Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: No.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back, everyone. It is a little after 11AM on January 8, and we are starting bill introductions. We have with us representative Stone, and we are starting off with a bill she just had introduced to this committee, along with, representatives Hall. And it is h five thirty one, and this pertains to the classification of state employees and military spouse preference. Rep Stone, how are you?

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Mister chair and members of the committee, for the record, I am representative Mary-Katherine Stone of Burlington. This is baby Salem. We're a military family, so we're going to present this bill

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: as a military family.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I want to begin by sharing why this bill matters to me personally, and it matters to thousands of families like mine across Vermont, across the country. I am a military spouse. And like so many military families, my household has been shaped by service that requires flexibility, sacrifice, and in a lot of cases, relocations. Each move brings opportunity, but it also brings disruption, especially when it comes to employment. Military spouses are often highly educated, skilled, eager to work, and yet they face really unique and persistent barriers to entering the workforce. Here are a few facts. Military spouses are unemployed at a rate of 21%, a rate that is significantly higher than their civilian counterparts. Forty eight percent of active duty military spouses have articulated that finding employment is the biggest point of stress during a permanent change of station move. Age of a military spouse is 32 years of age and forty nine percent hold a bachelor's degree. And according to the Defense Manpower Data Center's reporting system, there are 112 active duty spouses here in Vermont and fourteen twenty four barred reserve spouses. Even when employed, military spouses are far more likely to be underemployed, meaning that they are working below their skill level or outside of their field entirely because they must start over every single time their family moves. So professional networks that they have will disappear overnight. Hiring timelines don't align with their spouse's military orders. And their resumes will often show frequent moves, which can be totally misunderstood rather than recognized as a sign of resilience. That reality has consequences. It affects families' financial stability, mental health, and long term career growth. It can also influence whether a service member chooses to remain in the military at all because of the added stressors that it puts on their families. And for states like Vermont, it means we're leaving qualified, motivated workers on the sidelines at a time when we know that our workforce is stretched very thin. Another fact in 2011, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff established the total force fitness framework to recognize that military readiness depends not only on the service members, but on the overall well-being, stability and resilience of their families, including economic security and meaningful employment for spouses. So this bill will directly address two of the eight domains laid out. The social domain, family life and financial. And it also has the potential to improve other domains such as nutrition. Better family income equals more money to purchase wholesome foods. This bill is a modest practical solution to a very real problem. It is a focused practical step that applies only to state employment and will help military spouses access jobs that they are qualified for while strengthening our state workforce. It doesn't guarantee anyone a job and it doesn't lower standards or bypass qualifications. What it does is recognize the unique circumstances military spouses face and ensures they receive fair consideration when seeking state employment. As a military spouse, I can tell you the ability to secure meaningful work quickly is essential. It allows families to put down roots to contribute to their communities and state employment can offer exactly that public service, continuity and a chance to contribute to the places we call home, even if it's only for a few years. And the bill also reflects Vermont's longstanding commitment to supporting military families with action, not just words. By creating a hiring preference for military spouses, we send a clear message Vermont values their service, understands their challenges and is willing to remove unnecessary barriers that prevent them from fully participating in our workforce. I urge the community to view this bill, just as a policy proposal, but as a statement of our values and a practical step towards making Vermont a more welcoming, supportive place for those who serve, including their families. Thank you. And I'll send that after.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, I think that would be a great addition to today's testimony. No, thank you for that. I saw this come in, I obviously picked up very quickly what you were trying to do here. It services multiple things at one time, so thank you for the thought that was put in. Any questions from the committee before we reach out counsel?

