[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-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",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_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",6248672,"mediaKeyId","3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a","parentId",3209489,"title","Conference committee examines Medicaid nonemergency transport contract, $600,000 volunteer coordinator proposal and background‑check barriers","audioSeconds",1374,"startMs",3665000,"endMs",5039000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a&start=3665&end=5039","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a/thumbnail_3665000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6248672/Vermont/Conference-committee-examines-Medicaid-nonemergency-transport-contract-600000-volunteer-coordinator-proposal-and-backgroundcheck-barriers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248672-d738d5ebc3175595cd1c43dfe9e61e3b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181627&Signature=XZg2mlh8e9t-rJLrB8Vq498elTjQJhf12r6PpNr-9pobZO3hqlPJdqPO5L5HIihBS3FRAh-J2jANloPChDijFjGjyCc55dbOBAx~5ledn5PaALrKm--g75fkOHrOIVFYsZ0VkxuScUa2TPKye656VoF9L2J9HX-cOXbNRnHMguS67343BQP70QiIBb8VEGYk~cXLUS1Gm1FnERb6ItmXx-MAGC5HiH6gmKWZuNIt17BM4~WTQp64CVbdVxFXkwaJQTDv5zfqElyGHqXttz1mKmV11YQKLRtI0rB6AWNwUGUBpO08G6uAhfh3zMGQ6SjwIrCnqfox~RbiwuuqoUtoJA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-07T12:04:51.63Z","article","Conference conferees discussed several related items affecting demand‑response transportation: a Senate proposal to appropriate $600,000 one‑time for grants to support volunteer coordinators, a requested DVHA report on the Medicaid nonemergency medical transportation contract, and a DVHA concern that report language could conflict with federal Medicaid contracting rules.

Damien Leonard summarized the package. He said the Senate reallocated funds from a pilot‑fund balance (about $1,150,000 moved earlier in the bill) and proposed $600,000 in one‑time transportation funds for grants to public transit agencies to hire coordinators to recruit and manage volunteer drivers.

Why it matters: Several committee members and public‑transit stakeholders told conferees that volunteer drivers provide lower‑cost rides and that recruitment and retention have lagged since COVID. DVHA objected to certain report requirements and said federal Medicaid procurement rules limit the factors the department may lawfully consider when awarding a Medicaid nonemergency transport contract.

Details from the discussion

- Funding and origin: The Senate’s proposal would use $600,000 in one‑time transportation funds freed up by an earlier $1,150,000 pilot‑fund transfer; conferees noted this is a one‑time appropriation and asked how successor funding would be handled in future budgets.

- DVHA concerns: DVHA told the committee that asking the department to certify that a Medicaid contract will preserve the financial stability of public transit systems may exceed what federal Medicaid rules allow the department to consider in procurement. Conferees said DVHA and human services chairs are convening to find alternative language.

- Volunteer driver barriers: Committee members discussed difficulties recruiting volunteer drivers because of multiple background checks tied to Medicaid work; section 28 in the draft would ask DVHA in consultation with VPTA and AOT to report whether specific background‑check requirements are preventing volunteers from serving and to recommend fixes.

Next steps

Conferees said the language would be worked on to address DVHA’s federal‑regulation concerns and that the committee would consider whether to keep the $600,000 appropriation, seek agency briefings on cost and outcome metrics, and review options for sustaining any successful pilot beyond one year.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Transportation - 2025-05-06-1:40 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Conference conferees discussed several related items affecting demand‑response transportation: a Senate proposal to appropriate $600,000 one‑time for grants to support volunteer coordinators, a requested DVHA report on the Medicaid nonemergency medical transportation contract, and DVHA objections to report language on federal procurement grounds.","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},6248677,"Conference committee backs study to build municipal project prioritization system; AOT would get two years to recommend framework",558,869000,1427000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a&start=869&end=1427","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a/thumbnail_869000.jpg","/articles/6248677/Vermont/Conference-committee-backs-study-to-build-municipal-project-prioritization-system-AOT-would-get-two-years-to-recommend-framework","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248677-ae30e426341cf4a126ebfb7ebca59989/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181627&Signature=S3tu4Qav5lQqOWOCUVjsfEDq~1fjpocIqhImI70f8WBaWng2X0VhsFL9780BfSOdF3S6iDWEjcFqJJDmCJpAoyiGF-kS0ELafsHhtNLoHO8ijfO0GClC29DQE1emIpRtEPTIgEjc98gqnfudLPGv1C-jWWBEVVm-BqGA3urXSbVfeaggY3JUAr58DUsWFX17pv6SMQO8hWRwkfkFAVHOw75SSpz0CIhEpzWsMCyHeFGMAVl897NHeQujsnWvudFGuYOaCs4i5R~Pi4tJgGCowFiBpDgNZdN1zQoYX4l6zuud8X8BQKDIEH~rDNaWcLZKk3aV63doIDcX8HEpofKlTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee conferees discussed Senate additions that would direct the Agency of Transportation (AOT) to inventory municipal transportation needs and propose a prioritization process to help towns compete for funding.

