Senate Government Operations Committee prepares to vote on cemetery vandalism response fund after clarifications

The Senate Committee on Government Operations heard testimony March 13 on S.275, legislation that would create a cemetery vandalism response fund supported by a $5 contribution associated with burials and cremations. The committee’s chair said he intended to move the bill out of committee the same day, but members and witnesses asked for clarifications on eligibility, notice requirements and collection mechanics before a vote.

Marshfield Town Clerk Bobby Brimblecom told the committee he and fellow clerks were “not in favor of the bill the way it's written,” saying it could impose an extra fee on families while simultaneously limiting towns’ ability to access grants. “We would be asking families to pay an additional fee for every burial, but then I'm not sure that it would be funds that we would ever be able to access,” Brimblecom said, citing language in the draft that requires an applicant to state it has “no available funds.”

The sponsor responded that the committee would not repeal the existing statute that allows town clerks to keep the current $5 burial-transit permit fee; the vandalism fund contribution would be separate in drafts under discussion. The sponsor also proposed adding language such as “to the greatest extent practicable” to the next-of-kin notice requirement to reduce the administrative burden for very old graves where kin cannot be located.

Tom Gifin, president of VOCA, urged the committee to keep the measure, saying many of Vermont’s roughly 2,000 cemeteries operate on “very little margins” and that an available fund would let towns hire contractors to repair large-scale vandalism. “When I had to go to a cemetery and there's 250 stones knocked over and vandalized, it’d be nice to say, ‘Yeah, we can pay for somebody to come in with a tractor to help,’” Gifin said.

Members and witnesses also discussed home burials and practical collection issues. Clerks stressed it would be difficult to assess the additional $5 for private backyard burials; the committee agreed to consider exempting home burials unless a funeral director is involved, which would leave collection responsibilities primarily with entities that already interact with funeral directors or cemeteries.

Committee legal counsel John Gray advised that the phrase “to the greatest extent practicable” imposes a different and more proactive legal standard than “if known,” and recommended the practicability phrase to encourage reasonable outreach to next of kin. The chair and witnesses also debated whether newspaper legal‑notice costs for kin searches should be reimbursable by the grant; committee members suggested lower‑cost alternatives such as documented online notices and social media where appropriate.

The committee coalesced around five edits the sponsor proposed: remove any repeal of the existing permit fee so clerks retain the $5 they currently collect; add the practicability standard for next-of-kin notice; exempt home burials from the additional contribution unless a funeral director is used; retain lawful newspaper-of-record notice options while allowing lower-cost documented attempts; and clarify that routine operating funds for upkeep do not disqualify cemeteries from vandalism-specific grants.

How the contributions would be collected and disbursed was also clarified in discussion: one draft envisions the Historic Preservation Division collecting contributions and VOCA administering grants, while earlier drafts had towns remitting fees annually. The sponsor said staff could produce an edited draft within about 20 minutes. The committee recessed for 25 minutes to allow drafting of technical edits and scheduled a vote on S.275 after the recess.

Next steps: the committee planned to reconvene after a short recess to consider the amended draft and vote; the record does not show a final committee vote during the March 13 session.