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Not a question, but a comment because I've said it before to others. This, you know, military spouses, in my opinion, being a being a retired soldier, they have a harder time than the soldier does a lot of times because they're home if we deploy. They spend a year or more not knowing if we're safe every day. As soldiers, we know when we're in danger. We know when we're going out on mission. We know when we're gonna do something. The family doesn't. It's hard on the families in many ways. Think that being a military spouse is harder on whoever than the soldier itself because it's more work. You're left in charge of the family. You have to raise your children on your own while the while your loved ones are gone. And, you know, that deserve some recognition for the work that they do because everybody when they see you know, somebody says to me, they see they tell me, thank you for your service, and my automatic response is you were worth it because I think of my family. And the family should be worth it, and everyone else should be worth it. It's a it recognizes their sacrifices they make. I saw that on active duty where I had you know, where there's whether it's a male soldier, female soldiers, and the other one is at home and has to take care of. I started my own family with my younger sister. So

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: thank you. Thank you, representative. Yes. Representative Warren.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Well said. Couldn't say any better. In fact, it's, we've always contended that when we deployed, in my case, airman downrange, is that our job was to take care of the home front, whether it was a broken furnace, it was a broken car, it was a concern with a child, whatever. Our job, if we were home, those who were deployed, was to ensure that their families were well taken care of and didn't want, say not want for anything, but you know what I mean, to do the right thing. Because it is a tougher job, like, VL said, When you're when you're deployed, you know what you're up against, and it you get up and do your routine every day. You know your routine. You know the drill, and you know what you signed up for. But, sometimes it's fast. They they get some stuff they didn't sign up for. In the midst of that. So, anyway, well said, just wanna pile on. Yeah. And I think this this does some recognition for that very thing.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. No. And this is, like, this is substantive too. This isn't, you know, sometimes on. Actions may be performative more than functional. This is raw function. Representative Hango.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Just want a clarification on the title repstone. In hiring into state employment, meaning state government employment, not necessarily just any employment in the state. Right, correct. Hopefully

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: it helps some of those problems we've heard about in other people's testimony about how there are a lot of jobs that need filling in our state. 800 plus.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I was going to speak to that a little bit later in the conversation, but thank you for filling that out in the open right now. Yeah, no.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: I would just add that as a military spouse, what VL said is very true. And my role was, when my husband was deployed, was also the family readiness coordinator. So not only was I dealing with my husband's, I was dealing with 160 other families. So it's a lot. And it goes from anywhere from a furnace breaking down, to the refrigerator not working. Who's going to plow my driveway? My husband always plowed my driveway. My children. Childcare. Just childcare and jockeying kids to sports events and forming a community outside of the family to help with all of those things. This is a great opportunity, because people, they need the income now. Their spouse is gone and they need something to connect themselves to the community as well. I'm proud to co sponsor this bill with Representative Stone.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I

[Unknown committee member]: was just curious, is this function kind of like federal? I think there's some preference you get if you're a federal employee and then you apply for another federal job. So I was just wondering if there's a template, or are there other states that do have that?

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: This was inspired by some of the stuff I was hearing from coming out of the Department of War. At the time it was Department of Defense. So technically I referred to it as Department of Defense, but this came out when it started up. But this is one of their priorities. They had a whole slew of them. So I know that it is being proposed in other states. I can't speak to which ones may have it in law now. But I know that this is a push for this to be happening nationwide. I just picked up on it because of my experience. You talked to me last month, that was so real parenting, a five week old. Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Anything else from the table before you shift over to counsel?

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Just going to leave this here.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: You got to do the struggle. Okay, good to see you, Council, welcome.

[Sophie Zadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sophie Zadatney with the Office of Legislative Council. Some issues yesterday, so I just wanted to make sure it's all working. So if it's not working behind me, please let me know. Alright, so this bill is going to go into the title three, which deals with the executive and with state employees. And what it does is it provides a preference in hiring, and again, into state employment, of personnel currently the spouses of personnel currently serving in the US Armed Forces. It slots into the existing language, so it would be after collective bargaining agreements, requirements, efforts have been made to recruit employees internally, where there are vacancies, and then consistent with state and federal affirmative action standards. And then it also would provide that spouses of personnel currently serving in the US Armed Forces, who apply for a position that uses a point based examination and who receive a passing score, they would then receive an additional five points on their examination rating. So, just getting into the So, the added language.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Also, that prior statement right there. F. Is that is that also saying I I remember reading that now, looking at it more carefully. So also retirees, spouses, yes. Is that what that's indicating or no?

