Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Won't be like this. We're live. We are live. Thursday, 04/02/2026, and we are picking back up on miscellaneous motor vehicle bill, and we're talking a little bit more about sections, well, from back in '15 and '16. And we're gonna see and hear some additional pieces from Department of Motor Vehicles and diesel fuel tax and towing fees or something of that effect. And I don't want to overcomplicate it. If you'd like to join us, that would be great. Tell us what we know, what we need to know. We'll see where else the conversation takes us.

[Renee Cota (Director of Finance, Vermont DMV)]: Renee Cota, director of finance at DMV for the record.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Welcome to the Bath Committee. Thank you.

[Renee Cota (Director of Finance, Vermont DMV)]: I can make it. Should have made it bigger sooner, let me.

[Candice White (Member)]: It's a struggle. I do this every day.

[Renee Cota (Director of Finance, Vermont DMV)]: So I'm testifying on the fiscal impact of the increase from $125 to $250 So in fiscal year 'twenty four, we reimbursed 157 on Toast, and there was two different rates, $40 at the beginning of the year, and it changed to $125. The impact was $19,002.85. In fiscal year twenty five, it was $32,000 And so far, at the point that this was created, it was reimbursed $20,000 So the projected, depending on how many, I did a few different options. We've budgeted for 400, approximately a little less than 400, which is about $40,000 So this increase to the current budgeted amount is based on that $40,000 So at 400, at $250 a tow, it would be an increased expenditure of $60,000 If we increased the number of tows that we reimbursed to $1,000 it would be an increase of 2 and $10,000 over the current budgeted amount.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I guess that drives back a little bit to the question that I started to ask with the towing. I remember a testimony that said there's 500 of the abandoned vehicles. Now we're talking about encampment type vehicles. I'm not sure that if you could make sure I understand this raise when you apply to both situations or not, is it great that you're to understand the vehicle and the camping vehicle are going treated the same?

[Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV]: Yes, So I'm very sorry, Deputy Commissioner for DMV. While I mentioned the previous testimony, I think the confusion was again how many tow bumpings are applying for the fee for reimbursement, how many abandoned vehicles that we issued entitles for, compared to how many tows there are. So the number of tow we wouldn't be able to track, wouldn't be able to track the number of vanity vehicles that we're issuing titles for and reimbursed, and those are not the same.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We don't always reimburse.

[Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV]: Sometimes they check now on the application for a title, so not all of those are reimbursed. So that number of two fifty six represents how many big they have.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. On that previous slide, a big jump. The jump of 157 to two fifty six and headed towards three twenty or more, Is it because we raised the fee so they felt it was worthwhile to chase? Or is there a visibility on it? Or is there an increase in activity that we weren't that's an increase in abandoned vehicles? Do you have any dedicated guess on why? I recall that people thought, well, at $40 they probably didn't even bother to chase it down, but I'm not sure that's true. Very possibly

[Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV]: of schematics the behind why they weren't being reimbursed or asking for the money back.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Has there always been sort of this $2.50 worth of transactions of titles and whatnot after?

[Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV]: The years,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The

[Candice White (Member)]: FY 2026, that's through January 1 or

[Renee Cota (Director of Finance, Vermont DMV)]: That's through, I think, end of I pulled these numbers for commissioner Bollie S. Senate Transportation. That's through the January.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That would have been six months.

[Renee Cota (Director of Finance, Vermont DMV)]: Little Seven. Yeah.

[Candice White (Member)]: Seven months.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. So it looks like

[Candice White (Member)]: we might be around the same as last year, I mean, if you were to let something change. Okay, thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: What's the budget line item on this for the amount that you do have budgeted to? 40,000. 40,000. So right now we're on track to that number. But if the idea were that there was going to be an

[Candice White (Member)]: increase, that's something we need.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Doesn't does the encampment piece and this change in law necessarily mean that we're going to see an increase in these vehicles, or this sort of already exists?

[Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV]: Already

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: exists. Not a new amount of transactions that are going to get happening here? That would be sort of

[Deputy Commissioner, Vermont DMV]: proposed legislation. Basically it can be totaled if the AOT pays that fee from the meeting, immediately reimburse the AOT for that total fee that they've already paid, they show us what's more of an internal ratio of funds.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So if they were to pay the towing company or would they be billing you potentially for internal work that they've done? No, just to reimburse them, reimbursement they've made? Okay. Does anybody have a concern about the direction that this is headed with this language or with this piece, or anybody else that we think we need to hear from? Are they into what's going on in this section. Representative White?

[Candice White (Member)]: So budgeting for fiscal year 'twenty seven, are you doubling the $40,000 We did not. No. So you're keeping that flat? Immigrant budget, it is flat. Okay. For fiscal year twenty seven. Okay. And I think we heard that from Herb, that he has about 1,400 abandoned vehicles in the state of Vermont per year. Maybe those are not all, I thought he'd said, that are towed to the garage and unclaimed or abandoned. So just going with that number, we could see a bigger increase than what's projected.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think there's confusion about that number in that they originate out of, some of those, a big chunk of that is accidents where the vehicle was then abandoned as it was paid out in an insurance claim and left there, and then they would be dealing with some kind of disposal. It's not the same as an abandoned vehicle on the road that the state police the state police would call and say, get this. And they're getting called by the state police for an abandoned vehicle versus an accident that they had then towed and then ended up with an abandoned vehicle after an accident where there is a party involved. They're Six to the new ways of inflated the two. From the towers perspective, they still got a vehicle sitting in their lot they gotta deal with, but how it got there and who is sort of on the hook for getting it there is two different, my understanding, two different aspects. And how much they got paid? So I'm assuming the owner of the crash paying more parking The way that I remember the testimony back, sort of, especially back when it was $40 the way it works is that each area has sort of a list of towers, and it's next man up or next person, next industry, next business, I'm sorry, that's next one up is called, come get this one, and then they drops down and then come get this one. Everybody takes their eat the bear, you know, or get eaten by the bear comment that he made. Nobody wants, especially when it was $40 a truly abandoned vehicle call. They all want the accident call waiting on the insurance. And they all take their turn, in the ideal world, they all take their turn at the $40 tow that gets their time and money and resources to be on the lift for the next one. At least now at $125 they were saying, well, at least they're getting something. Now at $2.50, recognizing sort of where the world is. And I will also say that based on the testimony of Rutland Towing Association made a significant effort to bring 68 plus so far across, recognizing sort of the state of their industry and where it was at. They now have an organization that meets regularly that has gotten involved in at the suggestion of the committee. They've gotten involved in the governor's highway safety programs. They've started putting their vehicles out in more events. My understanding is they're participating in quite a bit more for recognizing their need to work on their profession overall. But I could be wrong about that. It might be a little bit of a stretch. But we had had a number of those conversations with the committee two years ago back in 2024. And now they're at the table with the DMV to a certain degree, at least on this change. Whereas before, I don't know if that was really the case, if that makes sense. But there's two very different scenarios. They do end up on their lots in the end in the same condition. They've to strip them and they've got to get them salvaged or whatnot. But they get paid very, very differently on the two different scenarios. I don't think 40 was enough. I don't think they were even paying the 40 out this month. They did not, right. A couple of those years they didn't send any money out. That was a glitch that was uncovered through the whole piece when we went to 01/2025. I'm glad to see they're getting something that looks like the issue would be that they will get more and I guess the agency's not going to, the agency of transportation is not going to absorb that money but the Department of Motor Vehicles is. What that means is that what your way to absorb this line item is not the agency. So that's sort of an internal shift. I'm not sure why that matters, I guess it does. Yeah,

[Candice White (Member)]: just wanted to, I think I heard one of the other testimony opportunities that we had that the way to get reimbursed, you have to get the titles.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Abandoned titles.

[Candice White (Member)]: Abandoned Yeah. Yeah. So is that has our the new DMV computer system? Has that made that, like, a little less less friction to that process? Yes, okay. That helping get money out the door to the great.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'll just make a couple notes. Anybody else have any questions? Any other piece? Any more for us? Pretty simple. This line item budget's gonna go over budget for the end of next year. What are you telling us? So what's gonna happen to that money? Where's it gonna come from? Who's gonna cover it? And who's budget from which part? EV charge. Okay. I'm just gonna be short. It's a small amount of money for the overall budget, but it will be over in that particular line is what we're expecting. But we're looking at it. Represent case. Is it $2.50 a done deal? Is that already done or is that something that's gonna come through us here in the end? What will happen is that we will go through the bit after we've gone through the different sections, then we're lining up additional testimony. When we come to the part where we're saying, are we thumbs up or down? If somebody wanted to make a movement on something, they would work the committee to see where people are at. And then if there was a quite often, vice chair makes that vote. Anybody can make the motion to say they want to change it. So it is not. We are not voting on it. We have not included it yet, but there would be an opportunity to look at that. And then we would when a change would come to our bill, then we'd have to work out an agreement with the Senate at some point. They'd have to agree with it as well. It is not a non deal, there is an opportunity that we're being pumped.

[Candice White (Member)]: Yeah, maybe I should know this. Is this an administration proposal to raise the fee?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: This was in coordination with the Fed and Cision. The emergency management director testified that they were coming together, that the DMV and the Tovers were both in support and presenting a language confined is what I took out of that earlier testimony. No, absolutely. And then he turned around and said, no, four or five.

[Unidentified committee member]: He said, Sure, I'll take one. Someone said I can't remember.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: He did abandon me pretty quick there, didn't he? That's just

[Candice White (Member)]: Just ensuring the Senate didn't just maybe listen to towers, not Doctor. Demetrius. This is worked out today.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So much for staying together on testimony. I think you're having a good laugh on that one. Sorry.

[Unidentified committee member]: I got to admit two fifty does sound more reasonable. I just wanted to find out what he would like to see. I was just curious, but I think

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, he liked where you were going.

[Unidentified committee member]: I think two fifty for now would be a good compromise when we get to that point.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: One of those frustrations is that that two fifty is going to be good for how long in this world of inflation continues. Not everything that's been built in language has escalator. So we come back in four years, February may or may not look like a good number in four or five, and that would be a future legislature's problem unless we were to go back through and put escalators on everything. Or imagine if you did a fee review every few years. That kid was designed. So I guess if there's other comments, that's what we need to know and I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you. For the committee, I'm not sure that I entered and announced before we were on live or whatnot. Senator Westman is going be joining us, not today, but in the future to talk about the DMV bill from the Senate's perspective and what they went through. I also will be going to ask them to share a little bit about these intentions on the T bill. They are heavy. They spent the entire morning yesterday on MBOF, and they're continuing, I believe today, the subject is entirely MBOF again. Keeping an eye on the Senate agenda. Because eventually, we're going to be headed to a committee conference on that bill. It is not going to look like what it looked like when we sent it out. It didn't look like RT bill when we sent it out here, we sent it over, versus what we sent out of the committee. But our House version is what we have to defend. Our House version includes the other work that was done. I have to remind myself too that piece. We're defending the entire house version. They are working towards a significantly different version. And caving is the mileage based user fee is a big part of it. The other thing that was emphasized multiple times in the conversation that I had with them is that they really are looking at the paving, the heavy tilt of the paving towards the interstate, which we talked about was really in the ninetyten to try to maximize the money and the activity. That was our position as a house that that's the most bang for the buck and to get the most mileage done. Are looking for a more potentially, they haven't taken any action yet, but they said their committee is interested in seeing that more spread out across the network. But we really were in a position that the House recommended a much stronger tie to the governor's recommended than what they're indicating. Based on the We chief engineer's testimony multiple times that it's about maximizing the federal money in that particular case. So that's our house position that we're defending against what their changes are gonna be. I've also invited Senator Rees now in to testify about his provision in the e commerce and economic development piece about Route 22A. He's looking for some significant project and piece in the Commerce and Development Board. Chair Markov had mentioned it to me, we're going to it sort of like you can view it almost as a bill introduction. Why did he have it? Why did he put it onto that bill? What is he trying to get accomplished? For those of you who may or may not notice the regular running joke that almost every day there's a note about 22A on my somebody's lobbying heavily about 22A. Somebody's a note. Just

[Candice White (Member)]: give you the weekly news.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Or the newspaper that has the 22A crashes on the headlines week after week after week. So there is lobbying going on within the building, including the 22A.

[Unidentified committee member]: I know who it is, and his name lines with Will Canfield. Representative

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Burke?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: It looks like right now, Senate Transportation is talking about pilot special fund engagement.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think that putting a light on that and finding a way to help our town highway network and structures network is significant. I just met representatives from Amia, happens to be in Florence, our former vice chair's district. They had big concerns about a town bridge that they have to cross every day to keep their plant running and it's spent inspection, but it's in that queue that I think we've heard about a few different times that you sort of wait every four years, you might get a bridge funded in your town or something like that. We try to highlight that in the So it's a town bridge. It's a town bridge on a truck route to the plant, and running a lot of heavy traffic. Makes me think of, represent Birx, where some bridges, like on Route 9, aren't really, sometimes they're more than a town bridge. Sometimes they're vital to the The longest gate bridge has enough traffic.

[Candice White (Member)]: But we're getting that taken care of eventually.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I feel that way about the Loop 78 Bridge in Swan that connects 89 to 87. It's a lot more than what the town traffic is about. Anyway, don't know where that heads. I'm glad they're looking at the pilot funds. It may not be the answer, but driving that conversation is a big part of what we're doing. So that's it. Those are pieces. Senator Westman, Senator Weeks. And then there's been some other committee request piece. I intentionally put the agenda very light this week and we had long floors last week and long tissues on the T bill. We will beef it back up next week and there are four or five member requested testimonies that we're going to revisit and add into the mix. Had requests from several different places on the DMV bill, so there's some interest out there. There must be a few more controversial pieces out of us, and also it does shrink down the inspection menu by a pretty significant amount. What's the Senate doing with them, by far? I would say based on what I've heard so far and the testimony they've had, they have had Patrick Murphy from the agency in multiple times to look at, They're working on the requests. I can't say exactly what they're doing. I didn't notice all of it. They're addressing the version we sent over that included that 11 pages that we never really looked at. And they're reworking that, and they're reworking some of the pieces, the agency's been the main testifiers. So I would suspect they're looking at some of the areas that the agency wanted updated or changed or that got changed in the ways of means amendment back to what they want. So I would say that's a whole bunch of pieces. But the only testimony they've taken is from Ledge Council and the Agency Transportation so far. There hasn't been anybody else come in to speak on it. So that would lead me to believe that the changes they're making are something we may have heard some pieces of, and they're working on that version. I don't know if that's fair to say or clarify if I'm misleading. Yeah, no, was just thinking they should have Rep Canfield come in to present his amendment. That's truth. Any other questions or concerns or pieces? We have a number of pieces. So we'll be going, overall, we'll be going through the DMV bill, but there will be some days where we will block that off and go to some other subjects that people have really asked for time and energy on. And we'll go from there. So VAST is going to come in and they're going give us three or four things. An end of the year sign of summary of what's happened and what's been going on. There was also some safety concerns about some things that had happened. And there's this fine piece that's in the piece. So we're gonna look to that testimony will be a little longer and what we're looking for beyond just the bill, that'll be more pieces to it. There's the pieces that we've talked about with the electric charging, infrastructure, the pieces that we're going to try to work with James on that. She's waiting to get past the crossover, so you know, she'd rather do

[Candice White (Member)]: a little more work through her, think the Senate transportation's gonna look at it too.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You wanna try to

[Candice White (Member)]: help queue some of those

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: things up? Representative Burke has got some pieces. Representative Casey has asked for some testimony that it's been postponed four times after tomorrow, Be the fourth time that it's been postponed. So that will be in next week's agenda. Anyway, those are the pieces, that's the intention. We will be going through this for the next x number of weeks with a few days blocked off to some of the particular member issues. So that's the scoop of what we're gonna do. And we're not meeting tomorrow, and I would expect you to use the next bit to start talking about how you're gonna have, Mr. Hollywood lead us through the next cabaret. So I can't what you wanna say.

[Candice White (Member)]: You just clarified my question regarding tomorrow's agenda.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay.