 Good morning. This is the Vermont House transportation committee. We're having a short hearing might be might be shorter than our scheduled hour and a half. But knowing us it won't be, but it could be. And we're just taking up these three sunsets that are in the law that are in the law. So the question being, should they be sunset? Should it go on longer? Should it be removed altogether? That's usually what sunsets are for to have another work. And so we're going to take that look at those three today. We could talk about some of the things, but we're not going to work on a T bill until next week. And that's when the agency is hoping to be prepared to. We could call it a COVID 19 T bill. And they, and how that would change how they propose. To change the white book. And that will finally be our opportunity to dig into that. Regarding whether how we do that logistically, should we take that bill back into our committee? Yeah, I think that's a good question. I think the speaker did not see the sense in that because she, because it would take, there are some procedural things that have to happen. Have to happen to make that happen. You know, for action. And as you can see from yesterday, trying to minimize the. What actually has to happen on the floor, which is why we're seeing. Senate bill amendments. Are being presented as opposed to committee bills. And other. Ways of doing it that they would just take more time. That was her only concern with that. Yeah, I don't know that it, that it matters. We will, we obviously will not be passing. Or presenting the bill that we passed. On. On Friday the 13th, Friday, March 13th. I think it's going to be different, quite different. And how we do that. I don't know, you know, if it really matters, but speaker did not think it was a good idea to firstly bring it back into committee, which people asked me about last time we met. Okay. So. Also, do we have Anthea and. And Neil on. Yeah, I'm here. Oh, good. Very good. All right. And the, why don't we start with you to go over these sunsets again. Okay. Because as I mentioned in the email, we did have a, it was a zoom meeting. Between Lori and Theo and Neil Barbara. And me. To talk about these sunsets. And. And now the whole committee will hear about them and decide what we want to do with them. Okay. So for the record, anti-Dexter Cooper office of legislative council. I'm Lori, can you make it so that I can share my screen? You are now co-host. Thank you. Okay. So the first thing that I thought might make sense is. You know, if not everyone is up to speed on what we mean when we say a sunset is to show an example of a sunset that you put in the T bill last year. So I have up the T bill from 2019 and section 38. Has language that says 32 VSA section 604. That was what gave the administration, the ability to set the fees for electric vehicle supply equipment, the electric vehicle charges charging stations. And then this is the part that's a sunset is repealed on July 1, 2022. So we are dealing with three instances where in session law. In sessions past language like section 38 was included. So a statute was enacted. It was put into codified law, but then there was language saying this statute will go away. It will be repealed at a time certain in the future. And reasons to put a sunset in are you really do want it to go away. It's only intended to last for a particular period of time. So if you're not quite sure you actually think that should be a lot and you need some time to sort of try it out and you want to force the general assembly to look at it at some point in the future. Or it's something that is kind of meant to be short lived, but you know, you want to have to take a look at it in subsequent years. So that's why we have sunsets. So there are three statutes or pairs of statutes. There are two that I'm going to talk about together. That are set to sunset on July 1 of 2020, which is why they're coming up now. And then I think what makes sense is for me to just talk a little bit about each one. There are. Definitely people on this committee who know more about some of them and there are people that are slated to testify. So I think probably from the, what these statutes are actually doing in practice, you have plenty of people to speak to. And I would also add to your reasons why a sunset might be put into the bill and into the law is because sometimes somewhat, some people don't like what that law is at all. And so it's a compromise with them. Well, how about if we try it for one year or two years? And I think that might be the case with at least one of these. That is a good point. Yeah. Okay. So the first batch of sunsets we're going to talk about has to do with automated license plate recognition systems. This is 23 VSA section 1607 and 1608. These are the cameras that will register license plate and then convert them to data that can be used. In this statute, there is a difference between active data and historic data. And there's a difference in how these al PRs are actually used in the department of motor vehicles. And I'm getting all of this background information from a report. This is at the, the very bottom of the statute. In subsection. Subsection one where every year the department of public service needs to give the general assembly a report on the usage of al PR systems in Vermont. And according to that last report, the bulk of the al PR usage is by the department of motor vehicles, but they only use it in a read mode. They don't actually send any data to the statewide database. And there was only one other al PR. System at the end of 2019 that was actually recording data and sending it to the database to be preserved as historic data. Their data is kept for 18 months. And there is a process whereby law enforcement can gain access to that data. You have, and this is in the email that represented McCormick forwarded to all of you, the department of motor vehicles position on this and they are supporting extending this sunset out an additional two years. That would be very consistent with what has happened in past legislative sessions. So this is act 175 from 2018. And you'll see in section one extension of sunset. This is extending out the sunset of 1607 and 1608 and additional two years from 2018 to 2020. And you'll see in the beginning part of section one where it says extension of sunset. And it's listing out statutes going, our session law going all the way back to 2013. This, um, these two sections were added to codified law in 2013 acts and resolves number 69. And then it has been amended several times to push out that sunset. So what has been the general assembly's practice in the past has been to extend this in one or two year increments, which is what put it to a repeal of July 1, 2020. How many times did the legislature do that? Um, one, two, three, this would be the fourth time. I know that I saw a hand go up. There was a, I was after yesterday. I wasn't in charge of that. Okay. Um, Mike McCarthy. Thanks, uh, Mr. Chair. So. The repeal would basically take us back to before 2013 when there wasn't really any restriction on law enforcement and storing LPR data. Is that correct? That is correct. So it would be unregulated. Yeah, we should definitely do this extension for two years. So the original bill is that one that Jim McCullough, uh, interrogated me for like 40 minutes on the floor, thinking that we were giving police more authority when we actually were putting some boundaries on them back when I was a freshman the first time around. So, uh, this is very familiar territory for me. Oh, good. Thank you. President pro tem McCarthy. Were there other hands? And, um, just to jump in, that's a really good point. Repeal means it goes away. It's taken out of our statutes. It's like taking a great big pen and crossing out these two, um, sections of codified law. Yep. That's what would happen if we do nothing. Correct. So really the options are do nothing, it goes away and do something and it stays in some capacity and could be as simple as you just push it out a couple years. It could be as complex as you push it out for a different amount of time and you change the statute somehow. And that's what actually happened in 2018. With this act that I have up, you'll see that section one is extending the sunset, but then section two is requiring the auditor to do an additional report. And then section three is actually amending one of the statutes in section 1607 E is amended to read. So, you know, there are iterations of, we just push out the law exactly as it is to, we extend the sunset, but we also changed the law that we are looking at and deciding whether or not we want to keep in codified law. Okay. Why don't we have you go through all three of them, and then we'll see if the DMV would like to testify on. Sure. Okay, so the next one deals with transportation network companies. And there is in 23 VSA section. So, I'm going to go through all three of them. I'm going to go through all three of them. And I should start transportation network companies are companies like Uber or Lyft, where they're a vehicle for hire, but it's done through a means of technology. And that is defined in chapter 10 and title 23. This language, all of this chapter was added in. I think that this was something that the transportation committees worked on. I think this was more a commerce and economic development. Bill. One of the things that was included in it was a preemption clause and a savings clause. So the preemption clause is in section 754 subsection a, and it says that municipal ordinances, resolutions or bylaws, regulating transportation network companies are preempted to the extent they are inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. So it says municipal law does not get to exist. If it is inconsistent with this chapter. So just like federal law can preempt state law or staying state law preempts municipal law, even though one of the powers that's given to municipalities is the power to regulate vehicles for hire. Subsection B is a savings clause, which is what is set to sunset. And it says that a municipal ordinance resolution or bylaw, regulating transportation network companies that's been adopted by a municipality with a population of more than 35,000 residents. And I think that's just Burlington based on the 2010 census and in effect on July 1, 2017. So the ordinance needed to be in effect. By July 1, 2017. And it needs to have a population above 35,000 residents. So I think this is just directed at Burlington. And I think it's just directed at Burlington. That subsection A, the preemption of those laws does not apply. But it's repealed on July 1, 2020. So what would happen if you do nothing is subsection B goes away. And then all municipal ordinances without regard to whether or not they were in effect on July 1, 2017. And then all municipal ordinances without regard to whether or not they're in consistent with this chapter of state law. If you extend this. Then the municipalities, we think it's just Burlington. Would be able to continue regulating transportation network companies in a way that is inconsistent with state law. And Theo, what, what do we have in state law for TNC? And what you've just told us, there's besides the preemption and besides the, that no town can do it unless they have 35,000 or more. So the laws for transportation companies mostly deal with background checks and insurance requirements. So I think my screen is still being shared. I've put you back to what all of chapter 10 is, and now I'm going to show you the full text of the chapter. So it has a definition section getting you what is a TNC? What is a prearranged fair? It provides what the financial responsibility is going to be the amount of insurance that needs to exist. And it's sort of divided up into these three tiers, depending on when the drivers going out to get a fair, when they actually have the passenger in the vehicle. And when they're just driving around waiting for someone to, to request their services. There is also language about how they need to carry proof of coverage, what happens if they don't maintain insurance. There's also language on the background checks and what the transportation network companies, which do the background checks for their drivers needs to be included in the background check. There's also language on the background check. What would be a disqualification? In terms of past criminal history. A list of crime defined in 13 BSA section 5301, they go down comparable offenses, felonies, a whole host of things that would disqualify, disqualify someone from being a driver. It requires the commissioner of motor vehicles or designee to not do sort of an audit of background checks that are done by the transportation network company itself. I believe there's language in here that says that these are not then public records. Talks about enforcement and what the commissioner of motor vehicles can do in terms of administrative penalties, if the TNC violates the sections. And then we've got our preemption savings clause. Okay. And this is in title 23, right? Yes. All right. Other questions on this one. Frontier. Okay. I have a question. I'm sorry. Yeah, Dave. Yeah. For anti a what, why would we want to take Burlington off the hook. For these regulations that are in existence for every other city in Vermont. So you wouldn't be taking. You would be maintaining the status quo, which is that Burlington can regulate transportation network companies in a way that is inconsistent with these statutes. So for example, and a lot of this I should explain that I used to sort of handle vehicle for hire matters. So I'm going to go back to that. I'm going to go back to the city of Burlington. I'm going to go back to the city of Burlington. I'm going to go back to the city of Burlington. For the city of Burlington when I was there. So some of my information might be stale. I did testify on the bill that put this into codified law when I worked for the city of Burlington. At that time, I believe, and I'm just using this as a. The city of Burlington required that drivers be 21. So that's an example where it's inconsistent and you're letting the city of Burlington regulate TNCs in a different way. They might have different. Convictions that would be a disqualification that are not included in the background check language in this language. Also the city of Burlington had their vehicle for hire ordinance before on the dealt with transportation network companies before this state law was enacted. And it was something that the city was pushing for in terms of wanting to continue to regulate it as they had been doing, which involved, and I'm just, this is an example from a few years ago. And if you want to know about what the city is doing now, you should hear from the city. Did these audits twice a year as opposed to once a year. So differences between the law. That was on a municipal level and what was put into effect on a state level. Okay, Dave. I think he's still talking and is muted. Dave, have you unmuted yourself? It's reassuring to me to know that. You feel that Burlington's ordinance is this. You know, they have to have variations to suit their situation, but you know, there's a lot in this. And unless somebody is checking on Burlington to make sure they're conforming to other things within this. You know, you know, you know, it's a long description of what, you know, taxi services and so forth are supposed to do. Who's checking on them, you know, and. You know, you seem to make reassurance that it's okay, but otherwise how would we know. And is there any reporting to the legislature? For what municipalities do. No. Yeah. So we just, we just trust Burlington to. To do a good job or. To conform with what's here as well as. Also in a way that suits their needs. So this is putting obligations on the TNC's and the commissioner motor vehicles in the department for how they are ensuring that there is sufficient insurance and the background checks are being conducted. This does not provide any authority to municipalities to regulate vehicles for hire, which is something that is in, I think it's entitled 24 and then a number of municipal charters that gives them the authority to regulate all vehicles for hire, which you're going to include, for example, a taxi cab that you could hail on the street or has a roof light. I can pull up the city of Burlington's vehicle for hire ordinance. If that would be helpful for the committee, but this is not telling municipalities what they need to do. This is telling transportation network companies what they need to do and what the department of motor vehicles needs to do in terms of that regulation and that enforcement. Okay, I've got three hands up and calling just a minute. I think we're going to have the commissioner testified. So some, if your questions are better for her, you might want to hold them, but I'll leave that to you. So I've got Becca, Tim and Molly and Dave, I see your hand up as your hand up again or. It shouldn't be off. Yep. Very good. All right. So it's Becca, Molly, and then I guess the third person lower their hand back and then Molly. Thanks, Kurt. So Anthea, we had gone back and forth a little bit with this section when we talked through taxation or like a fee on vehicles, like Uber and Lyft, those types of companies. And so just so I understand this wouldn't be a place to have an opportunity to put forward some of those measures we talked about by letting this part sunset. All this deals with is the, all this deals with is letting the city of Burlington continue to regulate transportation network companies in a way that is inconsistent with this state law. And it could be that there are no inconsistencies at this point, but it doesn't have anything to do with a statewide taxation of transportation network companies. If you let this sunset, you could take that up now, you could take that up at a later point. If you don't let this sunset and you push it out two years, you could do the exact same thing. So you don't, how you act in this piece has no bearing on whether or not you can have a taxation across the board for these sorts of services. Okay. That's really helpful. Thank you. I was thinking like, wait, is this our chance to get in there and to do this? And it sounds like we're not missing any big opportunities. So thank you. Well, it could be a chance to make other amendments in this. I mean, I know we had talked about it and collectively we thought it was a good idea, but I do worry about trying to tack that on into this. I'm having something controversial, but that's just my thought. Thank you. Okay. Representative Burke. Thank you. So I'm just wondering. And we probably heard testimony when we did this that. It's, it's, it's mainly, it seems to me like the regulations are, are in order to, you know, make sure there's insurance, make sure that they're fairly regulated. How did the towns feel about this? Are they happy about this? I wonder how the league feels about it with towns other than Burlington. I don't want to speak on behalf of any of the municipalities. I can direct you to a report that the department of financial regulation did where they spoke with representatives from a number of municipalities and actually inventoryed the different vehicle for higher ordinances across the various municipalities. One thing to be clear on here is these laws that you're looking at chapter 10 and title 23 just deal with transportation network companies. It is my understanding and my information is outdated. That Burlington was the only municipality that was really regulating transportation network companies as something that wasn't just a cab or another vehicle for hire. Bralberg, for example, I think has an ordinance that deals with vehicles for hire, but doesn't necessarily treat transportation transportation network companies, the TNC is differently. So that report might be able to provide you with some information on what municipalities think of this industry in general, or you could have the league testify to it. And I am not in, I went back and I looked at the committee activity for the bills that turned into this law and you'll actually see that this is from the special session. It's number three from the 2018 special session. I do not believe any of the bills that dealt with transportation network companies were taken up in house transportation. So it could be that this isn't something that if you're racking your brain for what happened two years ago that you would have a memory because it wasn't something that came up in your committee two years ago. Thank you. I was like, I do not remember this. Okay. Okay. I have a question. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Patty. Yep. Rep. McCoy. You're muted. I think I'd get that by now. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Commerce dealt with this. I was on the commerce committee two years ago, and that's where the TN, this transportation network went through commerce. So we spent quite a bit of time on this bill. And going back and forth with the Senate on it. The biggest thing was the insurance piece. For the committee to try to get that right. But we spent a lot of time on it. So. Patty, I have two questions for you then. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I have a question for you. I think you were thinking commerce committee's thinking. Well, why shouldn't a smaller city be able to regulate the. TNCs? One. And two. Or women, there's never this is part of the answer. Our towns satisfied that they, that the state regulation is enough. And they certainly are allowed to have them. But if they wanted to do more like apparently Burlington did. And does. What about a smaller town? Why not them? Well, Burlington was the only one that had a transportation network system. When we were dealing with this bill, that's why we allowed them to continue on what they were doing rather than change over because they wanted to keep, as Ampia had mentioned a couple of them, the 18-year-old to the 21-year-old driver. There were a few things they wanted to keep so we allowed them to keep what they had and some said it seemed like a long time, but here we are. The other issue is the other small communities can have them. I mean, this was just a way for instead of them rewriting the whole book, the state got involved and said, this is what you're gonna follow if you have a transportation network system. And the league was okay with this. They didn't come in with any alarm, they weren't alarmists at all with this. They were at the table the entire time, so. Okay, Tim. I guess another question for you, Patty. What was the expectation of Burlington? Were they satisfied in two years that they could abide by what the state put forward for the rest of the towns or was there an expectation on their part that it was gonna get extended again? What, I mean, what was that conversation like if you're gonna recall? I can't recall that, Tim. I don't remember. I think it was just because as Kurt or Anthea said, this came in special session because it never even got to the finish line during our year, so. Okay, the third one, the third sunset. Yep, I'm just switching over to your screen. If I repeat myself, I hope it doesn't sound like I'm being impatient. I'm just not sure I was heard. No, that's quite all right. And it's just, it takes a couple clicks. I actually had thought to load up the statutes for just helping. Okay, so this is in 23 of USA section 1222, which deals with the annual inspections of vehicles. And the only piece that is set to sunset is subsection E, which deals with U.S. Postal Service vehicles that have been converted to be a right-hand drive vehicle, being able to pass inspection, even if the airbag in that front right-hand side compartment has been disconnected. And I know there are people on this call who can speak to this, or in this meeting who can speak to this better than I can. So I will leave it at, if you don't do anything, then this exemption for those vehicles that would fail inspection goes away. So they would fail the inspection if that front airbag has been disconnected. Or if you push it out to another two years, another four years, this would continue to exist. Or based on the recommendation of the Department of Motor Vehicles, you could make it so that there's no sunset in play at all. And this is added to codified law. It doesn't mean that you couldn't repeal it at some point in the future, but there's not gonna be this every two year, every four year, whatever it is, reminder to look at this again. Thank you. So the council yields to the Postmaster General of Fairfax, otherwise known as Fairfax. Just a clerk. Yeah, this raised concern for me and for my fellow postal people who are still there, rural carriers use the right-hand vehicle. And they have to do this correction of, they don't get manufactured as right-hand vehicles, only one does. And it's very challenging for them to get that. And it's only one in the United States that produces one that is manufactured that way. So I really appreciate the agency getting behind making this codified law, just making sure that this exemption is always there. The one concern that came up from my research was that the inspection stations aren't actually aware of this exemption. So many of the carriers have been challenged in the past couple of years with defending it. So I just would ask that any action we take, hopefully to at least keep it for two more years, if not codify it, does also include making sure that the inspection stations are alerted that this exemption is there. But it sounds like you would prefer it, we just codify the exemption and not have the sun set any longer. Absolutely. I don't see that there's gonna be a fleet of vehicles for the carriers to pick from. And this is really only applicable for the rural carriers is my understanding that the postal vehicles that are built are I presume designed this way. But rural carriers retrofit their own vehicle and get an expense check for the costs of using their own vehicle. Okay, thank you. Oh, and I also do wanna say that it's incredibly dangerous if they were being required to maintain the airbag with having retrofitted a steering wheel in front of it, that would be an incredibly dangerous position. And it does worry me that even just having to plug it in to get through inspection and then unplug it leaves that issue that potentially someone forgets to unplug it. And I just been horrified. I mean, you don't want someone having a steering wheel blown into their body. So. Yeah, I think that would be probably a violation of federal law, the standards for airbags that are required in all cars. Representative Burke. Thank you. I too would be in favor of just codifying this. Yep. It's a reasonable solution to a problem. And I think we need to support our post office in this era. I'm all for the USPS. I think it's great. And I know the rural carriers really, it's a hard job having to pull over and go through rain and sleet and snow and all that. Yep. All right. Tim, you put your hand back down. Yeah, looks like you did. Okay, so that was all free. Do we have, yeah, I see Commissioner Manoli, you're on the air. Good morning. I'm trying to get the buttons to work here. It is working. How's everyone doing? Well, I'm doing all right. How's everybody else? I'm doing well. So where would you like me to start? Would you like me to just go through the three really briefly on our position? Yes, because you do have a position on all three, correct? Correct. Yes, why don't you give us that position and tell us why and then- So the first one I'm gonna address is the US Postal Service Vehicle Inspection. I could not offer any better testimony than your vice chair. It is clearly, I don't know the history why this has been extended over every couple of years. My understanding is I think they were hoping that there would be more manufacturers or an easier way to accommodate the need for the US Postal Service. And instead of continuing to extend this, we are proposing that you codify and you make this exception for these vehicles. I don't anticipate in any time soon that there are going to be multiple manufacturers that are producing a lot of these vehicles to meet the needs. All right. Do you have any questions on that one? Of me? Nope. Okay. The next one that I'm gonna go to, and I apologize, I'm looking at my screen over here so my head is turned to you. The next one I'm gonna testify to is the TNC language and we are proposing that you could extend this for two years. I would say to you, you could also consider if you wanted to just codify this. I think Anthea did a great job summarizing this language for you. What I'd like to say, which I think may address some of Representative Potter's concerns is that the financial crisis and financial regulation team was the lead on this and the statute that was created really focused on definitions for insurance requirements for TNCs, what their financial responsibility is, driver requirement background checks that the TNC, the companies have to ensure that are there for the safety of individuals that are using the services and what came out of it is the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicle does an annual audit and what that looks like is once a year, at a minimum, we have to look at 25 records. The TNC companies have to send us their current listing of all of their drivers with certain information and then we do a random check and validate that those drivers are in compliance with the statute and the companies are in compliance with the statute. We did our first audit last year and I know that we did 25 and that every one of the companies and the individuals were meeting the statute and so this is how we manage it. This is what we're auditing but we're looking at driver's records, we're looking at the insurance requirements and the background checks, they have to provide that, they have to provide us data that they conducted those background checks. So in regards to, I was not, I had just started in regards to this language that is specific to municipal ordinances. What I understand, and I think having this, you may wanna reach out to the city of Burlington, these ordinance go beyond some of the audit requirements and I think Anthea did a wonderful job summarizing what she, from her previous time, what it does for them. I believe and I'm pretty confident that Burlington would like to continue with having oversight on their ordinance and resolutions for the TNC companies. I will tell the committee that this is the largest area where Uber and Lyft is successful. Many of our rural areas don't even have Uber and Lyft drivers. So this is the city that does have the majority of the drivers. So I think extending it is a positive thing and the city of Burlington, I think also, I think reaching out to them and getting their opinion on this would be beneficial. Questions on that? Well, I have a question, I guess, for you commissioner, but also for representative Burk, Cochran, McCoy and Potter, people from other savage, you probably don't have them in, well, and I'm thinking of the places that may have them that are not Burlington or Chittenden County. Yes, representative White also. No, Kurt, I was making that face because I thought you were saying former members and I was like, everyone but me. No, I'm just, so, Tim, if you wanted to take an Uber at your house, someplace inside Bennington or whatever, is that available, is there a way to do that? We had, I'm trying to think, because anybody can sign up for this. I think at one time, there was an individual from the Pondall area that had an Uber or a Lyft, but it's not prevalent. It's not, well, the last I checked, I haven't looked to see if I could get an Uber because I really don't need one, but the last time I talked about it with individuals from around Bennington, I think there was just one. So we don't have an influx of them that would require the type of regulation that we're talking about up in Burlington. So I would say it's pretty scarce. Becca, how about the Tri-City area there? We have three Uber drivers as of my last count and they're also Lyft drivers, so they do both and they are based out of New Hampshire. So you actually can't request an Uber in White River Junction. You can request an Uber in the address across the river and then tell the Uber driver to pick you up in White River. So I don't think we would have any role of regulating them since they're like based out of New Hampshire. Now, why can't you call them and say, however you do it, I'm in White River Junction and I want to go to some other, I want to go to Wilder. So the app doesn't allow you to, if you put in our zip code, it won't pull up any drivers. If you- Why is that? The three drivers aren't pulled up. I have no idea. What- Do you know why? They may be regulated by the business itself to stick within their state lines depending on what their abilities are. That makes a lot of sense. Cause yeah, if you just put your dot, yeah, if you put your dot over in literally the other side of the bridge and then just text them and say, hey, pick me up here, they do it. But- I want to make sure it's not a state law problem. So, Commissioner, do you know why that situation that Representative White has? I don't. Again, and I want to bring you back to the language that the legislature passed is are the responsibilities of Uber and Lyft. So drivers who sign up to be an Uber or a Lyft driver or both of them, these are the expectations of Vermont law for them to meet compliance. And so I think the comments that people are making are probably correct, just being an Uber or Lyft user, that there may be issues in other states and they're designated areas. Because when you sign up for Uber and Lyft, I think you identify where you're going to be serving, you know, where you're going to be driving from. So. Anthea, what do you think? It could have something to do with the geofence capabilities that are embedded in the software that the TNCs use, and that those drivers have said maybe there are different insurance requirements between New Hampshire and Vermont and they don't wish to be operating in Vermont. So it could be those drivers are not doing what they're supposed to be doing. I'd be speculating, but you know, it is pretty cool. And you know, I'm sure someone from Lyft or Uber could speak to this about the geofencing that they use in the app. So for example, they can say specific things if you're trying to get a ride at the airport put your little pin at the airport, it'll know that you're putting your pin in sort of a special area and direct you to particular locations. There's an issue up at the airport, sometimes with people getting picked up or dropped off just off the airport property and then people walking over. So the geofence is trying to, you know, capture the patchwork of regulation that might exist from municipality to municipality or location to location or state to state. Geofence is geographic fence, like a border of service. Yeah, and I think that they actually have programmers who can sort of almost draw areas on maps. Yup. So for example, a driver who, and again, I don't know if this is still the case in Burlington, but if you need to be 21 to be a driver in Burlington and there's someone who's 18, they could theoretically be driving in the rest of the state and not be picking up and dropping off people in the city of Burlington. The city of Burlington also did, I don't know if they still do, collect quarters based on the pickup and drop off of people if it's within the city of Burlington. And you can go and look on the vehicle for hire boards page through the city of Burlington and see a report of how much is collected in fees from the different vehicle for hire companies that operate. And I believe that is all based on geofence data that the TNCs gather because they're able to know where people are getting picked up and dropped off. Oh, thank you. Representative Murphy, was your question answered that? In that or? It was, I just was trying to clarify in my head that the Burlington regulations are actually stricter than what the statute is. And I just think that it sounds like we have plenty of questions and extending rather than maybe codifying as a good plan, waiting till we can really ask questions of a lot more witnesses and give people an opportunity to be present. But it doesn't sound, sounds like that's also maintaining a safer path for the use of the system itself. And DMV is recommending extending it two years or codifying it, but maybe this discussion has changed the commissioner's mind about the codification. I don't know. And we could extend it one year if we wanted to or we could. So I want to, I just want to say to the committee the title 23754 and this extension is specific to the municipal ordinances. And if you're going to extend those or not, the remainder of the language, everything that is under here, and I give credit to the committee that worked on this is putting in place requirements for background checks, requirements for insurance. So if you're going to operate as a TNC, these are the things that you shall do. Those shells apply to the businesses that Burlington has an additional ordinance. So they don't get to change the compliance with the existing statute. And DMV's role is to do the audit of compliance because we have insurance and we look at driver records, et cetera. So I just, so what I'm testifying on based on when your session had started and you all were in full activity at the state house, we had been contacted by the Burlington attorney wanting to know if we were going to propose or add that this language for the ordinance continue. And then everything occurred, I just, you know, so I would really, that's all that I want to say. I think what we are doing and the audit and the compliance is a good process. And I would not be recommending any other changes at this time to the TNC language. It is really about, and what would happen if you did not extend this language we would still do our audits. We would still be reaching out to the TNC companies and requiring them to give us all of their documents and we would do the audits. We have nothing to do with creating what the ordinance looks like or would we be managing the ordinances? Okay, I've got representative Savage and then Sullivan and representative McCoy looked like you put your hand back down. Okay, so Brian and then Mary. Hey, thank you. I guess I just have a question for Anthea probably would be the best one on this. So Burlington, you have to be 21, is that correct? That to be a Lyft driver, Uber driver. Now, I don't know of any Lyft or Uber drivers up in my area. Not sure about St. Albans, but I don't think there's anybody in Swanton. Although I keep getting emails, they want me to be a driver. I just, I put those in the trash can. But let's say that I contact somebody here in town and I need a ride to the airport. And so they're a Uber Lyft driver, but they're only 19 years old. And so are they able to drop me off? Because this is a gray area. The airport is actually in South Burlington, but Burlington considers it part of Burlington. So would that work? I mean, even if they were dropping me off in the middle of downtown Burlington, I initiated the transaction in Swanton, which is legal for them to do. But are they saying they can't go into Burlington? So I don't want to speak on behalf of how the city is enforcing the vehicle for higher ordinance for how they're currently applying the airport, which they do regulate drivers up there. I can tell you that the vehicle for higher ordinance that is posted on the city of Burlington's website does still say to legally operate a vehicle for hire in the city or at the airport, each driver must, and it lists as one of those requirements be 21 years of age or older. One of the things that was brought up in the report that the DFR, the Department of Financial Regulation did, which was required as part of the act that added all of this language to Title 23 was to look at whether or not there should be statewide regulation of vehicle for hire drivers in general to make it so that you, for example, traditional cab driver that is 19, so setting aside the TNC piece. You, traditional cab driver in Swanton are contacted and your customer wants to be driven to the airport. You're 19. Technically, you are violating the city's vehicle for higher ordinance. I don't know if they're enforcing that, but the city of Burlington does require for its vehicle for hire drivers that you be 21 years of age or older. Thank you. Representative Sullivan. My question was pretty much answered about coming in and out of Burlington, so I don't need to ask a question. Okay. All right, commissioner, was that the, no, that was, we haven't talked about the cameras yet. Kurt, I have one question. Yes, please. Sorry. Sorry. Well, if somebody asks for the ride in Swanton to go to Burlington, wouldn't that be the same as Becca's that she wants to come, somebody come to White River Junction to bring her to New Hampshire, but the New Hampshire people have to follow the laws of New Hampshire. I don't, you know, if they're just, I don't, I mean, I don't know. Does Burlington have a say over if the ride starts in Swanton that Brian would have to call somebody that is in the Burlington network to drive to Swanton to pick him up to Burlington? So there is law on this out of, I believe, both the city of Burlington and the city of Rutland that deals with the fact that there are drivers who wish to operate in a municipality that they're not licensed to operate in. Also the argument of I'm a driver and I'm just driving through municipality X, do I need to be licensed to drive through municipality X? One of the things that a TNC regulation does is if they're allowed to drive in the whole state, it minimizes the ability for municipalities to create a sort of patchwork of regulation where maybe in Swanton, if you're, and I'm just gonna use traditional cab drivers here, maybe in Swanton, you need to have a purple light on the top of your vehicle, but in the city of Burlington, you need to have a green light on top of your vehicle. Are drivers gonna then need to switch lights? And there are a lot of traditional cab drivers and the DFR report speaks to this that thinks there should be sort of uniform statewide regulation across the board and not letting municipalities create the sort of patchwork which speaks to the driver in Swanton, can then they then go drop off at the airport? The airport also has a system of how you're authorized to operate at the airport and if you've not complied with that, you might not be able to pick up and drop off at the airport. Okay. No, Patty, Patty, you're muted. Yeah. So the case law for the driver in Swanton, can he come into Burlington or no? I need to go back and review it, but I believe the holding of the case was that if you were going to be operating in the city of Burlington, you needed to be licensed to operate in the city of Burlington. So the driver, I believe he was out of Shelburne, was not allowed to go and drop someone off. I think he was dropping food off at the hospital and was issued a ticket for that. All right, thank you. Okay. Commissioner, how about the cameras? So I would just like the committee to know that the kernel is available to answer questions too. So I think Anthea did an excellent summary to the committee on the history of this language. We are recommending to extend the sunset period for this statute by two more years. This is a critical tool for the DMV enforcement because we use it and it's focused on the commercial vehicle enforcement side and reading the plates and being connected and quickly to federal information. If for instance that business or that truck is out of service in another state and they're actually driving in the state of Vermont, it gives us immediate information. And if I can, I think Jake has implemented this program and he would probably like to add to my testimony and then both of us can answer questions. Jake, are you there? Jake. I don't see him. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Good morning. Good morning. You should identify yourself, Jake. For the record, Colonel Jake Alverda with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Good morning. So as the commissioner said, we're still supportive of the language. It's a very defined use for us. Like the commissioner said, other agencies in the past have used it for like NCIC, stolen vehicles, suspended vehicles, expired registrations. But right now, the only thing DMV uses and if you look at the language, it's really provided a car valve. We use it specifically just for commercial vehicles safety screening. We use a federal database that is just for the power units or the tractor of a commercial vehicle, the license as data is entered in to our LPRs. And we use that to screen when we're doing truck details. And that is the only screening we do with the LPR. Nothing else is added into that database. That's just that screening for those carriers that are subject to a federal out of service order. Colonel, what is NCIC? I'm sorry, National Crime Information Center. So you don't take pictures of any automobile plates? Well, the system will take a snapshot of the plate, sir, but we don't retain historical data on it. We're screening just against the commercial plates. So when we go by a tractor trailer, it's grabbing the number of that plate and running against that database for an out of service vehicle and alert us to that. But the plate itself after two hours is deleted right from the computer, the way we have it set up. So if you look at the statutory language, it does allow for the retention of historical data for up to 18 months. With from day one to the first six months, agencies can DMB can search our data and agencies that used to have LPRs could request the police to search the data as well. And then from six months to 18 months, you actually needed a search warrant to review the data. And then after the 18th month, the plate reads were wiped from the DPS system or the DMB system. In our case, we're not even retaining historical data. We're doing a daily update to our LPRs for the federal database for the commercial vehicles. And after two hours, that plate read is removed from the laptop. So you, one of the circumstances where you might take a picture of an automobile license plate, where and when? Well, the system will take pictures of all license plates, sir. Where does it do that? The camera takes them. No, in what place? Along the interstate, at the borders, where does this happen? So we have 17 LPRs that are mounted on our pickup trucks, those marked pickup trucks that we operate. Each of them has a mobile system, a three camera system. So if those inspectors are on mobile patrol going down the highway at scanning plates, and again, our focus is on the commercial motor vehicle. So we, even if it takes a car plate, it's not gonna hit against anything to give us an alert. And again, those plate reads are actually removed after two hours. Again, worse screening against the commercial. So mobile patrol, if we're sitting in a U-turn, as part of our scanning of the commercial vehicles, or when you see us like at the Cold Chesterway station where we're operating there, we have one of our crews are set up at the approach at the beginning of the detail, scanning the plates to alert the officers whether or not we have a truck that's under the federal audit service order. Okay, I'm sorry. I'm still not understanding when one of these trucks might take the picture of the license plate that's on a car, if it's, if you're not interested in that at all, why don't they only take pictures of plates on the non-trucks? So this is Commissioner Manoli and Jake, I'm gonna, the system is in the vehicle, so it's automated. So as I think it will take that plate picture and what the colonel is saying is that with the way the system is set up, the pleasure vehicle, the data isn't capped, it's erased after two hours and that the focus is on the commercial vehicles. Is that correct, Jake? That is correct. So that when they turn the system on, Chair McCormick, it is activated. But the DMV enforcement side is not doing anything, as the colonel said, with what I call pleasure vehicle or standard truck data, their focus is on the commercial side. So this camera somehow goes what a license plate is and it takes a picture of all license plates. It does, it's an optical character recognition is what the camera does. The OCR basically recognized, but there have been times where I've seen it pick up a picket fence and say 11111 as well. So I mean, but that's part of the training the officer is to look at the plate and recognize if it's a good or a bad plate or if it's a picket fence that ignore it as well. Yep. Okay, very good. I've got Representative Burke. Yeah, I think, I mean, the other issue is that the, I believe you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that the state police and other law enforcement agencies use this also for different purposes. Like when we did this bill, it was about perhaps some kind of looking for children or some kind of abduction or some kind of a crime. And that's why, but we did put the limitation of the 18 months on it because people were concerned about that kind of information staying there permanently. So I don't know if anybody else who's on the committee maybe Mike wants to talk about that as well. Okay. Yes, Representative Potter. Yeah, in agreement with what Molly said, I remember distinctly the representative from the state police and the civil liberties union representative met outside the committee and they're the ones that formulated this compromise of 18 months and how the data was gonna be stored and so forth. And so what was it? Two years ago or more, it was more than two years ago, I think. There was agreement about how to do this in a compromising way by two groups, the state police and the civil liberties union that you would never think would be able to come to agreement, but they did. And I think we're just sort of being asked to extend this. At the same time though, I'd be interested in probably Jake or the commissioner would know. It seems like there's a lot less participation by law enforcement in this endeavor than there was when we made this agreement a while back. In fact, I think I heard somebody say today there was only one group reporting historical data to the repository of that data. So maybe Jake or the commissioner can inform us a little bit more about how this is being used compared to what it was when we set this up. I'm gonna let the colonel answer that because he has a pretty good understanding of what's occurring statewide. So at this time, DMV is the only agency that's running ALPRs. Vermont State Police has removed all their units as most all other agencies. The only agency in the last reporting period that Vermont State Police had was the Essex County Sheriff. And my understanding is this at this point in time, my understanding is he's even ceased using the system. So right now the only state, any law enforcement agency in the state of Vermont, the only agency currently using LPRs is DMV and under the narrow scope of our operation. The problem, the reason my understanding to a certain point was that the system and the manufacturer that the state police and the other law enforcement agencies are used in, most of their equipment is aged out and it's very, was very expensive for them to replace it in kind of budgeting with other things that those agencies needed to purchase. There had been some discussions from law enforcement about just doing it at fixed site locations versus a mobile application. But I think right now costs is what's to a certain point the issue for those agencies of getting it. And then there was just some of the concerns just with the process that the other vendor really wasn't able to kind of tailor the system to answer some of those reporting questions that were required as part of the report out with the current legislation. So that's why I think you've basically seen most law enforcement sunset. Again, for us it's a very limited scope and it just makes our inspectors more effective at screening and again, we're just looking at the motor carrier population. We aren't even looking at passenger cars. We don't load any other data other than that prism file that screens the commercial trucks. Well, thank you, Jake. I think what we just heard from you makes our decision making fairly simple, really. It sounds like from your testimony that cost is pretty much shelved to the previous effort that was going on with regard to this. So all we're, as I understand it from what you say, all we really have to decide is what we're hearing from you around motor vehicles, commercial trucks, which is really pretty limiting I think and not threatening in my viewpoint. Thank you for that testimony. You're welcome. Representative Murphy and then Burke. I don't have my hand up. Yeah, McCarthy. These Irish names, they can get confused. So I know that my police department in the city of St. Albans has been using ALPR in very limited scope to do some zone parking enforcement as a test in the last few months. And so they wouldn't have been reporting data up to public safety. So I'm wondering, Colonel, or if anybody else knows, if there are still agencies that like DMB are using ALPR for screening, but aren't retaining the data beyond very short windows so they don't really fall into the enforcement of this particular statute. So the current language, the way it is, Representative McCarthy is specific to law enforcement and law enforcement usage of LPR data. So my understanding with St. Albans, it is very separate and distinct that the data they're using is for parking enforcement, screening for parking enforcement, and that the data is not available for law enforcement. It's a civil capacity and doesn't fall under the language or fall under the law enforcement access and criteria, so it's separate in that regard. One of the other things that did come up when we were looking historically with LPRs is that it does not prevent private usage. So one of the things is the industry came in and an industry lobbyist or representative came in from Washington DC to the House Judiciary Committee and talked about that it's used for parking enforcement like parking structures, tracking vehicles that way. You have companies like that repossess cars, towing operations that will use it, but those are all in a civil capacity and are outside of law enforcement purview and access. So you could have private entities that are like a municipality that is doing it for their parking enforcement, but it doesn't come under the current language. If they were to share it, then that type of information then would have to be reported based on the current language you have in front of you that's in Title 23. Okay, Mike, Representative Burke. So I was just wondering though, I mean, based on this information, do we wanna keep this 18 month provision or do we wanna shorten that provision? I don't know, maybe it's just too much to get into right now in this situation, we would have to take testimony probably from police and et cetera. Just raising the question. Yes, and it's a good question. And I have similar questions about the TNC. So we will have that DNV bill eventually. And would all three of these be germane too? And I think so. Yeah, when you think so, Anthea? Yep, so I think we do have that opportunity. Why don't we take all three and see what we think, if we're ready to dispose of any of them today. And otherwise, I think we can wait and we could work on them before we have the DNV bill, but that would be our way to do something about it, I believe. Okay, an amendment to that bill and we probably will have others. So anything else for our witnesses? Yes, Representative Murphy. I just was gonna say, oh, I guess it's irrelevant, DNV bill is out of committee as well. So they wouldn't, I just was gonna ask if potentially they'd be making the adjustments in the Senate and whether we could at least speak to Senate transportation and make that suggestion so that when they pass the bill to us, maybe these changes have been made and we can just agree with them. Yeah, while I call, I haven't actually have not talked to Senator Mazza in a while, two or three weeks now. So I'm hearing that they haven't met and have they met the Senate Transportation Committee? Senate Transportation has not met since the first week that you were out of the state house. And then as for the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill, the Department of Motor Vehicles has proposed their version of must pass, which I walked through. It feels like months ago, but I think it was a little over a month ago. So what it could be that what ends up getting passed out of the Senate is more expansive than what people view as a must pass version of something. But I think dealing with sunsets, if you wanna deal with them would certainly need to be must pass because something is going to happen on July 1 of 2020. Yeah, inaction is action in this case. So yes, that's a possibility. Yeah, I guess what I wanna say is that don't feel you have to dispose of each one of these today. I would also just kind of jumping off of what Anthea just said, whether we wanna craft a bill, use one of the bills that are on our wall or that have gone through the house, somehow to put these pieces on and just pass as a completely separate, this action has to happen. I'm sorry, would you say that again? Well, just looking at if we wanna, instead of trying to add these to a bill, if it looks like the DMV bill may not get acted on, we've had a year in the past where everything got put into one bill and that's all that happened. And whether we wanna take action considering that and even as we rewrite T-bill included in a must pass COVID-19 transportation bill. Yeah, my guess is that the speaker would not care for that way because as I told you what she said about the T-bill, she doesn't want it recommitted to us. She wants to, she is just trying to minimize the procedural steps. I mean, I think everything that we're doing. Representative McCoy. If you wanted to do that, I think the speaker's preference would be to have it a committee bill and use it a committee bill. Don't take a number that's on the wall right now. I think that's the cleanest way that she would agree to. I don't know if I agree, but you know, we'll ask her. Again, I think all she's focused on all these bills from all the committees that are not directly COVID related are minimizing the steps. You know, I guess because does everything take so long? Maybe it's the main reason, I don't know. It does, it takes forever. So that's why she didn't, I think the cleanest way would be a committee bill unless you're, because these are must passes or if they are, if we, I mean, we can just do nothing and something happens as Kurt said, but if we want to do something, they would be considered a must pass bill. All right, well, let's see how we do feel about the three. Commissioner, have you told us everything you want to tell us and Neil and Anthea, is there anything that you wanted to add that you think we are missing? About any one of these three sunsets. Well, this is commissioner Manoli and I feel that I hope we've answered all of your questions. I think we have, there's nothing more that I would add at this time. I think the Colonel has responded, you know, to your questions and provided a good overview. I do have Mike Smith who's also listening in. And if I could just, Mike, is there anything that we missed that you would add or concerns? This is Mike Smith and no, I think that you've done a wonderful job covering everything needed. So we are good chair McCormick. Okay. Well, thank you, commissioner. And I think your testimony always is very clear. And that's very helpful and thorough. All right, so let's, I just happened to have, this last one we spoke about commissioner kind of did it in the opposite order that I had written them down. The cameras and that those initials, what are those initials AP something? LPR. A LPR. Yeah. All right. On that one, what does the committee think? We should extend it. Okay. Extended the two years that was recommended by DMV. Yes. Yep. I'm hearing a lot of yups. This will just be a straw poll, but is there a motion for this too, for just a straw poll vote on that question? And that question would be, do we extend the sunset in the ALPR law by two years? So it'd be the same thing as it is now, only the day changes up two years. I would make that motion. Okay. Second it. Okay. Any discussion? All right. I guess my only concern would be, do we need to hear more testimony from the ALCU, you know, to get their perspective? You know, we're hearing one side of the story, but should we be balancing our process to say, hey, we reached out to the people that originally had concerns with this language, you know, a couple of years ago, do our due diligence or no? I had you, Anthea. So Anthea sent us the testimony of Senate judiciary, but the hearing was probably about two weeks ago now. And I was actually tuned into it and heard it then as well. And they testified, ACLU testified there on this question. Now, Anthea. So the ACLU testified at the border crossing issue. Oh, you're right. On Tuesday in house judiciary, they took up this sunset and they're planning on hearing from the ACLU on this exact issue. So then they should deal with it then. I mean, what are we taking it up? I mean, if we're taking testimony, what are we doing it? Because they originally had it before, right? Or at least a version of it. Then they sort of take it over at week house, you know, our committee really originally passed it years ago and then they sort of took the lead on it or remembering that wrong. No, and I think that Tim, you've got it right too. That kind of answers that question, Kurt, about where we would even put this action if we just let judiciary take the front lead. But we're hearing about it because it's title 23 and we had asked to be informed and alert to anything that was affecting the title that we to some extent hold responsibility for. I think it's an overlap. We both have jurisdiction on this. So it'd be on their part. So we're just concurring, I mean, so I guess we'd have to wait to see what the judiciary does and then we would concur with the language that they may or may not come up with. Right, since they're not, they haven't had this hearing yet, we don't know what. Yeah. And since the last thing, the last difficulty with overlap with those guys, they've been keeping in touch with me. So, and frankly, I had not realized that that issue was in the Senate bill as it came over. I had actually thought it was the House issue. It wasn't. Yeah, it was not. Yeah, it was in the Senate. So I don't tend to sound like maybe you have a substitute motion, which is that we hold off on this vote. Well, it's not really a substitute motion. I'm just trying to figure out what we're doing because it sounds like this is gonna, this part is gonna be in the judiciary's bill or are they doing an ominous bill? It sounds like they're gonna do it and then we're just gonna, you know, get up like we did on the other part with the judiciary. Did we encourage them yanking it out? Is that gonna be the same game plan or is this going into our DMV bill? The answer is it could be. So I guess we should wait and see what we're doing here. That's why I'm saying it. We might take, but yeah. All right, so. Or maybe at least in your conversation with Representative Grud, you could just let her know the committee's intent on it or, you know, support position and leave it at that. As they're looking at more testimony, they could just hear what our recommendation is. Okay, we don't need to be terribly formal here, but to be a little formal, I'm hearing that Barbara is not withdrawing her motion and Tim, you are not doing a substitute emotion, right? Motion, so that motion is still on the floor. Okay, Tim, you understand? Yeah. Okay, I've got a couple of hands up. Mary and then Pat. Oh. Just Patty. Well, in that same vein, if, if judiciary is taking up this one, do we know whether commerce is taking up the transportation driver network one, because they're the ones that originally had the bill three years ago? Do we know if Mike Markott is dealing with this? Perhaps we should just reach out to see. Okay. I don't know if that committee is not, and the, do you know? I don't know. I'm sorry. You wouldn't be involved with that one over there. My guess is that they aren't, but I haven't heard that they are a patty, but I will definitely today. Okay, so I think we still want to, represent the work. Yeah, I think maybe, I mean, it sounds like we should do this, but I have this, I would just like to hear what the ACLU had to say at this point in time before making a final decision about this. Okay, so you want to hold off, again, you have a substitute for Barber's motion. Yes or no? Yeah. Okay. All right, and that is, we just hold off on this. I mean, I'm inclined to support it, but I, but hearing that they, and I thought, well, we just, you know, do we have time to start hearing, given the fact that they are going to be hearing from the ACLU that's already scheduled, then I would like to just wait and see what they have to say. Okay. I think the commissioner had her hand off. Yeah, okay. Yeah. Okay, yes. Commissioner Manoli. Yeah, it always takes me a few minutes to find that speaker, but when you're done this discussion, I was trying to send you all a text. I would like, because you are talking about must haves, we do have a new item that is on our list to talk to you about. We have not spoken to the center about this yet. So if you have time today, if we could take a few moments to discuss this with you, we would appreciate it once you're done. We're actually out of time already. Okay. So next time, maybe you could write to us, tell us what it's about. Yeah, and so we will send you a communication and send it to Anthea. We are moving towards driver permits online and we need to have some language amended so we can do this for an extended period of time. Okay. With our proposal. So we will put something in writing and get it to you. Okay? Very good. But next week is okay to talk about it. Yeah, we'll get something to you before next week and then we can talk about it. Thank you. Thank you, Wanda. Okay, so, okay, so are we, let's have a show of hands. Again, we have a substitute motion. Molly, that's the question now and it's simply to hold off on Barbara's motion until we hear, so we can get to hear the testimony. By the way, you can tune into that too if you want to. So we're taking my motion off. We're not gonna do my vote. If, well, we have a vote on that again. I mean, a straw hole. Okay, you know if you are, okay, thank you. Is that what you're saying? No, I was saying I would like a straw hole. Yeah, okay. Because I think that the ACLU is gonna testify to judiciary and we're giving our recommendation based on the DMV and I just would be curious of the committee, what that voice, whether we agree with that or whether we wanna hold off because I think we could take this off our table and let judiciary own it. Okay, I'm saying Mike, not as head and agreement, I think. Yeah, I mean, frankly, the ACLU is gonna want us to at least keep this in place. Like that would be the sort of minimum that they would be in favor of based on all the experience we had from the last few goes around with this topic. Okay, Molly. I'm fine with that. Very good. I can concur. Okay, very good. Both hands, who agrees with Barbara's motion? And I think it's everybody. Anybody disagree? Any knows? Okay, very good, unanimous. Thank you. Let's just try to at least do something with all three of these. The next one I have is the TNC. I would make a motion that we do a straw hole on how we feel on the DMV position, but also as with the other, have you communicate with the chair of commerce that would they be interested in doing this in a must pass bill? Cause it is something they've dealt with. Okay, commerce committee. And also I put a call into the city council transportation committee and haven't heard back yet. And they spoke to the chair who was not actually the former chair, now the president board, Max Tracy. And he was not familiar with the state law at the time. So I would like to talk to him also, or you know, to the city and see if they do feel the way everybody seems to think they're gonna feel what they're gonna want it extended also. But so there's two things I've got to do. So, see. So, Barbara, you just want to know again, how we feel about the... Well, my motion, if we're being that formal informally is that we support the DMV position and have a straw poll on that as committee. And then that answer gets given to the commerce committee. Okay. I guess personally representing Rowling tonight, I would like to talk to the city first. And I think in my right with the DMV position being that we extend, we continue the sunset. We throw it out another couple of years. Yep, two years. Yeah. So we allow Burlington to still operate as they have. Well, I mean, I don't know if you can answer that. I mean, I think the whole thing from my perspective is it wasn't in our committee, we never had it. What was the expectation when this deal was met? Did they anticipate it that would go away or did they think it would be codified? I mean, I can't vote on what one side of a party said because we were never originally part of this conversation. It wasn't our bill. So I don't know what we're voting on without hearing from the other parties. That's kind of the same argument Molly had for the other though that we're just saying we support the agency position and are allowing that committee to then move forward with it. It being as you say, something their committee has all the testimony on. But I don't know if I can support it because with that agreement, I mean, I wouldn't support something that where there was an agreement when this, you know, the language came into place, you know, two years ago, if there was an agreement like, sorry, this was gonna get abolished, you're gonna abide by, you know, we're gonna give you two years to incorporate what the rest of the state has to do. And like I said, it may or may not have went down that way, but if it did go down that way, I wanna support DMV's position. You see what I'm saying? I do and I'd be in that same seat if it meant Burlington had to be stricter than there being in order to step up to state law. But what we're saying is they can't be as strict and as cautious as they've chosen. They'd have to reduce what they're requesting. So that's why I am taking an assumption that I feel is pretty safe that Burlington would at least want it extended. Yeah. Well, I'm sure they would, but how about Uber or the companies that have theirs that are paying, you know, was, I mean, I don't know, there's just more in the conversation. Patty? But I'm sure they have an association, don't they? My suggestion is to, if you just give a quick call to Mike Markock, because he's gonna remember all of this, trust me. He'll remember what Burlington's, so that's what I would suggest. I mean, we can take the straw poll now based on, you know, hearing what we hear, yeah, extended two years, based on what you get from Mike Markock, but. I guess Mike had concerns about what we've heard today is not so much whether or not the sunsets should go out on this particular sunset, but rather the situation that, you know, the scenario we ran on Rebecca's district, and to make sure that we have good law, we have the right law at the time, because it sounds like we might not, I don't know. Mary, did you have your hand up? I did, and basically it was just kind of adding to it, but I'd be comfortable with either two years of qualifying. You know, they do add greater protections for Burlington as they've seen fit. But in the meantime, it wouldn't be a bad idea to get in touch with the city councilor and find out, you know, I assume that the council is supporting their own ordinance. Yeah, and of course, it doesn't sound like Mary or I have heard from the city that they wanted a change in this. No. Mary, yeah, I haven't. So you would think that we would if they wanted a change in the law, but maybe Burlington's fine, but maybe the rest of the state isn't, I don't know. I also have not heard from someone, Timmy, you asked if there's an organization, they probably do have formed an association, but I'm not familiar with it if they have. Again, if they have, they have not been in touch. Nobody from Uber or Lyft. I don't think it's been in touch on this. No, no, I'm thinking the scooter people have. I think it has a dancer to that. I will point out that when you are a host, you cannot raise your hand, which is sort of frustrating. So if Lyft do have lobbyists, you could reach out to them. And then I think Uber and Lyft could also probably maybe not their lobbyists, but someone from Uber could answer what representative White raised with the border issue. Yep. Dylan's wiki is, I believe, has Lyft as one of his clientele. And I think Chris Rice has Uber. Yes. Okay. Patty, is that what you wanted to say? What I wanted to say was, perhaps they've already reached out to commerce and we don't know it, because this whole bill went through commerce. So my suggestion would be to reach out to Mike Markup. Yeah. So Barbara, can we- I know I'm sure this is a, I know it deals with vehicles, but it's a commerce issue because the company Lyft and Uber are companies which go through commerce. So that's why I just keep going back to what commerce deal with. Yeah. And I agree. But I do think that it's a legitimate overlap here. Overlaps exist. You know, they're not- I'm surprised you didn't hear it two years ago or three. It has to be, well, four years ago, four or three, three or four years ago, this went through. So. Timmy, maybe Mike, Barbara and Molly and Dave, you guys remember, and also Connie, anybody remember this discussion about this and- No. How so? No, there was no discussion that I remember either about it. No, and I would be very happy to amend my motion of straw poll that it simply be we pass it to commerce. Um, well, but again, there's still, there's still, it's transportation, you know? It is. And again, I go back, we wanted to see things that affect Title 23, but I don't know that it means we always have to stick our thumb in the pie. Yeah. We just want to know what's happening. Yeah. Well, Barbara, can we hold off on this one then? Of course. Absolutely. Thank you. It can wait. And I really will stay on these things so that next time we meet, and it might even be just an email to everybody, what I learned, I will do that. Okay, then the third one on, Laurie, is it okay if we go on for a few more minutes here? Yes. Okay. The mail carriers, maybe we can dispose of that one. I'm fine with it. I say make it codified law. I'm fine. I agree. Okay, I should give my opinion. Anybody disagree with what Barbara just said? Okay, I'm going to take that as unanimous support for removing the sunset and codifying that section of law. And I think that does require us to take action because I'm not sure anyone else will unless it would be govots. Yep. Maybe this one we can do all by ourselves. Yeah. All right, very good. Isn't that amazing? I really thought we'd have trouble meeting for an hour and a half today. Instead, we had our longest hearing, went over the longest. You can never tell, can you? The legislature, Brian's gone off. No, he's just, okay. Anthea was specifically raising. Oh, yes, Anthea. Hi. So what I will do is I will put into the current draft of the must pass miscellaneous motor vehicle bill, a section that would repeal the sunset. So it'll just sort of continue to be codified in law. Is that the plan? Yes. Yes. Okay. TNC, I'm going to get back to everybody on. And the ALPR, we did vote clerk. Did you notice what's exactly we did on that? Clerk White? I didn't clerk anything. Last time I asked about this, people said, don't even try. So. I'm mostly kidding. Anthea, what exactly did we do? Did we do it? Well, Bob, it was your motion. I think that we sent that one off to judiciary, knowing that they'd be hearing from ACLU and that we would just give them our support of the position from DMV, but they'll be hearing more. Yes, that's right. We are taking that position though. So we are agreeing with DMV on that. Yeah, that's another two year extension of the sunset. Correct. Very good. Okay. All right. Well, thank you everybody. Oh, and please email me now on my ledger account. I'm trying to do that. Like I know I should have always been doing. So if you can, since obviously communications between us are legislative, so please contact me that way. Okay. It's not the end of the world. If you still use my Gmail, it's just, I'm trying to get out of that kind, trying to separate them now. I'm proud of you, Kurt. Do you have a hand up? What was that, Laurie? Representative White has her hand up. Oh, sorry. Representative White. Sorry. When are we meeting next week? Kat. I'm assuming, well, you know what I don't know because we, I thought we were gonna stick to the schedule we had in the past, but this week was different. And you know why? Because we're on the floor more now. So. And I believe, Kurt, we're gonna be on the floor next Wednesday at 10 or have an all house caucus. It's 10 in one, similar to what we did this week. I think Mitzi wants to stay with that schedule. And then Friday at 10. Friday at 10. What we're doing this week, she wants to keep that for house floor or caucus. Schedule-wise. Yes. Very good. I didn't know that. Okay, so I'm gonna put in for a little more time. Okay, if I can get it next week. So, Becca, I'll let you know as soon as I know. Okay. So should I? People need to know what's the plan. Is there a day of the week that I should block off? I don't want to say yet. Maybe later on today, I can say. Okay, that would be fabulous. Yeah. I'll call you as soon as we have it and I'll email everybody. Thank you, Kurt. Okay. Thank you, everybody. It's actually a good hearing.