Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: That's gonna be You're laughing.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Right. So this is Senate Transportation. We are Tuesday, February 24, and we are here to talk about mostly this morning. We're gonna talk about miscellaneous DMV bill. We are gonna start with two eleven. And before we start, I think what we've heard for testimony on two eleven has been quite a wide range of things. And we've heard from natural resources about their concerns about the EPA. We've heard about the vehicle miles traveled with that going in place and some reluctance to immediately charge into this. I took the liberty of asking Damian to put something together that is more come back with an overall plan that would get us there over a period of time and with approval pieces in that. I haven't seen the draft myself. It's meant to cause a discussion. So Wednesday, tomorrow, when we get around to have the discussion about two eleven and two year inspections, how we would move forward. We've got everything from the bill that's drafted to something that what he's got and it's made to provoke you to think about where you might be on Wednesday. So we get to a place where we have a discussion about. Because I don't think we wanted to drop the idea down here, but I'm not sure we're what I'm hearing is I'm not sure we're ready to go live immediately with that. So this is meant to do that, and I wanted to do that before tonight's hearing because we're gonna bump up against the inspection manual, all of that stuff. But it is designed. My goal would be that we get this DMV bill out of here tomorrow, and before the end of the week, we hopefully can come to an agreement around the table at 02:11 to move it in some form, and it might be very different.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: We're still keeping the inspection section to whatever it is, two thirty six, three twenty six.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: The DMV bill. Yeah. All of that will be discussed tomorrow and it will be discussed in the context in DMV. I plan to have that discussion in context with the inspection manual, but thought it a little presumptuous for us to do that before we had the hearing. No.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Can I just ask?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: But the ultimate goal would be not to pass two separate bills if we were going to do something, but to pass a S-two 11 within the DMV?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, think we could talk about however we wanted to My do intention was to get the DMV bill out of here with inspections in it, but then before the end of the week, send two eleven in. But we can have that conversation tomorrow and whatever the will of the committee is, we'll figure it out.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Okay, that makes sense. So it's not if it doesn't end

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: up in the DMV, it's done.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: No. No, it's, you know, I figured that's a discussion that this table will make a decision on tomorrow, and if we make tomorrow to do 02:11 separate, I wanna have it out before the end of the week. I want to I'd like to have the stuff that we have to get done for crossover done by Friday. So so we don't come back and feel rushed. And and then we'll have a discussion before the end of the week. The week we come back from town meeting, which will be four crossover in that, we're gonna start to move into the stuff that we will need to do in a T Bill. Okay. And the first thing on the list to do that is get Patrick here and get some language around NBUF and how we and how far we wanna go and what we wanna do with that the piece. We've taken a lot of testimony that goes beyond what needs to be done in January. And so we will probably wanna have the discussion about what does all of that, how far would we wanna go, what would we do, but we at least, if they're going to implement AMBA in January, we have to set the rates. So I wanna, when we come back, charge right into that, to right out of the box, before we get a T bill, before we get any of that, we start to hone in around what all of our thinking is around that. Great.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yes. K. Alright.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you for the record. I'm Damon Leonard from the Office of Legislative Council. As the chair was speaking there, I realized looking over the draft here that I managed to forget to add in the line that required them to look at integration with the mBuff. And I apologize for that. That was an oversight in the draft yesterday. That'll be on the next version. So what this is is it requires the secretaries of transportation and natural resources to develop a plan to transition to a safety and emissions inspection program that requires pleasure cars to be inspected once every two years beginning in January 2028. The reason I had gone with the secretary of transportation was because of the MBUF because it oversees both motor vehicles as well as revenues. So and then and drafting it, I forgot to actually include the mBUF in the draft. But the plan would establish a timeline for developing and implementing changes to the existing safety and emissions inspection program to ensure that it can transition to a biennial inspection requirement for pleasure cars beginning in January 2028, identify specific actions necessary to ensure that Vermont remains in compliance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, including any necessary changes to the emissions inspection program and the state implementation plan. Identify potential options for mitigating impacts to state revenues during the transition. You remember there was talk about how this will lead to some fluctuating revenues, and that may be acceptable, but if there's an approach to mitigate any impacts on the year to year operating revenues while that, the inspections start to even out. That's something that could be identified. Following that, I will add a paragraph that says, identify how to integrate the two year inspection process with the mileage based user fees being adopted by the the state and then outline an outreach and education program to inform inspection mechanics, inspection stations, vehicle owners, and other interested parties of the new biannual inspection program requirements, and then identify any changes to statutes and rules that are necessary to implement the plan. So, basically, tell us what the plan is and give us a timeline for how that would look. Identify changes that are going to need to happen because of the Clean Air Act. Identify any potential options for mitigating revenue impacts. Tell us how you're going to integrate this with the mBuff. Outline what your outreach and education program will be, and then identify any statutory or rule changes that are necessary. And then subsection b directs them to solicit feedback from stage stakeholders, including inspection, stations and mechanics, vehicle owners, dealers, and other interested parties, and then submit the report to this committee and the senate natural resources committee and in the house, the transportation and environment committees, regarding the plan and any recommendations for legislative action and do that by October 15 this year. So that would allow legislation to be drafted going into next year. Assuming all of you are coming back, it would allow you to review this as soon as you're reelected. And then if any of you are not coming back, it would allow your successors to, take a look at that, after election day. So it'll be ready to go in this period gearing up to the session rather than in January.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Go ahead. Well, if he's gonna finish,

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I was gonna

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Nope.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: I'm done.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Oh, great. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, mister chair. So if I understand correctly, like, the change, it's basically making a plan, report, desire for rulemaking rather than actually implementing a change to Right.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Other

