Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're live, folks. Welcome back. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. And this is Tuesday, February 17. And we're gonna be working on h five forty nine, which is the Graph 1.2. Dealing with our non driver ID and also our driver's license. So it's graph 1.2. I know you gave me a copy, right? Did, yes. Here it go.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I did, yes. You know where

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: it is? Under the fold? Okay. Let me hand out something to you too first. This came from Nancy Prescott from DMV that kind of just lays out all the different types of Vermont licenses. So that might help folks too.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: You. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we have a new draft Hillary, and I'm gonna turn it over to you. Now, we're gonna do the best we can with language today. I'm sure we're gonna have to have another draft. But I'm scheduled to go into Senate transportation tomorrow at quarter of twelve. So, I will present to them what we have at this point. Be very clear with them that we'll probably be doing another draft, is my hunch. But what the intent will be for that other draft, I'll let them know. Okay? So it's all yours, Hillary. And have your previous drafts before you, folks.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So for the record, Hillary Chittenden aims for the Office of Legislative Counsel. Should be able to pull up on my screen the new language in just a moment. So what you've done here is incorporate the DMV language in a strike all amendment to our age five forty nine, correct? Correct. So this H549 draft number 1.2 contains all of the changes from the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill and this committee discussed for H five forty nine to subdivision M or subsection M. That's in section one. It also contains the changes that Damian talked about from the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill related to providing licenses and permits to individuals who have been sentenced for more than six months in sections two and three. We're working with the same three pieces that we have been previously in this draft all

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: in one place.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are new folks clear on that?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Much easier to look at it in one place.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: What's that?

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: That was the post.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Much easier to look at in one spot. And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you've restructured as well.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And my apologies for having trouble pulling this up. All right, great. Okay, so as I mentioned, we have three sections that we're working with in this draft. Section one about non driver identification cards. This is only changes with respect to individuals who have been detained for six or four or more months. Section two is talking about operators' licenses. That is for folks who have been sentenced to serve for six or more months. And same for learner's permits in section three. So those are kind of three pieces we're working with, and we can dive right into section one. So as you might remember, in the previous draft of H five forty nine, there were more edits to subsection M because the original proposal of the bill was to provide non driver identification cards for both individuals who have been sentenced to more than six months and those who have been detained for six or more months. Shifts that because the committee's request was for language that provides just documentation, required documentation to individuals who have been detained for six months or more. So subsection M makes a few small changes to current law. On lines 10 through 12 of page one, these are just for clarity and more common usage in statutes now. So referring to anyone who is sentenced in a correctional facility instead of committed to the custody of the commissioner of corrections. This change is also reflected in section two and three, where the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill language copied this same structure to talk about the licenses and permits.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Shifting So hang on. I just want to be clear. So, submission of documents required. So, for a non REAL ID, what would be required is their social security number, their residency, that's for the non their ID. For the real ID, they would need residency, Social Security, and birth certificate or passport. Correct? So that's gonna be important to know whoever's reporting the bill. That's gonna be important to know what documentation is needed. K? And this language here came from the Department of Health Appeals?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. The changes on lines 14 through 15 were to specify those different kinds of documentation. So, so far, the changes to subsection M are really aligning the statutory language with current practice. They're all clarity changes as opposed to really substantive changes. This is true also if you look on page one, lines 19 through 20, instead of referring to whether someone wants to obtain a non driver identification card or any driving credential, This specifies the other kinds of credentials. So non driver identification card, operator's license, or replacement learner's permit. Our first So yep.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Our as part of the reentry planning, DOC would ask the person if they would like to obtain a non driver card operator's license replacement learner's permit, if eligible for those and inform the individual the differences, including any cost to the individual. So it could be, a cost could be, particularly for the operator's license or the learner's permit, they've been expired for a long, long time, and they would have to renew and go through the whole renewal process. And that would be at the offender's cost, correct? Nancy, could you identify yourself for the record?

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations at D and B. If the individual has expired for more than three years, they would then have to retest at their expense.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And they would do the retest once they're released. And who would be responsible to bring the identification documents to DMV? Would it be the offender or is DOC gonna gather that prior to their release?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in the statute, the statute refers to DOC coordinating with DMV to provide the card for the individual at the time

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: of release. It would be

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the non driver ID. Correct. Not the driver's license or the

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: permit. That'll be in section two. Happy to skip there, or we can finish the other changes to section one and stick with non driver ID and then move toward that statutory language and happy to do whatever the committee prefers.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's go to section two, because I want to make sure that the documentation, because it's different. What's an M only pertains to the non driver ID. Doesn't pertain to operator license for replacement the learner's permit if it's beyond the three years or two years. Correct. So on page four Are the committee members following this?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So skipping ahead to section two, which is about licenses. So now we're looking at what the statute says or what the bill proposes the statute say about operators' licenses and the procedures. So on page four, lines three through seven, if an individual would like to obtain an operator's license pursuant to the provisions of this section and is eligible, so we have someone who has a license that expired three years or less, the Department of Corrections shall coordinate with the Department of Motor Vehicles to provide an operator's license to the individual at the time the individual is released from the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And that's for sentenced folks.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Because as drafted right now, section two and three, operator's license and learner's permit are only provided to individuals who have

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a So hold off, Troy. I know where you're going, but hold up. So I just wanna be clear on page four, line four through seven. The DOC needs to coordinate with DMV in terms of providing that operator's license. So that would assume that DOC, and I know we have Monique Sullivan on Zoom here, that would mean the DOC would coordinate with DMV in terms of the mechanics of this, how to get the documentation, or am I assuming something wrong here? How would they coordinate? What are they coordinating?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Happy to have someone else jump in. The statute says they shall coordinate. My understanding is that the DOC and DMV then have a memorandum of understanding that spells out exactly how that process will work.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: And Nancy, DMV. And Minier, feel free to hop in. We currently already do have a process in place with DOC currently for those that are incarcerated for six months or more. This language to extend if eligible for a permit and or a license is not adding anything different between the two parties for the individual being released to receive.