Damien Leonard and multiple conferees described sections 16 and 17 as Senate-proposed language that would require AOT to design a system to catalog municipal projects and recommend a prioritization method; the agency proposed a two‑year timeframe for that work and suggested using program development dollars to retain a consultant to facilitate the process.

Why it matters: Legislators described the provision as an attempt to create greater transparency and consistency in how towns seek state transportation funds. Supporters said a statewide framework could help smaller towns with limited planning capacity; skeptics said it could create a burdensome new administrative layer and duplicate work already handled by regional planning commissions.

Key details

- Timeframe: AOT proposed a two‑year process to develop the inventory and prioritization framework so it would not overload next year’s work cycle.

- Consultant support: The agency indicated it would use program development dollars to pay for a consultant to facilitate stakeholder engagement and technical work.

- Scope concerns: Some conferees warned the work could be a large undertaking and might duplicate existing municipal or regional processes (e.g., RPCs’ prioritization), while others said the framework could help identify 5–10 critical town projects that deserve priority.

Next steps

Committee members asked AOT to appear and brief the committee on expected costs, scope and how the proposed prioritization would interact with existing regional processes. No final policy decision was made during the excerpted session.","The Senate added provisions directing the Agency of Transportation to inventory municipal needs and develop a prioritization framework for municipal transportation projects, with a two‑year timetable and potential consultant support funded from program development dollars.",{"_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},6248682,"Conferees weigh replacing granular 10-G reports with a project dashboard; agencies and auditors cited",180,212000,392000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a&start=212&end=392","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a/thumbnail_212000.jpg","/articles/6248682/Vermont/Conferees-weigh-replacing-granular-10-G-reports-with-a-project-dashboard-agencies-and-auditors-cited","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248682-e698108b0ab6a7c7778e3f571b5d6f95/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181627&Signature=PegGVozrUK8kOL5C6pCfIIjAchCGijKgswBgy6hRVCH21vCqAOrcVc34Jt9uD~fdvtWBFC6A3L9NdIN34ff4u-7QgVv6oRig0mkDftxVqTit37MDvf24Lungt~KSblf3NJta5SK-c9f1g3El~Y3h1HGp-1rx0Jzn31P1Pr1TflEj8blDqMQoQkZ2OiQSNmP1mGFQnGtxZLxvPEy2HxQGR2rEPi0qC9ZW34niTbWbo3RzWZwi6j~jB0KkGuu1PvC8u7uyZzFi1Gpdo0TichCPYCf6VbmyDONNJRUZ-6mZUqU4-ycFtrZwcmw-aQKE2rzrBeMGT7AdoeuDp2o-Sc-Y6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Conference conferees reviewed a Senate amendment that would replace the long-established 10‑G project reports with a new graphical dashboard prepared by the Agency of Transportation (AOT) and discussed what oversight information would be lost or gained.

Legislative counsel Damien Leonard summarized the differences and said the change was prompted in part by an auditor’s report on cost overruns and project delays; the AOT proposed the dashboard as a less granular, more visual tracking tool. \"The dashboard is a graphical representation of delays of more than 1 year or projects that have been delayed by more than 1 year from the preliminary plan completion date,\" Leonard said, adding that the dashboard emphasizes delays and a different set of cost‑overrun thresholds compared with the 10‑G reports.

Why it matters: The 10‑G reports list projects line by line — new projects, projects ended or halted, and detailed cost‑overage triggers — while the dashboard would provide a high‑level view that highlights projects delayed more than one year and those exceeding certain cost thresholds. Lawmakers debated whether the dashboard would obscure important, project‑level detail used for legislative oversight.

Details discussed

- Metrics: The dashboard would flag projects delayed more than one year and projects that are either $5,000,000 over or 50% over budget (whichever is less). The 10‑G reports examine a broader set of new and ended projects and multiple cost‑overage metrics (e.g., $5,000,000 or more than 75% over last year’s estimate; $10,000,000 or a percentage over preliminary plan estimate).

- Origins and intent: Conferees traced the idea to a Senate response to an auditor’s recent report on agency projects; AOT proposed dashboard language to improve monitoring.

- Oversight tradeoffs: House members emphasized that 10‑G reports are granular and have been amended in the past to respond to auditor findings; some legislators argued for at least a year of overlap if both tools are used.

Ending

Conferees did not adopt final language in the excerpted session; members signaled they wanted clarity about what the dashboard would include and whether the legislature would retain access to project‑level detail for oversight before removing the 10‑G reporting requirement.","Conference committee members reviewed a Senate proposal to replace the statutory 10-G project reports with a graphical dashboard produced by the Agency of Transportation (AOT); conferees discussed the different metrics, granularity tradeoffs and auditor prompting for better oversight.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6248687,"Lawmakers debate timing and design of proposed mileage-based user fee, flag potential constitutional and revenue issues",1554,1493000,3047000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a&start=1493&end=3047","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a/thumbnail_1493000.jpg","/articles/6248687/Vermont/Lawmakers-debate-timing-and-design-of-proposed-mileage-based-user-fee-flag-potential-constitutional-and-revenue-issues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248687-908f40b19b9d52ecd7e2b695877445e4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181627&Signature=kcDzjg5ig6uvRYdrJ4H1AkbCW3trzScabrO5dIvIsuUc8i7WAerynRwKfSqpxD4KzNOs57KnD7luGllvQ0~aG~2G12HHE5stdz~6YabBspEA1KLfRiRzaknp0xHAuhQJ-SdQrJvMYyMA1dcJkq-9l9r88MUOECOPGgdt2CM3kSHaujiVGHaNTVG1PT6yQJe0Z4Cltk7GQz9HbnrM7NMYeyxxB4fXQPzqcte4PSbjMuN-7PbAzcEqytVOm0g83rq4R~h9gqKeuZQJAG3v8m4n3CfO8jFKsrEBO4KOCpP1IQb44SR5ua2N06rr9ZU-bjY~bBYT56O6RL5rOAEZpcXhAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the conference committee on H.488, the transportation bill, spent substantial time debating the proposed shift to a mileage-based user fee and related electric-vehicle (EV) charges, focusing on implementation dates, revenue timing and legal risks.

The committee was split on when to begin collections: the House language would start July 1, 2026, while the Senate would delay to Jan. 1, 2027, creating roughly a six-month lead-time difference for agency implementation. Damien Leonard, legislative counsel, said the Senate wanted more cushion for rulemaking and program setup, while the House had expected an earlier start tied to prior appropriations support.

Why it matters: timing affects expected transportation revenue and program readiness. Committee members repeatedly noted that delays could reduce near-term transportation funds by millions of dollars and that implementation mechanics — how mileage will be measured, credited and coordinated with other potential EV charges — remain unresolved.

Key discussion points

- Start date and revenue: The House’s July 1, 2026 date would generate revenue sooner but could strain the Agency of Transportation’s (AOT) ability to implement systems on the House timeline; the Senate’s Jan. 1, 2027 date is intended to allow additional implementation time. Lawmakers estimated the delay could represent several million dollars of foregone revenue in the interim.

- Legislative control of rates: Conferees emphasized that the legislature, not AOT, will set any final fee amount before collections begin. Committee members reiterated that enabling language must preserve legislative authority to adopt rates and guardrails.

- Out-of-state EVs and constitutional concerns: Conferees discussed whether a mileage-based program or a separate EV charging surcharge could be structured to recoup lost fuel-tax revenue from out-of-state plug-in vehicles without running afoul of constitutional limits on discriminating against interstate commerce. Leonard warned that targeting out‑of‑state EV travel could raise constitutional flags and must be carefully structured.

- Alternatives and equity: Several members urged caution about using mileage as a proxy for environmental policy. Some argued mileage charges measure road wear and usage (an equity with gas tax), while others said they penalize travel activity rather than vehicle efficiency; lawmakers noted vehicle weight is also a factor in road impacts.