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: One of the options here is that you could put in put in the statutory change that's in the underlying two eleven and just make it effective 01/01/2028. I left that out of this draft because I wasn't sure if that was if the committee would just wanna report or would wanna report with a pending effect or impending effective date that you can always revise next year if it looks like it needs to be pushed out or if there are other reasons to adjust it.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I think my preference would be more in that direction, but if this is what we landed on, ultimately, I would still be very satisfied. I I would just I I really do appreciate this creation. I like the way you framed it up, and I like the way it's drafted. So thank you. But I do wish there was more of a finality too. No. This is gonna happen. Mhmm. Because I wanna go into town meeting next week and tell my constituents that we are moving forward with this plan. So I do like the but I respect if that's not where everyone's at. I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: think the committee will entertain whatever anybody there anything besides the EPA and vehicle miles traveled that we think is not in here that needs to be in here? Did I did we forget anything? For me, what I heard when we did is we wanna do vehicle miles traveled and we wanna implement it on January 1, and it's always been based on reading the odometer and the inspection. And if we did this, we've got no alternatives in place right now. That's one step. The next was all of the stuff with the EPA, and they would have to ask questions of the EPA. Is there anything else that we've forgotten that was part of this?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I would say there's really only two things. The first is it doesn't describe the fee and what we do with the fee if we move. It's asking the DMV to come back with information related to that,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I would assume in the plan.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: So we're not putting forward a policy position on what it's gonna cost every two years to get,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: which is my Would you say structures of the fee? Because Yeah. Because it they would have to roll this into place. And we did talk about when would you roll it in and I think they said, did they say calendar year?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: This is, I'm thinking of what, I think it was Renee Cota had said, I don't recall, but we are missing like calling out what the cost would be, which I think They is why

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: did say calendar year. So maybe we ought to say in this that they would give us we have to pay attention to the fees, so they would give us, how would you implement this? Mhmm. In timing of accounting.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I would like to put in there, if possible, we don't want to see a fee higher than a certain amount or something. Because I thought in the original S-two 11 what I appreciate was we went from $8 to $16 so ideally folks weren't feeling like a huge cost shift when they went and got an every other year inspection, and I would just not feel good if we were setting ourselves up to get like a $30 every other year. That's what it costs, inspection fee.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I would just think fees Functionally, how would you implement this?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, yeah. So there are there are kind of two things you can do here. One is to say, you know, identify or, you know, develop a fee structure or for the two year inspections.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, that goes hand in hand with with functionally implementing this.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. And you can you can say, you know, when you say establish a timeline for developing and implementing changes, and then when you say identify potential options for mitigating impacts to state revenues, including, you know, a proposed fee structure. And we can also add additional language to that that clarifies, you know, that, you know I'm I'm not sure quite the best way to word it, but you could add in language that, you know, clarifies that the goal isn't to, you know, significantly increase expenses for Vermonters.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But when you're saying mitigating impacts to state revenues

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That that kind of more of, like, let's make sure we're not harming state revenues versus let's develop additional residue.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So there there is a difference there. So mitigating, you know, is kind of like, let's reduce any harm versus, like, let's, you know, generate revenues or something like that. And I don't know right now if the fee that's currently charged, I don't know the ins and outs enough to know. Like, is this a fee where the state of Vermont is taking a loss in the administrative costs, or is it fully compensating the administrative costs, etcetera?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Where is that sentence that you just said?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that's the top of page two, lines one and two. It says identify potential options for mitigating impacts to state revenues.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: And Maybe I'll just think a little bit about that line.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. And we could we could clarify their fee structure. We could also have a separate line item. The other option the other option that I was going to set out is in the original 02/11, you had a fee set out, which basically said we're going to every other year, so we'll just double the fee because it's half as many inspections. So the amount that goes back to the state is twice as much. And there you could put something like that in. One of the questions, though, is will it does that fee make sense if the state is processing fewer of these?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Or does it make sense? Or does different fee I would rather instruct

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: them to come up with a plan. Okay. I think unintentionally, by going to two year inspections, what we heard was buses and Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: That's the other

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: all got doubled. And I think what the attempt here was in

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: the

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: bill unintentionally doubled fees for some peep some vehicles that they didn't mean to do that, and that way, if we put this in the hands of the agency, they'll work out all of that before comes to us.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Do you and on that point, that was the second thing is that I think we might be missing is to call the specific vehicle type. So when we say pledger vehicle in this, that does remove the conversation from inspections related to other vehicles. So just so we I don't have we don't have the same same tools.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, yeah, one of the other things too is way I can phrase this is that they propose a fee structure for inspections, including which would include the possibility of different fees for different types of vehicles depending on the frequency of inspection.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: I think that that's

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well, it's you know, I could see a thing in this that they would come back with us and say, Buses and school buses are going to continue to be inspected every single year. Yeah. And so they would have some in and some out. That's why we want to put the onus on them to do the plan.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Is

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: there any way, like I, so I think those are really the only things that flagged for me was the different vehicle types and then the fee when reading this. But just more broadly, let's say they go through the stakeholder engagement and process that's in the bill and they get negative feedback or there's a big push from inspection stations, for example, to not move forward with this plan. Can they make a recommendation to not do something next year for us? Or does this really set them up to have to make a forward moving recommendation?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the directive is that they shall develop a plan to transition the inspection program to a requirement that electric cars be inspected once every two years.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: So that's pretty much Yeah. Okay.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's So whether whether the legislature decides to move forward with that

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: or not We'll be honest to make the decision. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Exactly. They're directed to develop a plan to make that decision.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Expect we'll know what they think. But but I did you know, what I'm you know, I personally input it, don't want them to do is just blow this off and not do the work to get there. I want us to know what the stumbling blocks in each one of these levels are. And we may get to my view is if we get a full plan, they're gonna tell us where the tough points are. We may come back in this.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And I'll say this right out, and they may not be able to work through the EPA. There may not and if there's not, I wanna hear that, but

