SmartTranscript of House Transportation's Zoom Meeting 2025-05-15 - 11:00 AM

[Chair Matt Walker]: I'm glad. Alright. Welcome back. This is the House Transportation Committee. We're back from a short break, and we're shifting gears [Vice Chair Timothy Corcoran]: a little Yeah. [Chair Matt Walker]: Little here a little bit, and we're gonna be discussing back one to two thirty five, and this has to do pertaining to cameras and work zones. And we're gonna be getting an update from the secretary of transportation, Joe Flynn, to fill us in on where we stand with things. Welcome. [Joe Flynn]: Good morning. It's for the record, Joe Flynn, secretary of transportation. Thank you, vice chair. I believe with me today online is Mandy Wooster, who is the legislative lead for the Department of Public Safety. Commissioner Morrison is delayed in traveling back to Vermont from a trip yesterday to Washington. So that's why she's not able to be here. We were coming in today to report to you that in the practical world, our ability to deliver the automated speed enforcement system as envisioned at this point is undoable as we see it. And I'll I'll I'll go into what that's why I say that. And, Mandy, for reference, I'm sorry to have my back to you, but please jump in at any time. Commissioner Morrison and I have spoken about this. I believe I can speak for her that we're on the same page with what I'm saying. When we envisioned this as an agency of transportation, and I think it was almost four years ago when we first brought this forward, we brought it forward primarily of course, as a highway work zone safety initiative. At that time, we fully didn't understand perhaps the complexity about data storage, the cost of data storage then, and we pulled it throughout the process in that session, in that biennium. It came back as as, you know, with a lot of legislative interest in this past summer. And and here we are talking about it. Here's the reality that's created the situation that leads to say that I don't know how we can deliver this. I know that I think you've heard judge Zonay testify that the VCVC ticket, which is the traffic ticket, if you will, has to be issued by a sworn law enforcement officer. The cameras would take a picture of the vehicle, then the camera would send out or the company would send that picture to a law enforcement agency and then a sworn officer would have to fill out the ticket. Now I've been a sworn officer. I filled out traffic tickets. Generally, I think one could say that an officer could fill out a traffic ticket in a matter of minutes. Where this becomes much more complicated is the soldiers and sailors relief act, which as a law enforcement officer, I need to ask you roadside, are you on active duty in the US military? And I need to check that box on the back of the ticket. And if I don't do that or I forget to ask you that, chances are that ticket will get bounced whether you show up to contest it or not. So the way this construct would roll out is that officer so let's say let's say, for example, that these tickets came to the DMV, sworn officers and not state police either one. But I know that state police are having it would be difficult for them to manage it and it would be difficult for DMV, but sake of conversation. So I'm a sworn officer at the DMV. I get the information from the cameras. I fill out the ticket. You then have to go to a Department of Defense database to determine whether the registered owner of the car that that picture was taken up is on active duty in the US military. And it's it's that process that really could take minutes. I mean, take several minutes, even if it took ten minutes. We're talking about a federal government database, number one, and I'm not besmirching anybody, but even if you go into our own databases, it can take a bit of time. So when you start to look at the sum total here of ten, twelve, fifteen minutes a ticket, looking at three pilot programs, three pilot locations that we were talking about, and then looking about at the average daily traffic count, I'll give you an example of that. If you travel eighty nine and you travel eighty nine right by the by the, UVM farm between exit thirteen and fourteen, we're talking over ten thousand cars a day just on that spot. It's very reasonable to assume that a thousand cars a day might travel through work zones or one of the three work zones, let alone the third or the second or the third and be in violation of whatever the posted speed limit is. So even if we had set even if we had come to an agreed speed limit higher than the in other words, we're not gonna write every ticket, but we're gonna say ten over, whatever that might be, even if you ended up with one hundred cars. Secretary? Yes. A quick question. You said you'd expect somebody online. [Speaker 3 ]: They are not with us. [Joe Flynn]: Okay. Okay. Well, it was Mandy Wooster. She is [Chair Matt Walker]: Did did she have a link or [Speaker 4 ]: Mandy