The Senate Transportation Committee on Tuesday voted to move H.488, the fiscal year 2026 transportation bill, as amended (draft 5.1) out of committee by a roll-call vote of 5-0-0.

Committee members closed or advanced multiple sections of the draft and asked staff and agencies to return next week with tightened language on several items, including legal-trail liability, volunteer driver expansions and related outreach. Damien Leonard of the Office of Legislative Council described the version before the committee as “draft 4.2,” saying work would continue to section 3 and later be issued as draft 5.1 for the vote.

The committee spent significant time clarifying three budget-related provisions and several programmatic directives. On fiscal language, Candace Alquist, chief financial officer at the Agency of Transportation, said the committee’s intent was to connect expected FY26 revenue losses tied to two bills to a carry-forward unobligated balance of $686,000: “there are 2 bills out there, estimated revenue loss in FY26, so $686,000,” Alquist said, describing edits that tie reversions identified in FY25 to that specific amount. Leonard said the draft includes intent language that the unobligated balance be used to offset estimated transportation fund revenue losses in future budget proposals.

On volunteer capacity, the committee approved language providing $600,000 in general funds to AOT to award grants to hire volunteer coordinators statewide, with grant awards intended to achieve a geographically balanced distribution and require a written report one year after award to measure any increase in volunteer capacity. Michelle Boomhower of the Agency of Transportation explained the grant model could be implemented either through a central hire or by placing positions within regional transit agencies and that one recent mobility grant to Chittenden-area Green Mountain Transit affected how many agencies would seek funding.

The bill also includes language carried from prior large transportation bills requiring that, before executing a new Medicaid non‑emergency transportation (NEMT) contract, the Department of Vermont Health Access provide the Joint Fiscal Committee with a detailed analysis showing the contract would not degrade coordinated service delivery, would protect eligible individuals’ service levels and would preserve financial stability for public transit providers.

Sections addressing expansion of the volunteer-driver pool and background‑check flexibility were discussed at length. The Department of Vermont Health Access–proposed draft asks DVA (Department of Vermont Health Access) to meet with the Public Transit Association, Agency of Transportation and other stakeholders by July 15 to identify “potential federally permissible opportunities” to expand volunteer participation in NEMT and to analyze whether particular offense classes should bar volunteers. Representatives of the public‑transit association supported the collaborative approach but asked the committee to ensure the review also considers non‑federally funded, state or private options.

The committee left in a separate outreach subsection directing the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, in consultation with the Public Transit Association and Agency of Transportation, to pursue messaging and registration‑based outreach to recruit volunteer and community drivers and to increase awareness among potential users of volunteer‑driver programs. Committee members agreed to return Tuesday to tighten language in both sections if needed.

Other policy items advanced include a working‑group report on coordinating health care appointments and transportation for demand‑response program enrollees (report due Jan. 15), a narrowed approach to ultra‑low‑volume vehicle certification, and technical edits to DigSafe timing (changing notification windows). The committee also approved language directing AOT to consult with the Transportation Board and regional planning/association partners to examine requirements for recouping federal and state funds after local project cancellations.

Railroad lease language drew extended discussion. The draft would restore legislative approval requirements for certain leases or lease extensions of state‑owned railroad property, a change some agency staff opposed. The committee debated whether requiring legislative approval for new leases or extensions would be practical or whether it risks delaying operations; senators expressed differing views on the proper level of oversight.

A focal legal issue in the bill concerns “legal trails.” Legislative counsel warned of an unresolved legal risk: if the committee restores statutory language granting towns authority to maintain legal trails and a pending court case later finds that towns lack that authority as a historical matter, the state could face takings claims by landowners. Leonard and counsel said they are reviewing the legislative history and case law and will return next week with a fuller legal analysis. The committee agreed to keep a narrower version of the trail language in the T‑bill as a “foothold” and to address the full bill (S.4) later in the week.

After a brief procedural exchange about technical edits and a scribe amendment, a motion to advance the amended draft carried. The clerk recorded the roll call: Senator White, Senator Harrison, Senator Hirsch, Senator Brennan and Senator West voted yes; the committee chair announced the tally as 5‑0‑0.

The committee asked staff to prepare a side‑by‑side and a section‑by‑section comparison with the House bill, and members scheduled additional work next week to resolve outstanding language before the bill moves to appropriations and the floor.