Committee pauses paratransit bill after counties warn of potential local costs
Loading...
Summary
HB58 would require locally funded transit programs that get state dollars to include interjurisdictional paratransit routes to medical facilities; members supported the access goal but asked for more work with rural counties and MAKO on cost implications, and the bill was deferred for further stakeholder conversations.
House Bill 58 would require local transportation programs that receive state funding to include interjurisdictional paratransit routes between medical facilities, aiming to improve access to specialty care across county lines.
Sponsor Delegate Healy described the bill as a health‑access measure: "We're already spending the money. I just think that we could do it better to reach the goal of having people be able to get to their medical treatments," she said, noting rural counties often lack nearby specialty services and that coordinating across counties could better use existing funds.
County transit staff and MAKO testimony raised concerns that the bill could increase local costs. Delegate Morgan noted St. Mary’s County paratransit staff worried that formula changes might leave gaps and asked where additional funding would come from. The committee also discussed options such as demonstration projects, enabling rather than requiring action, and refining requirements for fixed demand‑response service to protect riders with disabilities.
Members asked the sponsor to speak further with MAKO and other stakeholders and to consider amendments that mitigate fiscal impacts for rural and small counties. The subcommittee agreed to give HB58 additional time for stakeholder conversations rather than advancing it at this meeting.