Wooster? [Joe Flynn]: Wooster, w o o s t e r. She's with the Department of Public Safety. [Mandy Wooster]: I will send her a [Joe Flynn]: new Okay. Thank [Chair Matt Walker]: you. Sorry about that. [Joe Flynn]: So no, thank you. I was hoping she definitely would be here. So really it's when you start to look at even if one tenth of those a thousand vehicles were dropped on the lap of any officer to fill out those tickets and you simply do the math, it's it becomes almost impossible to get that done. I I am repeating what I know the commissioner, I believe, has testified to in here. The Vermont State Police can't manage that. I would say to you as the secretary of transportation, which also includes the Department of Motor Vehicles, we have a much smaller sworn component. It would be difficult for us to take one of our officers to do that as well. We have reached out to the Ramona Sheriffs Association. I do not have an answer yet. And I I meant to check this morning before I get in here, but I got sidetracked. I spoke with sheriff Marcoux a week ago. He was going to take the question to the sheriff's association last week about whether or not sheriffs in Vermont would be willing to do these services for hire, but I don't have that answer. So at this point, I know that we're relatively late in the game, not only with the session, but figuring out the right way forward for this to work. In no way is anything I'm saying callous to the reality of works on safety. I mean, I've, like I said, I've been an officer. Commissioner Morrison is is an officer, has been an officer. I believe Mandy was an officer. You know, and with AOT, we have people in the work zones. I've stood in zones as a volunteer firefighter. I have patrolled work zones as a deputy sheriff. This is not about us not recognizing the importance of that. It's about us sitting here and telling you that we have a process that we believe we can deliver. And right now, I don't know how we do that. And speaking with Mandy this morning, without the benefit of conferring with the commissioner this morning, one thing I do believe we look at whether or not no matter what we do with the bill at this moment is speak with the judiciary about what would language look like that would allow a civilian employee of a law enforcement agency to adjudicate these tickets. Okay? In other words, is there language that could be crafted that you could consider specific only to tickets that are delivered through the automated speed enforcement system that would allow me and well, let's say, somebody who's employed by, whether it's DPS, DMV, or any sheriff's department, if they wished, to adjudicate these tickets and not take that sworn officer off the road for what is likely a full shift in order to process these tickets. And I know that when the judge was was in, it wasn't just the soldiers and sailors act. It was basically the opinion of the judiciary, which I'm certainly not arguing with, that the ticket itself needs to be issued by a sworn officer. So, again, I would simply ask that question. Would the judiciary see a way in which a specific ticket that originated uniquely from an automated camera system could have language that supported it to be processed by a civilian? That would probably change this discussion significantly. [Representative Ken Wells]: Yes. Representative Quatt? So thank you for being here. Did you say that that three you know, having three different locations? My understanding is only one location would be up and running at a time, and it would move stay in that location for a week or two and then move to another location. So there wouldn't be three Okay. Simultaneously. So I don't know how that having in mind, you have a lot on eighty nine going through depending on where we stick these things. I'm not quite sure how that lessens Well, I think how many [Joe Flynn]: You know, the then that's a very relevant question because is it is it a thousand violations in each site per day, or is it a thousand per site and then a thousand at the next site Correct. Not continuous. Correct? Yes. But I think at the end [Representative Ken Wells]: I think that's my understanding. Correct? Yeah. They they were not gonna be three simultaneous spots. It was gonna be right. One spot moved. Correct. [Joe Flynn]: But even at a hundred, you know, if let's just say it's one spot at one time. Yeah. And even if it was five hundred, I mean, if you if you just run that math of maybe ten or twelve or fifteen minutes, assuming there are no issues getting into the database, you you now see where you have dedicated a law enforcement officer or sworn officer who can otherwise be out doing other things to that, frankly, administrative process. Yeah. And Yeah. And that's, that's the hard reality of this conversation. There is absolutely no disagreement with the intent. In fact, I'm only speaking personally. I know I advocated for automated speed enforcement pretty carefully in here four years ago. I still believe in it personally. They can quote back. They do things differently, but you don't even have the right to appeal. You own the car. You're getting a ticket. Period. Boom. They they don't they're not having this discussion. New York State has a lot of cameras. In fact, they're growing. Yep. I believe there's a way for us to do this and perhaps have in other words, we're trying to force change in technology into an existing process. And I think that that's where we're rubbing up against the reality of the existing process. And there's nothing wrong with that existing process, but it didn't envision this method of enforcement. I really believe we need to address the process and ask the question, can the process be modified specific to this type of enforcement only? [Chair Matt Walker]: Well well understood about the I mean, we've had, obviously, plenty of of testimony, and, obviously, we look to the state of Connecticut who has had this implemented. And, obviously, those same issues that you're referring to have have been addressed there. And it seems like they find little oil machine Right. That they they worked out those kinks. Have you or anybody in administration reached out to them to say, hey. You know, can you help us here? We need to do this. But it seems like they have it down, and there are not issues on their end. [Joe Flynn]: Well, I haven't, but but I believe believe we've talked to others who have. I know we've I believe we've had some conversations with New York. And in fact, in a conversation that I had with my counterpart, the commissioner, it's commissioner in New York state, was saying how many municipalities are rolling these out independent of state government, primarily around school zones too. They started with work zones, but they're getting into school zones. But, you know, I, we'd have to understand in the case of Connecticut, how are they handling the issuance of their tickets and are they using sworn? They may have different rules. Again, too, and I'm not speaking on behalf of the judiciary, but there's nothing in what we're envisioning which would direct the the funds from a ticket other than where they go today, which is primarily to the judiciary. We're simply asking, is there a better way to allow the administration of the ticket to occur within the realities of our landscape in the employment world? And the fact that including, while DMV is currently fully staffed, but, I don't believe I I believe the state police has vacancies. They they always have had vacancies. They had vacancies when I was there as the deputy commissioner, and that ebbs and it flows. We see this in the news all the time. But, even if they were fully staffed, it it we do have to ask the question, is this the highest and the best use for a sworn officer for an administrative function? And initially, thinking that the Soldiers and Sailors Act might be a method to to if that were to be waived, the judge's testimony indicated that even if that were the entire ticket still needs to be sworn, and I'm not debating that. I certainly defer to the judge. So on my behalf and I I I hope, I don't know if Manny's on yet. She yes. Okay. Manny, please speak up if, please speak up. But I believe that the most reasonable way forward is for to us to pursue this question with the judiciary about what would language look like that you might consider as the legislature. I am afraid this session may be a little bit late, but in next session, so that the rules around the issuance of the VCVC ticket could be administered in this case, under the automated speed enforcement system, could be issued by a civilian who's employed by a law enforcement agency, whether that be the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or a Sheriff's Department, or a Police Department if they wish to do that. Not putting that responsibility on anybody, but could say, listen. You've got to you've got to work for an agency that has sworn officers who understands this process. And that then becomes a a scope of work for an employee of of that entity versus a responsibility for a unique employee in any of those entities who is a sworn officer. [Speaker 3 ]: Representative Bouch? Yeah. Thanks for coming. Have when discussing with the sheriff's department, you know, coming down eighty nine, there's construction happening and there's a sheriff's car there with the lights going. Right. It's our understanding through testimony they are not allowed to actually measure anybody's speed or go after somebody who's speeding. Why wouldn't they process those tickets right there in their car during those hours they're there. So I'm just asking that question. And and if you're you had said you're going back to the sheriffs and trying to get an answer from them, that's that's the question I would be asking. The other one, you you know, you mentioned that, that you think, you know, our process may be different from other states as far as the, public