[Unknown Committee Member]: But is it laid out somewhere so that should you or your counterpart in GMC not be there in the future, that someone else would know how to do this?

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Oh, absolutely. I don't do the work. We have an amazing team that does the work, but we do have an MOU that's Okay, perfect.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what that entails, it is DOC submits the ID documentation. That could be the residency's social security, and it could be their birth certificate. I'm not gonna have a passport. Vermont birth certificate. The DOC submits that prior to release to DMV and DMV processes the new license. And then when the person's released, they go to DMV and pick it up. The license goes right to DOC.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: It all goes to DOC currently for those that are on their release. Their case, they get all mailed to Waterbury address for DOC and they go to their caseworkers is what I understand from Monique.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the same thing would happen with the driver's license and the license?

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Same process.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So when they would leave the facility, they would have that in hand. And that as long as within that three year window for the driver's license and two year window for the learner's permit, there would be no charge? That's correct. DMV would pick up the price at $3.30 per license. Got it?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: For identification, Gary. No, driver's license.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Driver's Driver's license is whatever the individual is eligible for of the highest. We're trying to get the Our goal is to get the individuals out with the best intent and the highest credential they can.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you got three paths, almost. You got your non driver's ID, which is current law. So that's being extended to if a person's incarcerated and their driver's license while they've incarcerated has been expired within three years.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Has not expired.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For three years, they can renew that while they're incarcerated. They can also renew a learner's permit while they're incarcerated if it hasn't expired within a two year period.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: I don't know if I like the word renew, because it's not really renewing. They're going to be issued a new To from me, I'm hearing renew as while they're incarcerated, they would be getting it renewed and remain incarcerated. That's not the intent. The intent is upon release. That's the current language right now for DMV.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It's like a we do.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The statute uses replacement instead of renewed. Replacement learner's permit.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Replacement of the driver's license upon their release, the driver's license. I love explaining this one on the floor.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Happy to work with Damian to provide some useful notes to whoever does that.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: And Donna, he's going have a field day.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So to the chair's point, the section requiring that DOC coordinate with DMV to provide the card license permit at the time of release is true in all three sections. So we saw that on page two for non driver identification cards. Here on page four for operator's licenses, and it is the same here on page five for learner's permits. So at the time the individual is released from the correction facility. If no other questions on this particular issue, Excellent. I will

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So we

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: will return to section one.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I guess I do have one. Now that we're expanding this beyond conclude, now you would I'm just wondering if there's any benefit to lump those all together.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So these are in three different statutory sections that cover the three different kinds of identification.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Maybe this is my question. Is there any benefit in moving those to a different place in statute so that they're all in the same place?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that there is a DOCDNV intersection, I think I'm happy to talk to Damian about that, because Title 23 is something he knows much more than I do.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: He was talking about He was talking about a different way to reference. But what you're thinking is because this is in Title 23, you don't think of looking at it if you're looking at DOC policy. But this is a real DOC policy as well. And there's nothing about this in title 28. Title 28 deals with DOC policy. So no one, if they're looking for corrections, would even know that folks who are incarcerated would be eligible for a non driver ID, and that we're now expanding if their driver's license expired, hasn't been expired from here? This one's going to get confused.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's something I'm happy to take back to the pledge council team and think about whether there's something we could suggest to put as a placeholder in Title 28 that would direct folks thinking about DOC to this. I'm not sure where else we've done that, but that's something I can look into.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And then would you smoosh

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: that smoosh?

[Unknown Committee Member]: I think it

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: depends. Think my

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: initial Well Referred.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because this is still DMB's authority to issue these cards, I'm not sure that the suggestion we would make would be moving all of this into Title 28. I think it would be some kind of stub direction in title 28 to say, DOC is doing this. Go look at title 23 for all the details. And if it's something like that, I'm not sure we'd be condensing the statutory language at all. I think this is one of those times where there are two concerns. One, is someone looking at Title 28 going to know this exists? And two, is it easy to look in as few places as possible to get all the information you need? And I think it might be hard to do both of those things.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I'll leave it to the lawyers.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Back to Damien. I like the word smush.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: She used condensed. That's probably a better word.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Smush can be a

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: term for this.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's something that I will look into and will work on. Returning to section one on page two, line five, this is now the new language that would be added to current law regarding non driver identification cards. So if an individual who is detained for six months or more in a correctional facility is eligible for a non driver identification card under the requirements of this section, the Department of Corrections, as soon as reasonably practicable, shall obtain documentation required for a non REAL ID or REAL ID non driver identification card and shall provide the individual with the documentation at the time of release.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: DOC will gather the information and keep it in a little Ziploc bag. So the person needs to have been detained a minimum of six months. And then at that six month time, then DOC can start gathering that information and keep it with the offender belongings, whatever, in a Ziploc bag. When the detainee is released, it could be two years from then, or a year, it would have that information that then the detainee would bring to the DMV office to receive their non driver ID.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So either real or non real depending on what can be

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Detained.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yep. That's the thinking.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Kevin? Have we already discussed why it's six months? Because Nine months or three months?

[Unknown Committee Member]: Because it's six months for sentenced. Just sentenced folks. They have to have been sentenced for six months, so

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we're just picking that up.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: For detainees?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For detainees. It's the same thing.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Oh, it's already six months for I got you.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. So this mirrors that the current statute says folks incarcerated for six months or sentenced for six months or more. I'm not sure why that was chosen initially. I can try to find

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that out. But that's why this also uses this. Got enough work. I'm just curious.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Okay.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Now this is still page two, lines 11 through 14. This adds that the Department of Corrections shall coordinate with the Department of Motor Vehicles regarding the documentation required for an individual who is detained for six months or more in a correctional facility to obtain a non real ID or real ID non driver identification card. So something the committee had discussed last Friday was including language to capture the process. And so this really mirrors the language already in statute regarding coordination to provide identification cards to individuals sentenced for six months or more at the time of release. This has that same shall coordinate language, but instead it's shall coordinate regarding the documentation required. So there is still that kind of process language included with respect to providing the documentation for individuals detained for six months or four.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So just to be clear, the non real ID the person could use as an ID, but they would not be able to board a plane or access a federal building, and they would not be able to cross over into Canada or Mexico. But it could be used as a regular ID, like to open up a bank account or pick up medication that they would need. That's a distinction between a non real ID, non driver ID card, and a real ID, non driver card.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Mhmm. Is there any value on line 11 to reference the MOU between the two groups? I mean, you've asked the question a number of times, what if you're not working there and somebody else isn't working there? You've answered that there's an MOU. Is there any value in referencing that MOU in your honor?

