[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6336899,"mediaKeyId","2277993-203b2b4470cbde12698d4374dbe55640","parentId",2277993,"title","Chittenden County MPO director outlines role, budget and projects for regional transportation planning","audioSeconds",1566,"startMs",4080000,"endMs",5646000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2277993-203b2b4470cbde12698d4374dbe55640&start=4080&end=5646","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2277993-203b2b4470cbde12698d4374dbe55640/thumbnail_4080000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6336899/Vermont/Chittenden-County-MPO-director-outlines-role-budget-and-projects-for-regional-transportation-planning","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6336899-92c5ff809088f675b494128bfdda1d52/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198183&Signature=Jt-1Ov96Blo~pK7iqSm-zTdRCUvwtWfXwYSCGoOZ9JkdqvAfvmlBF0~~tGrHHIPLO6eafK0J073weaDQ9RCgfV7PMI0x04ikfwVNGD9hoXuTsCNqUVLJzTh~peWhdhU6dgFPFRNTZJrfvWFp6iPdNBXNkIm8h8tVxNFPgmszeUrtlh6roupbQgBH~tJ1DqG2brwcXip7UwDbJSSbEw2jk0d4bffomTxuhpvnjZKW0CoRjtoHbx0N9Q7-CLVd0Io2XT1rAaL8M-betxCL6hhVpmy7uYVjmH4HLjmd0tx45Uz~D5OR3EFhdAvuw3kdVWn5bUUZMMfIB~v6Yd-FFhGT5A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-12T14:15:00Z","article","Charlie Baker, executive director of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and MPO, told the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 12 that MPOs are federal creations required in urbanized areas and that Chittenden County’s MPO receives a larger share of federal transportation planning funds than other Vermont regions because it is the state’s single designated MPO.

Baker said MPOs are federally charged with a continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transportation planning process. That includes producing a long‑range Metropolitan Transportation Plan (20‑year horizon), a Transportation Improvement Program (the prioritized list of federally funded projects), a Unified Planning Work Program (the MPO’s annual planning tasks), and a public participation plan. He explained the MPO board must sign off on projects that use federal transportation dollars in the MPO urbanized area and that the MPO’s Transportation Improvement Program is updated frequently to reflect changing project costs and schedules.

Baker provided a fiscal overview: the MPO’s total program budget exceeds $10 million on paper (reflecting large federal grants and pass‑throughs), with roughly $7.3 million in transportation funding cited in the work program chart shown to the committee. He said about 95% of revenue comes from federal and state grants and about 5% from municipal dues; municipal dues in the region total more than a quarter million dollars and are scaled by towns’ equalized grand list.

He listed partner awards and pass‑throughs the MPO administers, including increased annual funding to Green Mountain Transit (about $650,000), grants to Locomotion and other regional mobility partners, and periodic reimbursements to the University of Vermont’s Transportation Research Center. Baker said the MPO also secured a federal competitive (RAISE/BUILD) grant of roughly $1 million that appears in the program listing; that discretionary grant’s status depends on federal administration decisions.

Project examples Baker reviewed included a long‑range study of I‑89 through Chittenden County (evaluating future interchange and capacity needs, including Exit 13/14 options), scoping for Exit 14 improvements, a Winooski River bridge replacement and related active‑transportation improvements (a project for which the MPO sought a $25 million discretionary grant), local main‑street and “complete streets” studies, EV charging and energy planning, culvert and stormwater inventories to support resiliency, and a regional transit‑oriented development (TOD) planning effort across multiple neighboring towns.

Baker said most MPO work is done by consultants (planning, inventories, technical studies) and that the MPO leverages local matches so towns can fund studies; VTrans typically provides a 10% match for core planning tasks while municipalities provide another 10% when required. He described the MPO as a public‑sector planning partner that lacks general tax revenue and relies on state and federal funding to provide technical assistance to towns.

Committee members asked about the risk to federal funds; Baker said formula funds coming through VTrans are not currently at risk but discretionary grants (like the RAISE/BUILD program) could be affected by federal policy changes. Members also discussed how MPO planning and resiliency work can help smaller, non‑MPO towns identify and prioritize culvert and flood‑resilience projects and coordinate hazard mitigation funding.

