Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: We are live.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: We are Wednesday, the twenty eighth. This is Senate Transportation. We are here this morning to listen to actually one of our own members, the senator White, and we're talking about s two eleven, which is vehicle inspections, and I think you're wrong.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Well, thank you so much for having me, committee. So this bill before you is just two pages, but it packs a punch. The goal here is to reduce every year required vehicle safety inspections for traditional daily drivers, not touching commercial drivers, making that every other year as a requirement rather than every single year as a requirement. So I'm gonna just tell you why I introduced the bill, and it comes from being on house transportation for four years and then serving on this committee now coming on my fourth year. The bill was introduced not because I think vehicle safety isn't important, but because there's very little evidence to show that vehicle safety inspections, especially the way we do them in Vermont, actually reduce crashes or even provide the kind of, I think the goal that we have with vehicle safety inspections. And rather they can be a burdensome, costly, bureaucratic difficulty for Vermonters across the state. So a growing number of states, 35 is the last number that I got, plus the District Columbia, have actually gone away from vehicle safety inspections in recent years. We don't think, or I don't think, that mandatory vehicle inspections actually keep unsafe cars off the road or reduce accidents, and there's been a lot of research to back this up. That's not just something that I think. We've we've seen consistently that vehicle safety infection inspections fail to find any significant or create any significant reduction in motor vehicle injuries or fatalities in states with mandatory inspections. And in fact, in 2015, the government accountability office, which is congress's nonpartisan watchdog, found using a a set of existing research, like doing a whole overview of, studies, they found that they have generally been unable to establish any causal relationship between inspection requirements and crash rates. So instead of just doing away with safety inspections as a whole, which I think the data would lead us to do, I think it's important that for a period of time we switch to every other year inspections and we see if that data that we've seen actually bears out in Vermont. So if we see a major uptick in crashes due to safety of vehicles not being maintained, then we can either return to every year or make a decision in a few years about their relevancy. So we saw that when North Carolina officials actually examined the efficacy of mandatory inspection programs in 2008, they actually concluded that nearly three decades of research has failed to conclusively show the mechanical defects are a significant cause of motor vehicle accidents and crashes or that safety inspections significantly reduce those crash rates. Additionally, I think it's important to keep in mind that drivers actually have a strong incentive to maintain their vehicles to a reasonably good standard. When we passed these laws, there wasn't that little alert that went off that your brakes had a problem or your taillight was you know, we all get these sensors now on our cars for the most part that alert us. And so what we've actually seen is states that have mandatory inspections. People spend less money on maintenance overall than states that require mandatory inspections, which makes me think that they're doing, in fact, the opposite. Vermonters are not looking at their vehicle or checking their vehicle or relying on their vehicle as heavily as folks who have states that don't have safety inspections. They're just waiting for the inspection to alert them of a problem versus at other states, do rely on either your vehicle onboard system that tells you something's wrong or you intuit it because you hear a noise or smell a smell that tells you that you need to have something done. For many safety sensitive systems like braking and steering, the average amount of times that passes from detection to repair typically take no more than a few weeks. What that makes me think is the idea of someone having an issue with their vehicle and having it identified by the inspection is not actually what's happening. Most folks are noticing a problem, it addressed in a few weeks. In these cases, we see that annual inspections are largely superfluous, meaning that you've addressed the issue either on your own before the inspection or waiting till an inspection actually can cause more issues. It can delay you from making repairs. And just to reiterate, data shows that drivers in Western states, almost where none have mandatory inspections, annually spend more on vehicle maintenance and repairs than drivers in Northeastern states where mandatory inspections are more common. The other thing I want to highlight is I think the biggest opposition we're going see this bill will be from those who are performing the inspections because it is a revenue source for auto body shops and dealers to get revenue. I think we are going to hear from them that they would prefer us not to do this, but I would actually argue that the inspection mandates actually are creating an artificial demand for those sites. And that the unfortunate thing that happens is we see Vermonters paying $70.80, $90 per inspection without getting a real world improvement to their vehicle while clogging up lines at already I mean, if you've ever if you're in my area, you know it's really hard to get an appointment to get anything done. So I think that what we're seeing is actually safety inspections are helping to create a backlog for real repairs when people have issues. So it's in fact having the opposite effect. So there were two studies I just wanted to highlight that we can put on the website if folks want that kind of back up what I'm describing. The first is, from the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, and it talks about the effect of periodic vehicle inspections on road crashes and injuries. And then it's also I also have a study from the Contemporary Economic Policy Journal, which discusses in detail comparing New Jersey, for example, who went away from safety inspections. And they looked at ten years of data to see if there was an increased crash rate due to vehicle safety related issues, and they didn't find any relationship between reduced crashes and use of vehicle safety inspections. So this is not a bill that I introduced lightly. It's a bill

