[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6261383,"mediaKeyId","3124195-1089a10b9bee7938e1aeb6a4f56f9851","parentId",3124195,"title","Senate Transportation debates T‑bill amendments, rail and bike‑ped funding and DVHA objections to contracting language","audioSeconds",170,"startMs",1851000,"endMs",1681000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3124195-1089a10b9bee7938e1aeb6a4f56f9851&start=1851&end=1681","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3124195-1089a10b9bee7938e1aeb6a4f56f9851/thumbnail_1851000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6261383/Vermont/Senate-Transportation-debates-Tbill-amendments-rail-and-bikeped-funding-and-DVHA-objections-to-contracting-language","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6261383-ac36e2989048a034f2da4695f17d41dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157249&Signature=g2otf6rDrD3NGxr9GPgw~c~TzFQTUumIApt-X2s8LVpzYE1L6jBD6-g1hDpvPshty2KYZyet9pJMVmZNBgHgB9FOU4ZE8pY-GNoLIWBK7L6UM-1~OS-5lOCwrRdKeKaVaHaecK8PlwxiBqRyHbDiOU499L1M~vHhZfxEip9B2Pu5s96QKamhH~c6Jr70jgJMxpP0ttvauc5Z4Dnvlyz-ZcDZUGvLhcR2jFgRhzRGfsNuSbQ3WNwkyGAIHJZh53D3ncw9s3PrUXrfA0A-bQ96CZy7YQfHm7NhA4LJIroUC-AqXu2Gt63AoQSYzzujLj5He7wLWnaxUKgJpruk-yLfsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-25T14:04:10Z","article","The Senate Transportation committee reviewed a package of amendments to the transportation bill that reallocates capital and program dollars, updates project lists and generated debate over contracting and reporting language related to Medicaid transportation services.

Committee staff walked members through a trimmed amendment draft (referred to as draft 1.2) that updates dollar amounts and project counts in several program sections. Highlights discussed included roughly $22,000,000 for bike and pedestrian projects this year (33 construction projects, 17 design/right‑of‑way items and 10 scoping studies), about $6.5 million across 51 Transportation Alternatives Program projects (bike/pedestrian and stormwater work), $52,700,000 for the public transit program and a rail program allocation just under $62,000,000 for intercity passenger and freight rail. The committee recorded an explicit rail federal funding figure of $31,894,436 and noted a Go Vermont MTI grant of $340,000 (about $315,000 federal).

Members also discussed two budget language pieces that would shift funds: language moving $1,150,000 from pilot funds to town highway nonfederal disaster and reducing the G Fund by $1,150,000, and a separate authorization for the Agency of Transportation to use up to $600,000 in one‑time transportation fund dollars for public transit demand‑response volunteer coordinators.

A longer, recurring point of contention centered on a section of the bill that would require reporting and coordination related to the Medicaid nonemergency transportation contract (referred to in discussion as \"section 27\"). Committee members said the Department of Vermont Health Access (DVHA) provided a legal memorandum objecting to prior language on grounds it could create federal conflict‑of‑interest concerns and potentially favor a current contractor during a competitive RFP process. Committee counsel (Jen Carvey) reviewed the objections with staff and the chair; members discussed retaining a trimmed version of the report language in draft 1.2 to preserve the chance to negotiate changes in conference committee while lowering the risk of a germaneness challenge.

Committee discussion repeatedly distinguished three outcomes: keeping the fuller, previously used language; accepting DVHA's suggested deletions (draft 1.1); or adopting the shorter compromise (draft 1.2) to reduce conference‑stage procedural risk. A staffer explained that draft 1.2 was intended to be removable in conference without raising a germaneness challenge, while adding new language in conference could create procedural obstacles.

DVHA also proposed language in the volunteer drivers publicity and outreach subsection to centralize informational materials on the department’s website and remove provisions that could be interpreted as DVHA promoting a specific current contractor during an RFP. Committee members said eligibility questions would still route to DVHA under that approach, and several members said they were willing to continue negotiations in conference committee rather than force an immediate change.

