An act relating to waiver of criminal history record fees for certain DAIL volunteers
H.682 would amend Vermont’s criminal history record fee statute to add a new fee exemption for organizations or agencies that administer no-cost home-delivered meal programs for older Vermonters in connection with the Department of Disabilities, Aging, and Independent Living (DAIL). Under current law, most name-and-date-of-birth criminal history and conviction record checks cost $30, plus any applicable out-of-state charges. The bill keeps that general fee structure in place but expands the list of entities that do not have to pay the fee when requesting background checks for people serving in these meal-delivery programs.
The practical effect is to reduce administrative costs for senior nutrition programs that rely on volunteers or other personnel who must undergo background screening. The bill is narrowly targeted and does not change the underlying authority of the Vermont Crime Information Center to conduct checks; it only waives the fee for this specific category of DAIL-related meal programs. The act would take effect on July 1, 2026.
The bill would amend 20 V.S.A. § 2063, which governs criminal history record check fees and the Criminal History Record Check Fund, by adding a new exemption for no-cost home-delivered meal programs serving older Vermonters through DAIL. This would place these organizations alongside other fee-exempt requesters such as criminal justice agencies, approved researchers, individuals reviewing their own records, housing authorities, and certain environmental enforcement officers. The affected parties are primarily nonprofit or public agencies operating senior meal delivery programs and the volunteers or staff who need background checks to participate.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the overall sentiment appears supportive and noncontroversial. The proposal is framed as a targeted administrative relief measure intended to help organizations serving older Vermonters, and there is no evidence in the available record of organized opposition or divided votes. The bill’s narrow scope suggests it is aimed at easing costs rather than changing broader criminal history screening policy.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available materials. If concerns were to arise, they would likely center on whether the fee waiver should be limited to this one program, whether the state should absorb the lost fee revenue, or whether similar exemptions should be extended to other volunteer-based service programs. However, the provided record does not show any stated objections, amendments, or competing positions.