Regional planning commissions ask lawmakers to clarify state grant rules in H.233

Peter Gregory, director of 2 Rivers Adequiche Regional Commission, and Charlie Baker, executive director of the Genesee Regional Planning Commission, told the House Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs on April 4 that H.233 should give clearer direction to state agencies about how to treat regional planning commissions and other political subdivisions when state-funded grants are awarded and administered.

Gregory said RPCs are "political subdivisions of the state, much like municipalities," and argued their work for state agencies should be treated as intergovernmental transfers rather than as procurement of goods or vendor services. He said that lack of clarity in state guidance imposes time and cost burdens on both RPCs and their member municipalities. "These delays have caused a lot of frustration on our part," Gregory said, adding that the effects are costly for the state and local communities and that "even in good times, that's unacceptable. In these times, it's unconscionable."

The commissioners urged the committee to use H.233 to direct the Agency of Administration (AOA) to revise Bulletin 5 to clarify use of approved indirect cost rates for political subdivisions and to specify that political subdivisions need not be required to bid for intergovernmental transfers of state work. Charlie Baker described an existing example with the Agency of Transportation (VTrans): "We entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Agency of Transportation, the VTrans, to actually be kind of that, responsible party at the state agency level to, negotiate indirect rates with the RPCs." Baker said that VTrans uses a documented methodology and a spreadsheet workbook that "plugs in our numbers and it spits out something that VTrans is used to reviewing," allowing relatively quick approvals.

Gregory and Baker also pointed to prior training efforts and resources. Gregory said the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies (VAPDA) paid for a consultant who advised the state on federal contracting and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) about 15 years ago, and that agency turnover has eroded institutional knowledge since then. He suggested a working group convened by AOA should include RPCs, nonprofits and other stakeholders to produce a revised Bulletin 5 that reflects recent federal changes (for example, the federal de minimis rate for indirect costs has changed from 10% to 15%).

Committee members acknowledged receiving suggested language and told the witnesses the committee is taking in multiple submissions. The RPC directors said they would provide draft track-changed language and supporting materials to committee staff. The chair said the committee will take additional testimony "without moving anything anytime soon," indicating more stakeholder input before any bill amendment or floor action.

The discussion focused on clarifying administrative practice rather than resolving formal disputes: Gregory and Baker said payment delays are not the primary barrier for RPCs, noting that payments are often made within 30 days; their primary concern is consistent recognition of negotiated indirect rates across agencies and a clear, documented process for rate approval and grant contracting.

Looking ahead, the RPCs will submit written suggested language and documentation to committee staff and counsel for consideration; the committee indicated it will review those materials alongside other stakeholder input before drafting amendments to H.233.