Committee members did not take final votes on the amendment package during the portion of the transcript provided; the chair instructed a short recess for further review and drafting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Transportation - 2025-04-25- 10:00AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Transportation committee reviewed a T‑bill amendment package that reallocates capital dollars for bike/ped, transit and rail and debated contracting and reporting language that the Department of Vermont Health Access says risks federal conflict‑of‑interest concerns.","taxTitle","Senate Transportation, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",51841,"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},6261387,"VTrans official describes \"braided\" model for nonemergency medical transport",67,19000,86000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3124195-1089a10b9bee7938e1aeb6a4f56f9851&start=19&end=86","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3124195-1089a10b9bee7938e1aeb6a4f56f9851/thumbnail_19000.jpg","/articles/6261387/Vermont/VTrans-official-describes-braided-model-for-nonemergency-medical-transport","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6261387-bb746b8d77d28de96a85ca76a245556a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157249&Signature=ajebNqr8OsO6ka9Dxr1GC9sGBSLefNrdA~uRkSF5NRFHyoN28R3-hBPbiTxE-h9cb0rpszZp8C~DyzDTiqlG2On2H7jCX95JfkkIkcNnn6xiHSluy-v1U9SpTlwrzxJTl2wOGwDzNozWlrYX1JvTad3kkvwo4iIsMuVxqfAVYomtGbk~Gsszi5cqO8IaLMVAKO0Aibt8SQ8Fjw02UD-65jOBUqm166bXBbh8ifx7DTjklwz6LTDhV5rWYUZb1XOYOd4Hvmrpmz8-bVszOUusHV-XpF5JFZFpH0duf23Jb8-VLMnjc6Q~XzXMVXtV0aUeKNsrsKWAvtSUSV2YuMe5Mw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ross McDonald, a presenter for VTrans, told the Senate Transportation committee the state’s long‑standing braided model for demand‑response services combines multiple programs into a single operating system to reduce duplication and lower per‑trip costs.

McDonald said the braided approach merges programs that serve older adults and people with disabilities, recovery and job access services, and the Medicaid nonemergency medical transportation (NEMT) program into a regional “clearing house” that uses the same call center, scheduling software, vehicles and drivers.

The braided system, McDonald said, uses a Medicaid‑first decision tree because Medicaid is an entitlement program, then routes other eligible trips (older‑adult, disability, job access) through the same dispatch and vehicle pool. \"We are essentially braiding these programs into a clearing house in each of our transit regions,\" McDonald said. \"That really does allow for some perceived efficiencies that were born out in the study last year, not least of which is using the same call center, and getting the information from one resource, rather than several call centers.\"

McDonald described other cost centers that VTrans has borne centrally for all demand‑response services, including scheduling and dispatch software procurement (which he said exceeded $4,000,000) and vehicle capital planning that accounts for NEMT demand when sizing regional fleets. He said those centralized investments make capacity more fungible across programs and reduce instances in which multiple vehicles perform the same trip.

He also urged that volunteer coordinator appropriations, if provided, be integrated into mobility management and volunteer recruitment rather than set up as stand‑alone funding; he said VTrans would follow up with committee staff on that point.

The committee did not take a formal vote on McDonald’s remarks; his presentation was introductory to later discussion of the transportation amendment package.

McDonald requested that the committee note the 2024 report the agency provided on the braided model and invited further questions or requests for examples of implementation, including imagery that a colleague (Caleb) could share offline.","At a Senate Transportation committee meeting, Ross McDonald of VTrans outlined Vermont’s long‑standing \"braided\" model that combines multiple demand‑response programs — including Medicaid NEMT — into a shared scheduling, vehicle and call‑center system to secure efficiencies and prioritize Medicaid trips.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate Transportation debates T‑bill amendments, rail and bike‑ped funding and DVHA objections to contracting language

VTrans official describes "braided" model for nonemergency medical transport