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: yeah. Go ahead. So that was my question. I was a little confused about the first, section that says they shall develop a plan, and then it's we we get it in the form of a report. The two don't in with in my mind, don't jive. I mean, they're and it's telling them they shall develop a plan. What if it's not possible? What if the EPA and the, know, jumps in and says, no, you can't do this. Are they gonna what are they gonna be showing us for a plan? It's my question.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: K.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Are they gonna say in the plan, here's what we propose, but it doesn't work. We're telling them to do this.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: One of the things that, could be put in here is to say that if there are if there are requirements under the Clean Air Act that prevent them from moving emissions inspections to every two years, you could say to, you know, identify what those stumbling blocks are and present, you know, any options for addressing them, including,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: you know, the But but I would want to present options if there are options Yeah. Presented, and and explain it. You know? Right.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Yeah. Otherwise, I think we'd be getting their plan like we told them to Yeah. Without stumbling blocks, without EPA concerns. We didn't ask them to do that. We just asked them to give us a plan.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. But I I would say we hear a lot of stuff from our constituents about eliminating this. And what I wanna be able to is get something that that has looked at this from beginning to end. Here's how if you were gonna try to do this, you avoid as many. But if there are stumbling blocks like the EPA, I wanna know. Yeah. You know, there's been a lot of bills introduced that say eliminate inspections, do all that. I feel like as we got into this, we don't have all the answers.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. So are we gonna take more testimony on this if we need to? Maybe we can talk about that after the tonight. Well,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: we're gonna Right. Yeah. Part of tonight, we're just getting scheduled to do all that. I think we have to move on something Yeah. Now. And so I don't think this is the last we'll hear of it this year, but how do we get the answers to everybody that is asked about this?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right, and something that I appreciate if they're willing to tell us their opinion, insurance companies have a lot

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: of good information, right? I mean,

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: they know the trends, they know about accidents, they know about safety, they know ages of drivers. I mean, honestly know too much, right? But they, if they're willing to share their information, it would just be helpful because I've heard that inspections, I've heard people say that inspections don't produce more safer cars, But I'd like to hear from an insurance company, if possible. So

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: we're gonna take this up on Wednesday and make a decision where we put this, what we do with that, how far we go, how little we go, whatever. So we'll plan on doing this on Wednesday. At this point, I'd like to move into the side by side discussion for the DMD bill.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Do you wanna go through the the outline that I sent you?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Hang on. I also sent the new draft this morning. Three It's point one? Yeah. Yeah. We are You're pulling on me.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I need to get my iPad out. Can do it.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: It's a fortune side by side. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So there was the outline of the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill sections that I sent you. It's not a side by side so much. It's just the working This

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: is the

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: big e mail?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh. Do

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: you happen

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: to post that?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I would appreciate it if it was.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: This Yeah. But there's an updated version of this.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is Yeah. Sent that on Friday, I believe. And then 3.1 is the most recent draft I think of the bill. So I sent the outline of the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill sections. Yeah. It's called working outline in the title. I sent it on Friday afternoon to the whole committee.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yes. I'm gonna post that right now. Thank you. And

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it it you've seen prior versions of it. I think I've been producing one every Friday as we've been working through the bill. The can also pull it up on the screen here if that's helpful. There's not a lot in here that's left to go that's left open.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Oh. Is it posted? If you refresh your screen, it should be

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm trying. Is it under witness? Name for today. And what was wait.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. She's fast.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Oh, there's a lot of green highlights.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Yeah. There it is. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Highlights.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: I think it's all green down.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Close to it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Here we go. Yep.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And so this is my most current notes. I can invite you to correct me if I've missed anything. So looking at this sections one, two, three, four, five, and six, these are the sections relating to nondriver IDs, operators licenses, and learner's permits for both offenders who have been sentenced to six months or more in prison and detainees who are currently being held in a correctional facility but either have not been sentenced or but have not been sentenced at this point. And this reflects the language that was developed in the house corrections and institutions committee. You'll note there that I've noted that it's to be reviewed by senate institutions. I believe we're doing that this afternoon. Mhmm. And so other than that, though, I think it's been closed out in this committee.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: We and We could hear back from senate institutions by tomorrow when we get around to get ready. Wanna vote in this until your committee is set. And we'll do a straw poll. Perfect.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So section seven is the insufficient funds section. I still have this marked as on hold and waiting for more information from DMV on the process for collecting payment from individuals whose initial tender payment, whether it's credit card, debit card, electronic funds transfer check, has not gone through.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: But What did you mean from DMV?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I thought the committee was waiting to hear more on the process to be comfortable that individuals were not going to be penalized if their institution didn't move make their funds available

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: in a timely manner.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I believe that was the concern here is that sometimes you'll see a a three or four day hold on funds when someone deposits a check. And if they're depending on that to process the electronic funds payment. I know DMV has provided some information, but I have not heard from the committee yet that they're good to go on this.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Sorry. I got confused. I thought that but the electronic signature piece

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, that's further down.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. This is

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is this is for if I go to pay for my license or registration with my debit card and initially the charge goes through. But by the time the charge processes, my bank bounces it back because whatever funds that showed up as being available are not actually available. And currently, there's a process where DMV would probably, as I understand, contact me, let me know that payment didn't go through, ask for an alternative form of payment. The question that I understood to still be out there was whether the committee was comfortable with the process that DMV has and whether it's protective enough for individuals whose bank has not processed the funds and whose payment bounces.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: It's that I think from that, I took it that the DMV goes back to the individuals without just.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's correct. Although the statute says shall immediately suspend my understanding as the reality is that they If I don't hear go through.

