SmartTranscript of Senate Transportation - 2025-03-11 - 10:00AM

[Chair Richard Westman]: You're live. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: You're live. Yep. [Chair Richard Westman]: Thank you. Okay. I'm waiting for Kim It should be to be ready. Are you ready, Damien? I'll kick us off, and this is Senate Transportation. It is Tuesday, March eleventh. We are here to talk about the miscellaneous DMV bill, and Damien Leonard Jones joined the alleged council is here to take us through the bill. [Damien Leonard]: I almost got promoted to join Tesla [Chair Richard Westman]: as well. Yeah. [Damien Leonard]: That's exciting. Alright. Good morning. For the record, I'm Damien Leonard from the office of legislative counsel. You should all have a new draft in front of you that is numbered five point two. Mhmm. Alright. Great. So the things that are highlighted in the draft currently are things that are new or changed. There are still some outstanding issues in there. And so we'll go through those. Definitely some discussion points for the committee that we haven't touched on yet or that we're still thinking about from before the break. So I hope everyone enjoyed the week off and made it to all of your town meetings since you guys have several instead of just one or two, like your counterparts in the house. Not to throw shade on the house depending on the list. But [Chair Richard Westman]: Do it. [Damien Leonard]: So, anyway, getting into the bill itself, there are some changes in the the list of subjects at the beginning. Those are based on language that senator White had asked the committee to add in that would, change the main change would be to change the term length of licenses and non driver IDs and privilege cards. But before we get to that, you had asked for some potential fee language so that to cover costs related to replacement registration certificates and other items in here. So in section five, we get to the first of those. And you'll notice on page nine, line five, I've added in in brackets there next to the generator replacement registration certificate for no charge, you could put in language, fee of seventeen dollars and fifty cents or a fee of twelve dollars and fifty cents. And Logan came up with those numbers and can speak to them a little bit more. But those are two different fee options here. The first if you adopted the first, there would be no change to the discounted fees for folks who are receiving SSDI or SSI. If you adopted the second, that would be tied to a doubling of the proposed reduced fees to the folks on SSDI and SSI. So twenty dollars for a license and ten dollars for a replacement. [Chair Richard Westman]: Can you repeat what we just said in lay terms? They Sure. Right now, they're paying [Damien Leonard]: Right now, the the proposal on the bill is to say ten dollars for their license and five dollars for replacement of [Logan Mooberry]: a lost license. Yep. Ten dollars when you reissue every four years. [Damien Leonard]: Yep. The twelve dollar and fifty cent charge for the replacement registration certificate is tied to changing those reduced fees for the licenses to twenty dollars and then ten for replacement of a lost one. Did I get all that right, Logan? K. Just just making sure. [Chair Richard Westman]: Will have the overall cost, for those who Right. [Damien Leonard]: Right. So this is [Logan Mooberry]: Okay. [Damien Leonard]: But this is put in there for your consideration. So I know there was some some confusion that this generated when I sent out the draft of saying, wait. Which fee is a so these are just options for you to consider. So the next change [Member Andrew Perchlik]: So you're saying the option is no charge, charge, or just thirty three fifty or charge at both of them? [Damien Leonard]: Those are the three options that are currently being presented. Okay. Obviously, you could set it anywhere. Sure. But those those are the three that we've come up with at this point. Your next change is on section eight. This is the language related to the fees for operators, licenses. It's on page eleven. I'm sorry. Section eight on page eleven. Fees for the operators licenses or privilege cards for individuals receiving SSI or SSDI. And you'll see in brackets here the twenty dollar fee for original issuance and renewals and ten dollar fee for replacement of a lost or destroyed card. [Chair Richard Westman]: And and that that's the suggestion to [Damien Leonard]: That yep. That is that is one of the suggested fee options. You know, obviously, we don't advocate for any of them, but these are some of the options that Logan came up with. K. And this would be tied to the lower fee or the replacement registration certificate. [Chair Richard Westman]: K. And we we want a reminder what the fees are now and and what that relates to. Okay. And k. Let's keep going. Let me see. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Twenty three still not at all? Twenty three? [Damien Leonard]: No. Zip down, And it occurs to me as I'm doing this that if you keep this language, we may combine some of these sections with the reduced fees because I think we've got some overlap that I missed when I was drafting this. I apologize for that. The, so what this is, this is the language that, Senator White requested the committee review. This has been introduced in the house by representative Hedrick. So section twenty here would provide that all operators licenses would expire at midnight, eight years after the date of issue. So there's a couple important things here. One is the current term is two or four years, and it's on the date of birth of the license holder, the second or fourth date of birth following issuance of the license, this is saying eight years after. So it would put everyone on a different calendar schedule. So if you get your license on July twentieth, it expires on July twentieth, eight years from that at midnight on that July twentieth. That's important because the federal real ID laws do not allow you to go past eight years. So in order to stay compliant, you have to say eight years. You can go anywhere less. We're clearly within that with two and four years. And so that's why you can't go to the birthday because you could potentially be on with eight years and fifteen days, and you would no longer be compliant. So that one thing to highlight with that, and the department, I'm sure, can speak to this, is potentially an administrative challenge as you convert licenses over if you decide to move with them. So you wanna hear about what those potential what that would potentially look like. The the next piece here is, b, beginning on line eighteen of page twenty five, would provide that on or before July one twenty twenty nine, an individual holding an operator's license that is currently valid to the individual's second or fourth date of birth could exchange that license for an operator's license that would expire at midnight eight years after the date on which the original license was issued. And then there are two different fees here. Eighty five dollars if a two year's operator two year operator's license was exchanged and sixty two dollars if a four year operator's license was exchanged. And what I did to get to those fees is I looked at the license fees themselves, and then I multiplied them out and figured out a difference here. So those fees could definitely be adjusted. They were just placeholders based on really simple lawyer amounts, which may not always be the best. So the that that's just explaining where the fees came from. The rest of the changes there are renumbering. And then in section twenty one, you'll see a lot of this is not highlighted because I combined it with the current amendments to twenty three VA SA six zero three in the bill. And I've just highlighted where I made changes. A couple of them are just changing the word person to applicant. That's just for consistency in this section. I realized we were using both. And applicant is really more accurate because person, the way that the SA defines it, it includes corporate entities who are unlikely to get an operator's license. [Chair Richard Westman]: So [Damien Leonard]: and then throughout here oh, there's actually an instance of individual on page twenty seven that should be applicant. Apologize for that. And then getting on to page twenty eight, you'll see the language that's added here. There are actually no changes to the law here. This language was included in the house bill, to provide examples of the current documents that are used to determine, whether an individual to determine their identity and also to determine if they're they can prove that they're in the United States legally. So I won't go through all of the documents, but they're listed out there for reference. [Chair Richard Westman]: This is all existing statute. [Damien Leonard]: It's all existing statute unchanged that was included for context in the house version. That brings us to And, [Chair Richard Westman]: basically, just so I'd edit my head, the upshot of what we would be doing here is extending out their their license to a date server. [Damien Leonard]: Right. So you'd be allowing for folks who renew their license, it would now be extended out. Instead of they opting for either a two or four year renewal, you would get an eight year license. And then for folks whose licenses say say you renewed your license in December Mhmm. For four years, you could decide if this were adopted after it takes effect that you actually want an eight year license, and so you could exchange that license for an eight year license. And so that that's what this would propose to do, is to allow folks to shift over to that and go over to an eight year licensing scheme. And then that really the upshot of all of this here is it's shifting over to that. The the language that's not highlighted on page thirty is our existing language from the bill where we switched over the word privilege card to non real ID to reflect that it it doesn't meet the federal real ID requirements. And these privilege cards are for individuals who can't prove that they're in the United States legally, whether they can't produce the correct documentation or or what. So just repeat what you just said. So the the unhighlighted language on page thirty [Chair Richard Westman]: Yep. [Damien Leonard]: Is existing language from the bill that was put in to clarify that these licenses have to bear on their face the words non real ID Yep. To show that they don't comply with the federal real ID requirements because we don't have proof that the individual is in the United States legally. So whether that's that they lost their documentation or that they can't produce the required documentation, You know, the the statute provides these these privilege cards, as we call them, as an option for someone to be licensed to drive in the state but not meet the federal real ID requirements, which a standard operator's license does. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: K. Go ahead. So if before twenty twenty nine, you can exchange your two or four year license for an eight year license, and then after that, all license will be eighteen years? Seems like [Damien Leonard]: So I mean Right. So the the assumption here is that if this takes effect on July one twenty twenty five, after that date, you'd be exchanging your license anyway. So you would have already exchanged for an eight year license at some point in that period, and so it just set the date out four years to ensure that it captured everyone. Presumably, you will capture everyone anyway because they have to renew their licenses within that time period. Okay. That's the first period. Right? [Chair Richard Westman]: Yeah. And [Member Andrew Perchlik]: do we know why, I don't know, maybe if this is your language, what the goal is? I'd like to send it to [Damien Leonard]: Yeah. Speak to that. Yeah. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: I Unless you know unless you just wanna go through the language. [Chair Richard Westman]: I'd like to go through the language. If you're not, you know, to accomplish this, we're gonna have to have people in to testify of this. And then so but at this point, we're just trying to understand the language and get through the bill, and then we're gonna come back if it's not. [Damien Leonard]: And, again, so the language here below the nonreal ID provides that it expires at midnight eight years after the date of issuance. Mhmm. And then we've added a subsection j that provides that on or before July one twenty nine twenty twenty nine, an individual holding a privilege card that is valid until the second or fourth date of birth may exchange that card for an eight year privilege card. And, again, same fees as were proposed in the driver's license section or the operator's license section. Section twenty two replaces the current two and four year fees with an eight year fee of one hundred and twenty four dollars, which is just a doubling of the current four year fee. And then it does leave a two year fee for licensing a junior operator because presumably you will age out of the junior operator status. So that that leaves a two year period for junior operators. And then there are discounted, fees proposed for individuals whose household income is less than one hundred and fifty percent of the federal poverty level. It would be a fee of zero dollars. And for individuals whose income is less than two hundred percent of the federal poverty level, it would be a fee of sixty two dollars. And then the motorcycle endorsement continues to be four dollars per year. So, instead of paying sixteen dollars for your current four year license, you would be paying thirty two dollars for an eight year license. And again, if you are below those thresholds of one hundred and fifty percent on the federal poverty level, that endorsement would be free. Two hundred percent of the endorsement would be cut in half to two dollars per year. So and this again carries over directly from the House House Bill. And then section twenty three, which begins at the very bottom of page thirty two and goes on to page thirty three, does the same thing for non driver identification cards with the exception that it does not change the fee. So the four year fee of twenty nine dollars remains for now an eight year non driver ID card. So, obviously, if this language goes forward, Logan will need to do some work to figure out what this would cost the state Mhmm. Because there will likely be a reduction in revenue Yeah. Unless you change those numbers. And then, again, the same language for non driver IDs, allowing an individual before July one twenty twenty nine to exchange their card for an eight year driver's non driver ID. And the rest of the language here relates to non real ID compliant ID cards that are non driver IDs. And that was left in in the house. You'll notice there there are actually no changes. This was again left in for context. So this could all that unchanged language in both cases could come out. Since the request was to put in the house language, I did that verbatim. But if you wanna shorten the bill up, you can take that language out. So section twenty four, I added this language because it's in the House bill. I am not sure if this was something that Senator White wanted included or was asking the committee to include for its consideration or not. So if it was not, I apologize. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: This is [Logan Mooberry]: page [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: thirty three? [Damien Leonard]: This is page thirty five, section twenty four. It states that the intent of the general assembly is that individuals be able to obtain a license, privileged card, or non driver ID that accurately reflects their full legal name, including multiple first or last names or names that contain special characters and that unhoused individuals and individuals without a permanent residence be able to obtain an operator's license privilege card or non driver ID, and then requires a report back to this committee and your house counterparts. Regarding the department's ability to issue licenses and IDs, that reflect the full legal name of the holder, technological, practical, or legal impediments that may prevent them from doing so, measures necessary to address any impediments identified, and then legal and practical issues that prevent or limit the department's ability to issue licenses or IDs to individuals who are unhoused or lack permanent residents. A proposed process to enable them to actually issue those IDs if they are prevented from doing so currently, and then any legislative action necessary to do that. And then twenty five requires the department to develop and implement a public education and outreach campaign to inform the Vermont residents about rights to obtain a license, privileged car, or non driver ID, the ability to obtain one that expires eight years after the date of issue, an individual's right to self test with respect to the gender marker on their licensed privilege card or non driver ID, and reduced fees and waivers that are available. And the outreach campaign shall include printed materials and public service announcements on television, radio, Internet, and social media. And they shall be in both English and Spanish with printed materials also being in the next eight most commonly spoken languages in Vermont. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Yeah. I did want that in there. And this is a slightly different take on what [Chair Richard Westman]: I have Why don't we just Okay. Hang on. Why don't we go back to the beginning of this? Sorry. We're gonna have you explain what the intent and what your goal was in this. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: You wanna do that now? Yeah. Oh, okay. From the way beginning. Oh, okay. [Chair Richard Westman]: No. From the beginning of this whole section. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Oh, just this section? [Chair Richard Westman]: No. All of this. All of [Member Andrew Perchlik]: all of [Damien Leonard]: the. Okay. Yeah. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Okay. Because I thought you had said you didn't. Sorry. So the reason I want well, let I'll just start by saying Troy Hedrick introduced us as a bill over on the outside. So this isn't language that I drafted. It was a bill that I was very interested in. And since we have the DMV miscellaneous bill, it's totally germane to that topic. And I spoke with DMV about it, and I'm intrigued to hear their response. But the point of the bill is twofold. The first is that we have a federal administration. Donald Trump is president who has made it very clear that he is hostile to folks who are gender nonconforming. Ideally, he has not ideally. I mean, he has it's almost hard to speak about the way that he has treated trans people and people who have a different gender than the one that they were assigned at birth. And there are individuals in all of our communities who are scared. And we have already seen that passports, people are having to take out passports. Oh, and, we have someone who is a lawyer, Jill, who's given a note to invite at another point to speak on this issue. We're talking about the DMV miscellaneous bill sections, now. So trans folks are already being told that they need to get passports with their assigned at birth gender markers. So that is not only denying them dignity, that's also denying them accurate identification. And that is a federal policy. So we as a state have an opportunity because we have worked really hard to make sure that people have proper identification that reflects their gender. That's something I'm so proud of our DMV for doing. And we are in a position where we could extend the renewal period for folks so that they're not caught up in the federal changes if we have them imposed upon us. So that's the first point I wanna make is it protects trans folks, particularly those who are in very hostile concerning situations right now where they don't necessarily have identification that matches how they present or how they would like to be presented. So that's the first group. Then there's a whole another group of folks who are do not have proper documentation in the eyes of the federal government, and we would like to also extend that. These are members of our community. These are workers. These are people trying to get from point a to point b. And to not have prior identification is a total barrier to access to anything. It means that you feel unsafe leaving your home. It means that you feel unsafe going by law enforcement. There's lots of things that happen if you don't have proper identification, whether or not you have documentation that the federal government deems to be up to snuff. And Is that [Chair Richard Westman]: the case now? They can get approved for the insurance [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: or We're just extending the time. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: I'll just say here. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: We're just extending the renewal. You can get that now. So we are making it so you have a longer window of time that you can use that and not have to renew because we don't know over the next four years what kind of federal reach we're going to have to experience. So having people who have ID for as long as possible that's relevant and valid is very important. And then the last thing, which I really appreciate Damien you flagging because I hadn't brought it up before, but the language also looks at, how do we support unhoused folks and their access to documentation? Because if you do not have an address, you are basically blocked from getting most services. You have to have an ID to sign up for a lot of programs. And that barrier I've heard from folks who are unhoused in my community who lose access, whether it's through a domestic violence situation, through, being evicted, where their address is no longer valid. So to have an extension, but to have the ability to research that, figure out how we can support this community, we'll just allow them to access the services and that get back on that ladder of being able to participate in community because not having an ID is such a barrier. I mean, if you think about any job application you fill out, what are the first pieces of identification they ask you for? It's your driver's license. It's a photo of your ID. So if you don't have that, you are basically blocked from accessing, programs. So this is very important language to me. And I know that the DMV may have some administrative issues, but I think values wise, Vermonters are on board with protecting trans folks, supporting folks who are under documented, and helping those who are unhoused get out of situations that are dangerous for them. So there you go. That would I would be those would be my points. And there's a whole list of people if we wanna invite. I can get you a long day of well, we could do a public hearing if we wanted to. I could we could really fill the room with people who are in favor of this. So [Member Andrew Perchlik]: And the eight years and so it's all around the the privilege card and the gender markers is the reason for the eight years, or is there another reason for the eight years just for the regular license? Not that it's that they're irregular, but you know what I mean? Like, is there another reason to switch to eight years, or is it [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Like, for everybody? [Chair Richard Westman]: Yeah. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Because everybody will now get an eight year license. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Is there [Chair Richard Westman]: a reason [Member Andrew Perchlik]: or is it mainly about protecting? [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: I would say it's a benefit for anyone to not have to renew all the time. Like, any we get you can until the federal standard is eight years, I believe, before it's no longer considered valid. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: We're just getting out to that. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Yeah. So we're going as far as we can. So I'd say if you want someone in a protected class of people who is being targeted by the Trump administration, an authoritarian government structure. You would also benefit because you don't have to renew with the DMV as frequently. So it's a benefit to all of us. But my main reason is that. But, yeah, I'm excited to not have to renew every four years. [Chair Richard Westman]: So let's continue on and get through the bill and, you know, I think clearly that we have to come back. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Do you feel that you're supportive of maintaining the language of the bill at this point? [Chair Richard Westman]: I really am trying to understand that, and I think it's only fair for the committee to be able to understand this and understand what the ramifications are is. And we'll get the MBM and the chair, and then we'll listen to some people about this. I don't wanna take any position on this before I I hear testimony on this. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: But you're not gonna take it out of the bill at this point? We're gonna [Chair Richard Westman]: keep that Actually, at at this point, what I would characterize is this committee hasn't probated on this. This is your proposal for us to consider whether or not we would put it in the bill. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Okay. I think that that's my question because it is in the bill. So are you should I do I [Chair Richard Westman]: need It's being presented as a draft. It's Canadian. It's never voted on this. The most of the sections of this bill, we've gone through and we've approved now. And what we're doing is we're going we're going through the bill and looking at the sections that haven't been approved by this committee. So the the committee will have to well, a majority of this committee will have to preach and will add things. But what's highlighted in this is, from my point of view, none of this that's highlighted is in the bill yet because we haven't decided and voted in a positive manner for anything. So but it it's certainly before us to consider. [Damien Leonard]: Okay. Okay. So the next item in the bill is on on page fifty five, and this is still a placeholder for the tinted Windows language, and I I realized as I got to this that I forgot to send the language out. So I have a side by side by side. I I did just send it to Megan, but that was literally thirty seconds ago. So [Patrick Brennan]: It is quoted, and I'm grabbing copies [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Yeah. When they're ready. [Damien Leonard]: So I'll I'll just put it up on the screen and show you [Chair Richard Westman]: the on the switch. Is this does this reflect the suggestion that we got in testimony, the seventy percent? [Andrew Collier]: Yes. And [Damien Leonard]: So let me go to Zoom for you. So let me just zoom it in. [Chair Richard Westman]: I can almost see it now. Almost. If it's far enough away. [Damien Leonard]: Alright. Let's go to a hundred percent. Hang on a pull over here. So what this would do and I I haven't shown all the strike through that would go go on here just for simplicity, but it this would take, what was in last year's bill, which required that if the object is shading or tinting material and the light transmission of the shading or tinting material is not less than the level required under forty nine CFR and five seventy one point two zero five as amended. And this would take that and just change it to, if the visible light transmission is not less, that should say down seventy percent. So visible light transmission is the light that comes through. And so this would match up to the SAE standard. In the future, if that standard were revised, we would need to revise it. The standard is a nineteen ninety six standard, though, so it has been almost thirty years old now. Okay. So I I don't know that this is gonna be revised significantly anytime soon, but, obviously, we would have to revisit this at that standard. We're revised to a more restrictive, say, visible light transmission has to be at least eighty percent. If it went the other way, the state would be would be fine. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: So K. Alright. So and [Damien Leonard]: let's see. Going forward, you're gonna see those section numbers highlighted. That's just because I had to renumber things, and I do that for the editors so that they know that I've actually gone through my section numbers. And so the only other changes are in the effective dates. Yeah. It's just so that they don't have [Logan Mooberry]: to pull their hair out. [Chair Richard Westman]: Do you have the addition to consider license plates? [Damien Leonard]: Yes. So that would And [Chair Richard Westman]: then in the there is the issue of the study committee that we're gonna hear from the commission on. And there were some members of the committee that would question the people that were on that committee. So we'll want that highlighted in this draft also. [Damien Leonard]: Yeah. And it's as I mentioned at the beginning, the highlighting would just be the new language for and that would mostly for the editor's benefit. Right. There is also the do we have closure on the foster children language? Yeah. [Chair Richard Westman]: We're We're still waiting for that. [Damien Leonard]: We have a placeholder in there. [Chair Richard Westman]: Well, I I think we need to highlight that language also, but I think if well, Megan's gone. Megan, did we get somebody from children and families that was gonna speak to the Fox Church online. And they're online. We're hopefully, we can take after we hear from them, we can take care of that. [Damien Leonard]: Okay. So what I can do with the next draft is I'll highlight everything that's still outstanding and any changes that we've made since today. [Chair Richard Westman]: K. That's perfect. [Logan Mooberry]: Yeah. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Great. What section is that, Foster? [Damien Leonard]: The Foster care placeholder is it literally just says placeholder for [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Forty one is twelve. [Damien Leonard]: Thirty six. It's on page fifty one. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Eighty. [Damien Leonard]: Says placeholder for possible language regarding registration for individuals in foster care. [Chair Richard Westman]: Yep. K. Are you here all morning or in the I am. I'm with [Damien Leonard]: you until noon, so I can jump into the seats behind you and let the other witnesses. K. [Chair Richard Westman]: Thank you. K. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: You are you ready for the? Yeah. [Chair Richard Westman]: Let's get that fixed with Carol. And then we will switch to the commissioner for well, actually, I think it would probably be good if we switched and and you talk about the cost of each of those fees Sure. Before the commissions. [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: Are you folks ready for me to jump in here? [Chair Richard Westman]: Yes, Amanda. Alright. Great. [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: Thank you so much. Glad to be with you here this morning. For the record, my name is Amanda Churchill Kipp. I'm a policy and practice specialist in the adolescent services unit with the DCF family services division. I have a few quick slides to share with you about the who, what, and how many we're talking about related to foster youth and DMV costs, and I'm glad to answer any questions you may have along the way or following. I am just gonna pull up pull up some slides real quick. Alright. I'd like to start by, providing some basic information for you about adolescent services at DCF and the population that we are serving. There are currently one hundred and ninety eight youth ages fifteen and up in foster care in Vermont. These youth have been in GCF custody for an average of twenty seven months. They live in foster homes, group homes with their parents independently and all over Vermont and also out of state. These youth will be adopted, return home, or become independent at age eighteen. DCF has a statewide contract that provides transition and aftercare services for foster youth. This program is known as the youth development program or YDP. YDP case managers provide a high level of individual support to youth around their transition to adulthood goals, which frequently include obtaining their IDs and driving credentials. I've included some YDP outcome data here as an FYI to give you a sense of how foster youth in Vermont are doing generally. YDP does have a flexible funding budget that they can use for this population, and they do provide considerable support for youth transportation needs, especially for driver's ed, car insurance, and vehicle maintenance. DCF is required by federal law and state policy to assist all youth in custody to obtain identity documents and driver's licenses. YDP provides considerable support to us in this work, and it remains a challenging administrative task for a number of reasons. To that end, DCF has been partnering with the DMV this year to identify ways for this population to more easily obtain their identification permits and licenses. A statutory change that would waive ID permit and license costs for youth who are or were in foster care would be supportive to this process. We anticipate or we we estimate that this would apply to about a hundred and fifty youth and cost less than fifteen thousand dollars annually. If a cost waiver approach through statutory change is not possible or preferable, we will continue to work with the DMV to pursue an MOU that that could include deferment of costs for this population and batch billing. For DCF, the overall cost of identification, permits, and licenses for foster youth is small yet meanings meaningful. That said, the administrative burden of processing funds for this is high. Specifically, there are eight separate activities in this process for DCF and our contractors that require correspondence, paperwork, tracking, and exchange of funds all for relatively small fees. If our staff were relieved of some of these administrative duties, we anticipate increased case management administrative capacity that could support additional young people in more meaningful ways. Lastly, although I know you folks are aware based on community discussion just had this morning, I do want to reiterate the critical nature for all people, especially those transitioning to adulthood for basic identification in order to access employment, education, housing, banking, credit, and to generally take steps toward living independently, safely, and legally. And of course, having access to independent transportation, particularly in our rural state, significantly improves education and employment outcomes. Currently, only thirty seven percent of YDP youth over age sixteen have a driver's license. We expect if these costs were waived, it would in improve outcomes for young people and provide additional support to those who experience state custody. This final slide includes some additional resources related to this topic for your information. Alright. Thank you. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Good. Good. [Patrick Brennan]: Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for your succinct and meaty presentation. I have a couple of questions. On the third page, it said sixty four percent are in school. What amount should be in school? [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: I really like that outcome measure around in school or employed. It that's eighty seven percent for youth in Vermont who are accessing the youth development program because that really tells us how many youth are disconnected from those kinds of activities. So that's a that doesn't quite answer your question. I do have some I could get some more information for you about how Vermont foster youth compare to other Vermont youth or other foster youth in other states, if that would be helpful. [Patrick Brennan]: It's just a short metric for us for us to know, I think. So my other question just has more to do with the what the topic is. Do do the kids generally have access to driver's education? [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: That's a great question. It's very challenging. There are not enough opportunities for youth to access driver's ed through their high schools often because youth may be in, like, alternative school settings where that's not an option or, you know, youth in foster care may be on the older side for their grade. So they may, you know, miss that opportunity at the right time in their high school experience. There are a number of private driver's education providers around the state, and we would love to see more. [Patrick Brennan]: Alright. Well, I would be interested, and I would support, making it easier for these kids to have driver's ed. I I think it's really important that they drive safely and, you know, the to their future. It's it's critical because you can also have one issue lead to another one. But I would I I would support that. [Chair Richard Westman]: I would here's what I would say. I don't disagree. We do that. That's a separate issue from [Logan Mooberry]: the [Chair Richard Westman]: the one Okay. In front of us. [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: Yeah. [Chair Richard Westman]: We've got a DMV bill that we have to get out by Friday. Okay. And and I think it's one step at a time. Okay. And I I think there's a lot of support for the idea of making sure the license doesn't get paid. Yes. And I'm getting it in front of where the No. You're where the committee might be. Okay. But but [Member Andrew Perchlik]: yeah. I was just gonna say that there is a program to help them, so [Andrew Collier]: we don't [Logan Mooberry]: need to talk about it. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Yeah. Okay. Okay. Great. [Chair Richard Westman]: And we can get That's I'm good. I yes. And but a lot of kids have trouble getting into driver's ed programs. So Right. That's our that's another Yeah. Old issue. [Patrick Brennan]: Okay. K? [Chair Richard Westman]: I think, Amanda, we're thank you for coming in, and we Okay. Will be working on the language in this. [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: Thank you so much. Appreciate you folks listening this morning, and please reach out if you have any questions at all. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: K. Thank you, Jay. [Chair Richard Westman]: Do you wanna let me go back to the the numbers. [29 seconds of silence] [Logan Mooberry]: K. For the record, Logan Mover with the joint fiscal office. I'm here to present for the changes that remain. This is draft four twenty one, so, it doesn't reflect some of the changes that were made in this latest draft that Damien just presented, mainly the senator White's proposal that she added in there. But this does include on the back of my on the second page of the sheet I have here for you, it does include the two sort of additional sections that now have a fiscal impact. Those are section thirty one at the bottom there, The foster care exemption, as we just heard, from DCF, is less than fifteen thousand dollars annually. So that is now included in in this fiscal notes here. So, essentially, it would just shift the cost from DCF to DMV. It'd be a slight reduction of about fifteen less than fifteen thousand dollars. I use fifteen thousand dollars just on the high end. And then as they just mentioned, they're also eliminating the administrative burden that they face. The next section is section forty one. This is your study committee. [Chair Richard Westman]: I thought we were gonna, go back to the numbers at the beginning of the bill and go through the suggestion changes versus Yeah. What DMV was. I would like the DMV numbers and the end ones. [Andrew Collier]: Sure. Sure. [Logan Mooberry]: I can skip right to that. So last time we met, you all had asked that I produce some numbers to take into account revenue or, I guess, cost reductions that might come from DMV issuing one plate instead of two license plates every year. And you asked me to come up with some fees for section five, which is the replacement registration certificate, and it's section eight, which is the SSI and SSDI that would essentially make things revenue neutral so that the money that could be gained from the cost reduction would equal the money that was essentially gonna be lost from the fee reduction. Does that make sense? [Chair Richard Westman]: I think what we talked about and I think if I paraphrase and you correct me if I'm wrong, Senator Hurst, We totally appreciate the reduction for a a section of the population that is stressed economically themselves. So we wanted to give them a break if they, if they electronically filed. But there is a cost to filing electronically, and we wanted to balance between recognizing that not going to zero for this population, but recognizing that there was a cost of the system. And but we want them to go electronically, give them a reduction for that, and develop a back balance. And I think what we talked about is going someplace in the middle. I think so starting from that, because that's where we're gonna with this bill, we give up the most revenue. And I it would be helpful if you reminded us how much money that in each of these sections we were going to lose by going pretty much to zero. Yep. Remind us of that and what your proposal in this, what the cost of that would be and what it would reduce it by. [Logan Mooberry]: Sure. So as the the bill is currently written, section five, would exempt people who did pay a replacement registration online from the twenty dollar fee that is currently levied [Chair Richard Westman]: sent. [Logan Mooberry]: For that process. So if they go online, they can just print one off, whereas before, they'd have to go to the DMV and pay that twenty dollars. That would cost three hundred and fifty thousand dollars annually, with some caveats that we discussed last time. And then the second major section is section eight, which is the SSI and SSDI reduction. And this would reduce the fees for people who receive SSI or SSDI from the current fee, which is, thirty nine dollars for a two year card or sixty two dollars for a four year card, they would now charge only have to pay ten dollars per card, and that would be valid for four years. And then every four years, there'd be a renewal fee of ten dollars. Currently, there's also a replacement fee. So if you lose your license, you have to pay twenty four dollars. Under this section, those individuals would be able to receive a replacement for five dollars. So as it's currently written, this is estimated to decrease transportation fund revenues by three hundred and ninety five thousand dollars. [Chair Richard Westman]: So this one's three ninety three hundred ninety five. In section five, the reduction was three hundred and fifty for us. So we're [Logan Mooberry]: So then and then if so if you wanna get to the total, which I was currently writing, will be a reduction of approximately seven hundred ninety thousand dollars. Mhmm. We have those two fees, which are the the larger of the two. You have the twenty nine thousand dollar reduction from section six, which is exempting, state, municipality, and volunteer fire fight firefighter organizations from the EV infrastructure fee, about twenty nine thousand dollars. We have a couple sections that are really small to minimize fees. Those are sections nine. [Chair Richard Westman]: So why don't we back up to this? Yep. Back up to the fees for the SSI population. You make a recommendation in section five and give us options of reducing the fee from twenty to seventeen fifty or twelve fifty. Can you tell us what you base each one of those on Yep. And, and why? So [Logan Mooberry]: seventeen fifty per section five, you could reduce the fee instead of reducing it the entire twenty percent. You would only reduce it two dollars and fifty cents. You would leave section eight the same, and this, along with the the elimination of a front license plate, would come out to be roughly I [Chair Richard Westman]: I wanna take the license plate issue totally separate. Well, this analysis. Just the fees for this and and what that would [Logan Mooberry]: Well, this analysis I run is based off trying to achieve a net neutral bill [Chair Richard Westman]: We're we're not we're gonna take this one step at a time. We're gonna talk about the fees, and then we're going to get back to this. The committee is going to have a discussion about whether or not the DMV bill does not have to be balanced. At the end of the year, we're going to have to have, present something on the floor that is balanced. The the issue really in here is about the SSI population. And I think there's a recognition here that for that SSI population that that there is they are economically stressed themselves. And we wanna recognize that stress, but what we're trying to strike is a balance on this issue is the balance between their stress and that there is some cost to the system. So let's do this issue, and and then we'll work our way into what our overall number is. [Patrick Brennan]: May I just I Yep. Just so that I understand. So in section eight, I don't what's the SSI reduction on its own? [Logan Mooberry]: Aspirin' one, for for driver's license or privilege parts, there is gonna be reductive. This proposal would add that reduction. Right. So right now, they But [Chair Richard Westman]: if you're [Patrick Brennan]: you have a three ninety five total. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Yep. [Patrick Brennan]: What's [Logan Mooberry]: That reduction? Yes. To get that is from thirty nine dollars per two year card or sixty two dollars for for a part to ten dollars for four years. And then every four years, they pay a renewal fee of ten dollars. [Patrick Brennan]: So that three hundred and ninety five thousand is just the SSI? I thought that I thought this was the all of the reductions. [Logan Mooberry]: Sure. For section eight, it's the reductions in the price for the initial issuance and for the renewals and for any replacement. [Patrick Brennan]: Okay. So that's that's not a that's not including any of these other things. I know I'm asking in twenty [Chair Richard Westman]: No. No. [Logan Mooberry]: No. No. No. What I mean? Just for section eight proposal. [Chair Richard Westman]: And your proposal would reduce that to to twenty. [Logan Mooberry]: So the numbers that Damian has in the bill are based off of the larger discussion with the removal of the front license plate. I do not have a recommendation outside of that discussion. [Chair Richard Westman]: So I'm not looking for your recommendations. I'm looking for the pricing element of if we reduce the fee, what's the cost of reducing that fee in section eight? [Logan Mooberry]: To ten dollars? That's [Chair Richard Westman]: No. We we're at the twenty. Would that [Logan Mooberry]: Three if you change the reduction to twenty dollars for SSI for the initial issuance, the renewal, and then ten dollars for the replacement, that would be three hundred and nine thousand dollars of revenue as well. Thanks. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Go ahead. You remind me I I think I know what the SSDI work, SSI, actually, like, looks all fine. But it's it's that's that's [Chair Richard Westman]: the supplement. Yeah. There's a supplement. It was really order. I just I know. I I can I can get you the, but this is these are really good? [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: This is, like, fifteen thousand a year? [Chair Richard Westman]: Mister chair. So at the twenty and the ten, it but we but I'd like to be able to present to the committee is a reduction, but not all the way. K? Out of the cost of the license plate. Not let's not deal with that. Let's just deal with the SSI population, and we're trying to come up with a number that we feel is fair. And and there's some concern here that the reduction in at seven hundred and ninety thousand is a lot. And going to zero in in in five is not appropriate. There ought to be some fee there, but not not zero, and, a reduction offer that. So the proposal in five, the seventeen versus the twelve fifty five, can you explain what the difference is there for us? Yeah. And [Logan Mooberry]: the difference in the loss from so if you reduced it completely, it'd be three hundred fifty thousand dollars. Yep. If you reduced it by two dollars and fifty cents to seventeen fifty, it'd be roughly forty three thousand dollars. If you reduced it seven and a half, some point five to twelve fifty, it would be a reduction of about a hundred and thirty thousand dollars. [Chair Richard Westman]: K. Can I ask Do we have that anywhere? [Logan Mooberry]: So Please don't. No. I mean, I have it, but this will be at the end of the day, it's [Chair Richard Westman]: a policy decision for you, at least. So we would if we instead of doing the twenty, if we did seventeen fifty, it's a forty three thousand dollar cost. At twelve fifty, it's a hundred and thirty versus the three fifty. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Correct? [Logan Mooberry]: And I will just say these numbers can be anything. They are based on a different the seventeen fifty and twelve fifty are based on a different analysis. Mhmm. I did. These are not a recommendation other than for this other analysis that we're not discussing at this point. [Chair Richard Westman]: It it gives the committee options to talk about here. Thank you. Yes. Yes. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Okay. Thank you, mister chair. And I really appreciate you actually looking at it from a net neutral point. I actually thought we had explicitly asked you to do that, so that's a confusion on my part. I had thought we had explicitly asked you to make that kind of tabulation. So that's a misunderstanding on my part as well. [Patrick Brennan]: So I would I just say [Chair Richard Westman]: to you that the license plate issue, I think we Oh, you we clearly talked about whether or not we would do it in this bill or not. We made no decision about the license plates or whether they'd be in or out in or out in this, because there's a lot of issues around that. So I just wanna say that from the very beginning, license plates have not been Okay. The goal of this committee in the end when we end the year and we get a bill is we're going to have to be in balance. I don't from my vantage point, I don't there is no reason in my view that we have to be balanced within a DMV bill. So I wanna take these issues individually. Sorry. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: I know. You love to interrupt. It's okay. I just I like to finish the thought usually. So I I respect that you have a lot to say, so I'm gonna stop talking about it. But I I do think we should have a DMV bill that is balanced. That's, I think, a difference of opinion, but I'm not gonna talk any further. [Chair Richard Westman]: The DMV bill is not a budget. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: The DMV bill, in my opinion, should be balanced when it comes out of a committee. That is a difference of opinion that I am expressing. [Chair Richard Westman]: Thank you. Go ahead. [Patrick Brennan]: So just getting back to the replacement registration certificates, the the concern I had was that going to Xero gives the public and us the impression that there's no cost. But there is a cost. And it's now it's an annual cost instead of a capital cost to the to the division or department, however you allocate it. But but there is that cost for the new system. There's also some personnel cost, probably minimal. But I was hoping that we would know what those costs are so we could at least cover those costs. So Fifty. But the seventeen and then twelve fifty don't have anything to do with that. They're just kinda random. [Logan Mooberry]: Right. Well, they're [Patrick Brennan]: mean, I mean, they're random to this. They're not random to Right. Or other. [Logan Mooberry]: But, yes, we could work with DMV if they have an estimate of I don't know that they'd be able to break it out into the cost specific for issuing of a replacement, but, maybe there's some number we could come up that would cover that cost. [Patrick Brennan]: Yeah. And that might be a bigger conversation because this is the kind of thing that we should have some sort of standard cost for, like, transactions that would you I I wouldn't want you to have to make a a separate calculation for every single thing because that would be nuts. But but there ought to be some sort of basic standard, in my opinion. And that might be in a different committee too. [Chair Richard Westman]: Mhmm. Well, I I think we can ask the commissioner Okay. What the cost of the system is. [Patrick Brennan]: Right. And then and then break it down. So, yes, you can even just tell us the monthly charge. [Chair Richard Westman]: You could go back to the breakdown in section eight And, the twenty, do we have a cost for that? [Logan Mooberry]: Three hundred and nine thousand dollars. [Chair Richard Westman]: Three hundred and nine versus three ninety five? [Logan Mooberry]: Yes. That's correct. [Chair Richard Westman]: And that would take instead of dropping twenty nine, that would drop it because the present fee is is thirty nine. [Logan Mooberry]: For the two year operator's license. Yep. So it'd be twenty dollars for that for well, it'd be twenty dollars per four year speed. Under the current language, there is essentially no two year license anymore. They would pay an original issuance of twenty dollars, which right now can either be sixty two dollars if you got it for four years or thirty nine dollars if you got it for two years. Mhmm. They would pay just twenty dollars if you chose twenty for four year card, and they'd pay a renewal fee after four years of twenty eight dollars too. K. [Chair Richard Westman]: K. And then you wanted to speak to us about the license plates again. [Logan Mooberry]: Yeah. If you would like, I can speak too. So as far as this bill's fiscal impact, the language in the license plate section, and I will look today in to correct me if I say anything wrong here, is it doesn't have an explicit fiscal impact in the language. The DMV currently has the ability to do one or two license plate, and if this language path is as is currently written, they will still have that ability to do one or two license plates. That being said, it's my understanding that the DMV's intent to go down to one license plate. So while that cost reduction will not be reflected in this bill specifically, It will be reflected, and it's estimated, to, have a cost savings of about four hundred and eighty thousand dollars a year. DMV currently purchases around a hundred and twelve thousand pairs of license plates every year at four dollars and thirty cents a plate. So if they go down to one, they will theoretically be buying half as many, which will save us roughly four hundred and eighty four hundred and eighty one thousand six hundred dollars with roughly four hundred and eighty thousand dollars. That being said, as it is currently written, they are still have the option, which they currently have under current law, so there is no actual fiscal impact associated with that section. That'd be something that happens outside of anything directed in this bill, but something to consider when thinking about costs and and revenue. [Chair Richard Westman]: Questions? [Patrick Brennan]: Just easy ones. So how many plates per year is that? [Logan Mooberry]: I was told around a hundred and twelve thousand pairs. [Patrick Brennan]: Hundred and twelve thousand pairs. [Logan Mooberry]: But the DMV, I think, could probably give you if they have more concrete numbers. That was [Patrick Brennan]: And so that's some of the population, right, if it's staggered. So what's the total amount of cars registered? [Damien Leonard]: That, I don't know. It's not [Patrick Brennan]: Okay. [Chair Richard Westman]: So, like, you I'll ask that. Yeah. Okay. We should have done some [Patrick Brennan]: Okay. Thank you. [Chair Richard Westman]: Thanks. Thank you. [16 seconds of silence] [Andrew Collier]: Good morning. Andrew Collier. Put your name in for the record. [Chair Richard Westman]: Sure. Thank you. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Where do I start? [Chair Richard Westman]: Okay. You you heard us ramble on about some of the [Andrew Collier]: as far I guess we'll we'll start section five with the registration fee. We're okay. Seventeen fifty, I think, we'd be fine with or twelve fifty. I I there as the sender mentioned, there is a cost associated with our system monthly. We I think the true cost of the twenty dollars was because there was an expensive process to reprint the the small special sticker ice cone license plate. That being said, there's still a cost associated with having the system and using being having privilege of having the log registration. So we're we're completely flexible. I I just don't think, you know, at twenty dollars is holding for what the actual cost will that's what the cash cost used to be, but we are certainly flexible and open to any [Chair Richard Westman]: any amount of change. So you did hear the concern about the center. The overall system itself, and and the working of the system to reflect. Do we have an actual cost of per per renewal, what the cost of the system would be versus [Andrew Collier]: We do per I just wanna make sure I'm understanding the right part. For the whole system's cost each month or for an actual, like, processing and registration to the system? [Patrick Brennan]: Yeah. Well, I'm sure that you have the cost, but it's it's really kinda overhead. Right? So so it's everything that the system does. [Andrew Collier]: Yeah. [Patrick Brennan]: You have a cost for that. [Andrew Collier]: We do. I actually took it out of my folder today, but I can get that back to the committee ASAP. [Patrick Brennan]: But then allocating that to your different systems. [Andrew Collier]: Systems. We [Patrick Brennan]: don't want it to be I don't want it to be super complicated, but but just have some rationality to the Yeah. The fee is all I was thinking. [Andrew Collier]: I could tell granular we can get to that point. Not sure we can. [Chair Richard Westman]: We're not we're we're not gonna get this further. But I think what you hear the senator say is some recognition of the overall cost of the system so people and we wanna we wanna recognize that this is a group of people that are economically in distress. And and we appreciate that that's what you've done in there in your overall proposal, but there has to be some recognition that there's a cost. Yeah. Absolutely. And I would I would also toss out [Andrew Collier]: there because the because the the printing of the registration is kinda all the runners, not specific to one economic group. I think even another half would be keeping the twenty, but allowing people to print out as many times as they want within their registration time frame. Kinda like when you go to the Apple Store or you buy it, you through the length of that term. And it I'm just putting that there as as another option because I do think on reference section eight, I'd like to see that consistent with the ten dollars of what we have for the non driver