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: So I will share with you that once this goes through regarding detainees in whatever manner it does pass, we will have to amend our current MOU to include the detainees and what that might look like.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Generally, when statutory language says shall coordinate, shall agree, that's the enough requirement in statute for the agencies to then enter the MOU, have the working group, whatever it is, to effectuate the statutory requirement.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm happy. Except, man, that's all.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's wait till we get there. I know you're chomping at the bit. Let's wait

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: till we finish It's to go here. It's going to go next. Right?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Not necessarily.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: No. You know where I'm going with this?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you are going towards expanding operators licenses, that probably will not go here because

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: it will go in

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the operator's license. Can we kiss the ground, Julie?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Everybody knows what I want to talk about. I'll just try to nudge me when it's time.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I have to say, the answer has been, they want to give the highest credentials.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Now Kevin wants to go there too.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: No, that's what Nancy has said repeatedly. That's what they're aiming towards is the highest credentials.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why they proposed the language that they did to the miscellaneous DMV bill.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: I think that's your goal. You're putting something in here to add to tamees. I think we're all on the same mission of setting one up for the biggest and best success that we've had.

[Unknown Committee Member]: We joined at the helm.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Keeping people out of DMV and getting what they need.

[Unknown Committee Member]: James is all browsing his community.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Look at his shot.

[Unknown Committee Member]: I think we need a small picture of him.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Actually, we are. You're born in the same hospital. You have to be.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: It should've been so funny.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So to get where the whole committee is excited to go, apparently, to get where at least some of the committee members are excited to go, the rest of section one on the bottom of page two just remembers the sections to reflect that we added a subsection in. And at the end, just notes that this section now uses the term correctional facility, which is defined elsewhere in Title 28. And we're just indicating when we say correctional facility here, we want it to mean the same thing as we say it means in 28 PSA section three. So it's a cross reference. It is indeed. It is a cross reference. Any questions about Section one? Which, again, Section one is non driver identification parts. It now contains language from current statute that refers to individuals incarcerated for six or more months. And it adds, proposes adding language for individuals detained for six months or more. Non driver identification cards. Any questions on that before we move on to operator's licenses?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That was our original bill.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I guess one thing I will note before we Since technically the end, I think it'll be useful to mention here, you turn to page six, Looking at section four, which is the effective date, there are two effective dates proposed in this draft. Yes. For the operator's license and learner's permit section, The effective date is July of this year, 07/01/2026. On line six, you'll see that section one of the act, which is the one we just talked about for non driver identification cards, shall take effect on 01/01/2027. There was witness testimony that some time would be needed to be ready to implement this. So again, for the committee to decide. Am I in on the joke or not on this?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, if you do what you want, section two and three may have to be July to January 1. So we'll put a

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: pin in effective date, I wanted to mention

[Unknown Committee Member]: Currently right now.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As currently drafted, since we were talking about the different sections, I just wanted to mention that this non driver identification section as drafted, will take effect 01/01/2027. And as drafted, the other sections take effect on July 1. Further edits are needed to the section as the committee moves forward, That can be arranged.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Troy, our troublemaker.

[Unknown Committee Member]: A

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: lot of correction reform needs to happen. Is to the iceberg. Tip of the iceberg.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Oh, I couldn't agree more, sir.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But in different directions. Yeah, was gonna say. All

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of you.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: All right,

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page three, section two. We are now talking about replacement operators licenses. So this is now a driving provincial. I'm sorry. Page three, top of page three. And so as we mentioned before, the way that the motor vehicle title 23 is laid out, there are different sections depending on what kind of credential you're talking about. So non driver ID card is in the section early in the title, DMV. Operator's licenses are their own kind of chapter later, and learner's permits are also in their own part of Title 23. That's why we have these kind of three different sections amending three different sections of Title 23. And if you have more detailed questions about title 23, I will phone a friend and we'll watch Damian. Alright. So on page three, this is the same language that Damian walked through last week, and I'll just point out the few changes here. As I mentioned in talking about section one, the language that we propose using to kind of be the most updated language that we're using to refer to folks sentenced to serving correctional facilities will be six months or more in a correctional facility, not in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. So this section now includes that same language that the changed or the bill proposes changing in section one. The other change that came up in testimony was on page three, lines 11 through 12. This is referring to the timing of when the card will be provided. And the original draft didn't carry over some language in the current statute on non driver identification cards. So this, the bill draft now includes the timing language in advance of release from a collection facility. So when must the individual be provided with the replacement license in advance of release from a correction facility? The same which that is used with regard to when the non driver identification card must be provided.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Nancy, for us, if our driver's license is not expired for more than three years, we can get a replacement. For you? Yeah. I mean, it's saying, you're just putting that three years in there just for folks who are incarcerated No, or for it's for anyone. It's for anyone. And the same for the learner's permit is two years. That's correct. And then after that three year for a driver's license, then you would have to go through a new driver's test and a test. But for anyone, I think this is gonna be really important for it. Report this on the floor. For us right now, if our driver's license has expired and it hasn't been expired for more than three years, we can renew. If it's been expired for more than three years, we would have to go through road a test. We'd have to go through testing again to get a license. So we're only extending the same thing that's for us to folks who are incarcerated. That's gonna be really important to say on the floor because many people don't realize that for ourselves. And people could interpret this that we're doing something special for folks who are incarcerated. So that has to be made very clear, whoever's recording this on the floor.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Do we pay for that replacement driver's license? For us? If it's been expired for two years and I ask for a replacement license, do I pay?