[Matt Russo, Deputy Commissioner of DMV]: Matt Russo, deputy commissioner of DMV. If it's pending and the bank has not released the funds, we don't do anything until the funds have been released. They would actually have to get back to us and say an account closed, denied before we would do anything, and we would give them thirty days before we suspend. So it's not immediate.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yep. So they have thirty days. So I'm ready to go with this. Okay. When I heard from them in the

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay. So I just had Everybody

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: all fine with that? Yes.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. What can you turn around? I'm sorry.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So this is section seven of the bill Okay. Which is

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: 11, I think.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. It's

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: it's moved to age 11 a 100. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Age 11.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So this doesn't have a a a time frame?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the the statute itself says

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Commissioner shall send a written notice to the person who provided insufficient funds. And if the required amounts are not immediately paid, the commissioner shall suspend the license registration. I think the concern came up about if those amounts are not immediately paid. But what the department has clarified is that their their process is not, you know, like a twenty four hour process. It's they're waiting to see

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: a pending charge clear. They don't suspend They're contacting people.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Right. People have time to move.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So their policy is good, but this still says immediately. I mean, do you wanna just delete immediately?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Or You could you could change that, you know, to, are not paid in a timely manner or not paid within thirty days.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I I would say promptly paid or in a timely manner.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm I'm pretty good with the fact that if they're doing it, we should give them the flexibility to keep their their debates.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. And then this the immediately language tracks the existing law. So I the reason it's even showing up as underlined was just because I rewrote the sentence because we added electronic funds transfers.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: If if their policy is thirty days,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I I would I'm perfectly fine with that as long as we give them flexibility not change their policy. So so basically, it's the same policy as it's always been. We're just adding electronic transfers to the Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's the same statutory language that the thirty day policy was developed. Yeah. So yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. I think I'm good with if somebody has a problem and they deposited money and they think they've got it, it electronically goes through, they get denied. I didn't want them immediately to be dropped. You know, if and if they're not immediately dropped in that and DMV is giving that, you know, has a waiting period, I'm perfectly fine with that, and I'd like this language to reflect that.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yes, I agree with your assessment of their system and their policy. I'm just, I don't see how not immediately paid is consistent with that.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That's what I just said was the language should change to reflect what

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Oh, okay.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I So how about we say if

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: the required That's

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: what I write. If

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the required amounts are not immediately pay or promptly paid as required by the commissioner,

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then that allows the commissioner discretion to And

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: they can determine what is prompt.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Right. Yes. I'll just say in my case, sometimes I make electronic deposit with a take a picture of my jacket. Sometimes it takes four days, and sometimes you go to pay bills and you're exuberant and you get there. What I'd hate to see is somebody yeah. Okay. Totally agree.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Perfect. Okay.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Alright. So I've made the change in the working draft here. So the draft 3.1 that you saw this morning, you'll notice it's highlighted. It hasn't been edited. I'm just making edits to it as we as we work through. And then when we're finished with the edits following tonight's hearing Yep. I'll send it out for or the changes following tonight's hearing, I'll send it out for an edit with our editors. I'm just trying to keep them from having to read the same document a few dozen times.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay,

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: moving down the outline, you'll see a lot more green until we get to Go ahead.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I thought we were waiting on the eighth. This is agreed to, but I don't remember ever hearing from the judiciary on these fines. So

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: with the fines, I did a look at the statute or the the case law on this. And I I think you may have been out of the room that morning when I talked about it. Oh, okay. So I looked at the statute. The with the excessive fines language, the way the case law has worked on this is that it has to bear a reasonable relationship to the significance of the

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Right.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The actual, thing that it's penalizing.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Right.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So in this case, the I think there's an argument that with the cost of recovering a stuck vehicle from the notch, That's fine. Right? It does. And you can have fines fines in general go to the state.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: State doesn't pay for the.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. But this is an an effort to deter the stockage there in the same way that you could have a significant fine for, well, taxes go to the state, and then the state collects a penalty on that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So I thought at some point had specifically that that violator could be charged the fees to unstuck the truck, which I assume is happening.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that is not in the statute, and that's not in the draft here. It is something that we discussed, but it was not to my recollection, it wasn't asked that that be put into the draft.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I thought we did that. It's a couple of years ago when we were trying to address it before the But maybe it's not statutory. Maybe they can just do it, and then maybe they don't need legislative authority to charge.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: What's the total the total company? No. Like I mean

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: You know, the the the folks that show up. Yeah. Maybe the

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The tow company is likely already charging the

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: truck owner to remove their car their truck. It's it's more like, yeah, the fire local fire burning that's gonna show up and kinda help the tow truck and talk to them.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Or the state employees or

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: The state employees. I thought the the locals in Jeffersonville maybe had testified that, you know, they every time it happens, they have quite a bit of expensive dealing with it. But maybe they maybe they can. There's nothing prohibiting them from charging for their but, I mean, that that would be, like, getting charged by the party department to come out of your house. So

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't know that there's any statute that necessarily addresses whether the local agencies can charge for their expenses. So the current statute provides that vehicle operation is prohibited. Certain single frame motor vehicles that are 40 feet over 40 feet in length and then tractor units with one or more attached trailer over 45 feet in total length are prohibited from operating on the smuggler's snob segment of Route 108. And then the employer or of an operator who's operating the vehicle, in the scope of employment or the operator of a vehicle who's operating it for personal purposes is subject to a civil penalty. And the civil penalty is a base of a thousand dollars, And then if it results in substantially impeding the flow of traffic, it's $2,000. And then for a second or subsequent conviction, it's doubled. And then it shall not apply to the provision does not apply to emergency services involved in training or responding to real world instances. And then there's required signage. There's no language in the statute regarding recovery of costs.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Maybe we had just talked talked about that.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There's nothing that prevents the tow truck operator from billing the individual. Yeah. Which I'm sure is not cheap. I mean, the the hours alone are going to run it up and then especially if it's a tractor trailer, you need a specialized record to get it out.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Isn't there already a mechanism to so the fines here are the fines, 10,000 for the first offense. Is there a mechanism to distribute that money when we do well, when you're picked up up for speeding and you're fined $200, it doesn't all go to one person. Some goes to the town, some goes to the sheriff, doesn't it?

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Not at the sheriff.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: It depends on I would have

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure how those

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: I want to bet is everybody that's involved in that 10,000 would if if there's a share coming to them, then you get it. But rather than

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: all that, but I Yeah. But the state route is there's also, like, the the fund sexual abuse fund. They get money from fines. I don't if it's traffic fines or the. I'm I'm okay. I think is okay with it. We don't feel like it's Yeah.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: I don't care about it.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I I think we heard from Damian that the 10,000 and the 20 were okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. It's it's at least arguably okay at a minimum. So the we have some quite stiff penalties and statute for expensive offenses.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: The

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the one that the very limited case law in the state, so the one that came up in case law was, where a business received a significant 6 figure penalty for, not declaring certain earnings in terms of its tax liability. And the court upheld that saying that the penalty was a fraction of the lost revenue to the state even though it was in the mid 6 figures

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Because the individual had not declared $28,000,000 in earnings, or the the individual company had not declared $28,000,000 in earnings. And so that's in that case, they said this is well within the limits, and the cases that have struck down civil penalties have been more along the lines of for example, there's a the federal case that cited was an individual was taking, roughly $340,000 in cash out of the country to pay off a debt in another country. They did not declare on exiting the country, which violates US law. But instead of seeking the $5,000 penalty for failing to declare the cash instruments, the federal government sought to seek forfeiture of the full $345,000 that the individual was trying to take out of the country, and the supreme court struck that down as being clearly excessive given that the failure was just to report there was no tax or anything on that amount. In this case, you're talking about an expensive recovery. So I think that the given the cost of recovery and the impact on travel, there's a strong argument that the $10,000 penalty is not excessive. That said, I can't guarantee how a court's gonna rule on it.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. Section nine.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Alright.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: That was your electron signatures?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. Section nine has agreed to. Section 10 has agreed to. Section 11, I have not added this to the most recent draft that you have. It was one of the things I didn't get to yesterday when I was updating the draft.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: But we did come to agreement.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But you have come to agreement, and we'll have the definition that's missing updated in the final version of the draft that you vote on. Yep. And then we can skip down to section 16. That's the next Yep. Section that's open. And if you look at the draft you have this morning.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: It's section 16.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. Which starts on 18. Yes. Page 19, actually.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: More than 18 on Oh, 18

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: on okay.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I see.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So this adds going down to Subdivision 13 Mhmm. Which is, I think, on page 21. It adds a definition of gross vehicle weight rating on GWWR, which means the value specified by the manufacturer of a vehicle as the maximum loaded weight of the vehicle. Which line is that? So in my graph, it's lines four through six on page 21. I'm not sure if my numbering has gone, but

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Art my life Art is went to Yeah. Want to highlight the yellow. On the paper.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Which which page? 21. 21.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Is it boldness? Which draft? Oh.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: 3.1. Okay. 3.2. Mhmm.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: 3.2. You're in

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: a 3.2.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. I I haven't even been

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Then there's one three point two. Yeah. No. It's 2.2. Okay.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Alright. Yeah. 3.1. I've got four points. So this adds adds that definition, which is in lieu of the shipping weight definition that was in there before. Sorry.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Can I just ask a quick question? So the gross vehicle weight rating is is my understanding is that that's the maximum safe weight that could be loaded. I mean, somebody could load it more than that. The So is that are those words

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: With the exception of only a couple of states, I've I've looked at the states and the federal government. Most of them say the maximum loaded weight of the vehicle specified by the manufacturer. I think the reason they're they're saying that is that theoretically, you can load the vehicle heavier. Right. There are a couple of states that say maximum safe loaded weight of the vehicle specified by the manufacturer. I tried to track the other states for consistency in the federal government just so we're consistent with our surrounding states as to what we're talking about. And it's for what it's worth, if you look on that sticker inside the door of your vehicle, it'll say gross vehicle weight rating, and then there's a there's an axle weight rating too that you'll generally see for each axle of your vehicle on the sticker. Plus, there's the oh, what is that? The manufacturer's certificate that comes out with the vehicles that you can get from the manufacturer. But the they're saying this is the maximum that you should load your vehicle.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right. The maximum safe weight. So I like what those other states do, but if if we choose to go the other way, that's fine too. It I I I think it's just better for people who aren't in that world to understand.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: But Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, this is for what it's worth, we're just calling out this amount for the tax, and it

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's, you know, derived from federal statute, which is a circular definition. And so the states have generally said this is the manufacturer's specified maximum loaded weight of the vehicle.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: This narrows the definition to what's on the door or what that certificate that we saw. And before this, people could say, well, I'm gonna be over £10,999, and it wasn't tied to anything directly. I'm kind of, I'm happy to narrow this to something that is manufacturer related.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I understand. It's just being picky, and since some states do say the safe loaded weight, the safe maximum, because technically it's not the maximum because you can load it however you wanted to. But

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: safe loaded weight is or what the loaded weight could be. That's why it was defined as something that we can verify.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: If you can verify this and they used what's on the door or in that certificate. If they go out and DMV is out enforcing way people and they were over that amount, would they get a ticket? Yes.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. That's good. That's good.

[Matt Russo, Deputy Commissioner of DMV]: Also, if I just add, Perchlik, pressure DMV for record. Also, just on the customer service side, it's a lot easier for us to pinpoint on a vehicle when someone's at the counter. We can show them exactly on the vehicle what what we're talking about when GVW are.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Because when you

[Matt Russo, Deputy Commissioner of DMV]: get into the maximum save, it's that could be a gray area, whereas this is something tangible that the customer can go onto their vehicle and actually see it on their vehicle so that when we're matching our you know, if there's questions about it, we can say this is the number we're using. It's right for your vehicle.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: No, I wasn't suggesting that we use a different number or a different title. I was just suggesting that the explanation of it would include the word safe, which some states do, but I am fine to not add

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: that. So

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I will say that I hesitated to add the word safe too because I didn't wanna introduce a point where someone can argue that, well, I could safely operate this vehicle above that weight even though the manufacturer has specified the maximum loaded weight as x. And so it's it it really is something the manufacturers specify. And it's kind of like when you buy when you buy something and they say, you know, don't use this. Like, this chair has a weight rating of 300 pounds.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Exactly. That's

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It might hold four people. Yeah. Don't think

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: care, but no. I I understand.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: But And

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: so but, yeah. I I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm perfectly satisfied Yeah. With They go over the way that your OMSDMD would give them a ticket. Yes, that is right. I'm satisfied. Okay. Okay. So 16, are we Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Yeah. In '17, you'll see changes on

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And I just asked for the £13,500 or something?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's The £13,500 was the change proposed by the DMV after meeting with the dealers association and the truck and bus association.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I got that. You did a w y. Did they roll dice? Did they throw them dark?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: When they were in last week, they spoke to that, but I think they can speak to that again right now.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: The class three trucks max out of around 14,000, and so we gave them a little bit of wiggle room because in that class,

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: there are deviations in the big trucks that could be functional and could.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. Alright.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Are we okay on that? So there are three changes. Two of them are on, well, I don't know if my page numbers line up with you anymore, but I have the top of page 22 and the bottom of page 22 or halfway down 22, and then about midway on page 23. Yep. There's three instances where we change to GVWR of fifteen five. Alright. So the next, section here, the, increased penalty for snowmobiles was agreed to. And I believe, actually, in the last draft tonight, I oh, yes. So the change here is in this draft. So we deleted weather related from emergency. So top of page 25, this is the waiver for state and local employees during an emergency, allowing them to operate heavy trucks without a CDL. So it's now just during an emergency declared by the governor, and then changing the definition below from a definition of weather related emergency to just emergency to mean a situation, condition, or event that involves significant imminent or ongoing risk to public health and safety, infrastructure, or property. And remember, it has to be declared by the governor, and the governor's declaration specifically has to allow for the waiver of the CDL requirement. So there's there's multiple sort of layers to that protection. So it's not just any sort of generalized emergency. That's a specific one declared by the governor.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Good. Same.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: We had our fires thing. Did we

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: resolve what we were gonna do if there was a fire

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: in this pit?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Fire is a situation condition or event that involves significant, intimate, ongoing risk to the public. And that's fire. Know, fire. Could be a big fire.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It be a terrorist incident. It could be a flood. Yep. It could be any number of of things. I believe we mentioned volcano. Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: All of those. Said we heard that. It's a earthquake.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: So earthquake. For the volcano. Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Volcano. A

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: little slip to the tongue, but

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Well, thanks.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I believe there's a July 4 movie coming out where the Connecticut River Rift

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Valley reopens. Oh, wow. So

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Put us on the map. I think that with that, it's time to move on.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Alright.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Alright.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Oh, and in '22, Section 22 was the next one that was open. The there was a question raised last time about whether permit or license was the right term. I have had permit in there. License is the correct term. So a valid license issued under 10 BSA part four. So that is updated.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Did that did you just say you were correct?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I was. I wasn't. I

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Sorry, Jason. It's okay. Understand. Oh,

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: man. It's okay. It's good to

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Is your daughter ever correct? She's

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: She's endlessly.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Her daughters are

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: a party.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Endlessly. 10 year old. It's been a killer. So Yeah. The section 25 is being held open until after tonight's hearing. And then sections 26, 27, and 28, these are the limited use specialty vehicles. I believe that, the committee was going to take, testimony from ANR and other interested parties on that. And so I've held those open for now. Those were there's if you remember, there's a waiver of the emissions inspection requirement in there.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: On a limited basis, if you could send that language over to ANR and ask them to give us a comment in writing.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. I'll send it to

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So we and tell them we need that by tomorrow.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And that is it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: It was two things that I don't know. I right. We have a comment there about the window inspection for that for 10 things. Still try to clarify that, but I'm also I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: think at this point, Commissioner, I think that Senator Perchlik would like to have a discussion about change in plans that was with you. Okay. So don't run out of here. Sounds great.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And then I asked Dean to draft, which I have here, clarification about the number of license plates, because the existing statute does have this strange language that allows the commissioner to issue one plate. I thought it was just like a clean out if we didn't, unless there is a reason that sometimes for the commissioner to issue one plate, it's just always come up that, well, it's up to the commissioner whether we have one or two plate. And I thought this would be an opportunity to Say it's two plates. Got itself two plates. So they mean to draft what the best change would be if wanted to do that. What

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: does that community think about that?

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: I'm not sure if it's a person who just made a what it means. I mean, does that is he the one who grants authority for the one plate when it comes to Vermont's ground plates? Or or is that No. That's for it.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. And the I'm sorry to interrupt. The statutes are strange on this. So there's the one or two plate language and the general registration plate language. Some of the other specialized plates specifically require two plates. Others are silent. And so you you end up with sort of a there's a little bit of a a mix of language in the statute. So there is implied authority where it it's not specifically required otherwise that the commissioner can switch to one plate. So for the standard green plates, there's there seems to be authority there for the commissioner to use discretion as to one or two. With some of the other plates, there's clearly requirement for two plates. And so I think you're left with a a situation where there could be differences depending on which plate you get. And then there could be different requirements for individuals depending on which plates they have, whether they're required to have two or one. So the statute right now and I I know, you know, the commissioner specifically asked for clarification that had just been one, which would require updates to not only that section, but a couple others. And then this committee's, you know, discussed a variety of options, including clarifying that it's too, which is what senator Perchlik's language would do there. I know the other thing just to note with that language is that, pulling up the language now, but I believe that depending on what you wanna do with the other license plate proposals, all of which are out of the bill at this moment Mhmm. This includes the coloring and tinting language that was proposed by the department. And so you you would potentially wanna decide whether you wanna include that in the bill as well if you move forward with this language. So there's there's two proposals in here. What this did is it took the language as it was at the time when I worked on this with senator Perchlik and just dropped the one plate or clarified, in this case, that it was one plate Or that it was two plates, I'm sorry, and one would be securely attached to the rear and one to the front. Excuse me.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: In the past in the past years, the former commissioner, when she was commissioned, she never she could imagine when she would ever issue one plate, so it would be good to clarify that as part of the statute. Unless the current commissioner does have a Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Wendy's next day.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Just, I just don't, my question I guess is, is this an exemption for an individual or is it an exemption for a type of car or a type of plate, or you could do it by region? I mean, there's all kinds of different ways you could, but I think it doesn't make sense. I'm happy to see it.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Instances that we would do the one would be ATV trailer dealer plates we would issue the on antique plates, or a signature farm, I believe farm plates are only the part one. So there are instances where we do need the one, the ability to issue just one, and we do have it, I believe it's an administrative rule that is clarified that we issue to the provider, put in cars and list out instances where one can be issued. And if I may, it also leaves it open for future statute changes or new vehicles that are on the market.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: All surface vehicles, for instance,

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: only have one plate on the back, so it kind of leaves an open in case there are changes in the future. The way the existing language is, you could issue the commissioner could issue just one slice of the pleasure car. Right. So the motor vehicle operator, Iowa shall have displayed in the conspicuous place either one or two numbered plates as required by the commission.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So as as I read the statute here, this is sort of the general provision, and it does seem to imply that there, that the commissioner may have that authority to choose to do just one plate for the standard green plates. I don't see something that prevents or specifically requires the standard plates to be two plates. In my review of the statute, I may have overlooked something, but my my reading so far has been that in certain places, we specifically call out two plates. In other places, we're silent. And there, it says one or two plates. I think, traditionally, there have been two green plates, but it it seems like the statute would allow discretion there. The Yeah. I'd I'd have to look back through, but I know there are certain statutes that specifically provide for two plates, one up front, one on

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: the rear. Does that overcome this as required, that has the commissioner been required? So you could have somewhere else it says to the commissioner Yeah.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The way we interpret statutes is the more specific statute trumps the general statute. So for example, the conservation motor vehicle plates, which is section three zero four b, that says that plates so acquired shall be mounted on the front and rear of the vehicle except that a motorcycle plate shall be mounted only on the rear of the motorcycle. And so in that case, we're talking about two plates for a car or any other it's it's anything up to 26,000 pounds or one plate per motorcycle. So, again, that gets to what the deputy commissioner was talking about where there's there are instances of one plate for motorcycle to bore the motor vehicles and trucks that can use conservation plates.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Okay. So you're you're you're reading them because of these other statutes where it says two, there wouldn't be a time where the commissioner could issue just one for a question.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: If the if if the statute specifically calls out two, so for example, conservation blades, buildings right, and futures blades both specifically call out two. Right. What about The commissioner could not say, I'm gonna do one. What about regular plates? For a regular for a pleasure. I in my reading of the statute, I don't see something that specifically says that the regular plates have to be on both the front and rear. I can double check that. But my recollection is that it's only on certain special plates where it specifically calls out front and rear must be used for vehicles other than motorcycles. That Okay.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: That doesn't make any sense to me at all. If you have a regular passenger car with a regular plate, not a specialty plate, and that you're telling the people with the specialty plate they have to have too, and you're telling a regular plate holder they could get permission to have only one. Is that what I'm hearing?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. So the the statutes and I think part of this is the the plate the various plate statutes have been adopted at different times, and they're reflective of as we've gotten as time has gone on, our statutes have gotten more detailed and specific. So newer statutes tend to call out more of these nuances and be more clear about them. Our older statutes tend to have a little bit more wiggle room.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So well, my goal was just to clarify what it is, not to change policy because we know everybody gets issued two plates, but because there was this proposal to go to one plate and it just this made it seem like they could do it without legislative authority. I just wanna make it clear that the requirement, except for these examples, that it's two plates.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Yeah. So if I look at the manner of display statute here, is section five eleven, It provides that a motor vehicle operated on the highway shall display either one or two number plates as the commissioner may require. It does not specify, you know, motor vehicle other than a motorcycle shall display two number plates unless, you know, there's a specific reason. Otherwise, it may it may make sense, especially given what you just heard about certain vehicles like a farm truck only needing one plate. It it would potentially take a little bit of additional time to go through and see, are we calling out one plate for these specifics? Because the way one way to adopt update this would be shall display two number plates unless specifically unless otherwise specified by law. Yes. And then that would specifically call out the exemptions for motorcycles, farm trucks, etcetera, but we need to go through and make sure in each of those instances that the statute is clear that it's only one plate, assuming you wanna keep the one plate requirement for those vehicles that are currently one plate. I think antiques is clear that it's one plate in the statute. I don't know about farm trucks. I'd have to check. So and this is not uncommon in Vermont that we have administrative practices that have developed over time and become the standard, and the statute is big and not necessarily right on point with all of the administrative practices and seems to permit some leeway because it was drafted in a way to say, you know, we know the commissioner is requiring two for these vehicles and one for these vehicles. Let's just say as the commissioner requires that we don't have to go into all of the nuances. And that that's, you know, just an outgrowth of a citizen legislature that until very recently didn't have much of any staff. And so you were kinda really hampered in in the amount of work that could get done each session. And so some of the language was vague, this is Vermont too, where very recently, you know, we're we would do agreements with handshakes, and we still do in many instances rather than a detailed contract or that sort of thing. So but if we could go back through and try to find that and clarify it and call everything out, it may also be a project for that would be something to tackle in in, like, next year's motor vehicle bill is to clarify what are the instances, and let's just get everything consistent.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, mister chair. To that point, do we ever get a report or any kind of I know. Any information about the times that this tool is used by the commissioner or the frequency of it?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There there's no regular reporting requirement, and I I don't wanna speak for the department and say that that's something that could be produced or or claim that that would be, you know, an easy project or not, but that's something you could potentially ask them if they could do that.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Or over for

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, certainly often. As your alleged counsel, as time permits, I can go through the statute and call out the requirements for it and give you a chart. Oh. I don't know if I could do that in the short short term, but I might be able to do that before before this bill is voted on the floor. But then amending it would potentially be challenging, but probably doable. So

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: since there is administrative structure that explains the types of vehicles that are allowed not to have two plates, can we say in statute that the commissioner is authorized to determine which types of vehicles don't need a front plate or something like that.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep, and as we were talking, the commissioner sent me the department's rules on plates. Excellent. Mhmm. And I will send the link to Megan so she can post it. So, currently, code of Vermont rules 14 dash 50 dash 25, which is ironically named DMP rule number 16. I think that needs to be updated. Registration plates covers special number plates for members of the house, the senate, the US house, the US senate.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Sometimes they're not all that special.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Requirements around numbers and letters on vanity plates, dimensions of plates, and then also gets down to, I believe, the number of plates. Two registration plates are issued and must be displayed by all registration vehicles except for the following types of vehicles for which one plate is issued. Trailers, new car dealers, finance car dealers, farm machinery dealers, trailer dealers, all terrain vehicle dealers, motorcycles, ATVs, antique vehicles, contractors' trailers, used car dealers, auction car dealers, highway building equipment dealers, motorcycle slash moped dealers, transporters, mopeds, exhibition vehicles, and then zone plates. So Looks like it It's already already laid out in the regulations.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So And from a practical sense, to change the rules, they would have to go through the rule making process.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Which is a not a light lift. Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Well Unless they ask for expedited, but they're not

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: getting Well, even even the emergency rulemaking process requires a fair amount of work. The only way to really limit that work is to take it out of the APA, which is which puts them more in the procedural adoption at which point commissioner can update at will, without the public notice and comment requirements. So is so is there a way around what is it what you're telling me is there's a way around getting rid of the two plates that's in rule without going through the, administrative procedures?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. Right now, it's an adopted rule. To amend that rule, they need to go through the APA process to either, one, repeal the rule or, two, amend the rule. And that is, at minimum, a six month process. Oftentimes, because of the work that goes into it before you propose your rule to the secretary of state, it can take over a year of work by the agency or the department in this case. So if there is a lot of work that goes into APA filings.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: What's your pleasure? I'm in time with the no. Not getting into it at this time. Although I would like the community to consider adding the BNB's language back in, that about numerals and letters on number plates shall not be colored or tinted and that the plate shall be covered. So I think when we took all the plates out, we also took that out. Yes. So I don't know if you want, but you don't if you really don't have anything to do with plates.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm just kinda sick of plates.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. But I I have I thought that those were two things that

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I I I'm not opposed that, and if you wanna have a clean draft of that with Damian and bring it tomorrow. I I suppose we're is anybody opposed to that? I suppose. Alright. So, Joe, the I hope you don't don't hold it against me that I do have a sentiment that I was throwing his plates. I thought we'd cry hard on plates.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. So it'd just be that b and c second of that of this.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: If we know what Andy wants, and it looks like everybody at the table is you can include that in the draft that

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think I have a good sense of what that is. So it's the coloring, painting, and covering, clarification that was proposed by the department. Yeah. Alright.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So I think that gets us through the draft.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think so.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And tomorrow we will listen to the hearing tonight and we'll make a decision on language in 02:11 and make a decision on how we wanna proceed with the rule making process for kind of a pared down inspection. And we will, and my hope is that we can vote on this tomorrow. We would at least by Friday be through the second reading of this miscellaneous bill. And, and as I said, it would be my hope that we could come up with something that we could vote on by Friday before 02:11. If we don't choose to put it in the DMV bill, I mean, it stands a lot.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And a half of the statuses with that detail?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: They are starting markup on Friday. So they're they're gonna my guess is, best case scenario, they finish marking up the bill and move it, by the Friday after town meeting week, but it might be a few days into the week following. And then they need to give a a few days for their money committees.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: They have a draft of what they are gonna work on on the inbox stuff?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I am I received draft language from the agency yesterday, and I'm meeting with Patrick this afternoon to start going through it. I have several questions that I need to get clarified. Their draft is in is already fairly thoroughly drafted. So it's really clarifying and addressing some of the question marks in there about, you know, what do you mean here? Did you mean to have something else? And so we're just gonna work through that. I'm hoping by the end of the week, there'll be a draft on that language to be included with the markup of the T bill. But, yeah, we're we're getting closer on that. Mhmm. And there, yeah, there's already a proposed fee rate, etcetera in there. Of course, that's up up for. So

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I would say to you, Megan, if on Friday, we've got some time if that draft that they've got for the house, if they wanted to come in here and talk about it. So we would have something to take with us during town meeting, Greg.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Yeah. The involved piece. But Just the envelope piece.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: The envelope piece, because my hope is that when we come back the first week, we can dive right into that so we can have an idea of what direction this committee would like to go before the because I don't I think I'm just gonna say that I think this committee has got some sentiment that we might wanna go a little further than what the house did.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, don't know what they're gonna do.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: If they only stick to setting the fees and that stuff, I think we've taken more testimony than they have on that issue.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: And I'd also say I do have strong feelings about if we are gonna do an M up that's indexed, that we have a serious conversation about a gas tax indexed.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think you can bring out.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: It just doesn't I mean, you we have that presentation. You saw the numbers.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Like Right.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: The difference of

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think you can Yep.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Well, that's fine. I guess that's my angle.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: That's a separate conversation.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Sen. Patrick “Pat” Brennan (Member)]: Separate conversation.

[Sen. Rebecca “Becca” White (Vice Chair)]: They should be together as a conversation. At

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: this point, we have ten minutes, and then senator is gonna come in and talk. So I've been drinking too much tea. So it's been.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So is is the t bill, this 26 DashO 749?

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Let me take a look. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: We will see the draft.

[Damien Leonard, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. It's a very basic draft at this point that's posted.