Baker concluded by noting MPO projects range from high‑level strategies to detailed scoping that prepares a project for VTrans engineering and NEPA processes; the MPO’s role is to coordinate local priorities into funding‑ready studies and regional plans.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Transportation - 2025-02-12 - 9:15AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Chittenden County regional planning commission executive director explained why MPO funding and responsibilities differ from other regions, described a roughly $7.3 million transportation program, and reviewed large regional projects and local grants.","taxTitle","Transportation, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",35155,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6336904,"Witness explains Advanced Clean Cars 2, California waiver and how Vermont would implement ZEV requirements",1475,1914000,3389000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2277993-203b2b4470cbde12698d4374dbe55640&start=1914&end=3389","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2277993-203b2b4470cbde12698d4374dbe55640/thumbnail_1914000.jpg","/articles/6336904/Vermont/Witness-explains-Advanced-Clean-Cars-2-California-waiver-and-how-Vermont-would-implement-ZEV-requirements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6336904-1ca96f10aecbab7769edb4afb2460952/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198183&Signature=a-9eO6KfKVxvBL-7kW1q6lg~42kiESx~dISaUZz4UtX2VJ-PupWiEiLdC0o2GPcv1slmqQeq60sS-sECfvM~TQfv90Kf0zpc64iaPk~rhEVxVryWTCFfXMpA9pyekksrn0ELQeVcq--CoAYksNI2Uv1J-1G~jI3jq-TIbEIbePb3RAonJyKLHRbA72Yex29zd8QifO56-ttia44pCwhEl58xFAuE8d6rd-vwyyuhlDvvOy6YW4UhEwpTjilqiyxXvBo6XtLnG5u09W09-mH2vk316KdIrIM28oHnlEaYqAFkw7orYb4V3RJ4h2aCe7CjLSX5rdOzYQHWybx1zdXBtQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A senior policy adviser for the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) told the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 12 that Advanced Clean Cars 2 (ACC2) and related zero‑emission vehicle (ZEV) rules are authorized by the Clean Air Act’s carve‑out for California and section 177, which allows other states to adopt California’s standards if they are identical.

Meghan O’Toole (recorded in testimony as Megan O'Toole), senior policy adviser at NESCAUM, told members that California must secure an EPA waiver to set stricter motor‑vehicle emission standards; other states may adopt those stricter standards only by following California’s rules under section 177. That legal structure is the basis for states — including Vermont — to adopt ACC2 (which combines low‑emission vehicle standards, greenhouse‑gas standards and ZEV sales requirements) and for the multi‑state Section‑177 market that supplies ZEVs.

O’Toole said ACC2 contains three parts: criteria‑pollutant low‑emission standards for combustion engines; a greenhouse‑gas standard; and ZEV assurance measures (for example, warranty and battery‑performance protections and consumer protections for charging interoperability). She emphasized that ACC2 is primarily a supply‑side regulation that obliges automakers (OEMs) to deliver a required share of ZEVs for sale in participating states; consumers and dealers are not regulated by ACC2.

On compliance, O’Toole explained ACC2 includes multiple flexibility pathways that automakers negotiated into the rule: straight sales compliance, converted credits from ACC1, early compliance vehicle values, pooled credits across states, and proportional credits for fuel‑cell vehicles. She noted Vermont’s model‑year‑2026 implementation and said that, when accounting for all available flexibilities, an automaker’s effective ZEV sales requirement can be materially lower than the straight sales percentage listed in the headline line of the regulation.

Committee members asked for clarifications about whether ACC2 guarantees demand or merely requires supply. O’Toole said the rule creates supply certainty by obliging manufacturers to make ZEVs available for sale; complementary state policies (incentives, charging infrastructure, dealer training) are typically used to foster demand. She also described environmental justice credits and noted Section‑177 states collectively represent a significant portion of U.S. new‑vehicle registrations, increasing the number of ZEVs available to participating jurisdictions.

O’Toole reviewed national emissions context: transportation is the largest U.S. greenhouse‑gas source, and mobile sources contribute substantially to criteria pollutants that affect respiratory and cardiovascular health, particularly in overburdened communities. She said successful implementation typically involves multiple state agencies (state air program, PUC, transportation, commerce and economic development, public service) working together.

