Regional planning commissions tell House Appropriations federal grant cuts would hamper disaster response and local infrastructure projects

Executives from three Vermont regional planning commissions told the House Appropriations Committee on April 23 that recent federal grant terminations and funding pauses are already disrupting local projects and could reduce the commissions’ ability to support towns after disasters and to secure infrastructure dollars.

Charlie Baker, executive director of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, said RPCs “play the role of connecting towns with federal and state resources,” providing planning, grant-writing and technical services to municipalities that lack in-house staff.

The testimony described several specific grant losses and pauses and the functions those grants supported. An EPA grant of $875,000 that would have funded active-transportation (bike and pedestrian) demonstrations was terminated and is under appeal, witnesses said. A federal health-equity pass-through to the RPCs — roughly $150,000 to $175,000 in the most recent round for the RPC portion — was canceled. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program grants that counties had passed to RPCs, generally $75,000 apiece, were paused or canceled for several RPCs. Witnesses also said Winooski lost a roughly $1 million strategic urban-forestry grant connected to a main-street reconstruction, and that the project as a whole was on the order of $8 million to $9 million.

Panelists raised FEMA programs as a particular concern. They said the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program, which funds hazard mitigation plans and mitigation construction projects, had been canceled and that standard local hazard mitigation plans typically cost about $10,000 each; RPCs estimated that a dozen such plans would represent roughly $120,000 to $150,000 in lost federal support. The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), a 50-50 matched FEMA program that funds emergency planners and RPC participation in the State Emergency Operations Center, has already been cut and remains at risk, witnesses told the committee.

The witnesses also flagged other programs and partners that provide planning or infrastructure funding: the EPA brownfields program (RPCs said their region has received more than $5 million in direct Brownfields grants and has a $2 million revolving loan fund), Climate Pollution Reduction Grant funding (RPC shares of about $300,000), USDA rural-development investments in community infrastructure, the Northern Border Regional Commission and Economic Development Administration (EDA) planning and infrastructure grants. Several federal discretionary programs were described as paused, uncertain or subject to staff turnover at federal agencies.

Committee members asked how an RPC would respond if a flood or other disaster occurred while federal funding or reimbursement was uncertain. Witnesses said RPCs would continue short-term technical support — documenting damage, advising towns and staffing local response — but their capacity to support recovery and administer reimbursable recovery funds would be substantially constrained without reliable federal reimbursement. Witnesses described a “domino” effect in which reduced federal funding weakens RPC staff capacity, which in turn reduces towns’ ability to plan, secure infrastructure funds and administer grants.

Witnesses said RPCs are taking short-term steps — accelerating federal contracts where possible, seeking advances rather than reimbursement, and prioritizing projects — while pursuing longer-term structural options such as promoting shared services and exploring a transition to councils of governments so towns can voluntarily pool resources.

The committee asked RPCs to keep the legislature informed about concrete grant losses and program changes. Witnesses said they would share tangible notices of cuts and keep the committee updated.

The testimony illustrated how multiple federal programs together support planning, hazard mitigation, active-transportation pilots, brownfields redevelopment, emergency planners and local infrastructure work; witnesses warned that loss of several programs simultaneously would shift costs and responsibilities to state and local governments and reduce technical capacity available to towns.

RPC testimony and committee discussion contained no formal motions or votes.