers and other male caregivers and said she was open to narrowing the scope to state buildings if the committee preferred.

Supporters and bill writers walked the committee through the statutory definitions and practical questions that will shape implementation. Sophie Sedatny of the Office of Legislative Council explained that the bill relies on existing definitions: a "place of public accommodation" is given the same meaning as in the cited state statute and a "public building" references another statutory definition. She summarized the bill’s requirement as: where a public building or place of public accommodation has restrooms, at least one such restroom shall contain an infant changing station and be available regardless of gender. "Available means that any individual, regardless of gender, can enter the restroom," Sedatny said.

Testimony described both the need and the logistical complications. Greg Vallone, a Windsor County father who helped prompt the bill, told the committee he often changes children in cars, on floors and on tables when public changing options are unavailable: "I've changed diapers on floors, tables, benches, chairs, sinks, and the trunk of my car numerous times." Catherine Delnow, state librarian and commissioner of the Department of Libraries, supported the goal but urged caution because many Vermont public libraries occupy older buildings with very small restrooms. Delnow said some libraries' median construction dates are near 1925 and that adding stations can trigger ADA-related renovation requirements and other retrofit work. She cited manufacturers' price ranges and said simple changing stations can cost a few hundred dollars while higher-grade metal units can approach $1,600, and that installation may require additional building changes.

Committee members and counsel discussed alternatives and limits: whether the requirement would cover all publicly accessible businesses or be confined to state-owned facilities; whether a gender-neutral (unisex) restroom with a changing station would satisfy the requirement; and whether the statute should mirror other states’ targeted thresholds (for example, trigger sizes or occupancy thresholds used in California) or federal guidance. Sedatny noted the federal Babies Act, a prior federal measure requiring changing accommodations in federal buildings, and committee members referenced California and New York City approaches as comparative examples. Members also asked staff to check current ADA requirements and whether ADA upgrades would already require such facilities when renovations occur.

Delnow urged the committee to consider timing and funding: many libraries have limited capital budgets, the Department of Libraries has used ARPA and other grants for improvements but those funds do not cover large statewide retrofits, and a phased approach tied to renovations would reduce immediate burden. The committee heard that signage and private spaces outside restrooms (for example, curtained breastfeeding/change areas used at some children’s museums) can be alternatives where restroom size is limited.

The committee did not take a vote. Members signaled interest in continuing the matter, asking staff to gather further information about statutory definitions, ADA triggers for restroom renovation, cost estimates and possible targeted approaches (for example, limiting requirements by building type or occupancy). No formal amendment or final action was recorded during the hearing.

The committee plans to revisit S-16 after additional legal and cost information is collected; no effective changes or deadlines were adopted at the session recorded in the transcript.