What the committee directed

No formal votes were taken in the session excerpted. Members asked AOT, DMV and other stakeholders for implementation briefings on system design and enforcement, requested clearer fiscal estimates of revenue timing and impacts, and agreed to continue negotiating language in conference to preserve legislative control of fee-setting.

Ending

Conferees did not resolve the differences during the session. The committee signaled continued work in conference to reconcile implementation timing, revenue assumptions and the legal structure to capture EV-related revenue without exceeding statutory or constitutional authority.","House and Senate conferees on H.488 discussed implementing a mileage-based user fee, differing start dates (July 1, 2026 v. Jan. 1, 2027), how to treat electric-vehicle charging fees and out-of-state EVs, and concerns about revenue timing and legal exposure.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6248667,"Bill language on \"legal trails\" sparks takings and litigation concerns as Tunbridge case proceeds",897,5880000,6777000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a&start=5880&end=6777","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3209489-11d3bf22e6670982818bd71a3cc4053a/thumbnail_5880000.jpg","/articles/6248667/Vermont/Bill-language-on-legal-trails-sparks-takings-and-litigation-concerns-as-Tunbridge-case-proceeds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6248667-7e345fe50605b0229e82aadebac32005/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181627&Signature=nHAuNT0ibJCBnLCoFsPFHfa4n2A0Gz1kYR0l6PJb3QlZtgfbmDvzWiK9hCRx6w~Q4BytO8ofNrOo~l~dMYq~Jiy0CCgK9g0AltszDdqeTbjyK1KtBkvr4YY3aNJuPqFY0lqJsLkX3dfcO0kuS5lBkrDNoSDVWeRXJa2zlHKsBC9WeTu6ipyo~zJTx-J77Hln1aXF9sQoQM19OHMbYzYSwR8WsoPoNq2ptNKkF6Lzc1fFEWWcwfxIHqSn6OuGutrEzOhNLoQnx2dL51-Aq8Fs-FLPgeMB5rmR5L4kJcrpkdkV0JRxeyKu-ow3l9bfOAruzH~hqrLRYCygUOzahDzamA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A Senate‑added provision addressing so‑called \"legal trails\" drew extended discussion because it could change who may maintain certain public rights of way and may affect a pending Tunbridge lawsuit challenging maintenance authority.

Legislative counsel Damien Leonard briefed conferees on the statutory history: trails were pulled out of the town‑highway classification when Title 19 was recodified in 1986, leaving an ambiguity about whether towns retained maintenance authority. The Senate language would clarify maintenance rights for municipalities; conferees raised the possibility that clarifying language could be interpreted as an infringement on private property rights and trigger takings claims.

Why it matters: If statute language is changed while a declaratory‑judgment case is pending, the court could find the challenge moot and plaintiffs might refile takings lawsuits seeking compensation, potentially exposing the state or municipalities to monetary liability. Conferees also noted the statutory and factual complexity: these rights affect access to state forests, parks and local trail networks.

Discussion highlights

- Legal background: Conferees referenced Title 19 and 1 V.S.A. §§ 213–214 (legislative effect on pending cases) and noted the case already had prior appeals; the committee heard that the dispute has been raised to higher courts before.

- Risk assessment: Leonard said changing the law carries risk that the matter would be remanded or re‑litigated as a takings claim, which could require the state to pay damages if private property rights were found to have been taken.

- Policy tradeoffs: Supporters argued that clarifying municipal maintenance authority preserves public access and makes municipal responsibilities clear; opponents urged caution and called for more legal analysis before altering the statute while litigation is unresolved.

Next steps

Conferees requested further legal analysis, historical record review and stakeholder briefing before deciding whether to move the language forward.","Conference conferees reviewed Senate language clarifying municipal maintenance authority over 'legal trails' and flagged potential takings claims and the risk of delaying an active Tunbridge declaratory‑judgment case; conferees asked for more legal analysis.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Conference committee examines Medicaid nonemergency transport contract, $600,000 volunteer coordinator proposal and background‑check barriers

Conference committee backs study to build municipal project prioritization system; AOT would get two years to recommend framework

Conferees weigh replacing granular 10-G reports with a project dashboard; agencies and auditors cited

Lawmakers debate timing and design of proposed mileage-based user fee, flag potential constitutional and revenue issues

Bill language on "legal trails" sparks takings and litigation concerns as Tunbridge case proceeds