[Sophie Zadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. There are wrong. There's already language in

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: There already is that language in this.

[Sophie Zadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Spouses of Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. The clarity.

[Sophie Zadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, this would be just adding in, and again, so that, as I mentioned, currently the requirement is, it says, after the requirements for an applicable collective bargaining agreement have been satisfied, Subsection 327A that's there in line three, that's the reference to hiring internally, so filling vacancies internally, people that are already employed with the state. And then consistent with state and federal standards for affirmative action. And then it has a list of these sort of preferences, so the state shall make a diligent effort to recruit, interview and hire the veterans, spouses of veterans, this is currently in statute. And then what the bill proposes doing is adding in the Subdivision C, the spouses of personnel currently serving in the US Armed Forces. And then the second element of this is the competitive examination piece, so that's under Subdivision two. And again, this just adds in spouses of personnel currently serving in the US Armed Forces, would receive that additional five points. I did reach out to the Department of Human Resources to find out how many state positions actually require competitive examination, and currently, it's the state police, That's it's really the only where this would kick in. Adds that in there. That's really the additional language, and then it's proposing it would take effect in July 2026.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So this would only apply to state police?

[Sophie Zadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The competitive examination Oh,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm sorry, okay.

[Sophie Zadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, sorry. Yeah, the competitive examination, I was just curious as to how many state jobs required competitive examination. Understood. And what I was advised was it's really only for law enforcement positions.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Just clarity, in other words, this would still have impact on all other agencies, just that they would get in that competitive process an additional five points.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Yeah, it's okay.

[Sophie Zadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's just two prongs. There's one is the preference for hiring, and then the second one is additional points for competitive My brain split that thread. Yeah,

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: representative. I just wanted to add one more thing that I want to make sure forgot is that this does not cost the taxpayers a dime. Oh, no. And there's no reason why this probably would save the taxpayers.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: One could make that up.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: And then the big thing is filling the unemployment gap.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, for years, there has been a wide, vacancy gap across the government right now. So this is not a Poor and honest. This committee. Right? So no. Though I look forward to taking more testimony on this, we'll definitely come up with more questions and identify, witnesses to come in, which I'm sure you've already thought of. So, if the committee finds it favorable, I'd like to, take a look at continuing work on this one sooner than later.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Excuse me. Clubs up? Yeah. We'll do it. First drop off. Alright. It looks like we got everybody. Any questions for council before we shift over? No? Thank you so much for this, and thank you so much for that Thank

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: you. Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. Shifting gears. Mister McKenzie, I was excited to see a transportation relevant bill come to the committee.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Any excuse to get out

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: of here. I know. I miss you so much. I said it every time we have the rare opportunity to see you. It's true. Alright.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: And we are back with representative Stone.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We are taking a look at age five five five. This municipal government regulatory provisions, police power of municipalities parking for disabled veterans.

[Sophie Zadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Brad

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Stone. Thank you so much. For Record, Representative Mary-Katherine Stone, Burlington, Lamont. Again, I'm back. I introduced H555. Love that number because how we structure everyday systems, like parking, says a great deal about who we accommodate and whose services we meaningfully recognize. Disabled veterans live with the lasting impacts of their service long after they take off the uniform. These impacts are not always visible. They can include chronic pain, respiratory illness, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, PTSD, mobility limitations that fluctuate from day to day. These service connected disabilities affect how veterans move through the world and how easily they can access basic services, medical care, employment, and civic life. Parking may seem small, but for disabled veterans, proximity and predictability matter. I'm sure that resonates with some of y'all who may get here five minutes late and there's no parking outside. So, me. Paying for a parking meter repeatedly to attend medical appointments, access government buildings, or simply complete daily tasks is an access issue. For veterans living on fixed incomes or disability compensation, the cumulative cost and stress adds up very quickly. Under current law, which I will let Licht Council dig into more if they want, Vermont allows individuals who possess a state issued disabled parking placard or disabled license plate to park in metered spaces without charge. However, not all disabled veterans are captured by that framework. Hence, I'm proposing this bill. Many veterans have a VA determined service connected disability but do not meet the medical criteria for a traditional disabled placard. They have non visible disabilities that significantly impact their daily functioning, or they may have not applied for a placard due to stigma, lack of information, or belief that others may need it more. And they don't or they do not identify as disabled in the way that the civilian systems often define it. As a result, a disabled veteran may be legally recognized by the federal government as disabled due to their service, but they still be required to pay at every parking meter in Vermont because they do not possess a state issued disabled placard or plate. So this bill does not diminish or replace Vermont's current disabled parking system. Instead, it creates a veteran specific pathway to the same practical accommodation parking in metered spaces without charge. H555 can be implemented using existing systems without creating unnecessary confusion from municipalities or enforcement officers. Possible approaches, so this is just stuff we could take into consideration if we decide to take up this bill. Possible approaches could include recognizing disabled veteran license plates as sufficient proof for meter exemption. Another approach could be allowing veterans with a qualifying VA disability determination to obtain a simple state recognized permit. Or you could use a hybrid approach of those where a disabled placard, disabled veteran plate, or veteran specific permit would all qualify. In each case, the guiding principle would be the same. Eligibility is verified once through an established authority and enforcement relies on credentials just as it already does for disabled parking today. So this bill aligns Vermont with policies already in place in many other states. We wouldn't be the first state to be doing this. It has minimal fiscal impact and it delivers a tangible benefit to disabled veterans by making our communities more accessible and more respectful of their service. For these reasons, I really think this bill is necessary and right and I respectfully ask for the committee's consideration.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. Representative Morgan.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: You were talking about the veterans that have a disability, it's not a physical, but on that, so hypothetically, somebody has a 20% VA disability rating. They're not putting any bottom or upper cap under or whatever. Nope. It's any level.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any level. Gotcha. Just curious. Yep. Okay, thanks. Any other hands for the member? Alright.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Pretty straightforward. Yeah. I'll turn

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: it over to Legion Council. That bites question. Morgan's question answered what I was gonna ask.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Just a curiosity question. Can see right there.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Brilliant. You are brilliant. Good energy on this round today. Third day, dude. Third day. Doing good. How are you?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm good. It's nice to be in here. Rare that I get down this way. You guys have got such a nice committee room now. I mean, it took a while to get permanent home. It didn't.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But now that we've been rehoused.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yeah. This is nice.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Animal welfare humor.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Anyway, for the record, I'm Damian Leonard from the Office of Legislative Counsel. The bill itself, I'm joining the Zoom meeting right now. Are you a committee that likes to have my alright, I'll go on the screen here in just a second.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Yeah, we're that kind of committee.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that's okay. Visual. That's okay. It's a simple bill, but I do have some other sort of visual items to share with you as well.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So oh,

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: here we go. Here's the bill. So the bill itself is really simple. It adds provision in the municipal law here, 24 VSA, 2,291, 26, which gives municipalities the authority to regulate parking lots and parking meters on public property within the municipality, including the authority to set fees by simply saying that a vehicle with disabled veteran plates issued by any state shall be permitted to park a parking near without fees. So that's really simple. Depending on where you go with this, this may or may not be where you want the language to end up. And I'll explain why. So, we have two laws related to one that relates to getting disability plates or placards, and then one that relates to veterans plates. And they're different. And the disability plates and placards provides that an eligible person, meaning someone who qualifies for the disabled license plate or disabled placard is permitted to park without a fee for at least ten continuous days in any public parking space that's restricted as to length of time or requires a fee. So this is both state and municipal parking spaces. I don't know how many states spaces charge a fee, but I think there are some that restrict the length of time you can park there. And this extends to folks with a disabled plate from any state. The thing with this is it's limited to individuals who qualify as blind under the statute, which has a range of different visual impairments that are covered under that, and then individuals who have an ambulatory disability. So for a disabled military veteran who may still be able to move around with full capability but may have lost, for example, a hand or may have another disability that's not visible, they would not fall into that category. Under the current regulations, they can't get a disabled veteran license plate in Vermont because they're required to fill out the same form with the DMV as you would for a disability plate, which requires that you be blind or have an ambulatory disability. They can get a veteran license plate, though. So in Vermont, the disabled veteran license plate looks like the plate here on the lower left. I guess that's on your right. Wait, your left, my right. Can you tell it's my first time of this session? Let's see. And then there are other ones depending on medals you've won, depending on where you served. So there's bronze star, etcetera. But the disabled veteran plate, you have to be able to fill out this form Versus 113, which requires a doctor to certify or another medical professional to certify that you're either blind or have an ambulatory disability. So that's current Vermont law. The other piece with the disabled veteran plate is there's no language under the paragraph that we have in the statutes allowing for veteran license plates that give special parking privileges. So currently, our disabled veteran plate lines up with the disabled statute. There isn't clarity on the statute, but very likely the image on the license plate with the international symbol would signal to the municipality that there shouldn't be a parking fee charged. This gets more complicated when you bring in other states. Because if you look at other states, window with the image. So other states often have a designation like DV on the plate, the letter c v and then a number, instead of having the wheelchair symbol. And I think in some ways it distinguishes between someone who has an ambulatory disability and someone who may have a different service connected disability. But if you want to extend this to all disabled veterans, my recommendation would be to clarify the statute and to include disabled veteran plates from any state, regardless of whether they have the wheelchair symbol or a DV or some of them spell out disabled veteran. It really depends by state. And every state has different requirements for who qualifies for a disabled veteran plate. So Montana looked at this a few years ago and I borrowed this off of their website. But if you look here, so Montana is one of the states that uses the designation, but for there you have to have a 50% or more disability, and have been awarded a Purple Heart or have 100% disability in order to qualify for a disabled veteran plate. And then in other states, there different requirements here like South Dakota has several different criteria and Nebraska, again, 100% service connected disability. Some states have discharge conditions related tied into this. So there a variety of things that tie into this. But if your goal is just to say, if you have a disabled veteran late from the state that you are a resident of, you should be able to park for free in Vermont, then you should just spell that out in the statutes, either in municipal parking or as is done in H555 or somewhere within title 23. Although that may get into a bigger question for you, which would also require this to go upstairs to your colleagues in transportation.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I figured that would be the case if we continue to work on this. And I'm just kind of like spot the question downrange. What would be like a fiscal note on this, a projected fiscal impact on like? I know I know that know that this is this. So I'm going to ask the

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: question on what a projected impact would be. Yeah. It's really hard to say what the impact would be on municipal parking revenues. And I don't know the extent to which there are any state parking revenues that would be impacted. You'd wanna talk to BGS about that. And this isn't saying that disabled veterans would necessarily be able to park in disabled spaces. It's saying that you can park in any metered space. And that's what I'm saying

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: outside that.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You have a special license plate that allows you to park in that special space and then also get parking without fee privileges in the feed parking spaces. This is looking at saying parking without fee privileges. And then there are other questions, can you extend the waiver on time limits to disabled veteran plates and so forth? But this bill was sort of laser focused on the fee issue at the meters. You don't have to go out and feed the parking meter every hour or two while you're at your appointments or you're you're at work or whatever it is.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I got a digital hand from representative Hooper in Burlington.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Damien, it looks like to me in Burlington anyway, particularly along Pearl Street, are lots that once were designated as private parking that now are open to anybody that wants to come in because they've adopted the same fee mechanism that Citi uses, that ParkMobile app. So unless a lot is clearly identified as a public or not a private lot, then it seems like we might be opening an opportunity for a person to get themselves a fine they didn't expect. Anything that you see that could be done for the bill? This

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is a a more complicated issue. This is actually something that's come up in other municipalities as well where there are privately owned lots that where you pay on the same app as you might pay for the city parking meters, but they're privately owned and the fees are a different fee structure than the city might charge. And individuals have been surprised when, for example, they've gotten a notice from a private entity, not the municipality they were in, that they parked without paying the fee or that they parked in a private tow away zone, things like that. And it gets into a lot of different issues. I know I've gotten questions about this from members related to other municipalities in the state where constituents have complained about really steep parking fees or getting, you know, a notice in the mail that they owed a private parking entity, a a large amount of money. And then

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Finding your car is not there when you get back.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Although that gets into a there are restrictions around that in the abandoned motor vehicle statute, and that that gets into, like, how long you can park on private property without someone removing your vehicle. And there are actually other bills currently pending that would require more clear notice when you've parked in a private on private property and so forth and what who would tell your vehicle and where it is and who to call. But that's it it really gets into a much bigger issue when you're dealing with private private lots and regulating them. The municipal issue, while it may raise complications for municipal fees, a pretty clear regulatory structure, especially since we're a Dillon's rural state. The private issues get much more complicated. So it is certainly something you could contemplate moving forward, but I guess my my input is just that it will add a lot of complication to the bill.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Is it as simple as putting a line in that says private lots must be designated clearly? Effectively private property in Pennsylvania, you do that, they have to it has to be posted that it's private.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So that

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Don't ask me how I

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: know.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There your colleague representative Rachelson has a bill in from last, year that had a section in it that would do just that, require a certain size sign in a private lot saying this is a privately owned lot. You know, it's not part of municipal parking, and you have to pay a fee to park here. And it that's a paraphrasing what's in there, but it it requires a standard sign to be posted in a lot similar to what other states do. And that's just one piece of that bill, but that is something you could do. It's more of a consumer protection or other other type piece, but it's definitely something you could do.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for counsel at this time? Yeah, I knew this is going be more complicated than a page and a half.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Little bills.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I know, I welcome the conversation. Yes, Russ, so

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I will just speak to my intent. The main thing is Vermont statute providing for disabled veterans license plates 23BSA304J is silent with respect to parking privileges, I don't think it should be.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Oh

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: yeah. And so let's just keep it, well, I can't tell y'all what I hope is that we would just keep it simple, and there are many rabbit holes we can go down, but I just think it's unfair that that statute is not in alignment with civilian statute four. And so if we could just keep it simple, I think that would be a start. I don't know who wrote the statute to begin with, but it should have been aligned to begin with and it wasn't. And I don't think that's okay. I don't think it should be silent for the veterans' plates.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Hard and understood. Representative Ori.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Maybe a little bit unrelated, but kind of related being in the veteran plate. Am I still under the correct understanding that you have to aid to get that in the plate as a veteran? Yes. That

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: irks me.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: But that's me. And I don't have one and I don't.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: You gotta second that

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: one and see that another.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Because most

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: other states Is there a bill

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: for that?

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Yet. We used to have one.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, no, no, understand that. But is there currently a bill footing?

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I don't know, but

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: we could do a short could do a short point.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: This may just be German enough for amended language.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I could share the handout from that I borrowed from Montana's legislature when they were looking at a similar issue. They actually go through for disabled veteran plates. They did not survey all the states. They surveyed, it looks like states in their area. But they went through and noted where fees were waived or reduced. For example, Nevada has a $6 fee, which I assume covers the cost of stamping Like the material cost. Uh-huh. And then annual fees are waived. But a lot of the states out there waive the fees or they have a reduced fee of like 5 or $10 for which I assume covers, you know, administrative costs or the cost of printing the plate.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: I do know that Vermont doesn't allow you to keep it once you pass away. Your family member can't keep it, which I think is I wanted to honor my husband, and I was told that you've got to be in such surrender if I was bad. That's a shame.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Representative Hango, was that a hand, Representative Coffin? We'll go hango then Coffin.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Damian or Rep Morgan, do you remember the cost of a veteran plate right now?

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I I used to know, and I don't know. I don't personally have one, so I don't know. I

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: am looking that up right now.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And I

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: don't know if it's a one time or if it's every every renewal. Don't

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: yeah. Damien won't be able

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: to Yeah.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Faster than any of us

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: can. But

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Which is a real misnomer because it is not a vanity.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That's my point. I

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: mean, I said it was some level of prejudice, I'll be honest, obviously, but I just think it's Yeah. Not a

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I don't I don't think the veterans plate is extra cost. I think if you have the certification from Veterans Affairs, you can

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I think there is a charge box

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: It's for the it's a regular registration fee?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. There's an annual registration fee. So you pay your annual registration fee. Let me just see here. In the statute, it says, the plate shall be says the plate shall be reissued only to the original holder or to the surviving spouse so that's in the statute currently. And then I don't see the fee. I'll find out the fee for you and I can get that information to the committee.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thanks. And

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't find it quickly on the website, so I'll just email the commissioner and get the information on on what the fees are.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. And

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: I mean, the only and this is why I may have to go to transportation too is the only thing I see that there's a lot of disabled veterans that are they have service connected disabilities that are 60%, 70%, 100%, that are ineligible for a disabled veteran fleet in Vermont, because it's not an ambulatory issue. So there is that problem where, okay, disabled veteran can park there, but they have no way to distinguish it because the state's the statute on the way the for the plates is done.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Mhmm. Understood.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: So this will not capture a lot large number of disabled veterans.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Take a look at that. That's what testimony is for. Grab Morgan.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Yeah. Just more a little bit more of the same as the and and like I was telling Damien, maybe that's now a zero charge, but last I knew, last I looked at it personally, there was an upcharge for that veteran status plate considered it was in the vanity plate category, but, but maybe that has been erased since in statute. I don't know. But he's gonna let us know, of course. And then, sure, what was the second thought? Anyway, I'll circle back when I remember.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Totally a great idea. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's it's

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: pretty baited me.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Hey, man. It's almost lunch, you know. That's getting a little crooked. Yeah. Yes. Rep Stone.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: We can check, but I just looked it up.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: It says some Vermont veterans plates have a one time additional fee like the BFW plate, but the basic veteran designation on a standard plate usually has no extra charge, just standard registration fees. So, yes, there are some that do, some that don't. Thank you. According to the Google and the bmv.vermont.gov website.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Yeah, the brown style one.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I think that carries over to the disabled plate too.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes, Rev Morgan.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Yeah, because I what I was going to say, the thought came back into my brain, was cause I know for a fact, if there is the maybe, again, maybe it's gone out, but we'll find out, is that I know for a fact it is thought just on principle, not because it was really exorbitant, people going, well, the heck with it. If they won't let me have that at no additional charge, I'm I'm not gonna bother. It's just a little I don't know. I use the word sad, but, you know, unfortunate. Mhmm. But, you know, that's Yeah. It looks like level of prejudice, but but

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It looks like the additional fees apply to the VFW, the Vietnam Veterans of America, and I think that's it. It's if you're getting an organizational plate. Okay. But the others, you do have to pay your standard registration fee as far as I know, but you can get the fee with the certificates. And that may have been corrected in the last few years. I'm not sure. That's good enough. But, yeah, it looks like the other ones you have to provide certificates of veteran status. And if you're requesting a service medal plate, you have to provide proof that you are actually awarded that service medal. Which

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: is valid.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think that's a fair step. Yeah.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So, yeah, it it looks like, yeah, thank you. It's,

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: that's a piece of information.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And that that's from the DMV site. I was able to finally find that information. Yeah, so there is actually a tab on their site off to the right for military veterans that has information on various rights that military veterans get such as test waivers and so forth.

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: I think they put it on your license.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, you can also get a veteran license with with the documentation of your service.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Have one who says I am the surviving responsible veteran. You

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: bad info. Okay. That's too bad. That's a shame. So you don't have that right now?

[Sophie Zadatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Film in the suits, don't Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other immediate and direct questions for counsel?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Cool. Thanks for having me. No. No. No.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: It's great to

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: see you sound.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Can you guys find a way to pull in some other bills?

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: It's always fun.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It's funny you should Yeah. I got another thing for you. Oh, okay. Hang out for a moment. I will. Yes. After we, we go offline. Anything else from the table before we break for lunch? Nope.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Cool. Well, we will, we'll poke at this one later as well.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. That wraps things up before lunch. We will see everyone at one