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: For you? Yeah. Absolutely.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Unless you're But we are

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: paying the incarcerated something that we don't get. DMV commissioner is absorbing the cost of the credential for inmates sentence. What do we call it? Individuals who have been sentenced for six months or longer. And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we've had that in place for the non driver ID. So we're only extending it out to license. For a non driver ID for us to go in and get a non driver ID, would have to pay. But we have worked up eight years ago, nine years ago. Yeah, it's DMV and DOC to work through that. And DMV accepted accepting the cost. And it's $3.3 Now, if they want to go for an enhanced, then they have

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: to pay for it. You're making me proud. Two

[Unknown Committee Member]: more weeks will get it down flat.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I want to make sure I understand. I'm not incarcerated. My license is expired. I request a replacement license two years after it expired. Do I pay for that or don't Yes.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: I do. Yes.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But if I'd been incarcerated, I wouldn't.

[Unknown Committee Member]: That's correct.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So we are giving a special privilege to them. I'm not against it, but.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Kevin, you found an end around to get a free license.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: There you go.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: It's an expensive way to get it, but I mean, if you didn't allow

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: us to get it.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But I just wanna make sure it's clear because that's, we are giving

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: a lot of

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: stuff. In here

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: it does say, that's the license fee for zero in each section. Correct. And the

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: little asterisks are Previously in the section. Yes, exactly. That means that there is a chunk of the section that is not duplicated in the bill because it is long and not being changed. But my recollection is that in that section that is removed is where it talks about the fees for folks who are not incarcerated. All right. Any other questions? I don't want to walk through section two and three to repeat everything Damian said. I just wanted to flag those two changes that he made. But if there are any questions about either of them, I'm happy to answer them. Otherwise

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Right.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're on.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And this is just bringing into the conversation a conversation I was having with Nancy and Greg Minier before we were on camera about, let's just simplify this and make all of this available to anyone who has been sentenced or detained for six months or more.

[Unknown Committee Member]: How does Kevin feel about this?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: We're along with you. Honestly, I think administratively, it would be easier. Once somebody hits that six month mark, as a detainee, the documents are ready or prepared. And if they get released as a detainee, they have the same access.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They would have the same access, but they would bring that information down to DMV and they wouldn't have to pay for it? Or how would that work? Because with a non driver ID, we're thinking for detainees, I'm just thinking this through, for detainees, DOC would gather the documentation, hold it until they're released. Because sometimes they are released, they're not automatically sentenced. Sometimes they are released, hand them the Ziploc bag with their documentation. They would go down to the DMV office and submit that and they would pay for the non driver ID, right? So currently you have proposed for detainees, which

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: is new for DOCDMB to work through. That is one of the reasons we have asked for 01/01/2027. That is going to be a new process for us that we have to build, adapt the system for the zero fees for detainees. Because the individuals are gonna be coming to DMV with what we work out with DOC of what we need from the MOU, specifically to note that that is an individual that meets the criteria for us to process at zero fees, no matter if it was going to be specifically the committee's desire for non driver ID, or if you open it up to include the permits and the license if eligible. Same process that we are going to have to work through for detainees because it doesn't exist right now for us. And it's going to take a little bit of a left path than our current process.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: So I'm proposing that when that happens, it just matches what's in place for sentence folks at zero cost. That's what

[Unknown Committee Member]: I propose. Well, I was gonna say mirror, but Troy just said what I was gonna say. Just from the social side of it, of releasing people back into society with the best possible structure is best for society, let alone the person. So I would agree that making the detainee language match the other language.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: One note, as currently drafted for the non driver identification card for individuals detained for six months or more, it only refers to DOC obtaining the documentation. It does not specify receiving the card for zero fee, a $0 fee, no fee. If the committee wanted to bill to reflect that, we can make that change. But just wanted to point out that as currently drafted, DOC is required to collect the documentation, give it to the individual. But as currently drafted, when the individual goes to DMV, the statute does not require that DMV provide that card at no cost.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Okay. I think it should be at no cost. What was I going to say? I had another really brilliant point to make, and now I can't remember it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Risley's story. Do you want

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: the card delivered to the released individuals, opposed to them having to go to a detainee?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: No, we can't do that because of the unpredictability of the the detainee.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can't have it for the license. For those folks

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: who have been detained for at least six months, but maybe not a year or not two years, there's a strong likelihood that they'll have an ID, that this is a moot point for a lot of them. I don't know what the numbers are. Don't know if we have those numbers. But for the folks who don't have an ID, to James' point, we are removing a hurdle to what it takes to have a smooth transition back into society. I would like to make that transition as smooth as possible.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm looking at DOC. I think they have some concerns. Haley? Monique? Somebody?

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: No concerns. The only thing that I would want to make sure is that it's clear that DOC does not have to provide the actual ID for someone who's detained.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Because it's unpredictable.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Correct. And the process that we've spoken, just our little group of trying to navigate this proposal, was the individual would get them, we keep calling it the little ziplock bag, from DOC. They are then, there you go. If they come to D and B, great. If they don't come to D and B, that's as well. They come to D and B, we're gonna have some criteria that it's gonna note that they are who they are and are eligible. They're gonna have the form completed, which is going to include their residency. That is where the credential is going to be mailed to. We do not print any of these in house anymore. So they're gonna come from the factory out of state to their home, not to DOC in Waterbury as we do for those that are sentenced. That's where part of our process is pivoting.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: DOC would be making sure that the detainee would leave with their residency, their social security number, as well as their Vermont birth certificate.

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: Yeah. If those documents are If they're available. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then it would be up to the person once they're released, once the detainee is released, to go to the local DMV office and submit that information.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: That's correct.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then DMV verifies the person is who they are. And then when the license is processed, there'd be no fee to the defendant, to the detainee, but you would mail that license to their residence. That's correct. Where's the committee to extend the renewal of the driver's I'm gonna say renewal. The driver's license and learner's permit to detain us as well as the sentence folks. Where's the committee?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yes. The reason that these documents for the detainees aren't being mailed to water barriers is the uncertainty of when a detainee is released?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes. That's the clarification. Because they're not gonna get the license until they're released. For a person who's sentenced that they have applied for their license within that timeframe, the license for those folks would be mailed to the facility or to Waterbury?

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Those that have been sentenced, that's correct. Because they're working about one to two months ahead of time because they know when the individual is getting released. As I believe Manute had mentioned, and correct me if I'm wrong, that with the detreentee, they could go to court that day, is my understanding, and not know, but there's a chance those individuals are not even in the back.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Then getting released. So then how do they get their credentials in that scenario?

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Yep.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Not not the A. I. D. How do they get their bag?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The virtual zip up bag?

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Monique had explained that I believe last week and again, not my lane.

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: No, that's accurate. So when people will return to the facility very briefly to gather their belongings. So,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: but you make sure you have that six month window. Yeah. Yeah. It's not the churn of people coming in and coming out. So six month window, when that six month hits, DOC will be gathering the person's residence and their social security number. And if they're Vermont, they can access their Vermont birth certificate and keep all that information in a little bag and put it with the inmates or the detainees belongings. So that when they are released, that's part of their belongings to DOC Gibson.

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: And I think, sorry, Monique also mentioned this last week and it's still in my mind, but nowadays the court proceedings are done at the facility remotely. So people might not even be leaving the facility for their court appointments.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: could it not be cleaner just for DOC to submit those documents on their behalf, just like a sentence person, and and then to mail the ID after, but that's, that can't, that's, that's-

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They might be holding it for two or three years, couple years. Because the detainee could be there. Once they hit that six month, it doesn't mean that they're gonna be going to court. They may not go to court for another year. So then DMV would end up holding all

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: that information. You don't want to

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: be responsible for people's social security cards and birth certificates or anything like that.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So if you have somebody getting a non, let's say a non driver's legal ID who's in Bridgeford, doesn't have a car and has to make it down to Saint Albans to to do this stuff. I think I I just like, I figured you have some people just not avail themselves of the opportunity. It is what it is.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's just with detainees. You just never know when they're gonna be released. And some detainees will end up being sentenced. Not all detainees are released. Some will end up being sentenced. A good portion of them end up being summonsed.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: But if you're gonna hit somebody, they're baggy of credentials to bring the DMV.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But your detainees.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It's your detainees. How's that different than just saying, hey, we know where you're moving and we're gonna submit this on your behalf and then have the

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: because they don't know where they're moving.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: We because we don't know where they're moving.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. They could just get released right from court to who knows where.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Ah, okay. Oh, alright.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Haley said they come back temporarily. Some do. Some do.

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: Yeah. Some do. The proceeding is done remotely, which I think is more common than not at this point. And so an individual is having a court hearing at the facility and then they're released, so they're already there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So your issue, Joe, is for them, once they leave the facility, they have to get to a DMV office and transportation could be an issue. That you're in.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I just think you're you're dealing with a population that might not have the the best ability to accomplish tasks and it's it's trying to remove that that attachment plate if you will but if II understand if you don't know where they're moving, how are you supposed to do that? In which case, you just hand up their documents and hope that hope that they avail themselves of it. I mean, to walk around in society without a form of identification is a huge impediment.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Takes me back to last session where it blew my mind that someone could be picked up, I couldn't use the right words. They're arraigned, but then they're transported to a different facility. But somehow their personal items are left here. They may not have a driver's license. They may not have a car here. So they don't have what they need. Why doesn't that baggy go with them wherever they go? Could be used for evidence for law enforcement. Law enforcement may hang onto their belongings. Could be law enforcement that hangs onto us, not the court. Right. Whoever's transporting them has the responsibility of transporting the person and the baggy, no matter what. So, if the person comes back, the baggy comes back. If the person gets released, the baggy goes with him. That to me seems like it would be logical. But last session, we couldn't seem to figure out why that wasn't happening. I can speak to that process in its entirety,

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: and I'll let Bonnie jump into if you have anything to add. But to the chair's point, there could be instances in which someone's wallet is used for evidence.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: And so

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: the person who transports them wouldn't be able to take that to a correctional facility. There are all types of instances, and I don't know how consistent each one is.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Got you.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah. Nice.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Monique, do you want to weigh in on that, or did Haley summarize it well?

[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections)]: Haley summarized it, excuse me, very well. Sometimes the individual doesn't come in with ID, sometimes law enforcement holds onto the ID. And some people bring in a driver's license and their social security card, and every once in a while somebody brings in their birth certificate. So, people have either some or none of the identification It

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: depends on the circumstance in which they were arrested.

[Monique Sullivan (Department of Corrections)]: Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then it depends, you know, if they were arrested and immediately sent to a facility to be arraigned the next day, it's a whole different situation than if they were charged and told to show up in court a month later

[Unknown Committee Member]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For an arraignment.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I guess I don't know. So I understand.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Nothing is linear in the world, particularly in courts and DOC. So for the committee, it's a policy change. Do we also extend the opportunity to detainees for them to, I'm gonna say renew, for them to continue having a driver's license if they have entered the facility with a driver's license or it has expired no more than three years prior, once they hit that six month

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: time frame.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Fine.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Good. Are

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we okay with that to extend it to DC and E?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Absolutely.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just to confirm, that is using the same process of DOC providing the documentation, not DMV providing the license for the permit. Right? Correct.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: At zero cost? Adding at zero cost?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If that is the committee's direction.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Where are we on that?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I would throw that to Nancy at least.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Credentials, a credential, a credential. 3.3 for a credential, whether it's a non driver ID or whether it's a license. So our mission is to get somebody up with the highest eligibility requirement that they are able to. That would be a license. It's the same cost as you saying and proposing a non driver.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We do $3.3 If they want the enhanced, then they pay the difference.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not enhanced. But if they pay the difference.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It doesn't

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: say anything regarding enhanced. Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's totally silent on that. It is only for the non Real ID or the Real ID driver's license.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Non driver ID or license. So, your highest eligibility. But not the enhanced.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: And not the real ID either.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: No, we could do the real ID. Whatever documents are provided to us, we will try to do the best that we can to match up to the highest.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Just not the enhanced. Correct. No shopping in Montreal.

