VTrans outlines municipal assistance programs, funding levels and implementation challenges

Joel Perrigo, municipal assistance program manager at VTrans, briefed the Senate Transportation Committee on programs in the agency’s municipal assistance portfolio and how they appear in the FY26 budget.

Perrigo said the park-and-ride program includes two expansions programmed for the coming year — adding about 10 spaces in Sharon and 16 spaces in Manchester — and noted municipal park-and-ride grants have added roughly 15–19 spaces to the statewide network over recent years. He described the program as primarily state-owned facilities with a grant component and said preventative maintenance and a municipal park-and-ride grant line are included in the proposed budget.

The committee pressed VTrans on pedestrian and bicycle funding. Perrigo described the bike-and-ped program as a roughly $21 million-plus line in the FY26 proposal, and he said “almost half of that, I think $10,000,000 of it is from the RAISE grant” for a pedestrian bridge project. He warned the committee that federal guidance currently prevents obligating some RAISE funds to the construction phase; engineering and right-of-way work is continuing but obligation of construction dollars is uncertain.

On smaller projects, Perrigo described the small-scale grant solicitation that typically goes out in April. He said the grant program has two components: a federally funded portion that uses formula FHWA funds and a state-funded small‑scale construction-only portion. The state small-scale grants are limited to construction (no design funding) and are cost‑shared roughly 50% state / 50% local for eligible construction gap projects such as short sidewalk segments.

The Transportation Alternatives (TA) program was highlighted as a federally funded, formula‑set‑aside program; Perrigo said the FY26 TA proposal is about $6.4 million, supporting 52 ongoing projects in 48 communities with 17 projects under construction. He told the committee that statute limits TA awards to a $600,000 maximum for federal funds on some projects and that TA awards are typically an 80% federal / 20% local cost split. Perrigo also said statute and prior legislative direction produce an allocation split within TA funds: one half awarded under a municipal-mitigation category and the other half under other eligible categories, often bike/ped projects.

Committee members argued that grant processes disadvantage smaller municipalities and asked whether some programs could transition from competitive grants to formula aid (similar to town highway aid). Rob White, project delivery bureau director, told the committee that many programs carry federal requirements — including fair award processes, NEPA/eligibility and reporting — which drive the grant structure and related oversight; he said some states use municipal certification to distribute formula funding but that doing so requires additional agency capacity and verification systems.

Perrigo described the municipal mitigation assistance grouping that packages multiple statewide efforts tied to clean water and erosion controls. He gave an overview of the Better Roads and hydrologically‑connected mileage grants funded from the Clean Water Fund and described a municipal highway stormwater mitigation program that supplements TA funds. He noted that stormwater utility payments and local stormwater fees are part of how some municipal projects are financed and discussed that the state sometimes pays a portion of fees where interstates or state roads are involved.

Committee members raised reporting and transparency questions about the agency’s capital "10G" project reports and the front/back-of-book project lists in the budget. Perrigo acknowledged some confusing entries in the report (projects that show $0 in the later year can indicate cancellation, or that all spending occurred earlier and the project is closing out) and agreed to provide the committee with the current list of awards and additional clarifications.

Throughout the hearing, members and staff discussed three recurring implementation risks: (1) federal funds that cannot yet be obligated for construction (notably one large RAISE-funded pedestrian bridge), (2) projects canceled or paused by municipalities because of rising costs or shifting local priorities, and (3) staffing and administrative capacity in small towns that makes six-week application windows and grant administration difficult. Perrigo said VTrans will review application timing and provide additional information to legislators on award lists and on how projects are presented in the 10G/back-of-book reports.

The committee did not take votes on program changes during the briefing; the discussion closed with VTrans staff committing to share award lists and additional documentation requested during the hearing.