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: introduced because I think that this is a bureaucratic headache for the majority of Vermonters and leads them to either wait to actually make improvements on their vehicle, which can cause problems, or just they don't get a safety inspection. So it sets them up to be driving without proper inspection on the roads. They wait. They wait. They wait. I think we all have constituents who haven't gotten a golden ticket for five years, and no one's enforcing it. So it doesn't really all around make sense to me. So, yeah, that's why I introduced the bill. It's two pages. The I mean, Damian can tell us this, but it's as simple as section one is to every other year, every two years. And then since we do get revenue from the inspections as a state, we currently charge 8 or we get $8 per inspection as a state from to DMV. So what my bill does is to try to remedy that so that we don't see, you know, revenue drop in half is that it goes to $16 for the every two years. So the way the bill is framed up is now you aren't required to do it every year, but you are paying $16 rather than eight years. So you're paying the same amount you would now, but you're required to only get an inspection every other year. And I'll just end with a couple of questions that I had that we can address as a committee. I'm not sure necessarily in the bills drafting of the sequencing of who would be required. You know, once it goes into effect, if we stick with the 07/01/2026 date, is it everybody who got an inspection before that doesn't have to go until 2027? Is it the 2028? I guess that would be my main question is I'm not sure how as a committee you would wanna handle, like, the the scheduling of it so that DMV doesn't have everyone getting inspected one year, no one getting inspected the next year, and so on

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: and I think that's a question for DMV. Exactly, yeah. So thank you.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Questions? Go ahead. It's Senator White. I'm not sure I am following your argument for why not to get rid of inspections entirely because I asked I agree with a lot of your arguments for why to switch to every other year, but it seems like a I don't I don't understand why we would just get rid of it entirely, it? But I'm I'm proposing or at least just almost entirely except for sale of used vehicles to make sure that when you're buying a vehicle that it's safe. Can you explain again why you don't why you don't think we should get rid of them entirely? Given all the evidence that shows that it's not preventing safety?

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Mainly because the DMV is not supportive of fully getting rid of safety inspections. So I was trying to be I I too am actually totally supportive getting rid of them in their entirety, but my understanding is the Department of Motor Vehicles' position is that they are not in favor of that, and we tend to listen and trust those agencies. So this was meant to be a compromise. And also in the bill, there is where is it? Yeah. We had I had thought through maybe we do, like, a study after ten years, for example, because the states that have gone away with them have also done research, and maybe Vermont is an outlier. You know, maybe we don't actually follow the same patterns of driver behavior as New Jersey. And they studied it for ten years. So I had contemplated in the bill making it that they go away at the end of ten years, for example, if we can't find conclusive data to prove their effectiveness. But, yeah, I would be in favor of fully getting rid of safety inspections for vehicles of this class. The one point though around, like, used vehicles versus new vehicles, I don't necessarily agree with the argument that we should just get rid of them from new vehicles because while your vehicle leaving the lot might be perfect, you could scrape out as you're leaving and cause damage. So if the point is the same for used vehicles, I would say it's the same for new vehicles because damage can happen at any point. So I don't necessarily see having a difference between used and new, for example. Status purpose, I didn't put in there. But I'm open to it. I'd love to see. I

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: think this is going to create a lot of conversation.

[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, this doesn't have a lot to do with, every two year inspections, but I'm if we're considering mileage based user fee and we're considering that the way we're going to go about it and even in the pilot program, I believe, is to do an odometer reading, We'd be how would we be handling that? Yeah.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: So I actually asked a question last week when we had it was either, like, one of the states that came in because I'm worried about that too. If we move towards an MBUF program and it relies on checking the odometer and inspection, well, this makes a problem. So most other states, they actually do it via a photo. Like, you take a photo of your odometer and you send it in. So my thought was, well, you could have it be you can provide it at the every other year inspection, and you could do a true up every year with a photo. And that seems to be working for a lot of other states. So that was my thought, is to just take a photo of it. If people wanna fake a photo, I mean, I don't you have it next year? We're going find out. And emissions, I think, could be the other one as well. We definitely want to hear from DEC because while we might have vehicle safety inspections, we also have emissions testing requirements that we, have to do, I think, for, like, the EPA. So, I don't know how we would handle that as well. It will

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: be incumbent upon, DMV to present to us their, through their regulatory process in a succinct fashion what's environmental, what's safety, you know, and and the different categories, you know. When you have a regulatory booklet that's well over 300 pages, between three and four hundred pages, that's a lot of things to go through that I'm not sure that any of us would consider all of that totally necessary. So are

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: we For now. Okay. Yes. Thank you.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: This is pretty simple.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It is. I can speak to the EPA issues as well and what's happening in New Hampshire since they repealed their inspection requirement last year. It's up to you.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, I'm trying to decide whether it's better to have you or have DMV kick off.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I'm I'm fine either way. Why don't we

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: go to DMV, and then, if we have questions, you can help us with that after.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yep.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Good morning.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Renee

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Cota, director of finance at DMV. And I am here to speak about the financial implications of of timing for going to the one year with the two year renewal with the $16. So the information that I based my projections on are from 2025. We have 495,000 inspections in 2025, not all of which are these vehicles that are being looked at for this, automobiles and personal trucks. So, as a and also how new and renew. So, in the first year of this, we have about every year about 21% are new vehicles. Not new as in brand new vehicles, but new to someone. So, newly registered vehicles. And about 79%, 79% are renews. So that means they would be have already been inspected. So timing is very important for this. I did not base any projections on a start date of 01/2006, those numbers would hit the DMV budget significantly. And contract, we we could not change the system that quickly or to charge the $60. So there's some issues with the contracts. So we need a a greater lead time. 01/01/1927 is what I base projections on. So anything that would start sooner than 01/01/1927 with the charging of $16 would be additional millions of dollars in lost revenue. So if my I have two options. One, being that $8 fee. So we're looking at fiscal year twenty seven and fiscal year twenty eight. For fiscal year '27, if we start the 8 the $16 fee on 01/01/1927, and that 01/01/1927 is the first of so it'd be the second year of the versus the first year

[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Of the inspections, then we would have a loss of revenue of a million dollars. If the same scenario, but it is the second year, I mean, the first year of it, and so January 28 would be the second year, we would have a gain of revenue of $1,900,000. In fiscal year twenty eight, we would have a gain of revenue in option one of 250,000,000 thousand dollars and a gain of revenue in of a million dollars of

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: option if that was in writing to the committee.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Yep. I can do that.

