Vermont emergency management proposes ‘whole community’ language, opposes new buyout fund in H.397

Montpelier — Eric Forreng, director of Vermont Emergency Management (VEM), told the Senate Committee on Government Operations on April 23 that he supports several language changes in H.397 but recommended removing a proposed new buyout program and consolidating duties into existing statutory language.

Forreng said the bill should replace many of its specific entity references with the FEMA-derived phrase “whole community,” and that a separate buyout fund for voluntary property acquisition is duplicative because an existing buyout mechanism in statute already covers buyouts and broader floodplain work. “Creating a program without a funding source is also a bit unnecessary,” Forreng said, adding, “creating another one ... doesn't make sense to us.”

The change to “whole community” is intended to expand the statute’s reach beyond named officials and agencies, Forreng said, so the law would explicitly include individuals, families, businesses, community organizations, schools and other partners the state already engages in emergency planning. He recommended moving several detailed plan elements into preexisting Title 20 provisions rather than creating a new subsection, and suggested placing new duties inside the existing duties-and-budget subsection instead of a standalone section.

Forreng also raised technical and operational points that bear on the bill’s design. He said the state already provides templates and appendices for local emergency management plans (LEMPs)—shelter plans, parking/site templates, communications contacts—and that VEM’s six regional coordinators support towns directly, including face-to-face plan development and review. By statute towns must submit local emergency management plans annually by June 1; Forreng said compliance is high (about 90.5 percent) but that municipalities still ask for more support.

Senator Bielski pressed Forreng to ensure the bill explicitly prioritizes outreach to vulnerable populations. Forreng agreed that the statute should require “special emphasis on vulnerable populations” but said defining the term will require further drafting; he described the state’s outreach work as targeted at multiple groups (elderly, minors, non-English speakers and people who need power-dependent medical equipment) and outlined Vermont’s coordination with 2-1-1 and a CARES database to flag households needing direct contact during events.

Committee members also questioned how H.397 would interact with weather forecasting and alert systems. Forreng described an active relationship with the National Weather Service (NWS) and said Vermont leverages NWS forecasts and spot reports; the state’s Vermont Alert system ingests NWS warnings and allows towns and residents to receive targeted alerts. He noted limits to what NWS can provide directly to private entities but described Vermont Alert’s geofenced and subgroup messaging, and the state’s ability to issue wireless emergency alerts in life-safety situations.

What happens next: Forreng told the committee he will refine suggested language (including a workable definition for “whole community” and a term to capture regional planning commissions and similar entities) and that VEM supports removing the proposed separate buyout fund unless the bill specifies funding and a distinct purpose. Committee members asked VEM to submit revised draft language and to propose wording that highlights outreach to vulnerable communities.