Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Heritage Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Finance debates mechanics of $5-per-burial cemetery vandalism fund amid governance concerns
Summary
Senate Finance heard extensive debate on S275, a bill to create a Cemetery Vandalism Response Fund that would collect $5 per burial/cremation and route annual proceeds to grants administered by the Vermont Old Cemetery Association; members raised legal, oversight, and fairness concerns about routing public-collected fees to a volunteer private organization.
Senate Finance extensively discussed S275, a proposal to establish a Cemetery Vandalism Response Fund to provide discretionary grants for repairing willful vandalism to cemeteries. The bill defines qualifying vandalism, sets application documentation requirements (including photographs and two contractor bids), and directs the Division for Historic Preservation to collect an annual $5 contribution per burial or cremation and remit proceeds to the Vermont Old Cemetery Association (VOCA) for grant awards.
Sponsor testimony explained VOCA's volunteer work preserving cemeteries statewide and framed the fee as a small, steady revenue source to help communities repair malicious damage. The bill requires reporting and accounting for grant disbursements and allows priority consideration for vandalism tied to protected categories and for sites causing emotional distress to visiting families.
Committee members raised multiple concerns: whether state statute can require private voluntary organizations to receive public-collected funds; the appropriateness of routing state-collected fees directly to a nonstate organization; the possibility of exempting financially assisted burials from the fee; and whether the Division for Historic Preservation should administer the fund rather than VOCA to ensure state oversight. Staff noted the bill as drafted aggregates fees annually (due January 15 of each year) and disburses funds after certification. Estimates on revenue were modest (tens of thousands annually); members observed that the fund likely would not cover large-scale vandalism repairs and that operational mechanics need more work.
The sponsor acknowledged the governance questions and said he would consult with the division and with fiscal staff (Ted) about routing and potential drafting fixes. The committee did not finalize an amended mechanism in this meeting and signaled it may take more work or return to the issue next year if the routing and oversight problems remain unresolved.