[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Member)]: Can we get copies of that?

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Sure. In fiscal years '29 and '30, both scenarios, both options have the same. So it it would even out. And it's because

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Wait. What does that say?

[Haley Summer (DOC Director of Communications)]: It's about it's about $250,000

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: increase in revenue, if all things being equal. So things being equal, you still have 495,000 inspection, you know, like the same number of vehicles would be inspecting in those parameters. Because we have '21, the fiscal year is different than the calendar year. Have to take that into effect. Mhmm. And that new vehicles are 21%, and we're gonna have that lopsided for quite some time. Over time, I don't know how many years, it will even out, but it could take a significant number of years to even out. Yes. So, that, that's the financial impact for DMV. It would be probably $2,000,000 of a revenue loss in fiscal year twenty seven if we started, which we can't with the contract, and if we started July 1, it took me six.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: then, there's also for the contracts, there is a we have purchased 300 there's about 300,000 stickers that we would have to pay $1 per sticker because the stickers don't they don't have the stickiness. The adhesion will not last two years. It will only last eighteen months. So, we have a stock of approximately 300,000 stickers that we would have to pay. We if we can't use them, we have to pay 98¢ each. Mhmm. So approximately $300,000 of that on our sticker stock. And there would be the contract. There's would be negative implications to the contract that we have in place right now.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Who's the contract to win? I guess I'm confused. Persons. Oh, to do okay.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: So we would lose on the upfront because of the stickers, but going forward, we wouldn't have to purchase stickers every year. So if in the out years, we'd make that money back.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Not necessarily. So, the cost per sticker, it may double due to the well, because we have to have different stickers, the stickers that we're purchasing now may cost more because we need a longer Asian life. We don't know. We have to find that out. And, of course, so there is the and then, of course, color rotation, which is something that they're we're looking into going back to color rotation. And so, that's an increased cost of stickers. We would definitely go back to color rotation if we have to get rid of this stock we have. So, there's there's multiple financial implications.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: It would be helpful if this all came to the community in writing.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I can do that.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Let me ask this. How many registered vehicles are there in, versus the number of inspections?

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: I don't know that number off the top of my head.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm trying to figure out right now how many, what percentage of the registered vehicles that might be on the road might not be getting inspected now. So it would be helpful if, you know, DMV could provide us with the background material of how many cars are titled, how many are registered, how many get inspections. I expect that the department has done some analysis and of the number of cars they're not getting inspected.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: I have not done that analysis.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: But

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: we can look into that.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Go ahead.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Well, thank you so much. That's really helpful. When I had asked Joint Fiscal Office to run some numbers, they didn't have sticker information. So that's a new layer to it. Can you so you had said I definitely understand what you're saying with the 07/01/2026 piece. I think that that's really reasonable, and I'm in no way saying that we just kind of pick that date typically in our middle. She's pretty full. Yeah. So I'm wondering if you could spend a little bit of time describing you know, even if we did it in 01/01/2027 or pushed it out till July 2027 or maybe did it a little bit more incremental or gave you a bit more time to prepare, do you have a sense of how long it would take you as an organization to financially either figure out the contracts or have those negotiations So financially for $16 versus $8, we can do that by 01/01/1927. Oh. That's not a problem. Okay.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: July is is too quick. Fair enough. So

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: we ask what and and the leader, what we're getting, we want the numbers from you. What we do need to hear from the department, maybe it's the next person, is the department in favor of this? If the department is favorable towards this, what's the timetable that you would recommend us, and why, and some of that will be based upon the numbers. If we move ahead, what's the most the best way for us to move

[Richard Sullivan (DOC Facility Operations Manager)]: ahead with this input is in place. And I think the committee would be welcome to hear that. So financially speaking, the not saying favor or not in favor or neutral, but financially speaking,

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: the best course of action if we are going to move ahead, not necessarily for the cost of buying back the stickers, but just the revenue coming in, would be that calendar year '27 is the first year of a two year inspection cycle. And calendar year '28 is the second year of an inspection cycle. So then all of the vehicles would be inspected in '27, with the $16. Mhmm. And which that bridges two fiscal years. And then the second year, again, it would be just the new vehicles. So 21%, there would be a huge reduction in inspections in the second year. But because it bridges calendar year '28 bridges to fiscal years, it softens the the implications for the budget in the next year.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: So what I get out of this is regardless of what we should do, we should do it on a calendar year basis.