SSDI SSI pricing structure instead of going to the twenty. So I would like to try to advocate for keeping it at the ten. And we wanna be as flexible in in understanding the cost pressures there, but Mhmm. Also try not while we're on our status. It's not simplicity in printing out their education if they Mhmm. Lose it, I guess, multiple times. With open windows in summer, they get there every time. K. Get your licenses. I think that's a see if we can jump into. I we at CNB are in complete support of all communities having access to their licenses, and we realize the federal burden that's happening right now. I I don't think right now, the trouble we're having is if we implement a K- year, the way it's discussed, we are already in the code freeze for this portion of the development, and they're already testing this portion with the new system. So that'd be in November that this applying this. Making a change to the current mainframe, I don't I've been told it's not really feasible. This change would have to happen with the new licensing system. So we don't know what that cost would be, and it would most likely be the way that implementation timeline because of that change. Additionally, just just flagging out, again, a couple of things here. CDL licenses cannot exceed four years due to the hazmat portion of it, and fingerprint requirements on CDLs is five years. There just to make sure we're all clear on the on how the license is, what the playing field is, the federal government issued the president issued executive order for the federal government reference, gender, and that is applied so far to passports. We have not been told or or seen any rulemaking process that happens or has started yet. Where this where that where I'm leading with that is the Real ID and the enhanced operators' licenses are department of homeland security documents. So if that is not a Vermont solely Vermont document. So there is a possibility that people who come in with an x and we come in for a new license now for eight years may still have to come in again, have a valid real or non if that changes at the federal level. And I see that as more interested in the operational piece. I [Chair Richard Westman]: I [Andrew Collier]: hope that doesn't happen, but I'm just trying to make sure we're clear on [Chair Richard Westman]: soon. Like [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: This gives me even more reason to do it, if anything. But can you explain what would happen if I had an ID that was valid in Vermont that was somehow not valid or considered a real ID by the federal government when I was pulled over? What happens in that instance? Pull over Let's say I have a tail laid out. I have my ID. You this situation From from a [Andrew Collier]: law person's side, nothing. It's a valid Vermont Yeah. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Exactly. ID. So then there you go. [Andrew Collier]: I guess I'm just trying to understand. It would still to be a real ID, though, like, if you go to TSA, we can't say it's a real ID. And that's I'm just making sure we're clear on that termination. The non real ID Vermont license is a Vermont license. We can maintain that structure. Currently, there's nothing in statute that says someone cannot extend their license outside of, the current renewal process that's currently set up. I think a a more concise avenue to approach this is someone can apply for a an exemption to extend their license for another four years, which puts you outside of the current presidency. [Chair Richard Westman]: Yeah. I think I have. [Andrew Collier]: And it it allows us to, one, quickly review if a person needs to come in for a new photo or bring in new documents if it's Real ID, and then we can quickly issue. Because I think the if we all of a sudden move to an eight, I I'm not sure the load d m v can handle if a lot of people at once. I think the subset of what we're trying to accomplish might be a better avenue with more of just a policy shift in how we handle for allowing an extension beyond. So for instance, if Andrew Collier has a four year license, I'm two years into it, and I wanna extend another four years. Fill out a simple form, get it sent into the DMV, and we can quickly process, do I need to come in for my photo or I need to bring in any documents to verify that I'm still resident here in Vermont? And then we can issue and prorate difference and extend that license for the additional time. That is more as a if you want something to quickly operationally happen, I think that is the the avenue to go on. Otherwise, we're talking about a significant system enhancement for something that's already built, and I don't and that's already that'd be November [Chair Richard Westman]: Oh, great. [Damien Leonard]: For the rollout. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Thank thank you, mister Hitter. That was my question. So you said November is the rollout? [Andrew Collier]: Yep. It's a veteran's weekend or day. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: So it's November twenty twenty six? [Andrew Collier]: Of this year. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: November of twenty twenty [Chair Richard Westman]: five? Yep. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: So this doesn't we could have the effective dates be we could I'm happy to push the effective date out if that's the difference. And we have, like, sections forty one and forty two that are going into effect until twenty point six. So if we made it so that the effective dates were November fifteenth of twenty twenty five, would you be or whatever the the Veterans Day weekend is, would you be able to that? [Andrew Collier]: I would have to follow-up with AMCA because [Member Andrew Perchlik]: they still have from the bill. So that's [Andrew Collier]: the effective date now. We're not they don't touch that side of the system because it's in the the testing phase. So to make the change would have to be after deployment of it. We have to be after the initial go live. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: So how are you making the changes in the other places in the [Andrew Collier]: So that because if we're looking at more as a I don't wanna say one off, but smaller groups filing for this, we have the ability to go on the system and manipulate it on a small scale, like an individual scale versus [Member Andrew Perchlik]: trying to [Andrew Collier]: develop a whole new framework on a fifty year old computer system. So you're you're you're we're we're going in and kind of manipulating the dates on the license and reissuing that license. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Okay. I understand what you're saying. I'm obviously visibly not happy with that because it feels like a great example of, unfortunately, continuing to delay people's access to their IDs if they are in a situation where it's changed at the federal level. So I [Andrew Collier]: guess I'm [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: seeing what I'm hoping and I know everyone loved I'm talking. It's, like, time to talk. So if let me just finish this up. When we speak about your approaching system change in November, I'm not understanding why if we pushed out this change to when that system is complete, that the conflicts that you're describing, why those would still occur. So what could you explain to me or perhaps follow-up with a going into law date that would work for you, that would work for DMV? Because I hear what you're saying, but it's also very concerning for people right now to not have a pathway. So I don't think the process of the exemption is going to go and seek an exemption will be as useful of a pathway for folks who are fearful of government overreach. So I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit to what a appropriate implementation date would be to avoid the conflicts that you described when you new system up. You said that November, you don't think you could do it because you're still testing it and you wouldn't be able to know. So is there someone from your staff that I could connect with that would be able to give me a timeline for that? We're no. You can give me [Andrew Collier]: a timeline. I I guess what I'm I'm trying to express on that is if we make a significant change to go for November, that that would [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: just date your Okay. [Andrew Collier]: I'm just explaining. I'm telling you both sides of this, Sandra. I'm not trying to be argumentative on it. It's just if we make a change on that, we are in a testing phase, so they have to redevelop. So we push that date out. And and here we're saying if you wanna hear what a push out date would be. We can I'll be happy to get that for you. I I'm just I'm trying to circle back on you. You're saying people are don't have the access to get the IDs now. We do. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying they can't renew it for more than four years now, which is what this changes. [Andrew Collier]: And I guess what I was trying to advocate for is instead of waiting till whatever x date this will be, which is past the midpoint, we can implement do something closer to now, which gets people outside of what this administration That's DuPont. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Do both. I'm not do both. I'm not sure what the issue with all this. Maybe I'm confused. What is the issue with all? [Andrew Collier]: I think how do we factor the so are we saying it's eight for a new person? New starting date? So I guess we're trying to figure out too. So are we saying it's eight coming in? So at renewal, it's you now have the option for eight. Are you saying it's eight open up for everybody? [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: In the language so I'm talking about what we have in section twenty. So what is your question? I don't [Andrew Collier]: So there's two different ways of because I think I heard it's eight at renewal, or is it eight at [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: I think it's renew I think it's just for renewal, but I have to look to Damien. I don't think it's for renewal. It's just for renewal, or is it for all? I thought it was just for renewal, but I didn't realize it covered CDL as well. So that's [Damien Leonard]: Yeah. So the the language in care would basically provide that new and renewed operator's licenses would expire eight eight years from the date of issuance. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Yeah. So your your concern is the new, not the visible? [Andrew Collier]: So it's a sorry. So it's eight at the renewal. Mhmm. So that doesn't so I'm trying to put this in two separate buckets. So there is the solving for the concern that's out there, which is now. So the AI renewal would only affect people that's coming up on renewal [Chair Richard Westman]: Yeah. [Andrew Collier]: In this current. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: And It [Damien Leonard]: so it it also provides an individual come in similar to what you talked about with requesting an extension on their current. Like, somebody's come in for an eight year say they're, you know, two years into a four year license, come in for an eight year license, so they don't have to rank it up at two years, which [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: It's [Andrew Collier]: it's So yeah. So that is [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Thank you. That's why I'm trying to I like that. [Andrew Collier]: So that is where the issue on a on a macro scale of where putting that into place now is where the issue is. So I guess I I'm I'm just reading the concern that you're trying to read the concern of helping a these group's population get into a position of feeling more comfortable. And, I guess, the eight year, my concern is that we're if we do an eight year, and that's where the avenue is, we're talking end of the year. Whereas by doing and then understanding the context of if non people that would have to have come in if they need new pictures and stuff and try and identify that number just to make sure we are sufficiently understanding that bandwidth of making sure we can support monitors as they come in. I'm guessing at once. [Chair Richard Westman]: So the eight year is new. Functionally in your system, if you we went to eight year, which is something that we haven't done. Your IT system, you're in some sort of development, right now, and you would have to move to a change. If I could have some sort of a timeline or a chart that says to me, here's what would happen and when it would happen if we went to eight years and the functional issues to that, that would be helpful to me versus, presently, you can extend it for full. [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: Yeah. [Chair Richard Westman]: And but that is not a change. It doesn't require any change to your system. [Andrew Collier]: Correct. It it would be just more hands on process to our team, but, yeah, we can handle I say more as an individual, like, one off basis, but more of a yeah. [Chair Richard Westman]: People come in now for two and four year changes, and and and it the suggest what you are suggesting is just have them go to a four year and take the two out? [Andrew Collier]: It would. We were just prorate. So if if I had two left on my license now, I'm getting an extension for another Ford. And that way on top of that too. So now you're at six. That way, we can verify just if we need to have that person come in for photo or update any paperwork if they have a real or enhanced ID. And I say more as a one off basis, but as a smaller subset, that would be more hand on process, but we'd be able to get that turned out. And that could because there's nothing in staffing now that says we can't do an extension or renewal outside of what current DMV policy has been, which is around someone's birthday. [Chair Richard Westman]: Yeah. Wait. Second. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: So just so I'm understanding, in the situation, any vermometer, regardless of identity, can come to you and say, I actually do want an eight year extension, or I want a six year extension, or I want more than a four year extension, and you can give special exemption? [Andrew Collier]: No. It'd be a four year. Yeah. It's usually we like the four, but it's adding it to your whatever difference you have on your credit. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: And your pitch is basically Trump ideally will not be in office at that point, so you don't need to worry about it. It's kinda your pitch. That's where you get outside of this term to answer that concern. [Andrew Collier]: That's what [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: you're saying. Okay. That still doesn't answer the concern for me, though, because I don't necessarily think that we are I I still think that the waters are murky enough that we should have as long of a a period of time that that idea is relevant. So I hear what you're saying. I mean, yeah, he's already talking about third terms. So, you know, I'd like as long as possible for folks to be able to have the dignity of their identity still being in place and promote. You know what I'm saying? [Andrew Collier]: I I So [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: And I understand that's an administrative challenge, but this is, like, our moment. Do you get what I'm saying? Like, this is our moment to stand up for people who are in very difficult situations and to row in the same direction. And I really hope that we can put the administrative weight to support that in any situation we can, even if it's small. And I so I guess that's what I'm asking for. And I understand what you're saying because you're the administrator of it. But it is extremely frustrating, I think, for these communities of people right now to continue to be told that it's just too it's too much work for us to make a special arrangement for you. So I really do hope that we yeah. I mean, I went home to town meeting week, and I had people who were hysterical. You know what I'm saying? Like, hysterical because they were told that their passport was no longer they couldn't renew their passport. And so they not have access to an ID to at least be given the ability to extend the eight years. I understand that that could be administratively complex, but it is meaningful. And sometimes we need to do meaningful things even when it's administratively complex. So I hope that we can collectively choose to move forward on this. And I feel passionately about it, so I apologize if that bleeds over, but it really matters to people. Andy? [Member Andrew Perchlik]: That's what'd be one of the points that Patricia had pointed that Vermont ID won't change. I mean, unless we decide. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Yeah. [Logan Mooberry]: Well, if [Member Andrew Perchlik]: they would always have the ability to have gender, however, their choice No. With the state license. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: No. But you said that's not true because [Andrew Collier]: the federal government I said the the non real ID is a Vermont [Chair Richard Westman]: Yeah. [Andrew Collier]: License. So that would never change. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Even the real ID could. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Right. But it could be anyway because it's a federal [Chair Richard Westman]: It's federal [Member Andrew Perchlik]: We can't affect the federal regulation. So we could say if you have midyear real ID, but then next year, they could say that's not valid because of x y reason because of the federal rule. We can't affect the federal rule. We don't affect the Vermont rule. So making it can always have that gender mark regardless if it's eight years or four years. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: We know that for sure. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: That's my understanding right now. But for [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: sure that the federal government can't change that? [Chair Richard Westman]: No. I mean, they can drive. Government can change it. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: They can change the real ID. They can't change what a state They [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: can't change what a state can do. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Right. [Damien Leonard]: So, I [Member Andrew Perchlik]: mean That's [Andrew Collier]: they might drive. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Well, that's that's what about. Yeah. [Chair Richard Westman]: Right. The Vermont Here's my in my quest other questions, if we Okay. The Real ID piece, we can't change. If we try to change the Real ID, then the the license that we have that I can go on a plane or I can go to Canada with or that we put at risk everydays. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Sure. That's that's Vermont. We all will be affected if a minority of people are targeted. Like, that's our people. You know what I'm saying? Like, we should all like, that's I don't care if my ID is affected because a person who can't have their gender identity directed like, that's we all need to be in this together. [Patrick Brennan]: So Go ahead. So what I heard was people with whatever time they have left on their license. So say they have three years left, and they can come back and get four more years. Is that [Andrew Collier]: That that's what I'm advocating. That's what I'm advocating. [Patrick Brennan]: And would that take legislative change? [Andrew Collier]: So I think that is a just a department policy change because there's nothing in statute that would that shows that renewal has to be what we currently have is sixty days or something around your birthday [Chair Richard Westman]: as [Andrew Collier]: a renewal date. [Patrick Brennan]: But just as a person, I would just expect that it would be a new four years. I wouldn't expect that the remaining time on my license would be added to it. So so that is a benefit. And one thing we could do is heavily advertise that to folks and say, you can extend your license. I mean, there's gonna be other people who are who are worried about this too. You can extend your license for another four years and and just market that heavily, and that would be supportive of the club. Yeah. I hope And we could do that sooner than we could do the other thing, the eight year thing. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Yeah. I'll take whatever. [Chair Richard Westman]: So and we need to move on from this. I think we forget the issues here in you know, I think there's sympathy for doing something in the CRM, and we will work on it. You got it. We've got identification cards, pieces, and then the report. You can comment on the rest of this. Yep. [Andrew Collier]: You want that won't be DCF. Correct? [Logan Mooberry]: And then that's four. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: When you talk about he didn't address the unhoused both Oh, [Andrew Collier]: I I'm sorry. That was I didn't oh, my apologies. I didn't [Logan Mooberry]: find that one. [Andrew Collier]: So this is a group we currently our director of operations works directly with the shelters to and other organizations, and we we do work to get people that are unhoused defamation cards. So that's something we have been doing. We have a great report. It is a because these are adults, it's easier to be, you know, their Social Security number, the most part, or either identifying it here. So we're able to move quickly on those and get those processed. So that's an area we currently work in, and and this is would be something like what we already currently do. Oh, great. Or not something like, but it'd be what we're already doing. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: So you're supportive of that? [Andrew Collier]: Yeah. We already do. We this is what we already do. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: So if I don't have an address [Andrew Collier]: And I can ask how we I can ask how we handle that, but we Nancy Prescott, our director, she works with all these groups all the time on on a as the director person works on one zero one, and we get these processed all the time. Great. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: So what would you so okay. [Andrew Collier]: So I I don't so maybe, I guess, I'm not I'm sorry. I don't think there's a a legislative change I think, Simon. This is something we we currently operate in and work to make sure we get. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Right. Yeah. I'd say anecdotally, I do think there are some gaps that I've heard from folks. So I would love to understand more about what your program is, and maybe we can invite Nancy to come and speak to us about what it is because I would love to know, you know, what is the address that folks use? Like, if they're staying at the Haven and there's a short term stay, what's the address that they're able to use for that identification, and what's the process? Sounds good. And it sounds like Nancy would know. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Yeah. That's just a a question I had written down. How do you in in in the operator only license part of that, how do you revoke state licenses for an adversary with no address? [Andrew Collier]: The he calls a deputy commissioner over there? Well, [Damien Leonard]: deputy commissioner RTM, they provide us with the address they're looking at, where they're staying at, working with. So if it was the Haven, we'd use the Haven's address. If any mailings would go to the last home address on file, which would [Member Andrew Perchlik]: be the Haven's. Wherever they're sitting. Do you want Can I ask another follow-up? Sure. Do you have a history as your success in in following through? I mean, how many people actually get get that that information, get the suspension or reinstatement? I I don't know for sure. All the mailing would go [Andrew Collier]: to the Haven or wherever wherever shelter they're staying at, [Damien Leonard]: and then they would disperse them. So if they're still in contact with that person, they'd be able to get it to them if they're still staying there. [Chair Richard Westman]: So Brown works best to I'd [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: I'd love to if if she share if we could ask Nancy to come testify or whoever is the premier of that program, at least written testimony would be helpful to understand. Because I've certainly heard from folks who are living in their vehicles. They might not be associated with a shelter who have had a really hard time accessing licensure. And, usually, if you're living in your vehicle, you really wanna, like [Chair Richard Westman]: Yeah. You need [Member Andrew Perchlik]: to know specifics. Yes. [Chair Richard Westman]: And who's your intersection twenty four or twenty five? [Andrew Collier]: Twenty four. I get We if we're just looking for a report, these are all data points we need, [Damien Leonard]: I [Andrew Collier]: think, to just verify that we have. Again, as far as legislative act action outside of the section of the the unhoused, which we currently do, we're just talking eight here. That would just I think that's we have some points to come back maybe with as far as implementation timeline if in that piece, if currently right now. And then as far as second twenty five, we are always happy, and and and I'm a firm believer of of outreach. So whatever direction we frame these issues, I know, like, in Windows, we have an outreach coming up to implement. So any I would any outreach sections on that for any changes with we're always gonna advocate and and push out information. But I think section twenty twenty five had referenced some earlier sections. So depending on what extent of that was, just making sure we what that timeline looks like to implement outreach and so forth. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Well, it sounds like you do a lot of this already, so it would be a good way to work out. [Chair Richard Westman]: K. Anything else before I wanted to comment on? [Andrew Collier]: Tenant Windows, we we're okay with. If you wanna do the seventy percent, I think that just helps us clear up clearable we were trying to understand. So I don't foresee an issue on on that area. And then we had sent a document reference to purchase and use with some areas that we were in instead of doing a summer study committee, just some areas that we could we could push out and let Mars know. One would be subtracting the fifty dollars for if someone pays for an appraisal, taking doing a subtraction from up to fifty dollars on the taxable cost of the vehicle. Additionally, a couple weeks ago, we discovered DEC has a emissions program to help low income Vermonters to get the emission systems fixed. So we've been in touch with DEC and and worried about that program. And I think that might be an area we I I certainly never heard about it either in the sea or from other times. So I think amplifying that out to monitors, and we have currently put the list of dealers that are certified through DMV on our website. We're working on I admit, our website's, like, a normal state website, well dated. We're we're trying to streamline that section for for registration, having the dealer's list, dealer appraisal, more front centered and and accessible. And and the center where you had mentioned with the with the calculator costs, not using just the VIN and getting that built in. And then, obviously, our d m v four team once here, right now, coming in to talk about some of the areas where there are both trouble with people trying to take advantage of of even the current way purchasing use is handled and but ways that we can also sort of because it has that nexus whether or not we're trying to keep it separate, but it has an access with the inspection system, and the other ones who are intimately involved in ways that we can maybe find some efficiencies or make some changes there. Go ahead. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: So the the when you pay the purchase and use, you don't have to do it in person. Right? Like, you can just send that all in. Seems like I've always done it in person, but you can just send that in mail. Right? And so if they send it in and it's not the right value for the you send them back a form or you said this is the this isn't what you would owe. Yeah. Is there a way to have on that form saying, here's the appeal process? Because I think that's the problem. Like, they don't know what to do when they get the form back or they go in there and they're told, you can't pay that. You gotta pay this. They won't know to go to the website to look about the appeal. So I wonder if that's that moment that they're told that they have the wrong map, can they say, well, here's either written if it's a form sent to them or verbally if they're at the counter, say, here's the appeal process, and you might you have it available [Andrew Collier]: to you. Absolutely. I think that's actually a great idea. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: I think that would be what I'd like to see, and I think that would so just so so if they do have some weird case or just a case that where it is lower than the Blue Book, they would know right away. Yep. Oh, there is a field cut. So I think if they find out later, they've already paid the extra whatever two thousand dollars, and then they find out a year later, oh, I didn't know that question. It would wait a few prayers. [Andrew Collier]: Nope. That's a great idea. That's something I think we could quickly Okay. Implement in our balances. [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: But if you're [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: But if you're at a DMV office and you bring this information and you go, wow. That's a difference than what I paid. A DMV professional would then say, oh, yeah. That if that's the case, there is a way to appeal that. They normally do give that information if someone is surprised, I assume. Like, that's [Logan Mooberry]: what I know. [Member Andrew Perchlik]: Have a new name once on, but it was only a difference of, like, a hundred dollars. Or it was a lower number, so I didn't care. But they didn't say, oh, so you could've paid deal. [Chair Richard Westman]: Yeah. They did. They usually don't do that. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Oh, they usually don't do that. Oh, because that's [Member Andrew Perchlik]: I just wanna make sure that they that they should have [Andrew Collier]: And that and that is something also, I think, with the with the change if we on the form is also just retraining [Chair Richard Westman]: as well. Great. [Amanda Churchill-Kipp]: I can [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: do that. Administrative's, you know, language to get things good for Vermont. Love it. K. [Chair Richard Westman]: Thank you. Thank you. And we'll be back in touch. I think we're about getting lunch. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: May I wanna ask about the license plates? [Chair Richard Westman]: I can we ask the question? Go ahead. Yes. I I will warn you the license plates are fairly controversial in this committee. And Yeah. Yeah. It We've had a lot of people that wanna testify because they're law enforcement and everything. And from my point of view, we're probably I'm going to recommend to the committee that we take the license plates out and deal with them in, the greater context of the Tivo. There's no need for individual bills that pass the legislature to balance a budget. We, quite frequently, pass bills that cost money. And at the end, there's a true up process where appropriations and the money committees have to make everything balanced. So we will probably deal with the issue in the greater issue, but there's way too many people to testify for us to make crossover. But Okay. I'd love to hear from you about what your thinking is. [Andrew Collier]: Absolutely. I know as someone that come from law enforcement, I saw my certification. I know that's that's always been an FMA passionate discussion with with with my colleagues on that side, it's since I read, I can spend thirty five dollars and put a LaunchDark license plate on the front of my vehicle. I guess if we keep saying it's advocating for safety, I'm not sure why we're if it's such a safety aspect. We ran the numbers. I think there's there's approximately three hundred and twenty three tickets were written for a front license plate. I can get you an exact number, the second last year. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Hold on. [Chair Richard Westman]: I [Andrew Collier]: I I just as someone who patrolled more county for the and towards the end of the day, we're gonna have some road. Front license plate has a lot of trucks, young people. They have, you know, a cat Caterpillar license plate or or something cool on the front. I I'm I don't think I've ever I don't wanna say never, but a a problem license plate was never a determining factor for a a stop for me. So I guess it and and I and someone who had a warranty disability, I can never even remember the front of the plate and try to connect it to with the bag in a quick second. So other than being a green license plate, that there you got it. So I know my some of my some of my good friends in law enforcement, some are passionate about. Some are in the opinion that it really has no bearing because right currently, right now, I could put it Vermont strong or Vermont tough or really, since I read license plate, and that's not really building the quality across the monitors because if I don't want to hide my product license plate, I could theoretically purchase and save Vermont a thirty five dollar license plate, and now it's covered or yeah. It's supposed to be covered, but, like so I the argument on that it's for safety, I just I'm kinda disagree with that notion. [Chair Richard Westman]: Go ahead. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: Thank you, mister chair. So I I think my question is more to whether or not it's a good idea or a bad idea to have a front license plate, putting that aside. But what I understood from our counsel or maybe it was Jay maybe it was Luke that mentioned this. You can just do this without us. Like, you can decide to go to one license plate without our sign off. [Andrew Collier]: That yes. I think it depends how you do that. Yeah. I I think it was something that would be a change right now that I've I I would be positive. I'll be sitting here in January answering this committee about file license plates if I didn't loop in this conversation. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: But you legally could do that now is your understanding. And you're you are not planning to. [Andrew Collier]: Correct. Right now, I wouldn't I wouldn't what kind of in my currency right now with the work of legislature, Jessica. [Vice Chair Rebecca White]: I appreciate that. That's that's really helpful for me to hear, and especially if you're back in January with a different story. And we I can go back to the record, but I do not agree with us moving. That's my my perspective moving to one if we're not going to also reduce the cost of registration. So if you do choose a different policy choice as a DMV, I would hope that you would go through the legislative process, and I'm really grateful to hear that that is your plan. [Chair Richard Westman]: Thank you, sir. Thank you. And we are going to

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of Senate Transportation - 2025-03-11 - 10:00AM

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