public safety processes and that they're working now. And I would say, if we think there's a thousand speeders a day going through a work zone, I would say it's not working. And this is an attempt to get to make those work zones safe. Mhmm. So, I mean, I think we all agree they're not safe right now based on the testimony we've had and our experience. And so I, you know, I I sort of push back. What what suggestions does the Department of Public Safety or agency have? If we don't do this, what will we do? Sure. No. Those are [Joe Flynn]: great questions. Let me address the first point first, and that's the, the blue light sitting in the work zone. I remember getting a little bit of a talking to one Monday coming back to work because one Friday night, I sat on the Mesquite Bay Bridge in a work zone with my lights on, and I got tired of people speeding by, fully illuminated police cars, so I started writing tickets. And I wrote a lot of tickets. And on Monday, they said, well, why'd you do that? I said, well, why wouldn't I do that? And in fact, a trooper joined me on the other side of the bridge, and it was a we slowed traffic down. But to to answer the question about why not, first of all, generally, well, most of all, those blue lights are baked into the contract when a when AOT puts out a an RFP and, and if somebody bids on it, we determine whether we think there needs to be blue lights on the project and then the contractor hires the Sheriff's department. So I, you know, I don't want it to sound like excuses. It could work in some places perhaps, but cell service may be an issue or connectivity because the computer systems in those cars work off a card, which looks at cell service. So to assure the fact that that officer in that car at that location could get into, like, this DOD database could be yes or no. So that could be an issue. Beyond that, it's it's a fair question. The other point I would make is in in particularly difficult work zones, I've I've talked to this the agency of late. Perhaps we ought to put two blue lights into our projects. If the general public needs to see blue lights, I mean, I I, you know, no disrespect to anybody. We could put blue lights on a sawhorse. That's right. You know, you really could. [Chair Matt Walker]: That's right. [Joe Flynn]: You really could. And I I remember when the third lane was built on the Winooski River bridges. I commuted through there every day, and the state police would have a cruiser sitting in the u-turn just north of exit fourteen. And that project went on forever because it was both northbound and southbound. Eventually, they had, like, a mannequin they put in there with a stats and that is the truth. Because all you do is sit there the whole day because the traffic is supposed to slow up when it sees the blue lights. But if we had even if our contract still had that particular law enforcement officer who's there for a visible presence to get everybody to sort of slow down, and then on particular projects, the agency wrote into the contract a second vehicle, and we could determine the number of hours a day where that vehicle started adjudicating enforcement. Then quite frankly, there could be an argument that that would be actually less expensive than what we might be envisioning about the time and cost it would take for the otherwise person to to write all these other tickets. You know, if you I go back to well, gosh. Now eight years ago, right after I first started, we came up with a concept that few of you are still on this committee then, where we created what we call safety zones up through the Burlington corridor and up and down in Hartford and down in the Brattleboro area, primarily the interstates. And these safety corridors were basically, low to zero tolerance. We warned people with signs. The, you know, governor's office was very clear. Make sure we warn Vermonters to the fullest degree. But then you might travel from at that time, you might travel from exit sixteen. If you're going south on eighty nine, you would travel almost all the way to exit twelve, and you could see police officers almost picket fence in every u-turn. Many, many stops. And as a commuter, you started to learn you better slow down through here. If anybody recalls twenty odd years ago when route two was rebuilt going through Danville, you could not go to St. Johnsbury from Montpelier either east or west coming back and not see a sheriff at that time in that stretch from where, the hardware store is just west of Danville Village before you get to the school to down past Marty's store. Somebody was always pulled over. So So if you travel that route regularly, you figured if I'm not seeing it right now, it's it's gonna happen someplace. And it it makes a difference. When this agent when our agency did the bridges in Munson Flats on eighty nine about six years ago where we had to close the interstate on the weekends and we, our contractor, slid brand new bridges in