[Richard Sullivan (DOC Facility Operations Manager)]: For inspection stickers? Yes. Yes. Great.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Member)]: What is I've got a number, here of annual revenue currently. It's 3,800,000.0. Does that

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: sound right? Did you mention that here?

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: No. I did I didn't. The the revenue that came in in '25 was 2,900,000.0. We recognized last year in August that the inspectors inspection sticker price that we were receiving was $6 and not $8, and corrected that as of November 1. What we envision that if all things being equal that are no more, no less than what we had in 2025, that it would be $3,900,000 that we would bring in each year at $8.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So I was off by at 3.8. It's just 497,000. Yeah. Excuse me. I'm gonna go ahead. I'm just

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: gonna know.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: What what did you I didn't understand what you just said that it's supposed to be $8, but we were only receiving $8 for multiple years or just one year or something?

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Let's see. The the year that the 20% increase, that was the year that the inspection sticker increased, went from $6 to $8, and it didn't happen.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Oh, I see.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: And we, with a review of revenue, which we've been doing of all our revenue to make sure that it is following statute. That was one of the things that was realized and corrected as quickly as we can. And that's why we also know how long it will take to change from the $8 to the $16 because of the time frame that it took to make that version.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I think we passed those, so it increased to 21, if I remember.

[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Member)]: Does that money come from the inspection stations or parcels? Parcels. Follow-up on that. So we're getting $6 instead of $8 Was that on Parsons or was that on us for not paying attention?

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: It was on us.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It was. The customers didn't get paid that extra $2 Didn't get charged that extra $2 Do

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: you keep track of how much the stations are charging on average compared to just what the state is getting? Is there, like, any way or place that's keeping that information?

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: I finance is not. Okay.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Do you wanna swap out? Okay. Thank you so much. Think there's a lot of questions around this, so if you can get something on paper to

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Morning. Morning.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: My name is Daniel Merchant. I'm a lieutenant with the enforcement safety division for investigations for Vermont County. And I was told that I was here to answer some questions on inspections.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: You have a position on if they're effective and reducing crashes, have you seen it be effective? Is it yeah. What's your position on safety inspections in general?

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: I mean, I've been a law enforcement officer for it's twenty sixth I'm paying more than that now. Good Lord. Twenty six years. And, you know, law enforcement officers don't examine vehicles when there's an accident. So I think that question is very tough to answer because whether it's inattention, drinking, drugging, there are a lot of factors that go into a collision. And an officer's not gonna get underneath a car and do a full exam on it unless potentially there's a fatality involved with it. So as this bill was proposed, I was told that we are remaining neutral on the two years.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, would be nice. I've heard rumors in the hall that they were in favor of this. I've heard now neutral. It would be nice if we had a statement from DMV what your actual position was on this as we move ahead.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: And that isn't specifically designed at you. This is designed at DMV in total. What's your position it would and if separate from that is it would be in writing, I would request that you lay out what if what you feel is the best way to do this, the date, the time. I think we've we've moved towards that. And with your testimony in the calendar year, but it would be helpful if we had how would you see this roll out? And what would be the best way to do that? And from DMV itself.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: I I mean, I I think senator White mentioned it as did others, relating to getting some inspection stations in here and in hearing from them because, obviously, there's, I think, 1,061 license stations with the state of Vermont, somewhere right around that number, and, you know, who employ, you know, various inspection mechanics. I think there's over there are three south or just under 3,000, last I checked, licensed inspection mechanics in the state state of Vermont. So those are folks, you know, that it may affect their employment status because if they're not inspecting as many cars each year, will they need those folks on at those stations to do the work? I I don't know that question. I've heard the answer to that, obviously, but I think that's somebody you definitely wanna hear from. And then obviously, the Department of Environmental Conservation and our folks, because I know that they recently completed their sift. And in that sift, it said that there's gonna be doing yearly onboard diagnostic for emissions testing on vehicles. So, obviously, that would be something that they they would wanna speak to. Well, thank you for that. And we will be having a hearing in here, and we'll be taking testimony from all of that. But it would be helpful if the

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: department itself told us if we moved ahead with this, what the department saw is the best way to do this.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Go ahead.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: So you're in the enforcement side. Correct. If I'm understanding correctly. Could you kind of describe the picture of how because what I hear from constituents is, I haven't got a vehicle safety inspection in years and no one's been pulling me over for it. So I guess, like, anecdotally, it feels like there's not a lot of enforcement. So you have numbers around how many how many tickets or

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I I looked actually before I came in here. So You've stayed here. For 2025, from

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: 01/01/2025 till December 31, I started it a minute after midnight and ended at 11:59PM. There were 8,037 stops for vehicles not inspected. Oh, wow. There were over 6,179 warnings issued and 1,858 tickets issued.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: And how much is a ticket? Like, what what's the cost or what's the financial penalty?

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Or I

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: believe it's

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: a 131.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: It's a 131.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: I got my title 23 in the back there with the schedule of fines, but I am not sure. I have not written a ticket for that for quite some time.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Could you run through those numbers again? Sure. And and as I said, for the record in here, it would be helpful if we had that in writing too so as we

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: I have that, chair.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: That would be great, and then we could post those on our website. Yes, for the vehicle not inspected specifically, I ran that ticket code in the law enforcement database, and there were 8,037. And then there were break that down within that 8,037, there were 6,179 warnings issued and 1,858 tickets issued. This is what I came up with when I ran that in the law enforcement database.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: And so they would have all been charged. The 1,158, all would have been charged a $130. I'm just trying to figure out going to and then what are the ones with the traffic bureau? Correct.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: That you

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: go through the judicial bill. So that financial piece is not in the numbers that you gave. So we should know what those numbers are.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: It's relative to, it's a

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: Actually, a $105. 105 is the violation charge for that.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: You

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: know, to pre, to have a picture of what all of this is, I think we should get those numbers. And I think you're next, but did you have any of that too, Pat? No. Okay. Go ahead.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Thank you, mister chair. So I just wanted to know what what year you you said what year it is. I think is that the current year, last year?

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: And for 2025.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Okay. And just what it was in prior years? You know, what's what's

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: I I I just ran it for last year. I got asked to do this the other day.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: So Okay. It's it's just helpful to see trends.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Was gonna ask the same thing if we could see those numbers over five years or something. Yeah.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: Did you you ended up getting something from the judicial bureau

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: for Judicial bureau is is ten years. I went back ten years ago.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: Remember James Westman.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: And and that is in what you've given, Megan? Yep. Megan, it would be helpful if the committee members would see that and if we posted Okay, that on the

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I just, do you wanna stay on the website before we post this? See if

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: you need more information. Sure.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Go ahead. So the other data that I was hoping, and I don't if it's you or Wade or somebody else from the DMV, but if we have a breakdown, what, dollars 3,900,000.0 that came to the department, what was that used for? Kept Is within the inspection program, or is that help fund? I mean, I'm sure there's internal service funds. Know that some of that's gonna fund the other parts of the DMV, but I don't know if you just have a breakdown that revenue. And if we have the number, so we have the $4.95 for last year's game, that other question? Do we have that over five years, like the number of inspections and how that relates to the number of registrations? I assume if we have it, which would just be good to know, but if we don't have it, then that's good to know. We don't have it. What is the cost of the inspections? I know they can charge one another as long as they give us the $8.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: Yeah. So actually yeah. Senator White asked that question. There there is no, like We don't have. We we do not have that. So each station can charge you know, as long as their rate is posted, whether it's the hour that's it's written out in rule and in the inspection manual that they're allowed to basically charge what they wanna charge. So it varies. I mean, go to some stations, it's $55. You go to another station, you know, it could be, like, up to a $100. So, yeah, we do not have any And so that I think we also do not track repairs needed to pass inspection. Well, I mean, that's a tough part. Right? Because in AVIF, there is a code, the automated vehicle inspection program. There is a code that mechanics are supposed to be doing. So like if they tell someone, hey, You know, you've got this this various issue, and then they get that fixed, and then they fix it. They're supposed to put pass after the repair is completed. If they don't put that code in there, there's no way to accurately crack it, unfortunately.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Oh, would they are they supposed to put in the dollar or just the fact that it was needed? The fact that

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: it was needed. So then we would

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: just have like a number of like, this is how many Referring to the Correct. Okay. That would be

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: good to know. But like I said, unfortunately, I I I folks because, I mean, people will call me with their complaints, you know, like, this happened at this various inspection station And, you know, I'll call the station to follow-up on it. And they're like, oh, yeah. We we had to do a fix. And I'm like, it's not documented. Right. I'm like, you guys you know, like, for me to look at this, it would help if you pictures of what the issue was, put it in there and documented it. And, like, that way when someone calls and complains, we've got something to back it up. When you

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: say you're in enforcement, that's what you're enforcing. You're not enforcing you're not a patrol officer anymore. You're doing the replacement of the state.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: I do go out on occasions like, yeah. So That is just one of many functions, so a lot of fraud that happens within the DMV that we investigate as Yes.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So if somebody calls and complains, you would go and look at the station. Is there anybody looking at the tablet data to make sure that it's being entered correctly or just not the only if there's a complaint?

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: Usually only if there's a complaint. So for instance, we do annual station audits of the inspection stations. We check to make sure they have the various tools and other things that they're supposed to have on-site, and we cover things with them during those audits of, you know, how they're supposed

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: to be doing things.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: You know, every station, unfortunately, does not enter in, you know, We encourage folks to do it, whether they do it, that's a different story. Those are on-site inspections of all, whatever. Yeah, of the stations.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: what I hear from constituents about why they're not getting inspected, just like when they come up and talk to me about it, is largely because they can't afford an inspection. And then they're worried that they can't afford, like, the next layers, they can't afford whatever is required of them. So they're basically not wanting to fail an inspection. They're expecting to fail, or they're they're not sure if they're gonna fail, but they think it's a possibility. I'm wondering if you have any sense of, like, why people aren't getting inspected, if my anecdotal experience is reflective of that reality. Or when folks are getting tickets, what are are folks saying? It's because I can't afford to get an inspection, or I or are they saying I didn't know that something was wrong or I didn't know I was yeah. What are the reasons why people are

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: In in my experience, like, with folks, sometimes people just forget.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. And Mhmm.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: My wife, for instance, I I think our own car was, like, a month past, you know, I don't like, I need your car there. So but more often than not, would agree with you. I would say it's it's a it's a price factor for folks that can't afford the necessary repairs or the car. They know right from the get go that, I mean, it's what's getting them to and from their job. Right? Like, so they're driving it back and forth, making ends meet, and can't afford to get the repairs fixed. You know, the unfortunate part of that is is is it something that's bad enough that the safety is gonna affect, you know, some other person on the road where maybe a part of the suspension system breaks and causes them to go into oncoming lane of traffic, you know, so it's

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: it's the road. Thank you.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: So the original numbers you gave us were people that got stopped and people that got ticketed. Correct. It would be helpful if we had that for ten years.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: In your experience, the amount of people that are being ticketed now are, I'm looking at sixteen, seventeen, 18, we hovered around just below and just above 6,000 tickets handed out. That dropped off with COVID, you can clearly see that in 2020. We're back from 2021 to 2023, we were below one thousand. 2024, you're about two thousand. Do you know of in law enforcement that that we made a conscious decision not to pick people up? Why should I attribute that there is roughly now a third of the people being ticketed to what they were pre COVID?

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: I think there's guidance from certain entities that don't want that as primary stop reason anymore.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: You know, I we've taken a a little bit of testimony in this committee. There are less tickets, a dramatically less tickets being handed out for speeding. Almost everything that we've seen across the board, pre COVID to now, there's less enforcement. And, you know, and we've had testimony from the state police that said there's been no change in policy. So, you know, from the DMV enforcement side, I think people in the legislature would be interested as to what the reasons are for that and stated reasons around that, it's striking. What I would ask for that is in this that you handed us, how many people have been pulled over versus the number of tickets, and can we get more background around all of these numbers for the last ten years?

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: I don't know if that's gonna be all that easy to accomplish because Yeah. With the transition to what so all like, state police is on what's called BALCOR now, which is law enforcement database. Prior, they were on Spillman. Things the way they're coded in these various systems and with the judicial bureau as far as warnings and tickets, I don't think you're gonna get accurate data going back that far just because of the transition amongst the various systems. But it would be nice to see how far back you could go

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: and what information you could produce around this. I think there's some interesting trends here that this committee would like to take a look at.

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: Sure. I if I could. And do you wanna switch? Yeah. I can switch.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Take that. Good morning, everyone.

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: Good morning. Wade Coffey, director of enforcement. On topic, the question she just asked, we can speak for DMV. I cannot speak for other agencies. So some of this ticket may be the Montpelier Police Department, it may be Ludlow Police Department.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Is there any way to break out what is state police, DMV, local police department?

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: I can look into that as far as data, like Hartford Police Department, I believe we're on Stillman. I don't have access to that. We can only look into Valcor. So I would have to I would probably reach out to the state police and see what they could get for data, and I will do that. Also, far as tickets being down, I know there's a lot more education as far as writing a ticket. I can speak personally. I got equal results when I was on the road with writing a warning. It was also if you pulled someone over in the morning, and Dan and I just talked about this yesterday, if you pulled someone over in the morning because they didn't have an inspection sticker, they're headed to work, what are, you know, what are we promoting if we write that ticket when the person's actually headed to their job and anything. I don't know

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: if it's too good. So

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, you know, if I look at 2018, there were 6,494 tickets in today. In 2025, there was 1,852. And, you know, clearly, around this table, when we started the first week, there was a whole lot of questions about safety. I think almost every single person, I think every person around this table is concerned about saving. And we opened up and we started digging into that little. The number of speeding tickets, the number of tickets handed out for traffic violations has dramatically dropped. And this is not the first time we've heard that we've changed to education. But

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: And that's not the only reason, Chair, there is a lot less law enforcement out there. Understaffing is huge right now in almost every agency. We're very lucky, but our mission is a little bit different with commercial motor vehicles. But I know the state police are understaffed. I've talked to several municipalities that they're fighting understaffing sheriff's departments. I I can't say for sure, but I'm pretty sure that plays a a strong number in that. And also, when we're looking at the inspections, we also went and I'm dating myself, but remember the different colors in the middle of the windshield to the little sticker down the corner. So for me, my eyes weren't what they were twenty four years ago when I started. It's a little bit harder to see that. And so I think that that can also contribute. There's several parts that can play in this, know, staffing size, sticker size, maybe more education as opposed to enforcement. And we had the COVID years, obviously those numbers are lower, I can see. But there's several factors that would play in.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It's pretty dramatic drop.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the first thing you said was that you don't have the number of stops per year, but we do have the number of tickets. I agree with you that a stop is meaningful. So that's why we need the data to see if the stops are happening. Right. So

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: We did

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: get the stops for the last

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: hope you get this even.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Yeah, the data is there. This can be done.

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: And I'm not saying that it can't

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: be done.

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: I'm saying we're not the data holder. Sure, so

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: we find the data holder.

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: I'm not saying that we can't, we'll we'll do our part to get that for you.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: And we can help you with that. And then just as far as the reduction in staff, my understanding is that the state police has had a particular issue with that more than other law enforcement agencies.

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: I can't speak to that.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Yeah, that's what I understand. I mean, know of several departments that are fully staffed. Sure. There's differences and I don't need you to, you don't have to speak to it. I can't. But I just think that should be said at this time. And the changes that we made to the stickers, I think that was not our idea. I think that was don't think

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: I think that

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: was brought to the committee. I don't think that was the the legislature's idea, but I'm not sure about that. So thank you.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. I think it was when we went to the tablets.

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: Correct. For printing, and I don't have all because

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: that was before me as well. That was stick around demand.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: We'll stick around the new

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: prior to that. It's still through the tablet, but.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: It would be helpful if if you could expand this data. As I said, we need a position from the department. What's your position? In writing the dollars and related to that, if it was going to what's the most efficient way to move from single year to two year in timetable? I think we'd be very interested in that. And then in this data, if we could get that out, I'm gonna say what we're seeing is a trend across all enforcement. It's around vehicle violations of every kind. Correct. Kids That's dramatically down. And I think that where there's an interest here to dig in and find out what the reasons for that are. Go ahead.

[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Member)]: And on that, when we went around the table and I, we all talked about it. I'd like to see something that tells me it or just quantifies whether it's a cultural issue or a staffing issue. If we have the staffing, are we still gonna have the same loan numbers? You know, somewhere along the line, I think it's a little bit cultural. I would agree. Be nice to take a look at it.

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: And our official stance, chair, is that we are neutral on this bill. So

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: I only would say before the committee meeting started this morning, the commissioner was in here and I took it from what he had said outside of the committee that DMV was, not that they were enthusiastic, but they were leaning in faith. Is that I

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: don't wanna characterize it because I'm biased. I get what I like to hear

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: on But you were sitting here Yeah. And I didn't get the feeling that they were opposed.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: I would say that there's a cultural push right now in Vermont for us to move away from safety inspections. There's been a VPR did a story, a VT everyone's done a story on how Vermonters are annoyed about safety inspections. So I think they are responsive to some of that, whether or not they have a

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: So I think there's a number of things that they're gonna need for you. Absolutely. And so again, we are on the timetable because we're gonna have to move bills. As quick as you think you can pull information together and you can pull this together, you should get with Megan and get on the schedule. Sounds good. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. I think at this point, we are shifting gears and going back to the miscellaneous DMV bill.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Where are we gonna hear

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: some thoughts on this bill? On this bill? Well, he's around all the time. We can

[Richard Sullivan (DOC Facility Operations Manager)]: make him fill in for us,

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: but we do have the deputy commissioner of DMV

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: And the director of operations and miss Paul here. Okay. And they it is Yeah. 10:00, so I didn't expect yes.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Did you? What did you The drunk Oh,

[Wade Coffey (DMV Director of Enforcement)]: Yeah.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: I who's first?

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: I'm happy to go. Friday, yes. Good morning. Thank you for having me. I'm Nancy Prescott, Director of Operations at DMV.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Which sections of the bill are you here to talk about?

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: In regards to the section specifically, is about the DOC credentials.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yep. Specifically.

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: In regards to the non driver IDs. And our language is incorporating into it to include other credential types, which would be a permit as well as a driver's license, not just the non driver ID is what the specific language is.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Can you remind me of the section one?

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Section two. Section two.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Thank you. Two and three.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Three as the learner's permits. Thank you. Okay.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And you're proposing new migrants,

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: We are not

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: We are proposing so our current language states that we will issue an inmate upon really working with DOC, a non driver ID. And we are proposing to expand the credential type to include a permit and a license credential if applicable. The language is just opening it up so the individual, once upon release, if they are eligible, they don't have to come back to DMV, that they are eligible to get exactly the status that they are eligible for upon release versus just a non driver ID.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: As the commissioner said yesterday, instead of having them get the ID and then come back to you to license, you're just gonna give them the license if they can get a license.

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: If they're eligible, that is correct. We already have the program in place with the Department of Corrections at this time that we've been working through for the last five years that issues inmates that have been in custody for at least a minimum of six months, and they are released with a non driver. So we've just added to be able to be all credential types, if eligible.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Is the eligibility to pass the driver's test or what would make them in now?

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: That is a great question. So if one has not renewed their driver's license and it has last for over three years, they then do have to test. So that would make them ineligible where then we would work through with our current process, which is assuring that they have a non driver ID in their possession upon release.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: How many do you do a year?

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Great question. We did approximately 500 last year, January to December. That is at DMV's cost, which is $3.30 a credential, not including staff time and postage. That's great.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Would the cost be up to to fix the driver's license?

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: The cost is the same. A credential is a credential as long as we are not mixing in, which our language does not, an enhanced driver's license.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: So, if someone had an enhanced driver's license and they were found in custody, they can't? We would issue them a license. Okay.

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Or I suppose they could pay the additional $30 fee for the enhanced check. That's a choice.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: have you been in contact with the DOC?

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Yes. We have been working with them in regards so this is already an existing MOU in regards to this specific. So, we already have a very smooth operations on our area of e services, as well as a great partnership between the Department of Corrections. Because this program already exists with non driver IDs in regards to inmates that are getting released.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: And you keep waiting to and

[Richard Sullivan (DOC Facility Operations Manager)]: Over to Department of Corrections. And Is there

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: a chair of their sessions? Do

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: you wanna join me?

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. Oh, very good. I keep them over there.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Her

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: hiding chairs. No. No.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Since you she keeps looking, and I can you introduce yourself? Hello.

[Richard Sullivan (DOC Facility Operations Manager)]: I'm Richard Sullivan from the Department of Corrections. I'm a facility operations manager, and I work heavily in reentry.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: And can you outline the process now and what changes would this do from your perspective?

[Richard Sullivan (DOC Facility Operations Manager)]: The process now is this applies to sentenced individuals only, not people who are strictly detained. So once a person is sentenced to at least six months, they're eligible to receive an ID. We have an identification documentation person who is able to get a Social Security card, a birth certificate, and thank you. A non driver ID or license. The way I understand it is that if the person used to have Mhmm. A real ID, then they can get a real ID. Correct. And if not, we should make sure that they have a non driver ID.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: So, and let me ask, have you both been in front of house institutions?

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: Yes. Not on this bill. To clarify, there were, introduced a bill to expand the language to detainees. It is not regarding miscellaneous this DMV's miscellaneous bill of the way we are currently. The only thing DMV is noting in here is about a one for one. So what credential are you eligible for versus just non driver? It's open that up. What we testified in house was an expanded introduced bill in regards to adding detainees, which that is still being reviewed, I believe, and numbers needed.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: So k. Because the chair of the institutions committee has been in and and was very interested in what is being proposed, and it it makes it clearer for us that we understand that their bill would expand stuff. This would take existing people that have existing license and permit levels, and just allow them to continue. And this is under an MOU already

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

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: For what you're doing. So this would codify exactly what you're doing.

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: That's correct. Okay. Just try to set the individual up on their best ability for once they go out the doors to reentry into the community.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay, go ahead.

[Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Drayer. Yeah, I see no problems with this language. Think it's kind of an easy ad for us and I appreciate bringing to us, but I do want to know, is the difference between detainees and folks who are being released that kind of the inflection point for you where your both agencies are not comfortable yet making the transition to detainees? And if you could describe a little bit of why that difference? Because I can see going as far as

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: what we see in the

[Richard Sullivan (DOC Facility Operations Manager)]: House bill personally. The difference is when someone is sentenced, we know when they're gonna leave. Three months before the person is eligible to walk out the door, we can start the process of getting an ID. Oh, okay. As opposed to someone who's detained. They can be detained until next week when they go to court, or they can be detained for years until their case is settled. Initially, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to get IDs for people who are detained. Part of the issue is if the person is detained, we apply for the ID, that ID is already in process. So if the person goes to court tomorrow and gets out, they can't go to the DMV because now they have to wait for that process to finish, and that can take three to four weeks. Oh. So we're keeping what we're getting in those cases. But also because an ID is valid for a finite period of time, if they don't get sentenced and released, then we made the effort to get the ID and DMV pays for it and then it goes to waste.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Okay. Maybe. May I answer? Go ahead.

[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Member)]: What about an inmate who is sentenced and has, say, a five year sentence? Is there anything to prevent him to allow him to get a license before three years is up so he doesn't have to retest? I mean, who who tells? Is there a system to let them know? Or

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: There is there are those cases. It does not come from DOC at all. It is typically a family member where, what we're understanding is they're going online and renewing it so it doesn't last. But you can only do that for so many times without coming in for a new photo. But the five year. Right?

[Patrick "Pat" Brennan (Member)]: Yeah.

[Nancy Prescott (DMV Director of Operations)]: So there is that possibility and the ability, but it isn't something that DMV works with DOC on. Okay.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: But it's doable?

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yes. Great

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: questions. I do want to have you in institutions here so that we

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: can

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: talk about it and get into more detail. And just for this committee, I just wanted to say how important it is for someone to have an ID and to have it right when they get out and there was a kinda there was something done to show that system for people that was like six months ago that I went to and it was a staging of how challenging it is when you get out of incarceration because you need transportation and you really need an ID and you need an ID for everything. If you don't have it, have to go back in the line and it's really very challenging for people to get up to speed and we need them to get up to speed. I mean, we have the population challenge, right? And many of those folks are ready to work and we don't need additional hurdles and barriers. So thank you for the work and we'll talk to you in institutions.

[Haley Summer (DOC Director of Communications)]: It okay if we add one more

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: thing from DOC? You need to identify yourself. I'll ask you to

[Haley Summer (DOC Director of Communications)]: do that. For the record, my name is Haley Summer. I'm the Director of Communications for DOC. Just wanted to note one thing for the committee with regards to the way that the language is in statute. So in this bill, it references an individual who's committed to the custody of the commissioner for six months or more. But in the rest of statute, it's very clear to distinguish whether it's an individual who's detained, so that would be an inmate, or if it's an individual who's been sentenced, so that's an offender. And because it's not quite as distinct in this language, I would just request that maybe we get together with corrections and institutions and let your counsel to streamline the language so it's consistent.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: And phone number. Oh, That's an institution you could work on. Yeah.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: Thank you.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: That would be great.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: K. Thank

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: you. You. Appreciate it.

[Lt. Daniel Merchant (DMV Enforcement & Safety Division)]: Okay.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: It's very efficient.

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I'll switch too. Yeah.

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Megan?

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Do you have your

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Why don't we take

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: How much time do you take?

[Richard Westman (Chair)]: Five minute break, and then we'll put you in the chair. Yeah. Walk you through. Great.

[Renee Cota (DMV Director of Finance)]: You did such a great job of

[Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: the