O’Toole’s visit underscored that ACC2 is primarily a regulatory framework for automakers, with implementation success depending on complementary state actions to build charging infrastructure and consumer incentives; she encouraged the legislature to consider those supporting policies in tandem with rule adoption.","A NESCAUM policy adviser briefed the committee on the statutory basis for states to adopt California vehicle standards, the structure of Advanced Clean Cars 2 (ACC2), compliance flexibilities for automakers, and Vermont's planned 2026 model‑year implementation.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6336909,"House committee reviews H.44 changes to impaired-driving rules, reporting to DMV and blood-draw refusals",1452,36000,1488000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2277993-203b2b4470cbde12698d4374dbe55640&start=36&end=1488","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2277993-203b2b4470cbde12698d4374dbe55640/thumbnail_36000.jpg","/articles/6336909/Vermont/House-committee-reviews-H44-changes-to-impaired-driving-rules-reporting-to-DMV-and-blood-draw-refusals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6336909-3d9cb24fb9ddb0fb173a4c2d195290c8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771198183&Signature=UxATtrAEG~2WYJDJAM1VBkfz4Xnh5wmoQqNO2pxnDOMpKycCbZYlDrxN7Tfld9kT-hmCzUeBBgf7V6llp-aW1nXe~fmd4cu3rgU-t~eBi-cPUVuQ~6NBAAdAC3yh6RUL7E2lLxrpo~uvA61rie5mmY4HdUpzXLPratGalwFuR78cRFDNOC9j9l03nMkCR2TtpaBcrXxl3MvtDDP-6zijhXpcmY4n07GK9rqEt2YZpXEAlTpgSvZlbkjKyoPaMHYLbyZ2eGQlnzshCQ7l8i4DmgVXzpMtXhtxHrO4Zlry-2XBqRoqg~8pqlwHH56vcgqGetKddPtiP51MZz8yOrnhBw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative counsel told the House Transportation Committee on Feb. 12 that H.44, “An act relating to miscellaneous amendments to the laws governing impaired driving,” would close reporting gaps to the Department of Motor Vehicles and create a DUI‑centered misdemeanor for refusal to submit to a warrant‑authorized blood draw.

Ben Novogrovsky, legislative counsel and the staff member assigned to H.44, told committee members the bill makes a series of technical and substantive fixes across Title 23 (the transportation title) and related judiciary provisions in Title 4 and Title 33. Novogrovsky said the bill aims to ensure family‑court adjudications that affect driving privileges are reported to the DMV and to create an alternative to felony obstruction charges where a person refuses a court‑issued warrant for an evidentiary blood sample.

The bill would add “adjudication” language so family‑court outcomes that are not labeled as convictions are nevertheless reported to the DMV; Novogrovsky said the bill requires the court to send a record of such adjudications to the commissioner of motor vehicles within 10 days of issuance. He said the change is intended to close an enforcement gap in which some family‑court decisions were not consistently communicated to the DMV.

On the substance of impaired‑driving law, Novogrovsky reviewed statutory definitions and thresholds that already exist in the DUI statutes: a blood‑alcohol content (BAC) of 0.08 or greater generally, 0.02 or greater for school‑bus operators and 0.04 or greater for commercial drivers (CDL), and the separate common‑law standard for being “under the influence.” He said H.44 makes gender‑neutral edits and reorganizes definitions so a statutory reference to “serious bodily injury” is uniform across the chapter.

The bill also creates subsection j within the statutory DUI provisions that addresses warrant‑based blood draws. Novogrovsky explained that while drivers impliedly consent to evidentiary testing under Vermont law, a blood draw is considered more intrusive and requires a warrant under existing constitutional law and a separate statute (12 O 2 F reference in the briefing). If a person refuses to comply with a valid warrant for a blood draw, Novogrovsky said, the bill would permit charging that refusal as a DUI‑related “criminal refusal” — a misdemeanor tied to the DUI framework — rather than leaving law enforcement to seek obstruction‑of‑justice charges, which are felony offenses and do not carry the rehabilitative measures tied to DUI adjudications (license suspension, IDRP screening and treatment recommendations).

Representative Ward asked for clarification about whether family‑court “convictions” were sometimes not sent to DMV; Novogrovsky replied that family‑court outcomes are not called convictions, hence the bill adds “adjudication” language to ensure those outcomes are reported. Committee members also discussed practical limits Novogrovsky noted: the bill does not address hospital or clinician willingness to perform blood draws in some circumstances, nor does it remove a defendant’s right to challenge the warrant’s validity in court.

Novogrovsky said the bill creates a judiciary‑led task force to consider ways to shorten law‑enforcement stops and reduce paperwork and processing requirements, and that the bill’s effective date would be July 1. He described many of the early sections as technical corrections but said section 2 contains the principal DUI‑related changes.

No formal committee vote or amendment was recorded in the transcript excerpt; committee members indicated support for moving the bill forward pending any legal objections.

What this means locally: if adopted as drafted, H.44 would tighten reporting to the DMV about family‑court adjudications affecting driving privileges, and it would give prosecutors and police a misdemeanor DUI pathway for warrant‑refusal blood draws instead of relying on felony obstruction charges. The bill preserves a defendant’s right to later challenge the warrant in court and does not alter existing constitutional protections.","A legislative counsel briefed the House Transportation Committee on H.44, which would tighten reporting of family‑court adjudications to the DMV, clarify DUI definitions in Title 23, and create a misdemeanor pathway for refusing warrant‑authorized blood draws.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Chittenden County MPO director outlines role, budget and projects for regional transportation planning

Witness explains Advanced Clean Cars 2, California waiver and how Vermont would implement ZEV requirements

House committee reviews H.44 changes to impaired-driving rules, reporting to DMV and blood-draw refusals