place. DMV, at our direction took aggressive enforcement during commuter hours, aggressive enforcement. And as Vivian, as a commuter, not just as the secretary, I saw this daily, and I believe it made a difference. So to your point, representative Pouch, that I think if we were to look at, plussing up, if you will, the presence in certain work zones, especially work zones that, you know, provide a significantly unique risk to the workers because of the layout, if you will. I believe that if not even perhaps a long term benefit, that could be something we do as an interim until we get a program with automated speed enforcement that is more easily deliverable and and captures the benefit that we all agree is necessary. Representative Wells? Yeah. Certainly from a testimony previously, it's it's obvious that the state police, sheriff's department, even local police force and DMV, they get a lot bigger fish to fry. They don't have time for this year. Let's say if we go ahead and we get those civilian workers that are able to give tickets, have you any idea how much personnel you need and what cost differentials would be? Or they're too early for that? No. I don't I don't I don't know the answer to that question, and I think it's too early. But, you know, in the case of, at least the agency, I can't speak for public safety, but I think I think it depends I you know, we we might we might try to align, you know, existing position to to do this work and and see what's the load. We're not gonna know until we do it. So I'm I'm not picturing in our case if it were something that AOT had to work on that we would attach. In fact, I I can tell you sitting here today, we wouldn't be asking for a position to do that. I think we would need to know what the need is before we were to seek anything. So we would try to absorb that. But, again, if we were to look across, you know, we have a we're authorized for thirteen hundred people, probably at twelve hundred and fifty. But if you pull out the DMV sworn side and you look at the remainder of the agency of transportation, do we have enough resources in there to put somebody on this that so that we can start to see what that traction is? And then if it became a full time job that drew somebody away from the primary duty that they have, we'd have to address that. But again, I mean, we have enough vacancies that I don't think we would be we wouldn't be looking for positions. We might try to we might rewrite a vacancy to something specific to this, and maybe that type of job would get us more interest. I don't know. But we have in our case, again, only speaking for AOT, not speaking for DPS. We have enough vacancies that we could rewrite something if we had to at this point. But I don't think we know the answer fully until we start this and see. [Chair Matt Walker]: Thanks. Hey. Any more questions? Rosanna, go ahead. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. Thank you, secretary. So just a couple of clarifications. So the reason that we cannot deliver this program right now is partially an an employment issue. I mean, just, DPS is not fully staffed, and and we heard testimony on that previously that that, just not enough, you know, because of that lack in having a full workforce that they can't handle that. So part of it is an employment issue, but part of it is also a technology issue. You suggested that you know, we've got this new program. We're trying to fit it into kind of the way we typically do things. We may need to be looking at [Chair Matt Walker]: Right. [Speaker 4 ]: An alternative. And then and then also just to clarify, so the DMV the officers in DMV were fully staffed in that area, but there's no opportunity. And, again, I'm just thinking about [Joe Flynn]: Right. [Speaker 4 ]: All these efficiencies that I think are coming with this the fin you know, the the final stages of this computer system. But even then, with those efficiencies and with a full a full DMV police force, no opportunity there. [Joe Flynn]: So great questions. Let me start with the last. The the modernization of the core system is really an administrative improvement. And the the the routine work of the people that will benefit from that are not the sworn officers per se. That that's the sworn officers are on the road every day, so the core system will most greatly benefit the people you encounter at the counter or that manage your mail or your internet inquiries in the processing of your paperwork. It won't necessarily, well, you know, it'll benefit in the long run because the entire department will run more efficiently, but it is not intended to take sworn officers off the road to do administrative process. And to your first point about DPS, again, only speaking from conversations I've had, I would say that it isn't just because they have vacancies. I think it's fair to say and, Mandy, again, please speak up. But as a matter of policy, and I would say the same thing for DPS for DMV. As a matter of policy, taking a sworn officer, whether we have a full complement or not, to do an administrative process is is not a wise thing to do. Just I'll stop there. It's not a wise thing to do. And I don't believe, at least in my case, I've been an advocate for this. I understood in the beginning that it had to be a sworn officer because my observation was it was the Soldiers and Sailors Act. And couldn't we couldn't we ask you to amend that in the case of automated speed enforcement tickets? I believe the answer is we could ask, and perhaps the answer is you could, then it becomes a conversation. At this point, I think we need to have that conversation at the macro level specific to the judge's testimony and talk about the issuance of these tickets from the get go. And is there a way to do that and not have to have it be a sworn officer? So it really well, vacancies add to the pressures. If, you know, again, I imagine if the commissioner were sitting here and were to say, if I had all the troopers I needed, I still wouldn't wanna take one off the road to do this. I'm just imagining that. [Speaker 3 ]: Representative Pouch? Yeah. I appreciate you coming here. And the fact that you've come here to testify on this tells me, that you take, you know, that this is being taken seriously. [Vice Chair Timothy Corcoran]: Go ahead. [Speaker 3 ]: And am I correct to understand now that you're going back and talking with the sheriffs and or the judiciary, and then we'll come back here to give the findings or are you, telling this committee to do those things? [Joe Flynn]: If the committee is supportive of that process, I believe it would behoove us to engage with judiciary to ask the question. That's not something I think can happen this session. Yeah. And so, you know, this is a topic that's been on the table now twice, at least as far as taking a lot of time for for your committee and and in the senate. We also respect your time, and we respect we all respect the nature of safety in these work zones. So I'm here to tell you today that I don't think we can do this, and I appreciate that's not what any of us wanna hear. And I do believe it's incumbent upon us to engage the conversation with judiciary. I I really don't think it's necessary, but it's your call to create a study of us to do that. I'm sitting here before you and tell you we can do that. We can't tell you what the outcome will be, but I believe we ought to be able to tell you that in January or if not sooner, you know, through committee in the off season. And and maybe that's maybe that's the best way. What I would hope we could do would be to say specifically come next session, based on this conversation, hypothetically with judiciary, here would be the changes necessary to statute to do this conceptually. Are you comfortable making these changes? And then you do your process. You take your testimony. You obviously would, again, theoretically, I'm sure, call in the judiciary to say that they get that right. Is this what you said to them? And, you know, I I I could picture what how we could go forward. And then I will say to you that speaking for AOT, at least, I would I would commit that we would certainly look internally to see where could we step in to help process these tickets. And, again, I won't speak for commissioner Morrison. I don't know if that changes the dynamic at the Department of Public Safety if it could be a civilian. Maybe we could share that workload, but that's to be seen. I think we need to we need to construct a process first. [Chair Matt Walker]: To be clear, though, it sounded like, man, I misconstrued that the the sheriffs are still in play here. So we might I have [Joe Flynn]: not heard. I have not heard [Chair Matt Walker]: of that. One way or the other, Technically, that's still a possibility that we still could move forward if we pay back and unless if you got an indication that we're just gonna ask, so you knew sort of, like, the outcome of that. And You [Joe Flynn]: know, when I when I spoke to the sheriff a week ago, and I was told that they were take he would take this to the meeting, which was last Friday. I believe that and again, I I always wanna be careful in not sounding as though I'm putting specific words in somebody else's mouth. But there was more interest perhaps, I believe, pictured among all sheriffs about upping the on-site cruiser placements than maybe processing tickets. In other words, if we put two vehicles, two cruisers at work zones where one was out doing enforcement, would they be able to support that? So but I I asked the other question as well. Yeah. So [Chair Matt Walker]: So is that, Casey? [Vice Chair Timothy Corcoran]: So if you put two cruisers on a on a site, are they both gonna be limited on whether can can one of them take after somebody? Let's say somebody comes flying through, got your cardboard cut out of their Estrada and and and irony there. And can can can that person go after him? I mean, could that that extra grouper? Yeah. [Joe Flynn]: That that that would be my picture. You know, before I started this job, well, it was actually two thousand nine. Before I started with AOT in two thousand nine, I was full employed full time by the Grand Isle Sheriff. And the summer before I started in my role, Three Mile Bridge out here was under construction, And sheriff Hill at the time, who just retired, was the sheriff. And sheriff Hill offered overtime to other sheriff departments to do just what you said. So I, for, like, a week came down from Grand Isle County, obviously, at the behest of my sheriff, and I worked I worked at detail along with there was a sheriff from Addison County, and I there may have been a sheriff from Orange County. There were, like, three sheriffs whose job it was was to solely enforce speeds through that work zone. So you would get a car on your radar, on your laser, usually, and you'd identify the vehicle. You didn't pull out in the work package. That would be dangerous and chaotic. Okay. I mean, you you pulled out, but you didn't stop the vehicle until it got out of the work zone. Whether you were south of the work package or north of the work package, you're on Memorial Drive if it got off the interstate where I did. So, I mean, I'm certainly open to what others think about that, but that would be my vision. So you still had the blue lights in the work package for, let's hope, the majority of travelers who see blue lights and they go, well, okay, I better pay attention here. But for those who just aren't aren't paying attention or they think for some reason they're better than everybody else or they're more important or they're just absolutely, you know, not paying attention. It's my opinion. They need to understand. Whether or not you write a ticket in every instance is not the case. Right. You know, officer discretion is there. I've stopped people in my life where I think the conversation might have had more impact to the positive than a ticket would have. Personally, at least I choose to believe that. But that but that would be how I would see that working. [Chair Matt Walker]: Alright. Any more from work zones anymore? [Speaker 4 ]: One more question, secretary. So it's a it's a state law that speed speeding tickets are doubled in work zones in the state of Vermont. Do we have a is there a signage program that that [Joe Flynn]: There is. [Speaker 4 ]: Notifies people? Okay. [Joe Flynn]: Yeah. I travel through Richmond every day. The contractor is is great about covering the signs that say fifty five or whatnot if they're not actually working, but now they've renewed the work as they clean up. And, you know, I will say to anyone traveling work zones, a lot of people unfortunately make the mistake of if they don't see activity, if the signs are up, you are expected to comply with the speed limit whether or not you think there's construction work. And a lot of people get picked up that way and aren't pleased about it, but we do try we work with our contractors to do either what this contractor has done and done a great job out there, I think, over the last two years. A couple of well, probably eight years before that, we did the bridge in Middlesex. And with that contractor, we eventually got to a point where we had a flashing light. And when the light was flashing, you needed to pay attention, but you should be paying attention all the time, but you needed to realize that the lowered speed limit was in effect. And when the but they but they didn't take the signs down, but when the light wasn't flashing, you could travel through and nor did law enforcement enforce the lower speed when the light wasn't flashing. So, I think that that's only the right thing to do for the traveling public. And, we do we do try to do that today. We try to we we do ask our contractors to do that. [Speaker 4 ]: So that's part of the process for setting up a work zone is to put up that specific signage. But do we have general signage when you're entering Vermont from New Hampshire or from New York to say, like, welcome to Vermont. We're going to do that. We double the fines for speeding. [Joe Flynn]: We we don't do that. We have we have signs about, you know, driving impaired. We have signs we do have signs about electronic devices. You know, I I think the work the work zone is such random in nature that it could be on a local road. It could be on a state route. It could be on the interstate that we do that where you're encountering that work zone. And frankly, that should be I mean, if we only did it when you come into the state, I'm sure a lot of folks would argue that, gosh, I forgot that. You know, you there are some cities down in Chittenden County where you you enter the city and they say the speed limit's twenty five miles an hour, but you might not see another speed limit sign while you're in that city and then you right? So, we don't do that at all points of entry. [Chair Matt Walker]: But I think there's certain things that are required on your entry points. I don't know what they are, but I think they are Right. Or to the manual. You have to Right. Certain things up. Right. [Joe Flynn]: Which we do. Yeah. K. Any more questions? [Chair Matt Walker]: Mandy, I'm not sure if you wanna you don't have to, but if you, I mean, you wanna testify or share your thoughts, feel free. [Mandy Wooster]: Thank you so much. Good morning, committee. My name is Mandy Wooster. I'm the executive director of policy development for the Department of Public Safety. Thank you for inviting us back to follow-up. The commissioner's under regrets for not being able to be here today. I'm here on her behalf. I just wanted to to just emphasize that we all believe in work zone safety. And when the last time we were there, the commissioner was asked to meet with the executive branch and to come up with some alternatives. And I think that secretary Flynn's testimony is a great summary of those conversations and opportunities to be able to move forward. The only particular thing that I wanted to address in the testimony was the use of the sheriff's, and and I don't know where that will land. I just wanted to remind everyone that law enforcement statewide is short staffed right now. They're all experiencing staffing challenges, so I don't know the feasibility of putting it on any law enforcement agency. I think that we we've come to realization that there could be a path forward if it didn't this process did not involve sworn staff. And so I think the secretary mentioned that we looked at other alternatives or other ways to beef up safety and work zones, and that's something that the Department of Public Safety is on board with and really trying to look at these alternatives to do that until we can make this process something that could work for, possibly for civilians. [Chair Matt Walker]: Okay. Thank you very much for that. Appreciate it. With that, I think, I'm not we'll we'll end this segment, and I just wanted to give the committee sort of an update on what we're gonna do next. But thanks thanks very [Speaker 3 ]: much for coming. [Joe Flynn]: Thank you very much. Thank you. [Chair Matt Walker]: I guess, what direction does it make to go in this phrase language? I think we need to, you know, have a a deeper conversation. So, hopefully, the or it won't go too long, and we can come back around two thirty and just get a feel, you know, start talking about it because we do wanna both this bill up tomorrow at nine o'clock. And in order to do that, you know, we need to get some clarity on on on where we wanna go on it because it's I don't know. I'm I'm still talking. [Vice Chair Timothy Corcoran]: Yeah. To be honest with you. [Chair Matt Walker]: So that's, you know, sort of the game plan is come back at two thirty to, you know, talk about that. And tomorrow, what's easier? Eight meeting at eight thirty or nine as far as convenience? Does anybody have a preference of the Go ahead. I be here. We're just gonna have enough time to if if we don't come to resolution. [Speaker 3 ]: Or better off. I believe at eight thirty. Right. I was you know, I would add that amendment. I don't have percent which we could do at eight thirty, and then, you know, that could be an hour. Yeah. Because voting out the bill might be [Chair Matt Walker]: Yeah. [Speaker 3 ]: Might be simple, but might [Joe Flynn]: Yeah. [Chair Matt Walker]: I think those are the last two issues. It's just that the trails and I I I think the the crosswalk should be relatively I don't think there's gonna be Yes. [Speaker 3 ]: To be It's all about the travels. Yes. Yeah. Okay. And We [Chair Matt Walker]: don't stay more. We don't stay more. Well, I don't know. Afternoon, should we I think we know where you are. Yeah. [Speaker 4 ]: And, you know, I [Speaker 3 ]: I'm I'm I'm alright with the language in there, but, you know, I would like to discuss, which has been a long table of, you know, adding sort of an intent statement. It is the intent of the legislature to clarify. [Speaker 4 ]: Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 3 ]: You know? [Representative Ken Wells]: So I agree with that. [Speaker 3 ]: I don't remember if Damien had some specific language. [Chair Matt Walker]: I thought I talked to him about that. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. So he should have something to do. [Chair Matt Walker]: Good stuff. [Speaker 3 ]: Maybe, you know, after the floor, if in fact, the floor gets out at two thirty or three, we came here and had those discussions with Damien. Yeah. It might be No. [Chair Matt Walker]: Absolutely. And he he will be here at two thirty. So Yeah. [Speaker 4 ]: Take a look at the existing language and Yep. Yeah. So very upbeat. [Chair Matt Walker]: So, yeah, that sort

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House Transportation's Zoom Meeting 2025-05-15 - 11:00 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: