 We are having this hearing, this official hearing, open to the public, not a public hearing, but it's open to the public, public can observe it and hear it. We have been given just this, these few hours today is all we could get this week because of the limitations and I'm not sure what they are, they're technical, they're either on bandwidth or actual pieces of equipment, I actually don't know, but we're unable to have every committee meet at the same time like we normally do. So that's the reason for that constraint, if you're all wondering why it was, we had the wait all week. Also, the COVID-19 emergency legislation that we were involved that involved transportation was passed. We, if we want to, can look at that again and that's where we're starting today to look at that and perhaps understand it better than we kind of been able to in our rush to quickly convince ourselves to support it and I know of one issue that has come up. So we can talk about that. Actually, I meant to have us all introduce ourselves because there might be people tuning into this, members of the public who don't normally tune in, don't normally come to the state, this is actually for them an advantage. So why don't we quickly do that. I'm Kurt McCormick, I represent City of Burlington and I chair the committee. Barbara, why don't you go next and then let's go in the order that our pictures are maybe. So Barbara. Barbara Murphy, I serve Fairfax as Vice Chair of House Transportation and I am going to actually pass it to Tim because I think maybe our picture orders are all different. I'll let him in. That is correct. Welcome everyone. I'm Tim Corkin and I represent Bennington District 2-1. Okay, Molly. Molly, I believe you're muted. You did. Okay, I'm unmuted. Molly Burke, representing Brattleboro. Connie. Good morning, Connie Quibi. I live in Concord. I represent eight towns in the Northeast Kingdom. Brian. Good morning, I'm Brian Savage. I live in Swanton. I represent Swanton in Shell. Mary. I'm Mary Sullivan. I represent the South End Hill section of Burlington. Becca. I'm Becca White and I represent the town of Hartford. Patty. Hi, I'm Patty McCoy. I represent the towns of Pultney and Ira. Mike. I'm Mike McCarthy. I represent St. Albans. Laurie, is Dave Potter online yet? He is not yet. We're working on it. Okay. There's one more member whose name is Dave Potter and he represents Clarendon and West Rutland and maybe another town around Western Rutland County and he's going to be trying to tune in by telephone. And we also have our support staff with us today and maybe they should introduce this and also, Anthea. Hi, Anthea Dexter Cooper, legislative council. And Neil. Neil Schickner, joint fiscal office. And Laurie. I'm Laurie Morris, committee assistant. And I guess Julie also just so people aren't confused and I see these names. Julie. Oh, she's not on. Thanks. I was unmuting. Hi, I'm Julie Tucker. Ledge council committee staff just providing support. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. So let's begin with Anthea about the COVID-19 emergency legislation, especially the things that you think need the most explanation. Sure thing. And I'm going to share my screen. So hopefully this still works. That show up for you guys? It does. And does it do it for the public also? I believe it should. I think what is streaming on YouTube will be whoever's talking in the top screen in a little picture and then the share screen filling most of the YouTube stream. Very good. It's real nice and clear on my screen. Yeah. Great. So what I'm actually showing is the house journal from, I guess it would have been Wednesday yesterday. Was that yesterday? The house journal. Oh, today's Friday. Sorry. The house journal from Wednesday. So this is what you, the house agreed with the Senate's proposal of amendment to age 742. And there are three sections, sections 35, 36 and 37 that relate to what the Department of Motor Vehicles has already started to do. The reason why these sections were included in this legislation is because of a separation of powers issue. The General Assembly makes the laws and even in a state of emergency, the executive branch can't just go and change around laws that have already been enacted, your codified laws. So you'll see in every single section, there is at the beginning of subsection A or in the case of section 36, we've got A, B and C as our subsections, notwithstanding any provision of, and then there's a citation to something in title 23. So there are policy initiatives and changes that the Department of Motor Vehicles has already undertaken going back to March 17th and March 20th. And this is just making it so that they have the authority from the General Assembly to continue doing what it is that they're doing. And you'll see that every sort of effective and continuing effect clause, which will be subsection B and section 35, subsection D and E and section 36 and subsection B and section 37 says that it is retroactive to either March 17th or March 20th and it continues in effect for the length of the state of emergency related to COVID-19. So generally speaking, what these three sections are doing is making it, well, section 35 and 36, section 37 is a little different, making it so that the Department of Motor Vehicles can continue to let people have permits, licenses, temporary plates, placards for individuals with disabilities, plates for individuals with disabilities continue to be available to them while the Department of Motor Vehicles branches are closed because they've suspended in-person operations or allowing for, in the case of section 35 with the photographs for renewals, people to continue to get new photo licenses, the learner's permit, the license to operate, the driver privilege card with a photograph that might be slightly older than a photograph that would be allowed under existing law. So that's the big picture. I don't know. I can't scroll this, I can't move it. Is that, is that the way it's supposed to be? Oh yes, you are looking at my screen. It's just like as if I'm projecting in the committee room. All right, so you're in charge of scrolling. I am in charge of scrolling. Okay, so I was only, I was only able to see section 35 and the section 36A. Yes. Right, same with all of us. All right, I was just, didn't want to make sure that that I wasn't, you know, missing out on something. Okay, sorry. Representative McCormick, I don't know if you want me to do more detail than just that overarching big picture of section 35 and 36. I can certainly walk through it and then actually scroll through the language. No, let's, let's, let's walk through it. Okay, so I'll now scroll. Section 35, this is the photographs for renewal. So we're notwithstanding three subsections. These are the sections in current law that say in one instance that your photograph can be nine years or or newer and that was a change you made last year in the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill. There are two places where it currently says the photograph needs to be eight years or newer. Under the federal Real ID Act, which you'll see a citation to at the bottom of subsection A where it says six CFR part 37. I wonder if I can highlight right there. The federal Real ID Act says that photographs on licenses can be used provided that they're not more than 16 years old. From a practical standpoint by saying that a photograph can be 16 years or newer for purposes of the continuation of the COVID-19 state of emergency, you're not going to get to 16 years unless the state of emergency continues for another eight years because the people who are up for renewals that would need to avail themselves of this are going to be very close to that eight or nine year mark already. So in essence, you're really just letting someone get a third, four year term license, learner's permit, driver privilege card, non-driver identification card with a photograph that was taken at most eight or nine years ago because that's just the way that our renewal cycle works. This would let someone renew their license through the mail and I believe and this would be a question for the Department of Motor Vehicles that the plan was to get that up online later on in the spring so that someone can get another license even though their photograph is too old. So that 16 years was a little confusing, looking like we maybe are just saying everybody can keep the photos for 16 years on their licenses. So everybody understand that? I guess they do. And where you're getting the length of how long it is that this is going to remain in effect is it says that it will continue in effect starting on March 20th of 2020 continuing in effect until the termination of the state of emergency declared by the governor as a result of COVID-19. So once that's over, you're going to need to get a new photograph taken if you're going to renew your license after the state of emergency has been declared. As we're going to get to in section 36, someone could choose not to get a new license if they think that the state of emergency is going to last 90 days or less because there is an automatic extension that you are adding in in section 36. So if there are no questions, I can move on to section 36. If there are questions again, how would I know? I think people were going to raise their hands which you would see in the participant sidebar. But I have to have that sidebar open. I think so. Alternatively, I don't know if Lori is monitoring this. She could email you if she saw a hand raised. Oh, okay. I see two hands. But Lori, when I do the participants, it comes right out in the middle of my screen blocking the view of other things in the middle. Can I move that to the side? If you click on manage participants again, it'll go away, I think. Yeah, but I want to be able to call on people. I can text you whoever has their hand raised or... No, I'll just go back and forth. Okay. It's Patty and then Barbara. I just have a question because I know we had talked about using that remote thing for Tim Corcoran and I'm wondering if Tim has renewed his license or where he is in the process. Has he used this new system? I have not. I actually went down for a physical location in Bennington and got it done because we weren't up in, obviously, in session. So I had it done down here. So I did not utilize that in the future. Okay, thank you. Okay, Barbara. I really was just going to say could we just go through the three sections because this is what we voted and I think if we just make note of our questions, we can get through this piece in one chunk. Yep, okay. So should I move on to section 36? Yes, and you go all the way through it before we have more questions. Okay, great. So section 36 are your extensions. They are divided up into three subsections and then you get your continuing effect language. The first one is saying that specific things that have a current length of 10 days on the low end, 60 days on the long end will actually remain in effect for 90 days from the date of issuance. That's going to be your international registration plan, permits, and temporary authorizations. That's for the commercial vehicle operations, temporary registration certificates, and temporary number plates. So those documents, credentials will last for 90 days as opposed to 10 days or 60 days. Subsection B is telling the Department of Motor Vehicles, the commissioner, that notwithstanding anything in title 23, the commissioner of motor vehicles may extend any existing permits that they issue, except for the international registration plan trip permits which are addressed specifically in subsection A. The Department of Motor Vehicles has issued a number of press releases and other enforcement bulletins and they actually have a list of how they are extending a number of different permits and I believe they're not extending all of the permits. So this is giving the Department of Motor Vehicles through the commissioner's discretion the authority to continue doing that. And then finally subsection C is saying that all of the driver's licenses, learner's permits, privilege to operate, non-driver identification cards, registrations, those will last for an additional 90 days after expiration. Those are things that the Department of Motor Vehicles started doing on March 17, 2020. You'll see that I didn't finish that sentence. The registration plates are placards for an individual with a disability. That was not something that the Department of Motor Vehicles had said they were going to do. They have seen this language that was something that I picked up on and the Department of Motor Vehicles said it was just an oversight but that was something that they had intended to extend as well. So all of those will continue in effect for 90 days after expiration. So when we were talking about the photographs up in Section 35, someone could choose not to get a renewed license. Maybe they hate their photograph. Maybe they totally changed their appearance in the eight years since that picture was taken. They could choose to keep their license for 90 days. It would remain in effect. But then at the end of that time, they would need to, hopefully the state of emergency will be over or they would need to avail themselves of the ability to get that renewed license with the older photograph. Then subsections D and E, that's just your retroactive language, either to March 17th or March 20th and your continuing effect for the length of the time that the state of emergency has been declared. So those are the DMV practices that have been implemented to make it so that they don't need to have their branches be open. Section 37 is a little different. In 23VSA, Section 1283, we specify that the Type 1 and Type 2 school buses need to use that eight-way eight-light system. And that's when the door opens, the stop sign comes out, the red lights flash. The statute says that that can only be used when school children are being loaded or unloaded and that it must be used when school children are being loaded or unloaded. The Commissioner, effective March 20th, 2020, said that she was giving authority for those lights to be used when food was being unloaded or loaded for school-aged children. And this is just making it so that the General Assembly, the branch of government that makes the laws, says that that is a permitted use for those red flashing lights on school buses. That is the end of the three sections. All of them are effective on passage, but they all have that retroactive language in them. So really, we're going back and saying for March 17th or March 20th, continuing to the end of the state of emergency, these are the changes that have been made to Title 23 for purposes of the Department of Motor Vehicles continuing operations and the use of those school buses. Okay, questions for Anthea? Okay, I don't see any hands. Anthea, I have a question. These 90-day extensions of different things that have a cost to them when you renew probably every one of these things as a fee. Is the state losing that money or does the driver, that 90 days, do you pay that later? You do not pay that later. And Neal is the person who's been in contact with the Department of Motor Vehicles Director of Operations, Mike Smith, and can probably speak to this better than I can. I believe he's on. Yep, Neal. Yes, hear me? Yes, did you hear my question? Yes, I did. So how much money is the state losing with these extensions? Well, right now, the latest estimate for the Transportation Fund and the TIP Fund in terms of FY20, the current fiscal year, is that there'll be a deficit in the range of $34 million. Now, just in terms of these, just in terms of registrations, driver's license, inspection stickers, and the International Registration Plan, I can tell you last year in the fourth quarter, so you're talking about April, May, and June, the total revenue collected, there was $27 million. So depending upon, that would be if 100% of the people take advantage of this and none of those fees are paid until the next fiscal year, then the loss would be $27 million. But again, the Tom Kovetz estimate for the FY20 deficit is more than a range of $34 million. Now, the loss is to the TIP Fund, but not necessarily to the state because, okay, you're supposed to pay your license in June, for example, and you wait and you pay it in July. The impact to the state is the treasure loses the value of that cash flow for 30 days or so. But the impact on the TIP Fund is the TIP Fund that takes the whole hit in FY20. One reason for that is DMV, their IT system is so antiquated that they're only going to be able to handle this in the following manner. Your license is due in June, you wait 30 days, you pay it in July, when it's renewed in July, you're going to be on a new system so that your renewal your renewal be the following July. So you'll pay in July, but then you'll be on a new July-July system. So the effect of that is the TIP Fund is short in FY20, your $74 for renewing your license in FY20, you pay it in FY21, but that's not additional money in FY21 because under the old system you would have paid the following June anyway. So there's a hit to the TIP Fund, but really in terms of the state overall it's just a matter of shifting money from one time period to another time period, just so it's the time value of the money. Okay, but I'm not sure I heard an answer to my question, maybe I did, but I'm wondering what is the value, what is the loss of just this legislation here in front of us now, the 90 days, that time period, if people- Well, we don't know, it could be 15 months. It could be in a range of $27 million, but it's likely to be much smaller than that. It could be as much as $27 million, just for this three months extension? Yes, but it's likely to be smaller than that because some people are going to go online. If 75% exercise the option of delaying for 90 days, then you're talking about a revenue loss of around $22.7 million. 27 times that percentage. Wow. Okay. As much as $27 million. I think I saw Mike, his name appeared at the bottom. Mike, you have your hand up? Actually, I'm not seeing- No. Okay, any other questions for Anthea or Neil on this legislation? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Anthea. Let me get rid of this thing. All right. So S-339, that's the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill. And if I didn't- I think I didn't finish telling everyone that Patty may have more information than I do on how people are viewing, anticipating the rest of this session. Do we take the T bill back in and look at it again, more than look at it, rewrite it in light of obviously all these lost revenues, but then also this federal money? But I don't know. And when I've inquired about that, the answer has been, deal with this emergency legislation first, and then we'll move on to those things. So I don't know. Patty, can you tell us any more than that? Patty, please? Yep. Can everybody hear me? I'm muted. Okay. The only thing I know is appropriations doesn't know. They know that they're looking at a $260 million deficit for FY20. And that's the combination of all our transportation funds, our general fund, the capital, everything in mind. So they don't even know about the budget coming forward for FY21. They're really looking to see if they should just keep the budget that they had been working on, knowing that while out of September, that whole thing will have to be reworked. They really don't know. I mean, nobody knows. So I don't know what I have not. We just passed our T bill out, so I don't know what the Senate is planning on doing with that. I mean, also I can't answer that. I'm not quite sure what monies, if any, are in this DMV bill in front of us. The only thing I do know that the bills that were either on the wall or in the calendar, if there was any money attached to any of those bills, Mitzi is very hesitant about even bringing them forward because of the uncertainty of knowing what we're dealing with. That's all I got. It is likely to pass the Senate. It's passed second reading. It's on their calendar for third reading. I believe there's a floor amendment that is almost housekeeping, so I think that's going to be an issue on that bill in the Senate. I think we are going to have that bill. Patty, yes? One more thing. I know that the must pass bills must pass, the transportation bill, the capital bill, the revenue bill, and the big bill, the general fund bill. Those absolutely have to pass. We should be looking at the T bill. Well, let's hear the telephone line. Okay, so that's why I thought we should work on what we just did, that bill, and then also the DMV bill. This is Commissioner Minowley. Mike Smith's not with me right now. We have to step out. Okay, so we have you by phone? That was, yeah, that was the connection I was provided. Okay. All right, well, let's start with you then, Commissioner. Tell us about the Senate DMV bill S-339. We've had the beginning of a walkthrough. I think we only reached about section seven or eight of the 32 sections, I think it has. So maybe with this swarm of time we got, maybe you could, you've got a half hour along with Mike when he comes on. So if you can tell us what, highlight the important parts for you. Barbara? I just was going to throw out there. Tim and I had that question that is for the agency. So if at the appropriate point we could do that resolve of what we've already covered, that'd be great. Okay. Yeah, so don't forget that. And Wanda, you have to leave at 12 o'clock also, right? And I can, yes, I can come back. If the committee, I'm just going to offer this, because we did watch the live conversation that was going on through Zoom, Mike and I did. We've been making some notes as Anthea walked through S-339 as proposed to the house. If you would like to continue with that, and then we could comment after we are more than willing to accommodate. Well, that makes more sense for the committee. Well, since we have you, why don't you comment on what has been covered by Anthea and then also take the questions from Barbara and Tim, because those questions are in that section that we have had the walk-through lot. Okay. Sure. Since you watched it. And you've gone through section eight. Is that correct? We're exactly, did we stop, Anthea? What was the last section that we... Section eight. Yep. Okay. So, and we went through eight. We went through eight. Okay. I was going to start at section nine when we picked back up. Yep. Okay, Wanda. Sure. Okay. So you're... So, do you want me to, I mean, I don't, I would say that the, you know, the walk-through that has occurred so far, there's really, there's no comments. I think really we're open. Do you have any questions on those? I'm open to, do you have any questions on those sections? Okay. Barbara and Tim. Wanda. Thank you. Our question was on section six with changing the model year for exhibition vehicles. And just a concern that with setting it as 50 year olds or more, we put it in place where a vehicle as Tim was saying could be hot rod, just that these vehicles are going to be exempt from inspection. And whether we want to open that up to an 80 year expanse. I don't feel comfortable saying that it makes sense to open it up to an 80 year. The purpose of the language, we had originally proposed 1970 to the Senate. There were some changes with the Senate working with Anthea. This is minimal. The 50 year model is really falling under the state of as antique cars because they're exhibition vehicles. I, like I said, with everything going on, we have not put any thought into an 80 year. It's, you know, I don't think the 50 year, the way I understand Anthea modified this language is that the 50 year is a rolling and the way she's written it, which makes sense, doesn't mean that we have to revisit it every year. We had proposed 1970 the way it's written. It's to, you know, so we don't have to revisit and it's really a minimal use. It's a low number of cars in the inventory. I don't have those numbers in front of me. Just to follow up, Kurt, if I may, I didn't mean to confuse things with the 80 year. It's just going, currently, it would be 80 years because it's 1940. That's just why I was triggering on that number. Oh, okay. Yeah, I guess I don't have any, I don't have, do you have a specific question? I guess I'm, you know, I feel that it was pretty simple language. We weren't asking for a lot. We're not trying to change the whole inspection program. We're just trying to be consistent with other exceptions in statute. And we propose this. I will make one last comment and then I'll give Tim the moment. I just, my concern goes ties back to the prior section in section five, which we did not too many years past, that we permit people to use these vehicles on the streets at least once a week or incidental use. And I think that when we're exempting vehicles from inspection, we have to be a little careful. Okay. I understand your, your point. Tim? No, I think Barbara covered it well. I mean, I mean, I guess, there's not much to add. I guess my two cents is fully, personally, past this language. Like I said, I forget the timeframe, but maybe three, four or five years ago, we put 1940 in there for a specific reason, because if we went higher with it, you got a lot more of the muscles cars and our comfort level wasn't there exempting them. But if you did 1940 and earlier, you know, there were the model T's, they weren't souped up cars. So, I mean, that was a thought process then. And I guess, you know, like I said, Barbara covered it well. I mean, apparently the B doesn't really have that heartburn because it's not going to add too many more vehicles. But, but that was our thought process at that time. Thank you for sharing that. Wanda or Anthea, this, is there any other, what do we say in law or at least by rule? What does occasional use mean? Is that defined? In other words, can somebody have one of these old cars, not have to get it inspected and drive it 10,000 miles a year? Representative McCormick, I'm pulling up the language. And this is an existing law. It's just being rearranged because we're sort of formatting differently. But saying a vehicle and I'm on page 10 at line nine, a vehicle that is registered as an exhibition vehicle may be used for the occasional transportation of passengers or property. As used in the subsection, occasional means not more than one day per week. All right. I guess we haven't, has there been any problem with that that you know of Wanda? Any complaints of by a neighbor if someone who uses their NT car? A lot more than that? No. Okay. Okay. Okay. Anything else for Wanda? Wanda, is there anything else you want to tell us about this, Bill Malin? You still have 15 minutes. Yeah. I, you know, I think it's really, Chairman McCormick, I think it would be really helpful to have NCI continue walking through and then, you know, answer any of your, I mean, Mike and I could check back in at one or 130 and answer more questions if you want. I think what I would say to the committee in the times that we're faced with right now, we really went through this bill. And as you know, Anthea walked you through it this morning and said that to continue our operations during this time, there were some sections that we proposed, we would, we're asking the committee to absolutely support. And that has been where our focus has been. And she, as I said, she walked that through. So we're here to answer any questions. I'm here to try to accommodate your schedule. I'm just, I'm, you know, how would you like to proceed? Okay. Would you like that? Well, there'll be no 130 for us today at 125. We are off and that's it. Okay. And I don't even know when we can get more time. There will be more time, but I don't even know when that is yet. So, you know, stand by that. Let me ask you this. Can you talk to us about H S 339 that do you support everything in it now? You guys support. Is there anything in it that you, that you don't support? And maybe if you could quickly tell us, you know, which things came from you guys, which things came from that committee? Um, I don't, I mean, I don't think you want me to go through. I'm, I, I would like to say that moving forward right now, the items that Anthea presented to you on photographs were renewals, the extension language that was laid out, and the use of the eight light systems on school buses. And I may be working from the wrong list. I apologize. There's so many pieces of paper. I guess for us at this point, the must haves that we've provided to your legislative council are really the critical items we need. We put a miscellaneous bill together that is in front of you. We focus always on cleaning up language and identifying things that we need to modify as we go through the year. That's the bill that is presented in the actual Senate S 339. There's nothing in that bill that we oppose as presented to you. I don't know if you want me to, I guess I'm hesitant about going through the whole bill and telling you where each section came from. Okay, I've got Barbara and then Michelle, please. And then Molly. I don't need to ask my question. Let's skip to Michelle, please. Okay, Michelle. So there is one section I just want to bring to your attention, and I'm sorry, I was just trying to find the section number, but, and the I probably can roll it up the tip of her tongue. It's the section on safety devices. And sorry, my screen has gone back. Are you talking about section 28, Michelle? Thank you. Which is the use of lighted paddle signaling devices? That's the one. Yep. Okay. And so now, now, of course, I can't get back to my other screen, which I was able to do just a minute ago. At any rate, what Wayne Simmons wanted me to share with the committee was that we had not supported this section as this was developed by the Senate Transportation Committee. Right now, we have a committee that meets twice a month to talk about safety measures and use of safety devices and practices. And so we already have a system and a process in place to undertake safety evaluations. There was concern that widespread use of this type of device might create a situation where the public becomes desensitized to the use of the device. And we would like to move forward testing the use of these devices in higher speed locations where we feel so they'll provide the highest benefit. But just our concern that if we start using them everywhere, people won't pay attention to them. And also have some concerns over if we were to use them everywhere, industry's ability to be able to procure an adequate amount and what the cost would be to have these in use on a widespread basis. So I think those were the key points that Wayne Simmons shared with me. Okay. Can someone explain what these paddles are? I have nothing I'm envisioning what it is and why I call the paddle. So can you think about when you are called to stop for a traffic incident where there might be paving or something going on where there's a flagger in the road and they've got a signpost in their hand and they turn it from stop to go slow, stop and slow. And so basically that's what's called the paddle, that sign that they're holding. And what this would do would have the sort of edging around the stop part of the sign be lighted so that it would become more prominent for a person who's approaching this stop sign. Got it. Thank you. I suppose I was the only one who didn't know what a paddle was. Okay. Other questions from Michelle? And I think I had Molly had a hand up before. Molly, yes? Yes. I always have to look for the unmute. I don't know whether this is a place to ask because it may be that it just doesn't pass the Senate, but I was going to ask the commissioner if they had any opinion on the Rogers amendment that we'd basically do away with OBD inspection. So I was quite surprised when I read that amendment in the calendar and I do not know what action the Senate is going to take on that. We have not testified on that. We were not reached out. Michelle and I worked after we saw the calendar and the amendment in it. We did reach out to A&R. Michelle took the lead for me on this, and we don't support the language. And A&R does not support the language. Michelle, do you want to add to that? Sorry, lost my screen again. Yeah, that you've stated the entirety of it. A&R was very surprised to see the language as well and was not supportive. Great. Thank you. Well, he's not a member of the Transportation Committee, just in terms of being surprised that he's offering it. Okay. Anything else that you want to tell us now about 330? I guess you did, Rhonda. Yeah, I guess what I'd like to say to the committee, you know, I mean, we all know these are very difficult times. And I just want the committee to know that, you know, my organization and my leaders, we have worked really diligently to put a continuity plan together to continue delivering services to Ramoners in alternative ways. And it is working every day. Our environment changes. And, you know, but we have been successful. I know that you had some discussions, you know, this morning with Neil regarding the timing on when revenues will be coming in. And on the 90-day registration, there is going to be a period that, you know, people who choose, and I want to emphasize that, to utilize the 90-day, there will be a shift in the revenue. And there will be some lost revenue. On licenses, we won't lose revenue because they're all renewals. They just make some later in the year. What I want to share with you is that people are still mailing in their registrations. We are at our normal production on what we received by mail with registrations. It hasn't gone up. So we're tracking this. We're evaluating it. But, you know, I'm honored to say that we're still providing the services to Ramoners. We have, since the governor's directive, we have found alternative ways because of our new licensing system to get individual to use their photographs to get people to send us their photographs. And we do a verification so we can get them their license, especially people who have moved from out-of-state to Vermont. You know, I mean, every day we're being asked to see if there's a creative way we can deliver a service. Today we're working with data on accepting electronic signatures. And, you know, we're moving forward on it. We say, you know, for titling and for the banks, which is something that we haven't been able to do in the past. And, you know, every scenario is a little bit different. And we find a solution. And I just want to, you know, and it's quite an honor to be working with a group of individuals that are here as we continue to support Ramoners and the businesses. Yes. Tim. Hi, Wanda. Tim Corcoran. Quick question, you know, I don't know how this, you know, session is going to unfold and what bills may or may not move forward. I mean, I know that you presented this bill and you probably like a majority of it, but what sections, in your opinion, are a must-pass for this year? And what ones, you know, maybe if we don't got time and, you know, begin a certain direction from leadership that we could maybe push off the next year. So I already provided, Anthea, the must-pass. We're asking for the school bus language. And I apologize. I don't have the sections in front of me, but this is the old language that we, it's to modify the language to support plug-in electrical school buses and their colors, because the, so we were asking for that. We think that's really important. Section 17 through 19 is language on our commercial vehicle operations new system, and it allows us to do electronic communication and some other initiatives. That is, we are really saying that's a must-have, because we have tentatively designed the system in anticipation we'd get support for this. And if we're not allowed to take those actions in section 17 through 19, then while we have a new modern system, we're going to have to implement a very antiquated process. And then, and also sections 20 and 21, which is in regards to the credits and refunds for the overages that were allowed to apply them in these accounts, to their other accounts, and not automatically refund. Of course, all of these refunds will be available upon request, but the training on the system has gone out to industry. They've been really involved with us in designing it, and we've done usability training with them. And it is really going to make a difference for their businesses. So they're going to be able to see you overpaid in this account. It's sitting here, applied to your next payment, and they can say, no, I want that money back, and we'll refund it. But otherwise, they'll just leave that as a credit and the next month pay, you know, what's due minus that credit. And so those are the must-haves, in our opinion. And one reason you say that is, or probably the reason you say that is that without it, we'll collect fewer revenues. No, we won't collect fewer revenues. We will have a new modern system that allows the businesses to electronically do their filings and track their systems. And without this language, we're going to have to continue with paper and communicate through paper, not with electric means and do all refunds when they could choose to have, when they do an overpayment, have it go to their next account and their payment. I guess, so these revenues will continue. These are our taxes. So I guess I didn't fully understand the statement representative McCormick. No, I guess it was a question. Do we stand to lose more or less money without those changes? And you're saying no. But while we're on that same question, on the COVID-19, I'm really glad that you were tuned in when Neil told us about that. The COVID-19, DNB, he said it's possible we could we could lose as much as not this is not his estimate, but we could lose as much as $27 million to some of 90-day exploration extensions or suspensions. Have you guys looked it over? You said a lot of people are doing it anyway, registering anyway, which is really good. What do you have an estimate about how much money we will lose? So Representative McCormick, what I understand is I guess I wouldn't call it a loss. I call it a shift from the anticipated revenue we were going to collect in this quarter to the revenue to that shifting to the next quarter with the 90-day extensions. There is a, and Mike just joined me, we are with the 90-day extensions on registration renewals that people are going to choose in some cases to take there. We will be changing, you know, if the registration was due in May, it's now due in July. So in theory, there's some loss there, Mike, but we're still going to get that renewal. They're really getting a renewal at the same price for 14 months instead of 12 months. Correct. So hi, this is Mike Smith. Nice to talk to you. It's weird. He waved to you, everyone. So Commissioner said it perfectly, it's really a shift. There are those two months that could potentially, I guess, be free if you would to a 14 month, but based on the stats that we're seeing and what I'm hearing from staff, the renewals are still coming in. So I don't think that you're going to see that much of a shift, but there's no way to really do an estimate because I don't know who's going to redo and who's not. And in order to do the estimate, you'd have to have somewhat of an idea, and I don't. So I think, you know, that's really, we're still going to collect that registration, as Neil said, and I believe Representative Cochrane also stated, it's just going to come later. And that's the shift. And it may come later. But really what we're seeing now is people are still renewing because they're still mailing them in. So it may not shift. And I think that's important to the committee members. We're still doing production. We're still sending out all of those necessary documents. We're still issuing, you know, license renewals, registration renewals, boat renewals, all of those that work is continuing. We're not providing in-person service. And that was the biggest change. And there's some stuff that's not a priority to process right now. We've been focused on supporting our dealers, our stations, and the consumers because they want their license. They want a legitimate license. They want their vehicle registered, even though, you know, the law enforcement is at a tier two, which means, and I think all of you know, they're not doing unnecessary stops during this time. People are still going to their stations. They're still getting their vehicles repaired. They're not choosing to drive unsafe vehicles, you know, and so. And the other thing that I just want to say to you on the license renewal and the photo language, what we've implemented and what you're supporting in this is that we have state law that says you have to come into DMV to renew your license in person every nine years because or eight years, but your photo's valid for nine years. You're really extending the validity of that photo to 13 years. So Vermonters can just mail in their renewal and they don't have to come in the office. But their renewal still stays in line with their renewal date. It's just to the photo. And we are doing the soft launch for online license renewals starting March 31st, which is next week. Representative Corcoran, we had hoped you were going to be the tester, but I'm glad you got to go to our Beddington office. If any of you have a renewal coming up, reach out to me and we'd love you to be one of the first to try this new system. Okay. So I'm sorry. There's still something I think I'm not quite understanding. If have in any case in any of the things that we are providing an exemption for and I'm talking still the COVID-19 legislation, not 339. Aren't people essentially getting a 15 month registration or whatever it is we're talking about versus a 12 month? And what wouldn't that represent a loss in revenues? So the answer would be yes if they choose to do that. What we're seeing for data right now is people are not choosing to do that. They're mailing the renewal notice. So those people that mailed it in are paying for their 12 month registration and getting 12 months. I am sure there are some people that are saying, cool, I can save a few bucks by extending this down the road a little. But again, our stats are not showing a whole lot of that happening. So they are getting, and for the ones who choose, they will be getting a 15 month registration for the price of a 12 month. And we don't have an estimate. You know, we really won't know what that looks like. And I don't even know how we could pull that data until we are through this. Okay. Okay. I want to go to Patty, because I think she's right on this point. And I think I've got Barbara and Molly. So Patty, wait, Patty, you're muted. Patty, you're muted. Okay. I'm done. So Commissioner Minnoli, Town Clerks register renewals of registrations, and they can go back two months. But when the registration is renewed two months back, they still only get their 12 months worth. So really, we should be only talking about an unlimited number of people who actually wait for that third month. Correct? Yes. Yeah. So it's not as much of a loss as we think it might be, because currently they can go back two months. Right. Correct. Okay. Okay. Barbara, I think you had a hand up earlier. I did. And I just was fearful we were going to lose Wanda and now Mike who's joined. And so I wanted to make sure that while they were still on and with Michelle and Costa that we thanked these people and asked them to pass on our thanks to everyone at the agency for what people have done, trying to keep the lights on, keep things moving, really take care of remonters and the needs that allow them to stay legit as vehicle owners and all of the parts that go with that. So please, thank you. So thank you very much for saying that. Commissioner is cheering up right now. So she's not able to speak, but I'm covering it for her. Thank you. There's not many people that say thank you to us. And we greatly appreciate that. And I will take a lot of pride in passing that on to the staff. Thank you. And in that spirit, I wanted to thank you if you were talking about creative ways of helping people on the way that you helped so quickly, the person that I wrote to you about who was having trouble getting the Vermont license and really, really appreciated. It was very, very impressive how quickly you're more than welcome. And I got to tell you that, you know, the commissioner tells me to get outside the box every once in a while. I was not only outside the box, I was in a different box. It was so great. And, you know, for somebody who just moved to Vermont to see state government move so nimbly and so quickly, it was just like I felt so proud. So thank you. Thank you. You know, and I, you know, and I like to share our successes with everyone. The investment that you allowed us to make in changing how we issue credentials is why we're able to do that. And, and, and Mike having to get in another box, but we have fun with that. So thank you. Okay, let's go to the federal stimulus package now. And obviously, let's try to limit our conversation to transportation because it's an enormous bill. Yeah. So, Michelle. So, Chair McCormick, I'm going to let Costa walk through the details on this. He is our key point person working with the staff of our congressional delegation. And he has the up to date details. And if the committee has the time, I have a few more updates in terms of what the balance of the agency outside of DMV is working on these days that I can share with you. That would be good. Yes. And it just occurred to me, Neal, should we start with you for an overview? Well, it depends on what cost of working off of I have the spreadsheet from Lee Hayes office. So what you all have, I think we have the same thing. Costa. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. And I hope everyone is doing well through this crisis. I think I have a little more detail than what's on the spreadsheet that's been circulated, but that's up to the committee in terms of how much information you want. Costa, let's have you do that. And, Neal, please, you know, participate, raise your hand if you wanted to elaborate or have a question. I don't even see, Neal, though. Yeah. Okay. Got you, sir. Okay. Okay. So, Costa, please. Okay, great. So before I get into discussing the contents of the latest stimulus bill, I want to quickly explain that stimulus this time around is not a single piece of legislation, but a number of different pieces of legislation that have been signed at different times. So the first stimulus bill was related to public health, and that was completed a couple of weeks ago. The second stimulus bill was the supplement unemployment insurance funds, and that too was signed a couple of weeks ago. The third stimulus bill, which is the one I'm going to talk about right now, was completed a couple of days ago, and it is not an infrastructure stimulus. The focus of this stimulus bill was on individuals, businesses, and government operations, not the infrastructure side of the equation. We are expecting that at some point in the next few weeks, a fourth bill that will deal specifically with infrastructure, broadly transportation, and other types, but that has not started yet. So as I mentioned, the third stimulus bill was completed a couple of days ago, and it's still in the process of being interpreted by federal agencies. So the parts that deal with transportation are very specific in that the funding is to be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus. So these are not general purpose funds. They're linked specifically to COVID-19 efforts. So there's four of them, and I'll go through them quickly, one by one. The first one is $56 million available nationwide for the essential air service program. That's the program that helps pay the operating costs for flights to Boston out of the Rutland airport. That's $56 million. We don't know at this point how that's going to be divvied up, but to give you an idea of what kind of money we're talking about here, the typical annual appropriation for the essential air service program is over $100 million. So this is close to half. And again, the idea being to support operations and other factors related to the coronavirus. The second program is a $10 billion grants for aid for airports program that's going to airports. Most of this funding is going to commercial service airports that's based on the number of implements and debt service. Did you say $10 billion? Did you say $10 million or $1 billion? Why? Correct. Billion? Billion, that's right, with a B. And this is not to be confused with the business support programs for airlines. This is for airports. Yeah. Now go under the head of COVID-19 efforts, right? Correct. Everything I'm going to talk about today has to be related to COVID-19 efforts. That's right because the infrastructure is going to come later. Okay. Yeah. So the, so Burlington International Airport is anticipated to get some of these funds. Again, we do not know until the federal aviation administration computes what their allotment is going to be, but as a commercial service airports, they're eligible for these funds. Out of the $10 billion, $100 million is to be used for generally aviation airports of which our state-owned airports are eligible under this program. So there's $100 million set aside of the $10 billion cost for that purpose. And again, we do not know exactly how much we're going to get for general aviation airports. What we were told by our congressional delegation staff is that Vermont is anticipated to receive about $9.6 million total from the $10 billion grant for aid for airports. We don't know at this point how much of that is going to the Burlington International Airport and how much is for the general service airports that we own. So again, we're waiting for guidance on the FAA on that one. The third program is Grants for Amtrak. And here there's nationwide $1 billion available to continue supporting COVID-related efforts for Amtrak. Out of that $1 billion, $239 million is set aside for state-supported services like the Heath and Allen and the Vermont. And these are state-supported service trains and they are eligible under the $239 million out of that $1 billion. Again, we do not know how the federal agency will divvy up the funding as there's no guidance in the legislative text itself. What was that figure for the state-supported Amtrak? $239 million available nationwide for state-supported services had a total pot of $1 billion for Amtrak. Okay. And the final provision relates to public transportation. This is nationwide the $25 billion series of grants again to prepare for and prevent and respond to the coronavirus. Our congressional delegation staff has informed us that their calculations related to Vermont's portion is to be about $20 million and that will be divvied up $7.4 million for the urbanized area, $12.3 million for the rural programs, and $371,000 for something new that we haven't seen before titled, Growing States Transit Program. No details on that one yet, and we do not have at this point details from the Federal Transit Administration on how they're going to interpret the legislative language related to what's eligible and what's not eligible under the transit program. So I think the point here is that a lot of this is in flux in terms of how federal agencies will interpret the legislative tax, the divvief, the money, and what the eligible categories of spending are going to be. But the one thing that's clear is that these are all related to COVID-19, or not general public funds. Okay. You said of the $20 million for transit, $7.4 million was urban and what was the balance for rural? $12.3 million for rural. Okay. $12.3 million. Correct. And can you explain what and must be defined what is COVID related? Like I take it you couldn't buy a bus with it. Is it just operating and make up for all the losses of all these operations or from the airports on down? So that is not clear at this point. The language is very broad in the legislation and that's why it's going to be important to wait a few days for federal agencies to clarify how they're interpreting this language. Okay. So I don't really know what exactly we can use the money for what we could not. Correct. All right. Costa, this is great having this in front of us, but you realize that we are unable to scroll. Only you can scroll. That's me. Oh, okay. So you realize that, right? Yeah. We are unable to move this. So this isn't the whole thing, is it? This is right now. Yeah. These are the only transportation related items. I think can't even see the Amtrak on this list. No, I don't. The reason why you're not seeing the Amtrak on that list is that it's not an apportionment the way these other programs are. Right. You is dollars we know for certain are coming to Vermont with the Amtrak funding. There has to be calculations that are based on the services, not state boundaries. Right. Okay. Question on the public transit? Yes. My take on this is this is helping to cover the operating costs. That's what it seems to be, and it's not really infrastructure, but for Costa the question would be to the extent that we have this money that we can pump into the public transit agencies. Does that free up some of the T-fund money or the federal funds that have been flexed over to them for other public transit uses? I can answer that. Michelle Boomhauer here. So once we receive the guidance, we are going to take a look at that and all the sort of alternative ways we could potentially deploy funds. We are obviously very sensitive to the fact that we want to find every way we can to reduce T-fund utilization. And so we're going to be doing a complete analysis, Neil, as you suggested. Michelle, any idea of when you will have that guidance? I'm going to defer to Costa. Now that the bill has been finalized, it shouldn't take very long. I would imagine in the next four to five days we're going to start hearing from federal agencies on how they're interpreting the COVID prevention, preparation language, and response language. When you get that Costa, could you pass it on? Of course. Thanks. All right. Well, other questions for Costa, Neil, or Michelle on this? You got to take down the screen. Yeah. Could you take down the screen so we can see each other? Okay. Any other questions? Patty? Patty first. Well, Tim, are you okay? Yes. Tim, did you have another? I thought I was going to let Patty go. Obviously, the numbers that we're talking about public transit, it sounds like a big influx to our current budget. And I was just wondering, do we even have the means to expend, you know, $12 million of it solely limited towards, you know, services? And if we can't buy buses, do we have that capability to utilize that? And if we don't utilize that, are we in jeopardy of losing those funds? So we don't know that yet. And that'll be part of the guidance we'll be looking at. You know, we have public transit agencies who have staff that are, at this point, in some cases unemployed, laid off various states of, you know, status based on the COVID situation. So we're going to need to really take a look holistically. We also need to understand what the duration of these funds are because it may be that while the services are able to restart at some point in the coming months, that it may be that the fare revenue will not pick up again for some time to come because ridership may be down for a longer period of time as people continue to have concerns about congregating closely, etc. So there's a lot we need to understand about the guidance and what we're going to be faced with in terms of deployment of the resources. Yeah, we look forward to that hearing what that guidance is. Are there questions? Yeah, Patty. I just had a question about CASTA's spreadsheet. Is that available on our committee webpage? Representative, the spreadsheet belongs to Neil. I think I have a copy of it laying around if you want me to forward it to Laurie, but I think Neil's already got it. I emailed it to all committee members a couple days ago. Okay, thank you. If you haven't received it, it's probably because I sent it to your ledge email. Or I've been on the teleconferences for the last four days. I haven't even looked at my email. No, you should have it all. Okay, thank you. Okay, NCSL wrote up a similar table. Okay, anything else for these guys on the federal stimulus packages? While we have CASTA, I think maybe he should talk about the next federal bill, which they see coming down the road. An infrastructure won't he refer to? Yes. That's a good idea, but before you start, Laurie, I assume we don't need to be identifying ourselves or the non-committee members' witnesses like they normally do, because with the Zoom, we can see and the names are on the pictures. So is this all going well as far as the record is concerned? I have not been told anything about that, but I do see everybody's name with the exception of this last phone number that just came in. Okay. And, Anthea, you think we're okay as far as that's concerned, right? Anthea? Sorry, I had to unmute myself. I am not sure what is being preserved for purposes of, you know, how Laurie normally takes a recording and then that's saved and with a recording, you don't know who's speaking because you can't see who's speaking. I don't know what's being preserved. If it's going to be these YouTube video live streams, if nothing is being preserved, because this is already being made available to the public and it's potentially posted on YouTube forever. So I think that if that is something that you want guidance on, maybe that would be a Tucker question, or maybe it's something that Laurie should reach out to Peggy on to see what, if anything, other committees are doing, I know that from the committees that I have participated in Zoom meetings, people were not identifying themselves each time they spoke. And then for purposes of the capabilities of Zoom, it does put a box around the little square of the person that's speaking. So it is being identified. I don't think that was very helpful except to say that I think this is something that all of the committees are dealing with. And there might be a best practice guidance that's being conveyed if you ask for it. Yep. Okay. So Laurie, would you talk to Peggy about that? And I think ironically, we might be better off with this system than we learn in person because of the boxes, the pictures. I think the only thing would be if somebody is just listening and they don't have the ability to see the faces and the writing. Right. But that's not any committee members now. So any- Well, it could be if people can't see the screen. Right. But if they would like, but if our record has it and they want to check the record, and that's the purpose of the record for somebody to see what someone said. Right. I'm just saying there could be someone who can't see. But they'll be able to get the record later. That's what I'm saying. Okay. They can't get it simultaneously. Right. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, Costa, yeah, tell us what you know about what's happening, what we're likely to see on the stimulus legislation federal that will have infrastructure money. Yeah. So, Mr. Chair, at this point, we do not have a lot of details on what the infrastructure stimulus will contain. We've been talking with our congressional delegation offices and they're set to begin working on a bill in the next couple of weeks. And it seems as though the general direction of the bill will focus on infrastructure in a broad-based sense of which transportation would be one component of it. Again, there's a lot in the air right now, but the idea behind the infrastructure stimulus is really on recovery of the economy. The anticipation is that there's going to be significant unemployment over the next few months. And as we transition out of the virus stage and into the recovery stage, that these infrastructure investments are going to have the effect, a similar fact that they did 10 years ago during the last major stimulus and encouraging employment growth. So, although we don't know for sure, to us that indicates that the focus is going to be on rapid construction of projects, you know, shorter term than the typical project development cycle, to get those dollars out there quickly and get people to work. Okay, you know, that sounds good. That makes sense. Questions for Costa about that coming legislation? Okay, Connie, did I see your hand up? No, you were just suggesting something. Okay, all right, so let's go back to S-339. Thank you very much. That was really great. I hadn't been thinking about transportation and all this federal legislation until just yesterday. So why don't we go back to the walkthrough and Neil and Costa and Michelle, feel free to participate with any questions or comments or things you want to stress as we go through this, okay? I take it it's okay. Okay. Thank you. S-339. Okay, I'll put the share back on. Okay, so we left off at S-339. This deals with suspensions. And for the most part, you're going to be seeing some of that standard cleanup that we have been doing. The first substantive change is going to be on page 17. And you'll see this change on page 17 starting at line four and having that one of the instances where a commissioner may suspend a license is if an operator is found incompetent to stand trial under 13VSA section 4817. And then you'll see down on line 11 on that same page that a license suspended pursuant to subdivision C3, the new language that's being added about the license being suspended if the operator is found incompetent to stand trial, that that suspension shall extend until the operator is found competent to stand trial or the criminal case is dismissed. So that will be a substantive change to existing law. A second substantive change to existing law is to give the commissioner the ability to suspend the license of an individual after having a hearing if that license has been suspended or revoked in another jurisdiction. And you'll see that we are not withstanding language here. That language in subsection D, and I'm not sure if it's included for purposes of the cleanup. I do not think it is. I can pull that up. Oh, here it is. It's saying that the commissioner shall not suspend the license of an operator unless they have been convicted of what they are being prosecuted for. But in some instances, other jurisdictions might suspend an individual's license for something other than a conviction. There's sort of a range for which other states suspend licenses for. And this gives the commissioner the discretion to do that. You'll see on line 17 that it is a May it's permissive. And there needs to be a hearing with 15 days notice before that suspension can take place. This section is standalone. So I will pause here. I will stop the share so you can see if there are any questions. Okay. Questions. I just have one in fear. Again, does this change? How does this change existing existing law for these circumstances changes existing law in two ways? The first is that there will now be the ability for licenses to be suspended pending trial if someone has been found incompetent to stand trial under 13VSA section 4817. That's the language here that's being added at lines four and five. And then down at lines 11 to 13 is where you're getting the length of that suspension. And I can pull up 13VSA section 4817 if you want to see the process that is in place if someone's going to be found incompetent to stand trial. And the other way that you're changing existing law is you're giving the commissioner the ability permissive may suspend a license after a hearing if the license has been suspended in another jurisdiction. So if someone has been convicted of something that led to a suspension in another jurisdiction, that would be possible under existing law for their license to be suspended here. But if there is that their license has been suspended for something unrelated to a conviction, this would allow their license to be suspended here as well. So those are the two changes to substantive law. Okay, so right now, such a person who's declared incompetent and has committed a crime or allegedly can have a crime, they, we don't speak about their driver's license right now, present law, they get to keep it, I guess. Yeah. Okay. And now they would possibly not be able to. Okay, correct. And it is possible that their license would be suspended pending trial for a different instance if the commissioner finds and I'm now looking to current law, this is on page 17 at line one, if the commissioner finds that such operator is seeking to delay the prosecution, then that is an instance that could lead to the suspension of a license. But this is sort of saying if they have been found incompetent to stand trial, the trial can't proceed to get to the point of a conviction where their license would be suspended, their license should be suspended until we get to that point, or the case is dismissed. And if the case is dismissed, then the suspension would be lifted as well under new language in subsection J. Okay. This might be a more of a really a drafting question, but just because of, you know, my general dislike for notwithstanding existing law, we're doing that an awful lot in this, in this bill. And I know we do a lot in other bills, not just in our committee. However, I'm wondering why not make that change in that other law? So that other law says blah, blah, blah, except for, and then we further person back up to this section of law for that exception to that law. That's, I'm thinking, why not deal with that that way instead of simply notwithstanding the section? You follow what I'm saying? I am following what you're saying. I think maybe you're commingling a lot, and I would need to go through this bill to see the instances where we're notwithstanding. But to the best of my knowledge, the only instances of notwithstanding that I've walked through today prior to this section was in the COVID-19 language where you're notwithstanding something for the pendency of a state of emergency. And you're also not changing codified law there. You're saying ignore the law, we're giving you permission to do that, so that you can do this other thing temporarily. Yeah, and we shouldn't specify how much time to, but this is not temporary. Right, this is not temporary. Certainly could draft something up in subsection D that included this as well. What it might do is end up, let me pull up D, it might end up making subsection D rather clunky and long if the committee is interested in seeing what subsection D would look like if the subsection H language was rolled into subsection D as opposed to using a notwithstanding clause, then I could certainly get that drafted up for the committee to look at. And I can go through the balance of S-339 to see what instances where there will be new notwithstanding language, if that's something that the committee is interested in seeing. I'll look into it myself also later. Okay, other questions on this section for Anthea? Okay, thank you. The next section. Okay, so section 10, new language, and I'm putting new in quotation marks, new languages being added to language in title four that gives the Judicial Bureau hearing officer in the instance of someone who's licensed as being suspended because of traffic violation to waive, and this is on lines 12 and 13, to waive the reinstatement fee required pursuant to 23 VSA section 675A. I'm putting in new in quotation marks because this ability for Judicial Bureau hearing officer to waive the reinstatement fee, which is $80 under current law, used to be in title 23, along with all of the other language about suspending licenses for non-payment of tickets. In 2016, that language was moved over to title four, which has the process and procedures for the Judicial Bureau. It is the Department of Motor Vehicles belief that this waiver authority was inadvertently taken out when that language was moved from title 23 to title four, and this would be sort of putting things back to the way that these waiver reinstatement fees were processed in 2016 and earlier. And if you're looking for the instances in which the reinstatement fee could be waived, it is based on, and this is existing law linking it to a reduction in the fee at lines 14 down, saying that it would be on the basis of the defendant's driving history ability to pay or service to the community. The collateral consequences of the violation are the interests of justice, or the remaining balance for when there can be a waiver of the reinstatement fee if you include this language. And this is a standalone section, so I'll stop the share so you can see if there are questions. Yeah, Mary, did I see, maybe, maybe anything that's coming here? Okay. It looks like there's actually no change in that. It's just logistical, moving things around. No, this is a change. The change is, I'll put the share back, saying instead of the hearing officer being able to just reduce the amount due, they can reduce the amount due and waive the reinstatement fee. So currently they cannot waive that $80 reinstatement fee even though they could reduce the amount due. Okay. Questions about that? Okay. Next section is section 11. Under current law, and we've got a little bit of cleanup with individual, under current law, and I'm scrolling down to the substantive language, which is on page 20, starting at line 13 and going into line 14. For purposes of when school buses need to be inspected, they need to be inspected three times during the year, during three different periods. Under the laws that exist now, the periods are July to August, November to December, and February to March. You'll note that that, while it spans over the course of the entire year, there are periods between, say, August and November and December and February and March and July, when you would not be able to get your school bus inspected and meet the requirements of this law. This is spreading out those three periods, still requiring that the school buses be inspected three times a year, but expanding the windows of inspection so they run January to April, May to August, and September to December without those gaps in there. I'm going to pause because the next school bus section is not, is related, but is not the same issue. So I'm going to put you back to your gallery mode. Okay. Questions? No. Okay. Section 12, still dealing with school buses. We are now dealing with the paint color of school buses. So currently, it says that school buses need to be painted national school bus glossy yellow and that the hood shall be particular colors. So this is making it so that the hood is, we're specifying that that color, so there's clarity in drafting, is national school bus glossy yellow. So you'll see a lot of that colors are deleted for national school bus glossy yellow. And then the substantive changes with respect to school buses is that the roof can be either national school bus glossy yellow or white. Currently, it can only be national school bus glossy yellow for the roof of the vehicle. And then the other change is saying that if a school bus is a plug-in electric vehicle that the bumper will be blue. And my understanding is that this is a change that's being made in the industry so that first responders and fire vehicles will know if they're approaching a electric school bus that, so there's the distinction of it having a different blue color. And as you heard, Commissioner Minowley say in terms of what is a must pass section from the department's perspective, this is one of those must pass sections because my understanding is that some school buses have already been ordered and would have those blue bumpers which under current law would not be allowed because there needs to be a bumper that's glossy black or covered in reflective material or the only two options under the law as it is presently. Okay, is that ever? Yes, I'm sorry. No, he sounds great. Do not apologize. Should we take questions now on that one, Amphia? Yes. Okay. Questions on the school bus colors? Okay. Oh, Molly? No. Okay, I have one. It seems to me that this kind of thing shouldn't be in the statute. We should just follow some national standards of national code. Anyone know why we don't do that? Well, we have to actually specify colors. You certainly do not need to specify colors. The reason why the change is being done in codified law is because currently you're specifying what the school bus colors need to be in law. You could repeal the language about what color school buses need. You could delegate rulemaking authority to the Department of Motor Vehicles to have rulemaking maybe as part of the inspection manual on school buses. It certainly does not need to be in codified law. If you are going to reference to some sort of standards, I think that that is something that someone from the Department of Motor Vehicles would be able to provide what those standards should be and what is the industry norm. I did not look into what other states have in their codified law with respect to school buses. I certainly can do that, but since this was a proposal that came from the Department of Motor Vehicles to just make these small changes to existing law, that's how I drafted it. Okay. All right, and I guess the electric buses identifying those is because of the safety, because when you approach that, if it's silent and it's still, if it was a gas or diesel, you would know where the fuel was. Here you need to know that there's a live battery on board somewhere, right? I'm not the person with that technical expertise, but my understanding is that the differentiation for the bumper is for safety notification purposes, not why it needs to be there, but that it is to notify them that it's a different type of vehicle. Okay. And Thea, would this be a good time to take a little break?