Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. Good morning. Friday, April 17 here in house transportation. We're looking at our miscellaneous motor vehicle s three twenty 6. I have two things I'd like to accomplish in this hour is much as as we can, let's review and thumbs up and thumbs down the sections that we agree on or that are all set, make sure we're clear on the ones that we need more testimony on, and try to update you on what I have as the one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight or nine things that are hanging out that may or may not make its way into the bill so that we're at least all on the same page. We've got to work on over the next week or two. So that's my goal for this next hour. Damien's in the chair again. Thank you and welcome back. Starting on S326, and I think we're gonna be able to at least skip the first six sections. I have not gotten an update on what that version of house I forgot to write it on this part. What was house whatever number? Whether that's passed H five 49. H 5 49. Yeah. Things So

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: finding our work was it?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's impossible.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yesterday, it was read for a third time and passed in concurrence. So assuming there is not a vote to reconsider this morning, that will go to the governor because I do not believe that they made any amendments to the house version. So I think it is

[Unknown Member (House Transportation Committee)]: 5.9.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It is the same bill that would cover the first six sections that are identical language in s three twenty No. That's not a

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: another committee.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Helping, yeah, get a license, a a learner's permit, and then for the detainees to make sure they have the documentation to get it once they're We might be able to drop sections one through six. We're holding them until that stage. But it sounds like we're pretty close to be able to eventually be able to make a motion to take them out. But we're still leaving them for now.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Right? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And just for the record, I'm Damon Leonard from the office of legislative council. There are some small pieces of that bill that you will wanna keep keep or small pieces of sections one through six that you'll wanna keep in. So if we pull up

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: There's some technical changes in

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: updating the language. Yeah. So in section one, subsections a through k are technical changes. And so you'll wanna keep those in. So that's the first two pages through line 19 on the second page, and then you can omit the rest.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Recommendation to keep section one. Section one. A through k?

[Candice White (Member)]: Yeah. Lines a through

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Through page two line 19, I think. That

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: should be

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the Yeah.

[Candice White (Member)]: I've got

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: it. The p Yeah. The

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Line 19 on page two.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And then we could remove the rest? That's right.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Suppose we could do whatever we want, the recommendation from the legislative council is Yeah. Okay. You can do exactly what you want. Those changes on the first page and a half were those were technical corrections proposed by DMV prior to h four five forty nine starting to move.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Okay.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So that brings us to section seven, which is the page 11. Page 11 starts on line four. This is the insufficient funds provision. So it expands the current authority to suspend a license or registration if an individual fails to pay the amount in full after their initial form of payment is rejected from just checks to electronic funds transfers or credit or debit charges as well. And so the department, I believe, testified on this that as the forms of payment are changing, they are occasionally running into instances where initially that charge clears. But then when all the funds get reconciled in the account, the account comes off insufficient and it comes back. They do currently provide about thirty days for folks to where they provide notice and then allow folks to make make the payment within that thirty days before they take action.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So I recall if there was any concerns about this piece. Are there questions about Scottish Water?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I think it's just logical to think that up in today's world, how we do business.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I guess I would ask, are we thumbs up on Section seven to stay in? Okay. I just wanted to. Yep, Representative Burke?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Sorry, I'm just going to take care. So, we have thirty days before the suspension of your license, and then how is notice written notice?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Written notice, it depends on how the individual what information they have for contact. They can send emails. They can send a notice on the MyDMV account. They can send notice by mail. So it really depends on how the individual receives their notices from the department.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Just to give somebody who might be moved around there.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: And I

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think deputy commissioner Russo or commissioner Collier have both answered a lot of questions about how they're providing the notice, and this would essentially continue the existing practices for bounce checks just applying them to electronic charges. So they're they are not proposing any changes to how they notify folks and try to get get those funds paid.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I do have a note that says that the law says fifteen days, but their practice is to give them at least thirty days and that they both forward it on mail and in the my IDMV account if they have one. Okay. So that was the testimony that I have from deputy commissioner Rutland.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: But if we're not if we're comfortable with

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: that. Yeah,

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: that's I guess that's just a different argument or discussion. This is just adding to what

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But that's not covered in this section. That is in a different section in the law. That's not under 23 BSA 110 secondtion seven. That is covered in a different section. So we don't even have that portion in the bill, but they did testify to what that

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: other section said. That's another piece of today's financial. Right. There are other general provisions regarding if you're gonna suspend a license and requirements for hearings and so forth, especially if an individual disputes the reason for the suspension. So for example, if they show the funds going out to the department, but the department doesn't show them being received, there is a process for a hearing officer and that sort of thing to review the case.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Burke, are you all set?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Oh, that's fine. Thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. Then we're gonna go to section eight. Section eight is the stockage section.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm saying that just to help you get bingo every week, representative Pouech. So this is the increase on the penalties for an oversized vehicle in Smuggler's Notch from one to 10,000 for violating the prohibition on oversized vehicles in the notch, and from 2,000 to 20,000 if you get stuck in the notch and impede the flow of traffic, And then a second or subsequent violation within a three year period continues to be a double penalty. We did talk about whether there were potential issues with this penalty being cruel and unusual under the constitution. Given the substantial cost to the state and the local responders. My my opinion is that the legally, there's a a solid argument that this is not an unduly large penalty in comparison to the the cost that the violation incurs for the surrounding communities. That's to say that, you know, you could still have a challenge. A court might see things differently from me, but I think in this case, there's a substantial relationship between the size of the penalty and the size of the harm to the local area if you choose to keep it in. That said, the the amount is always a policy decision even if it's legally defensible.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I just I was just thinking I mean, in all sorts of things, I think it's ridiculous that people keep doing this, but I was thinking of, you know, somebody who is working for a trucking company, that's one thing, somebody who might have their own truck, an independent trucker, not very, you know, well resourced. I don't know. You know, I guess that they could appeal that or something that it was they they just didn't have the money to pay that at all, but what would the symptoms end speed? I didn't see the signs. I didn't see the you know?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: It's impossible to understand.

[Candice White (Member)]: I mean, I'm not I

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I don't I I wanna change the blood type, but I'm just running into the

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know what the plan is with the signs. I know that there was some discussion about whether with the new higher penalty, whether that penalty will go on the sign

[Candice White (Member)]: Oh, yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As an additional sort of thing to catch folks' eyes if they've driven around the chicane and continued up into the notch.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Pouech?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I'm I'm okay with this, I think. But where does it say which vehicles are allowed and which ones don't? It's not

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let me pull that let me pull that up for you. And it's actually the subsection Signage. That was omitted.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I assume really good signage. So, you know, you might get a RV somebody with an RV and

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: That's that's why they're now in triple

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: How do they know they're not allowed, I guess, other than can't get through the chicanery? Chicanery. Chicanery. Chicanery.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: What is what they call? Some pain. Yeah. They did put up chicanery. It's so obvious.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: There's a lot of

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I can imagine. Last

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: year. Just did.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: What is it? It's got to be more than just if you get through this, you're okay.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So first, here's the language in the statute. So single frame vehicles over 40 feet in length or tractor units with one or more attached trailers over 45 feet in total length are prohibited. So that that is just omitted from the draft there. And then the agency can also close 01:08 during periods of winter weather, which they do with a gate. So there's no worry there about about folks missing the gate. It'll be closed. They would have to drive through it. As far as the signage goes,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: let's see here. May actually have a photo of it for you. So the agency has several pictures of the notch on their website of stockages over the years. They do not have a picture of the sign. Let me see if I can get that for you.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So the signs would say the same thing. You know? It says attractor and certain lengths and then solid truck at a certain length.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So based on that, it looks like you with a pickup truck and a 30 foot RV, you could go.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. At a at a certain size, you could.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: You could be a good driver. A little shorter. That way.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You could do.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: With your other camera now you have a big fancy new one you can't get through there. Well, I think it really no matter. It's probably been his pocket change to, you know, be.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The the Google Maps view of Vermont on 08 does not clearly show the electronic sign there or what's on it. It shows blank. But if you're and it was taken before the chicanes were installed. But You can see here from the picture that the sign is over here on the right hand side of the road. And then this is from where the middle of where the chicane is right now. So you would have to navigate that and miss a flashing sign. Pass the notch there. And then the If you do go to the AOT website, you'll see photos like This guy here. That one. He deserves that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I want to go around corners good.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yeah. Oh my god. I'll pick a bus.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The bus. And then the car that makes it through. But I mean, you'll notice the I mean, I think most folks here have probably driven driven the notch at some point. You know, it is it gets narrow in spots there to the point where even regular cars have to take turns.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: There's even a flashing sign at the bottom that says, this roof is shut down from this day to this day. Mhmm. And then as you get closer, individual signs. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But anyway, that So

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I guess my question was, is it clear for people who can go and who can't go?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there is a sign, there is a chicane at either end. There's multiple signs. Yeah. I mean, multiple. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Specifically says will or won't fit. There is a picture of different type of signs in one spot that says you will not make it. And there's a big red stop peace. Right. Yeah. And the GPS is Either side, there's no less than six

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: There's no less than six.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Right. It's

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: very good.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. No return.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We have a there's a warning on the interstate in Saint Albans all the way at a warning on the interstate. Yes.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The trucking GPS is now route folks around. But if you use, like, the Google Maps on your phone, it assumes you're driving a regular car, and it does not. So that's, I think, a testimony that I heard on this is that we're down to from about six or seven a year down to about one. So they're still occurring, but it it's rare.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Now That's all fine. We'll curve the pupil.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The the hope is that this will bring it from one to zero.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The media attention of that. Represent White and then represent Burke.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: No. Didn't.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oh, I thought you did earlier. Sorry. My bad. Yeah.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: You're up.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. So couple questions. Should we consider putting any language in there to make sure the signage is clear and updated regarding a dramatic increase in penalties?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's up to you. The section already requires that the agency shall erect signs conforming to the standards established by section ten twenty five of this title to indicate the closures and restrictions authorized under this section. So I don't know if they're planning to update the signs immediately with the new penalties, but they're they are already required to post these restrictions on the way to and from.

[Candice White (Member)]: I don't think it would be a bad thing for us to just put a sentence in there to say the signage needs to be updated with the new penalties prior to the new penalties being enforced. Another thought, and I think we've brought this up before, would we want to consider asking DMV to be in touch with these truck routing software companies to make sure that

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Truck routing GPS is already routing trucks around.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: It is. Okay.

[Candice White (Member)]: So that is covered. And then the last question, don't have any notes that we took any testimony on this. Would we want to talk to a law enforcement person or somebody who has dealt with this situation? I think we have a general understanding of what happens and what a train wreck is, but just whether we wanted to bring somebody in on that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think at minimum, we

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: can just maybe just have somebody testify, but email us, because I think they give one example where this happened in the last year, just when it cost us.

[Candice White (Member)]: That just like a step

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Just saying, cost us.

[Candice White (Member)]: Took this much time, displaced X amount of drivers, cost as much money.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You may also wanna hear from DMV what their plans are around that. Are they planning to replace the sign? You know? So that because if if they're already in the process of getting that ready, that could tell you when the sign will be up, etcetera, and you can decide whether you want additional language at that point.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think it'd be kind of fun too for the committee is bringing one of the truck drivers. They actually got spots.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, god. He probably doesn't wanna show us anything.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I'm sure

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: they never wanna

[Unknown Member (House Transportation Committee)]: come to

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: the market. Who are

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you thinking?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. I would say then we're not ready to close out sectioning, if that's what people are saying, or people want to hear more representative.

[Unknown Member (House Transportation Committee)]: I just wanna to to Megan. Did you say something about there is signage there now, but it doesn't say, like, currently, the penalty, whatever it is. Is that posted somewhere?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The photo online, unfortunately, the the sign nearest the notch, and I don't know where the other signs are well enough in my head to find them quickly for you on the the street view. It's also a few years out of date because it predates the installation of the chicanes. But just a photo online happened to catch that sign at a point where you can't make out what it says because it's one of the electronic signs where the message flashes and changes.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So maybe DMV can tell you. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And as the chair mentioned, there are signs that show further down the Notch Road as you're coming in. It's not like you get one sign. You have multiple spots you have to drive past, and it's from both directions too.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: will pursue at least a comment or two from either the agency or the what their plans are. I say we do a field trip and we'll bring a shovel and we'll bring a sign with us. We'll put it in. I like field trip. Trip. Okay.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section nine.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Plus

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so section nine is the salvage title, and this is the updates for the provisions related to transfer to an insurance company for a total loss. So after they've paid damages

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: yeah. Oh,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the DMV is not responding. Oh, yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This would provide that the supporting documents to transfer ownership to the insurer would not require a notarized signature, could be signed electronically, could be printed on a hard copy. We define signed electronically. As I mentioned in my earlier testimony, this definition combines Vermont's general definition of an electronic signature with the federal security requirements for this, which is this lengthy standard down here. And then supporting documents include bills of sale, title documents, odometer disclosures, and powers of attorney. And then I believe there was some question about the language here requiring an insurer to indemnify and hold harmless the department for any claims arising out of the issuance of a certificate of title pursuant to this section. I think there was a question about whether that might be too broad and whether it should be specific to the subsection, which is subsection b. But I don't know. I think you've had additional testimony.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Think your last section c is still under discussion back and forth between the people that we had had to testify and the DMV, and it's currently waiting on an answer from the DMV when they support the requested change to the language. I would ask for today, is there any other concerns in the sections from anyone? Or any other need to hear from anything else? We can't close this section out because there is still work on that particular section. But is there anything else? I don't wanna If we are gonna need to revisit more, is there more to read? Is there any other concerns about the rest of it? All good other than what's not settled, we're not gonna dig into any more of an app other than section c. We're gonna get an agreement between parties that have been interested in Evolve so far. So section 10, which I think runs sort of ten, eleven, and 12, I have

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to note that they run together. They do. So section 10 is motor vehicle titles. So if you lose the certificate of title or have it stolen or otherwise damaged, that it's no longer legible. You can get a duplicate title. This clarifies that if you are at a DMV location, that title can be hand delivered to you. My understanding is this is current practice, but that the statute requires them to mail it to you despite you being able to receive it in person. So this would just clarify that they can legally hand deliver it to you at a DMV location. Yep. Section 11 is a technical correction to the definition of title or certificate of title for the vessel snowmobiles and ATVs chapter, which originally, the definition only applied to vessels. But as that chapter was updated, there are now certificates of title for snowmobiles and ATVs. They were just never added to the definition, so this is just updating that. And then section 12 does the same hand delivery of duplicate titles for vessels, snowmobiles, and ATVs.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I have to say, I have four notes on this section other than it was I wasn't clear if this is they want to be able to handle a tomb there or they are currently handing it to them and they would like to reflecting that. That's what the law says. I don't

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: have They a said they were handed to them.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That was what our vice chair says that he remembered. So I did not make a note for whatever reason that day. Are we codifying an existing practice or are we actually, want to be able to hand it to them. I just don't know. Can't remember you saying that it is what they're doing today and they would like to codify current practice.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I don't have notes. I'm not in my house. Just don't That's

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: what you guys both remember the same way. So I'm good with that, but I wanna make sure everybody else

[Candice White (Member)]: I don't have any notes that Dan Beach spoke, and I just had a note that it's fixing a previous oversight.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's what I had. I wasn't

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the existing practice that I had heard, I had actually heard from members of this committee. So I would defer to all of you on whether that's accurate. But that was my understanding from you. Either event, it avoids having to have a legal requirement to mail it if you're present at DMV location. I

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: don't wanna overcomplicate it, but I don't wanna feel like anybody didn't get you. So are we okay with this section? Thumbs up for most everybody or none? Close enough? I

[Candice White (Member)]: guess my question is whether we'd want to clarify that this is correct practice or whether this is allowing them to hand deliver what they weren't doing before.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: From a drafting standpoint, that's usually something that's best done as part of the floor report, just explaining. Because the statute remember, this is a document moving forward. And so you might do that in, like, an intent or finding section if you had one. But in this case, this is what they're just gonna look look at in the future to say, what am I allowed to do? So I wouldn't put in current practice here, but you may want to confirm that for the floor report as long as you're okay with best fitting the law.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I don't think that's what representative Mollie was saying.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: She was just saying SBNP for our own benefit. Well, not

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, right. I misunderstood. But, yeah, that would make sense. And then for the floor report, getting that clarification from them helps.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So we want additional info, but it doesn't change the section is why I'm hearing. That's a

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: thumbs up then for everybody. Great. Okay. Cool. Section 13 clarifies the location of title appeals. The the main clarification here is that DMV's counsel asked that we clarify that the appeal goes to the civil division because right now, it could be either the civil or criminal division of the superior court. Functionally, the criminal division would refer the case to the civil division because they don't have jurisdiction over civil matters. But this clarifies it in the statutes. You don't end up at the Berry Courthouse when you should be at the Montpelier Courthouse.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Pretty clerical. Thumbs up for this section. We're good. Alright.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: K.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 14. This is the abandoned motor vehicles, and it gets to certificates of title. And this provides that certain vehicles are exempt from needing a certificate of title. So and the proposal here was to split these out into three different subdivisions just to help with clarity because it was a long run on sentence. So the three types under this particular subdivision that are exempt from a requirement for a certificate of title are vehicles owned by a manufacturer dealer that are being held for sale, where you're moving them basically down the highway to get from a storage lot to the dealership or back again, for example, before a test drive or something like that. The second is vehicles used by an educational institution approved by the agency of education for driver training purposes. And the third is vehicles used by a manufacturer solely for testing. And this is all existing law, breaking it out into subdivisions.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Anybody, questions? There's not much there to change. Are we good? Thumbs it up to Houge?

[Candice White (Member)]: I have a question. Pardon me. It just came up before. So based on educational institution approved by the agency of education for driver training purposes does not need to have a title. So is that like a driver's ed?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This would be Yeah. So in your district, this could be like Harvard Union. If they had a car that was specifically for the driver's ed program offered by the school, they're not required to have a certificate of title for that car. The car is supposed to be has to be registered, but they don't have to have a certificate of title. I'm not sure what the history of that section is.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's nice. And we're not have a stipulation. And we're not changing that. That's the law as it is today. We're not actually changing that. In this particular thing, all we are doing is changing how the section is written. But if you want to get into that piece at a future side, supplement, effort, not just It's interesting to

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: know why. Wandering the world. I'd get her autographs, just get her with the car, and even extend the drives accordingly, So they didn't ever get tight. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it yeah. This may this may date back to a, you know, a different era too. Right. But, yeah.

[Unknown Member (House Transportation Committee)]: In the day,

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 15 is the towing for abandoned vehicles from public property. The first change is increasing the fee from $1.25 to $2.50. And then the second is allowing the agency of transportation if it's already paid for the tow to receive reimbursement up to $250. So right now, the towing companies can go to the DMV to get reimbursement up to $1.25. This would allow them to go up to $2.50, and it would also allow AOT to pay for of the pay for the tow of a vehicle from a state right of way and then go to the DMV to have money paid out of the the funding that's set aside for towing vehicles, abandoned vehicles from public property. It essentially that part essentially amounts to just accounting work internally. Questions?

[Candice White (Member)]: So, I mean, this sounds like an interagency transfer kind of situation. Don't they do this all the time?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So right now, my understanding is that right now, there's AOT would need to direct the towing company to go to DMV to get reimbursement for that tow. And my understanding from the testimony was that they have had some trouble getting towing companies to come out to do these tows. And so they're hoping that this will allow them to pay the towing company up front and then make that interagency transfer after the fact.

[Candice White (Member)]: Just to kind of speed up the process.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And to get better response from towing companies. I think there's they testified as to some increased incidences of abandoned vehicles on public property or on rights of way. And this is separate from if you have an accident or a disabled vehicle. This does not apply to that.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yeah. I would take technician. It doesn't. So when they were throwing out those figures, how did they do it here?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I thought it sort

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of awesome. Their figures may have included those. But an abandoned vehicle doesn't include a vehicle that's been disabled by the side of the road. So they wouldn't be able to Unless unless the owner of the vehicle leaves the vehicle behind. And then there's so, yeah, if you are disabled and you call the state troopers to come assist, that is not covered under this because the vehicle owner is there to pay for the tow. There anything prohibiting

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: towers from adding on. They get their two fifty, but still charged if they tracked down the person.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So right now, if they have to store the vehicle?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Well, I know stores, that's different,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: but I'm talking about just for

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: the phone and not the computer. Are just, that's all they can get?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let me take a look.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: My understanding is this section is about when there is no accident or insurance company or physical. Alright so that's just very This is about the truly abandoned, no insurance claim or fees. Alright, this is that later than, you know, get this vehicle.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is That's my understanding. I understand that's why it might Yes. There are some provisions in there, if I remember right, as far

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: as Park and ride, call from the agency, come and get this thing out, or from the state of police, come and get this. They need to be paid. But we also heard that obviously that whole situation down is abandoned trailers and stuff, campers, they're really good expenses. This doesn't cover enough money for that. Representative Burke.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Well, we talked about this before, this abandoned burglar, guess it was on private property adjacent to the state right of way, and just the person have the money to move it, and the B TRANS, I think, eventually moved it. I don't know if there's a town of Brattleboro, technically in the Talley line of Brattleboro, right at the Guilford line. I think the town of Brattleboro might have contributed some money. I'm not sure, and I don't know whether we transmed money from DMV or what, because it was private property. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: With private property, it's under the statute. It's supposed to be the private property owner who pays for the tow, and so that can be a a problem. But an abandoned vehicle is defined as a vehicle

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: abandoned because somebody left it there.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. More than forty eight hours Yeah. Without the consent of the person who owns the property or is in control of the right of way. It's defined as abandoned under our statutes, not including construction vehicles and other vehicles like that that may remain stored in the right of way. And then the removal of the abandoned vehicles requires a law enforcement officer for the public entity to contact the towing service or either a law enforcement officer or the landowner for private property. And then there is a certification of abandoned motor vehicle that goes on where they have to contact the DMV to certify the abandoned vehicle. This way, if someone what happens occasionally is that the vehicle's stolen. And so this allows it to basically go into a centralized database where you can hopefully if it's a stolen vehicle, you can link the owner of the vehicle with their vehicle at that point. And then there's the opportunity if the vehicle is truly abandoned at this point for the towing company to dispose of the abandoned motor vehicle to recover their remaining costs of storage, etcetera, beyond the reimbursement rate. There's also a process in the middle for identification and reclamation if the individual whose vehicle it was. So for example, you know, if a vehicle stolen and then driven several towns away and abandoned there and then found at some point in the future until there's the opportunity at that point. If the vehicle has been reported stolen, the abandoned vehicle gets reported to DMV. DMV communicates with law enforcement and is able to link the owner up with their vehicle, which hopefully can be salvaged, although oftentimes they're in a rough state at that point. So there is a whole process around this. This just gets to funding and fees for towing from public property, which was an effort to offset some of the costs that have arisen around this. And you raised these fees about four years ago, I think. And the request downstairs was that they get raised again because they're still having trouble getting towing companies to make these tows.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Are we comfortable with this section? Maybe not. Or we want something more we wanna hear? K. Are we thumbs up then? Mhmm. Right. So do we do? Great.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Section 16 is a technical change in numbering to the diesel fuel tax. It is renumbering a bunch of subdivisions to try to break things up by subject matter into different subdivisions and subsections. There is no substantive change to the language. It is just renumbering like you see here.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Everybody good? Mhmm. Thumbs enough.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Section 17. This is an increase to the penalty for operating a snowmobile that does not have a valid registration or a trail trail access decal. Right? Or TMA. TMA. Trail maintenance author can't Assessment. There we go. Gonna get this right because it's full building days. Yeah. Is it a TMA for snowmobiles and a tad for ATVs. Right? But anyway, this increases it to a civil penalty of $450 from $135 and then $500 for a second subsequent offense within a three year period. It was requested by VAST. The testimony that I recall on this was that the current penalty is close enough to the actual registration and decal costs that folks are opting not to get them and and basically take the risk of getting a citation. So this would increase the citation amount to above the cost. And I understand that the hope is that folks will register their their snowmobiles.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I did have a note on this, sorry. In other words, how many tickets and you asked Bass to come back, but how many tickets and how many over the years and how much of a trend, how much this is actually an issue. Do we need that or not? No, I don't need

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: it both, man. I was just curious of what we're trying to, let's say, fix or accommodate.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Being in the day, does not going to

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: change my opinion of sporting goods. How many scofflaws are there?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: There's a few, a brand new few.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Does that represent what?

[Candice White (Member)]: Jamie, can you just clarify? So the different fees. So there's $135 fee.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the current penalty. And you're the operation of an unregistered snowmobile from the list of violations right there on line 11.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay. So $1.35 is the current fee.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Candice White (Member)]: We are this recommends to change it to $450. That's right. The first offense and 500 for the second offense.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yep.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay. And that's for not having a pass or

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: seat in the house?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So it's a registration. You're required to be registered in Vermont or in your home state. And then if you're in either case, you're required to have a trail maintenance assessment decal that basically says that you paid your share of the trail maintenance.

[Candice White (Member)]: Exactly. So you either have your season pass, which is your trail maintenance.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And and you should have valid registration.

[Candice White (Member)]: And I think you need that in order to get your pass. It's either the seasons pass or the twenty five day pass or the three day pass, which in all instances from 190% require you to show registration and insurance in order to get that pass.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you're right. Yeah.

[Candice White (Member)]: And so the $135 is gonna go away?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The $135 by the way is, you know, the fine for not having the registration is is no longer gonna be $1.35. It's gonna be $4.50. The reason you see it written the way it is is because after the struck through language on line 11 is a list of several other offenses that also carry $135 penalty. Those are omitted behind the that is below that. So that $135 penalty is staying on the books, but for other violations. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: What's in D, E, and F? Attachments.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: D, E, and F are different penalty amounts for a whole list of other violations. But we're not touching them. Yeah. That's all hidden by the ellipses here. So in Title 23, we have a number of sections where there is a long, unnumbered list of violations under a subsection. In this case, it just happened to be the first violation on the list. In other cases, you might have seen an ellipses above and below this. So those three

[Candice White (Member)]: stars are read as an ellipses.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yeah. So what's 3,202? What's that whole?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the requirement that you have a valid registration in Vermont or another state in the TMA. TMA.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I'm just saying all that. So there's more to that cross out. Why isn't the TMA cross out too? Because that's going down to the section g there right now.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let me just pull up

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: the section. Yeah. I know. I'm really confusing myself.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm a

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: process It'll be easier if I show you this section to just explain the whole thing. So

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: share the new screen.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So this is what 3207 looks like. So a is a $35 penalty for failure to return a transferred registration, operation of defective equipment, snails sale of snowmobile for operation without required equipment, operation by a person under 16, failure to display your registration plate. B is $55, so going on a public highway or in cemeteries, etcetera. And all of these include additional provisions. So for example, on the public highway pieces, you can cross perpendicular, but you can't drive down it, that sort of thing. And then the 135 so you can see here's what we're striking is this line. So after we've done after the change that's proposed in the bill, it'll say a civil penalty of 135 for violation of thirty two zero five a, etcetera. So all of these items. And then we're also admitting the $300 violations, the $500 violations, and the thousand dollar violations. And then we're adding in the $450 violation, and the order is not great.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: No. No. For me,

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: my question

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: is I understand why we're crossing out the unrest and moving it to new sections. How come we're not crossing out the TAM? I'm sure that has a current fine that's less than

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The TAM is covered under $32.00 2.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So that's the same same $1.35? Yeah. I thought I was

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: increasing too. So 3202 is the registration and TMA decal required.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Okay.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so violation of not having either is this violation. So that that constant violation. Yeah. Yeah. So doesn't

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: that cost out for the one let me I'll let it go.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. It's good. They're When

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: they go across that one?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There there's only so the way it's worded there, the thirty two zero two, they say unregistered snowmobile. Yeah. But that same section includes the TMA decal. So if you see here, this is 3202.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Correct. And you're crossing out the unregistered one or null assign.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I don't believe there's a reference to the TMA specifically.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's what was confused about. Don't have

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: a reference in there within that.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So right now, there's the unregistered snowmobile. It references 3202, but I think just make sure. Yeah, it's just the one reference. The difference is when they put in the shorthand here, they didn't say operation of an unregistered snowmobile or snowmobile without a TMA.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Alright. Yeah. So it's all one and the same. Alright.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So it's all one and the same. That should

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: be a technical change.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the draft that you've got, the new language let's just see. And, Ned, the new language just says a person who violates the provisions of section thirty two zero two of this chapter. And the reason I wrote it that way is so I wouldn't have to spell out by operating a vehicle, a snowmobile that doesn't have a valid registration or TMA. It was but I could fill in the provisions of section 3,202 of this chapter required.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: But I'm saying if everyone wanted look at that, it's going to be no mention obtained is what I'm saying. So how would you know that you're in violation?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You know because this is just the penalty. This is not telling you the violation. The violation is set out in thirty two zero two.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: But it's not so if it says pan, you just pat it on there. I don't see anything you say to hand. Did you? No. I'm

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: not I don't know if we're hitting the noon and we'll have commitment to say we can pick up with this other speech or not. Or so we can make it little

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: bit over the It says basically, it says an individual shall be subject to a penalty of $450 if they violate section thirty two zero two. 3202 says a person shall not operate a snowmobile in the state unless it is registered and numbered and displays a valid Vermont TNA. So it's

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: an A. I was looking at Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry. It's right here. So it's in A of 3202. And then for whatever reason, when they drafted title 23, the penalties and I think this was to try to keep all the penalties in one section so that when you're updating them, you wouldn't have to update dozens of sections back when we used to do the the miscellaneous motor vehicle or transportation fee bill as a third bill. This would I think that's what it dates back to.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Sure. So they broke it out further. They just sent paddle.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They didn't have the TMA decal. They should have. Yes.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm not a lawyer. I wouldn't do.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't change the underlying law. And now it says the old language used to say operation without valid registration or unregistered snowmobile, and now I just say a violation of thirty two zero two. So you need to look back at what thirty two zero two requires. Oh, was

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: saying we're breaking out these paragraphs for the sake of breaking them out.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Should we just add that there?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: If you wanted to do that, we could

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could essentially add in for this here where it says a person who violates the provisions of section thirty two zero two, and then I could insert after chapter requiring a snowmobile to have registration and Vermont Trail Maintenance assessment decal.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think that'd be more clear. Okay. And I don't know if that's just me. Ray catches through, not representative. I will say that you can't get a TMA without having it registered and then signing a thing saying that you have insurance. They won't even give it to you. You gotta go online and you gotta upload your, a copy of your registration and you, I think you have a box you have to check certifying that you have insurance because you will not get the TMA without it. So maybe that's why they So maybe you don't need to add it. Just

[Unknown Member (House Transportation Committee)]: Representative McCoy, what's that? 3202A of this chapter because 3202A is the registration in devalve requirement. So

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Is it? It's 3202B. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 3202B has the registration period. 3202CD their thirty two zero two e provides special decal exemptions. So for example, there are portions of the state trail system where you don't need to have a TMA. And then there are signs on the trails that say TMA required beyond this point. So I would leave it as thirty two zero two because there are, for example, in Essex County, there is a distance of approximately 18 miles to and from the New Hampshire border to the village of Beecher Falls in the town of Canaan via the vast trails. So that little spot there where you go from trying to remember the name of the, it's not Holbrook, it's West West Stewartstown, thank you. There, crossing the canine and go up to Beecher Falls. There's a section in Addison, Bennington and Rutland Counties, the Delaware And Hudson Rail Trail. There's a 13 mile section. There's a corridor trail for Yeah, so there are a bunch of these little call outs where you don't need a TMA. And so I think it's I would keep it as 3,202.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yeah, that looks good. Can keep that.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are we okay with this until you watch it or not? Do you want to add the clarifying language or just

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: No.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I've given up on

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: it. Alright.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. So we're saying we are a thumbs up to this section 17. We're okay with that. Nobody wants to hear anymore. That's how you get things done. Do it on Friday. I do want to throw out for the we are going to wrap up, we are throwing out for the committee. As far as the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill, it's not an inclusive list, but I have at least we still have the Southworth amendment consideration. There's a request about ending the temporary paper registrations coming from the DMV about possibly adding. We know that there's still a discussion about motorcycle mufflers in Section 39 or whatever it is. The last piece, that's still on the rate of 29. Another later, there is the language on the salvage title that hasn't been decided. There is a push from the city of Burlington regarding a sunset on their cameras, which may or may not be handled in the judiciary area, whether we will or won't deal with that. There's three requests from the DMV, one related to the abstinence program, one related to DUI versus drugs, because it can't be in the absence of drugs doesn't work. They want an update there that's not in the bill now. They might wanna add, there's the commercial texting language that we heard about earlier this week. So there's three of those. That is not all inclusive because there's still more testimony to take on inspections, still have an ANR in and the notes from today. So that's about 12 or 14 things that are all hanging out that I've got on my list of things to nail down for the DMV bill. The T bill, not only are going to remember all those, but that's what we have against us. And then the T bill, would say, that did pass out of the Senate transportation yesterday and is on in the Senate calendar today. We'll go to finance. I suspect there'll be some significant changes there. But there are four major areas that we will be facing, which is they put purchasing use and dealing with purchasing use in the T bill where we had it in the miscellaneous tax bill. And they went with the step down approach that was more to the representative Keyser's bill or more towards the governor's recommendation. They went after the pilot funds, both the surplus and the annual funds in a much aggressive three quarters of that money. And that's part of the bill. That's a pretty significant piece. They also have added a 2% on jet fuel piece in the bill. And mileage based user fee includes a program to do it well for electric vehicles to put it off a little bit there, but to stage all vehicles by 2031. So there's major changes to those four areas. That is not an all inclusive list, but I can tell you that that's the, at least from my perspective, the biggest four topics. Currently the difference between the D bill and our house version. Yeah, that's

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the first 55 pages of the bill essentially is those four items.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So that's what we'll be working on when we dive in next week. Training next week on Thursday, train day, where we have a house committee of transportation senate set a special invite for lunch on the train. On Thursday. And aviation day is coming, which I haven't heard anything update recently, which will happen quite a bit on that day when that comes. Get a plane ride? There is a field trip being developed with the Commerce Committee headed over to Rutland and down towards Bennington, Florida. Are

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: you on a question?

[Unknown Member (House Transportation Committee)]: Well, just on further testimony related to inspections, I'm wondering if the DMV can share more detail of what they heard from constituents or from the community in their efforts they did following up on last year's DMV bill, like where they were taking in public comments on inspections. We've heard, I think, briefly about that, but it'd be great to get more detail in terms

[Candice White (Member)]: of what specifically they heard. That was the email address and the public testimony.

[Unknown Member (House Transportation Committee)]: Yeah. There was there was an email address that was set up to my understanding that where people could share feedback on inspections. Yeah.

[Candice White (Member)]: Mhmm. I'm just pointing out there there are a bunch of bills on the wall regarding inspections. I'm just wondering if we wanna review any of those while we're continuing to have this inspection discussion from what's in the DMV bill. And then I wanted to review the very important emojis for our skip on Thursday before people got home.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So are there any other comments on miscellaneous or the D bill? Just gave it all away. We are adjourned.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: We

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: are