Advocates tell House agriculture panel repeal of Vermont’s universal school meals would shift costs to families and local districts

Manore Horton, executive director of Hunger Free Vermont, and Kayla Strom, farm-to-school programs manager for the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) of Vermont, told the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry Committee that Governor Scott’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget would remove funding for Vermont’s Universal School Meals program from the Education Fund and that doing so would shift costs to families, school districts and local farms.

Horton told the committee the program — enacted as part of Act 64 in 2023 and providing breakfast and lunch at no charge to every student in public schools and participating independent schools — currently combines roughly $34.5 million in federal reimbursements with about $17.5 million in state funding for an estimated $52 million annual program cost. “It means 2,500,000 fewer healthy school meals served to Vermont kids every school year,” Horton said, and she warned that 27,000 children in the so‑called “missing middle” would face charges for meals if universal coverage were repealed.

The program, Horton said, eliminates unpaid meal debt, reduces paperwork and draws down additional federal dollars that also enable schools to qualify for fully federally funded summer- and after‑school meal programs. “Repealing Act 64 would mean losing $7 million to $10 million a year in federal funds for Vermont school meal programs and farms,” she said. Horton and other witnesses told the committee that unpaid meal debt and general-fund transfers to meal programs would likely return if schools resumed charging for meals.

Nut graf: Committee members heard advocates’ data and first‑hand accounts showing how universal meals increased participation and federal reimbursements, reduced administrative burdens on school staff and opened institutional markets for Vermont producers — and that the governor’s budget proposal, if adopted, would reverse those gains.

Committee discussion and questions focused on program mechanics and effects. Representative O’Brien asked how students are identified for federal reimbursement; Horton explained that Vermont’s Agency of Education entered an agreement with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to use direct certification through Medicaid and other data so families no longer must file separate applications. Horton said the change helped identify roughly 10,000 low‑income students who were eligible but not enrolled and another 7,000 eligible students who were not previously identified.

Horton and witnesses cited several measures of the program’s impact since the 2023 law: a 36% increase in school breakfast participation, a 20% increase in lunch participation, roughly 2.5 million additional meals served, a 44% increase in federal funding tied to higher participation (which Horton put at about $34.5 million), and a 37% reduction in general‑fund transfers to food service budgets despite recent food‑price inflation.

Kayla Strom of NOFA Vermont emphasized the program’s role in strengthening local food markets. “When all students have the opportunity to eat, school nutrition programs thrive,” Strom said, adding that increased participation and more stable budgets have allowed districts to buy more Vermont products. She described a virtuous cycle: universal meals increase participation, which increases program revenue and the ability to purchase local food, which in turn further increases participation.

Strom cited reported local purchases and food‑hub sales as examples: schools that reported to the Agency of Education said they spent about $1.2 million on Vermont products last year; four food hubs aggregated roughly $720,000 in school sales; and one Vermont beef supplier, Boyden Farm, saw school sales rise from about $35,000 to more than $110,000 over successive years. The committee was told the Vermont Local Foods Incentive is funded at $500,000 per year and that grants from that program are increasing uptake.

Members also raised equity and stigma concerns. Multiple committee members and witnesses described how removing universal coverage would require families in the income “gap” to pay roughly $1,500 per child per year in meal charges — a calculation witnesses attributed to current meal prices and participation patterns — and how unpaid meal debt historically forced local districts to cover shortfalls.

No formal vote or motion on the program was taken at the hearing. Witnesses invited committee members to the Farm to School Awareness Day on Feb. 12 to hear additional testimony from farmers, school nutrition staff and students.

Ending: Advocates asked the committee to preserve funding in the Education Fund and to reject the governor’s proposed repeal. Committee members said they would review updated agency reports and data in future meetings before deciding on any budget actions.