[Unknown Committee Member]: There you go. But if

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the person wanted the enhanced, they No, I'm just thinking this through because I'm preparing for a question on the floor, folks. Once it leaves this committee room, it can take on a whole life of its own. If the person who is detained wants an enhanced, they have the documentation for the REAL ID. They go to DMV, they want an enhanced, and they have their birth certificates with them, their birth certificate with them, then what happens on the DMV? And they want an enhanced, we will

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: give them what's at zero fees and anything in addition that the individual wants, they would be paying themselves out of pocket, Which not to blur the lines, because we're not talking about it, but it should be mentioned because an answer keeps coming up. This is a plain Mary Jane license. This is not a motorcycle endorsement. This is not any other types of endorsements. This is a driving credential.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or non driver.

[Unknown Committee Member]: CDLs.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes. It's driving credential. Driving that little old filter.

[Unknown Committee Member]: So, is everyone in favor of the other exam?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Yes.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The two changes I have from the committee are taking the language that we have for for DOC providing the documentation for a non driver identification card using that same language for an operator's license and a learner's permit and then providing any of those at no cost. And the no cost will refer to plain Jane version of the card or license. I can work with Damian on an amendment that does that, and I will also look into what we might suggest regarding something in Title 28 or any other suggestions we can make regarding how to flag this for someone looking at DOC and not DMV, and whether there's any way to pull more of it into one place to make it easy to reference. I can't promise I can accomplish those, but we will work on some ideas.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's keep going through the language. I think it's important to keep going through the language on page three, the replacement license. You might know it. When you read the language, you might think of something you haven't thought of.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just rejoining, and I can share my screen again.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because on the floor, everybody has a driver's license, and they think they know everything about driver's license. So be prepared for questions. I just want people to be prepared. I don't want to get caught out there and not have an answer.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So for section two on a replacement license, we talked about subsection C, that an individual who is sentenced to six months or more, if the license has expired not more than three years prior, they're eligible for a replacement license. That's subdivision A. And that in advance of release from a correctional facility, if they submit the application and documentation required, you'll be provided with a replacement operator's license for a fee of $0

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So whoever reports this bill is gonna have to talk to ways and means about this. It's gonna go to ways and means because there's the word fee. So it'll go to ways and means. I don't believe it'll go to appropriations, but you never know. So that's treating my head sentence.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I should. What's your guess?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Moving forward, we're still on page three, line 14, subdivision two. An individual has to provide proof of Vermont residence and their mailing address upon release from the correctional facility to get the replacement operator's license.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And it will be DOC that gives them that little

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: packet. Now

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on line 18, so Subdivision 3, we touched on this. This is the same kind of procedure that is in the non driver identification card language that is part of reentry planning. POC will ask each individual about whether they want to obtain a non driver ID card, operator's license, or replacement learner's permit if they're eligible, and let the individual know what documentation is required and if there are any associated costs. And as the chair flagged, so it all be at no cost except for an example where an individual's license expired more than three years prior, in which case they are outside of the requirements of this provision and they're paying for a regular license. Page four, line three, this is subdivision four. Again, this is the same language about DOC and DMV coordinating. So this is the MOU trigger language. DOC and DMV coordinate to provide that license at the time the individual is released from DOC custody.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: And

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page four, line eight, just like we saw in the first section, making clear that we're using the same correctional facility definition that is used to apply for Title 28. So on page four, line 10, we're now in section three. So remember, section one is non driver ID cards. Section two is operator's license. And section three is learner's permit. This includes the reference that usually a learner's permit costs $24 But on line 16, subdivision four, a replacement learner's permit issued pursuant to subsection G, which we'll talk about, will be issued for a fee of $0. And now we have subsection G on line 19 that, just like we saw above, an individual sentenced to serve a period of imprisonment of six months or more who has an unexpired learner's permit or who held the learner's permit issued under the provisions of this section that expired not more than two years prior? Yes.

[Unknown Committee Member]: So that's you just said commissioner fractions there instead of correctional facility.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We'll make that technical uniformity correction on the next round. I'm just curious. No, you're

[Unknown Committee Member]: It could have been a reason. You never know.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I noticed that as we were going through, and my little mental note said we'll make that change around. So bonus points for you.

[Unknown Committee Member]: First time I've done something right all day.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if the person's learner's permit has expired not more than two years prior, they're eligible for a replacement learner's permit as the section provides. They have to apply and submit all the required documents. And in advance of release from a correctional facility, they will be provided with the replacement learner's permit. Subdivision 2 Woah, woah, woah, woah, woah. Happy to pause for questions. Provided with That kind of implies they're gonna have it upon their release. It doesn't imply going down to the DMV. Abstracted sections two and section three for licenses and permits are under we kind of have two tracks. We have folks who have been incarcerated As So drafted as a

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we're

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on track one for sentence folks. They get the cost, the license, the permit upon release from the facility.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There are other track Detainees. Individuals who are

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: detained, and that will be the Yes, exactly. That will be provided with documents upon release.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And we're doing detainees for learner's permits as well, Right, folks? Yes,

