Senate committee reviews H.935 to expand emergency grants and modernize wildland fire duties

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on April 14 reviewed H.935, an emergency management bill that would create two new grant programs, revise forest fire‑warden statutes, and authorize funding for statewide public‑safety communications and language access.

Tim Dutton, appearing as a bill sponsor/witness and identifying himself as "Tim Dutton, West Village Council," summarized the measure as creating a Ready Response Grant program to allow the Division of Emergency Management to "award an annual grant to an eligible food bank to source, store, and distribute shelf‑stable, ready‑to‑eat foods and bottled water" and a Technical Rescue Grant program to "assist rescue agencies in improvement of operational readiness and investment in specialized equipment." He said the Technical Rescue grants would be limited to about $5,000 per award, not to exceed $25,000 in total for the program as drafted.

Several witnesses and committee members probed the bill’s fiscal impact. The chair flagged a large number read from the section‑by‑section materials and asked for a fiscal note; Dutton acknowledged money‑committee amendments had changed appropriations since introduction.

Local fire officials testified in support. Bradley Rees, who identified himself as an appointed fire warden and local fire chief, told the committee the changes would ‘‘ensure that the fire chief will also have the ability to direct the use of resources at a wildland fire,’’ and described how recent floods and drought increased local fire risk. Aaron Collette, Fire Chief of Williston, described Williston’s online burn‑permit system and said operational realities — staffing limits and frequent EMS calls — make local permitting decisions critical to safety. David DiBiase, Fire Chief of Vergennes and vice president of the Vermont State Firefighters Association, said a recent fire that grew from one acre to about 110 acres illustrated delays that can occur and argued the bill would move communities from a reactive posture to a more proactive one: "Giving fire chiefs the authority over the permit process is not about turf. It’s about ensuring the people most responsible for community safety have the tools..."

Dan Dillner, the state forest fire supervisor for the Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, presented wildfire‑season data and explained statutory reforms in the bill: clarifying the commissioner’s authority, permitting the commissioner to ban primitive campfires on ANR lands under certain conditions, requiring more timely fire reporting to state wildland fire staff, and removing an older "uniform fire prevention" criminal ticket that witnesses said is rarely used and places volunteers in a quasi‑law‑enforcement role. He also described the bill’s proposed categorization of fires (Category 1 campfires exempt from permits under size/distance limits, Category 2 debris burns requiring permits, and Category 3 prescribed burns/training/agricultural burns) and how the commissioner or local wardens could restrict categories by condition.

H.935 would also authorize use of prior appropriations and new appropriations to implement a multidisciplinary computer‑aided dispatch (CAD) system and related communications improvements. Dutton described $2,250,000 for initial CAD costs, $190,000 for cybersecurity and GIS, and $4.5 million over three years for land mobile radio upgrades and proof‑of‑concept sites in the draft language presented to the committee. The bill contains report‑back requirements: the Department of Public Safety would submit written reports to the committee on specified dates about expenditures tied to the communications implementation.

Committee members asked for clarifications about inventories, coordination with existing resilience funding, and whether the technical rescue grant program would duplicate current special‑operations working groups; witnesses said some inventories (for water rescue) are complete while other equipment inventories remain partial, and recommended using existing special‑operations expertise to avoid duplicative purchases. Several members also raised enforcement and statutory language questions about permitting on ANR lands, notification thresholds for state involvement, and the fiscal impact of the consolidated changes.

The committee did not take a final vote during the hearing and recessed consideration to continue testimony later. The committee asked staff to provide fiscal notes, clarify appropriations differences between the introduced and amended versions, and return with additional technical details on definitions and implementation.