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: with the civil documents.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There will be a new subsection or subdivision here that I will confirm with Damian exactly how to format it. But we'll take that same language that we had for non driver identification cards and use the appropriate version for operators' licenses and learner's permits. So again, here, this is page five, lines eight through 11. To get a learner's permit, the individual needs to provide proof of Vermont residence and their mailing address upon release from custody. Again, point to James here. This will be released from correctional facility. And then page five, lines 12 through 16, Subdivision 3. Again, this is the as part of reentry planning, DOC needs to ask each individual what they want.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let them

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know what their options are, what the cost will be. Line 17, Subdivision 4. Again, this is that kind of MOU trigger language. DOC shall coordinate with DMV to provide the replacement learner's permit. To Troy's earlier point about is there some way to not say coordinate many times, we'll take a look when we add the language about providing documentation for detained folks, whether there's a more streamlined way to say this. It may be easier to say it in two places, but we'll keep an eye on that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I want to go back to lines eight through 11 because I keep reading this.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is page five, lines eight through 11. Yep. And this

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: is probably the same language. It's on. License as well. To obtain the permit pursuant to this subsection, the individual will be required to provide proof of Vermont residency and their mailing address upon release from the custody of the commissioner of corrections. But above on B, they already have to provide that in order to have DOC submit that.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the way we have subdivision this is subsection g, and we have Subdivision 1 and Subdivision 2. So Subdivision 1 kind of lays out the existence. Subdivision 1 said, if you meet these two requirements You're eligible. You're eligible. Subdivision 2 specifies you have to submit these things in order to obtain the replacement learner's permit.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But you release it upon release. And the DOC is receiving that information upon the release of that person. I think I understand your question.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So on line 10, the upon release refers to the mailing address. And I'll think about whether there's a way to make that even clearer. So there are two things happening in Subdivision 2. But this is for sentence folks. So would the learner's permit get sent to Waterbury?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes. So you wouldn't need the mailing address? Yes, they

[Unknown Committee Member]: have to provide it. So you

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: would need that in the documentation the DOC submits, which is done prior two months

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: prior to release. It's not done upon release. That's what I'm getting at. Looks like So, yep, there are two things that could be upon release. There could be, are you getting the address? Is DOC upon release getting the address? Or are you talking about where the person's mailing address will be when they are released? And on line 10, it's that second version. So the individual has to provide this in advance of release, but it's whatever their mailing address will be when they are released. Why do

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you need to know their mailing address upon release if they've already received the Lawrence permit while they're incarcerated? This is for sentence folks. So the process is this is I'm just going through this. Person is sentenced. They're eligible to renew their learner's permit. DOC submits what is needed for ID and residency as part of that to DMV. DMV processes it. This was done a couple of months prior to their release date. And then DMV mails that permit to the Waterbury Central Office that they can send to whatever facility the person is at. And that's done a few months prior to release. One to two months. And with that caveat, just like everyone here at the table, including us,

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: we have the responsibility to change our address and update our address with DMV per law, as do they. If they, for whatever reason, don't have an address outside of the Waterbury address and it comes later, they have a responsibility to update DMV. We all do. So is

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the answer to the chair's question that DMV still needs the mailing address upon release for purposes other than mailing a card to the individual at that address?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes. It's not to obtain the replacement permit. The way it's written, it's to obtain the learner's permit, the individual would need to provide proof of Vermont residency and the mailing address upon release. But they've already provided that to obtain the permit prior to the release. They did that two months prior. So that it just I keep going back to that. It's the information's already been submitted. So committee following? Yeah.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm trying.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it looks like to obtain that permit, need to provide those two things upon release. So that's

[Unknown Committee Member]: not the

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: intent, subdivision two, that That's what it looks like. Now, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's what it looks like. I'm happy to chat with Damien about whether there is a clearer way to say that. I think what helps me as a reader have a clear sense of what I think it means is to look at both Subdivision B on lines five through seven and Subdivision 2. That it's clear that when we talk about providing the required documentation, we're submitting that in advance of release from the correctional facility. And two is just kind of a separate. To be able to get the permit under the subsection, you have to provide proof of your Vermont residence and your mailing address, whatever your mailing address will be when you are released.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Can you speak about rough you just say part

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to release instead of upon release?

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well Well, so you're not the upon release isn't modifying when you have to submit it. It's modifying the address. So we could change the upon release since we've used upon release elsewhere to refer to when you get the card, we could use mailing address after release or at release. We could use something a little different to make clear what we're talking about.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the issue is the mailing address, not so much proof of Vermont residence. It's more the mailing address. They've already provided the proof of Vermont residency with the documentation.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: It just say current mailing. The individual's current mailing address.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Would be required to provide the individual's current mailing address here upon release and take out proof of Vermont residence because you've already done that. Right?

[Unknown Committee Member]: But if you say current mailing address upon release, those are two different things.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: So just So current mailing.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I I think it makes sense the way it is. My intent, I think it's look. When they're applying for this permit, they're providing proof of Vermont residency along with what their mailing address is intended to be upon release from custody.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not their mailing address intended to be. It's their the way that's reading, it looks like you submit your proof of proof of Vermont residency and your mailing address upon release. You have to submit that in B in order to get your permit.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So one thing just to confirm, as drafted, the idea is that this card gets mailed to DMV in Waterbury, but it is going to DOC to provide to the individual in advance of release. Correct? Yes. So Subdivision 2 isn't saying that the individual to get their card has to show this. It's just saying that generally an individual getting a permit has to be able to provide these two things. So it's really overlapping with the requirement above that you submit all required documentation in advance of release. This is just spelling out the two kinds of required documentation. To me, it's confusing. So I'm happy

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to chat with Damien about whether Maybe it's me, but what I'm reading to obtain permit, you need to submit those two things upon release.

[Unknown Committee Member]: And that's possible, but I think Hillary's answer is the best one, which is talk to Damien and try to You've heard our concerns or some people's concerns, and you can get a better answer with you

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: two talking.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will say that Yep. If I wanted Subdivision 2 to require an individual upon release to provide proof, I would put upon release much closer to provide. So that it was clear that upon release is a trigger for when you have to provide something. Because it's right next to mailing address

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't read it that way.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And that is one of the beauties of statutory interpretation is trying to be very clear and avoid reading it two ways. I will check with Damien about whether we have some suggestions about

[Unknown Committee Member]: clarity there. So you're going to talk with Damien, Ada, Samantha.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Correct. Awesome. So let's keep going. And sorry I interrupted.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not a problem. We have reached the end. We're on page six. Again, this is subdivision five. We're cross referencing the correction facility definition. And then as I flagged before, on the fifteenth line three, this is section four, the effective date. Right now, as drafted, the operator's license and learner's permit sections, sections two and three shall take effect on 07/01/2026. Section one, regarding non driver identification cards shall take effect on 01/01/2027. Now that the committee has discussed expanding operators licenses and learners permits to folks who've been detained for six months or more, I don't know if there's also a question about whether the rationale for a different effective date of section one also applies to sections two and three.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, the rationale for extending that for detainees for the non driver ID was to allow time for DOC to gather that information once it hits that six month period. Because you weren't sure how many people you had to take care of your process, you had to take care of the internal process.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's more actually, I'll let

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: Nancy speak to this more to do with DMP than it is for DOC.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's your process.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: It's just editing our computer system to be able to process it at zero fees in a different manner because we're gonna be receiving it from the applicant, not DOC directly for detainees. And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you would be doing, would you be doing the same thing with the learner's permit and replacement license, Receiving it, you won't be receiving it, well you would for the detainees, you would be receiving it from the applicant.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Detainees, everything will come from DOC to the applicant, to DMV. Those that have been sentenced will go directly through DOC to DMV back to DOC for the credential.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's hard to have an effective date specifically for the detainee portion of the replacement license in Learners' Room versus the sentence piece for that? I think if

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the committee wanted there to be one effective date for anything referencing folks who are sentenced to six months or more and a different effective date for folks who are detained, we would just need to structure the sections differently so that we could then say the effective date of the incarcerated folks sections is one thing, and the effective date of the other detained individuals sections was another.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you still have the same issue with detainees For non driver ID as you do with the learner's permit and replacement, you just get the same issue within your system. So you're going to need that time January. For detainees only. Right. Not the That's correct.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: I just want to be clear on that piece.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, detainee only for the non driver ID and for replacement license and for the learner's permit. All of that should take effect January. The sentence piece for the replacement license and learner's permit could take effect July 1 year. That's correct. So that means it has to be structured in a different way, Hillary. It's more producing as we go along. That's why it's gonna take another draft and probably another draft after that.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Happy. The nature of the job is a new draft after a new draft. Kevin?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Well, this enhanced system be able to tell us how many have taken advantage of this no cost ID system? Will we be able to tell after a year that we had to

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Yeah, that's a good question. So I know we needed to get the data from DOC regarding the approximate number of detainees. I would have to get back to you on, like we'll be able to run a report for what we've got for zero fees. Then from there, we may have to work it out. But I believe there is something we'll be able to build the report so we can have that available for the future. I'm glad you're asking now. So while we work through the system modernization of that piece, I may

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: be the only ones in.

[Unknown Committee Member]: No, I don't think so. That's actually

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: the question that asked in regards to what is the detainees' record, right? What's that number look like? And just for your recollection, Monique had shared internally, it was 01/1980, 01/1988, I think, from 2022 to 2026. So that was approximately 40 additional per year. So the financial burden, if you would, for D and B was still minimal while the impact to the individual was significantly positive, right?

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: And that was only the number of individuals who had been obtained for six months or more. So it's likely that that would continue to narrow if someone already had an ID that's valid.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Most of our accountability adopted. Takes care of business in more expeditious fashion and nobody's selling more than six months. It should be great.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So was that 40 per year for sentence folks? No. That's what you're anticipating for detainees? That's right.

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: Yes. But potentially smaller. That number didn't capture any type E status. It was just purely the number of individuals who had

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: been detained for six months or more.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Who would qualify?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do you have a number in terms of how many folks right now that are sentenced that are receiving the non driver ID per year? We do.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: I can pull it

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: up, but I think we shared the numbers

[Haley (Department of Corrections)]: from fy24.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Me grab Sort

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: of like the $3.3

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: For the credential, not including staff time, not including postage. Think your mission is to mirror up with our miscellaneous bill that we have in Senate regarding our expansion of language, identifying that you guys had something similar from May that you were looking into. Just kind of bringing everything in.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I got it April non driver IDs were provided from FY '24 to '25. And FY '25 to '26, you're seeing right now about a 182.

[Hillary Chittenden Ames (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. I have my marching orders on an amendment. Anything further you have for me

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: on this?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I can remember all this for tomorrow, for the '12.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I will just state you're designing this to Senate Transportation tomorrow. We're gonna

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: have the language done by then.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: No, but I was just gonna suggest that if anybody is thinking they might be introducing this, that might be a good thing to watch. If you're going to lay it out, regardless of whether or they're in the language.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let me talk to Richie and see if he wants it even before the language is done. Let me know what you need. I'm happy to be there and change time. We've changed it. I mean, I can go in there and explain what we've done, but it's just no language.

[Nancy Prescott (Director of Operations, Vermont DMV)]: Simplest way is we're mirroring things up. It truly is, I don't mean to simplify it down, but that's what it seems like, that's exactly the intent and what's happening.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let me talk to Richie too. I won't catch him until tomorrow morning. He's probably gone. Anything else? Before we release Hillary and the whole committee. Anything else, Monique? Are you comfortable? Is DOC comfortable with the direction we're going? Yes, definitely.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And we'll be back in touch, I tell you. We're gonna schedule a time with Hillary to go through the next draft and I hope it's fairly soon.

[Unknown Committee Member]: 05:30 to twenty.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: All right. Anything else? Thank you, Hillary. We are done for today. We're back here at 08:30. You two are tomorrow morning. We're going to be hearing from DOC and WELPF on H550, which is a gender equity

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: bill.