[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6221620,"mediaKeyId","3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0","parentId",3611880,"title","Panel pauses window‑tint enforcement change, asks for cost and enforcement study before moving forward","audioSeconds",265,"startMs",3199435,"endMs",3465000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0&start=3199&end=3465","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0/thumbnail_3199435.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6221620/Vermont/Panel-pauses-windowtint-enforcement-change-asks-for-cost-and-enforcement-study-before-moving-forward","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221620-8d099ea39f5ca76de0a76105199e085d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135683&Signature=SPyFHfncOzeTa1lfHxPw1t4xqKvWuEbE~BkOW42P~KpYu1Vk2-ZZUxKg2CIujidEU0SM7-mSqvcu5D397WRW0p8fu7QkDcKwN5CVdoBzPPB3~LgJ5VErRNlQsdnZ1z7UDw89VmdUWY7M2dkf8devFXW0PK2sJMxxHHIhc4JhnHP73HS7J1pIZEvoN0b3Kcqjc9C92VHcb11II8FF2nrmipPHbShsgIY5FuoEpLhlL5mq6wSU3fS7cCceuYhRtz4U4lEWD~DaRNKr1kdW1YoltxNyfvxq9IDc-zz5B--gTXsJexusXqNJ3ST98dClFn2~n-A8GLAX6wQabTWXPOHpYA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-30T17:31:30.953Z","article","A conference committee debated a proposal to require tools and standards to measure vehicle window tint (a 70% light transmission threshold was cited) but paused final action pending more information on enforcement costs and inspection procedures.

Members and witnesses told the committee that the 70% standard would likely require measurement tools and calibration; testimony cited equipment costs in the range of $100 to $400 per unit and expressed concern that not all inspection stations or law enforcement vehicles currently carry calibrated devices. The Vermont State Police and inspection officials were described in the discussion as not prioritizing active enforcement of tint rules without clear, feasible inspection protocols.

Committee members said they were sympathetic to safety concerns—officers' ability to see into vehicles and bicyclists' ability to make eye contact with drivers were both cited—but questioned how to achieve consistent enforcement without overburdening inspection stations or law enforcement. One option the committee discussed was using an agency report on motor vehicle inspection practices and the motor vehicle purchase and use tax to guide rulemaking or a future statutory change.

The group agreed to delay final legislative action and directed staff to seek additional information from DMV and law enforcement, including the cost and operational impacts of implementing measurement requirements. The transcript records discussion of a proposed July 1, 2026 effective date in drafts but does not record a final, enacted date because committee members requested more technical data first.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","S.123 Committee of Conference - 2025-05-29 -1:05 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The committee discussed a proposed standard that window tint must allow at least 70% light transmission, noted enforcement and equipment costs (estimated $100–$400 per inspection tool), and agreed to seek more information via a report on inspections before finalizing a July 1, 2026 effective date.","taxTitle","Transportation, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",35155,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6221625,"Panel debates using T Fund or DMV budget for reduced renewal fees for low‑income residents",267,2570180,2838000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0&start=2570&end=2838","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0/thumbnail_2570180.jpg","/articles/6221625/Vermont/Panel-debates-using-T-Fund-or-DMV-budget-for-reduced-renewal-fees-for-lowincome-residents","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221625-e039f7e74896dc14f2c58549d4cb81e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135683&Signature=nySgHUH5v0dwGK3q-XtYS4pVLkfba7yKpR9JGJqBROqWNr-AaUWASCm2vCaQISXWl9iNFlCbAmuvf6lrqfKrUCG3tncO7xo8QT-x~CcWiLRS3qNwZxMt1mnLs~KtM-o1AEuCStdYLIqo1cUUsaKcumE19PQ3GwuXkBeYvS2ExZtT0uyLyJNGczTuYnf0Gh1jjaq8Zmgi2RfXwI0Yb1tDahaa9DkLSUmFQb~wf~7RTLSKeQtLcFWWi3OJGGa2ZUFqll2C-f5EAgYTuWhiMjtbPBT8yjW5VcUVka4XA5RxJ5~ftlwZQs1Uyl3x1UdZwjWH8MJQevO3HgyzmljqsZRIMA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A conference committee debated whether to include a $20 license renewal assistance measure for low‑income residents and people on SSI in the transportation bill or to have the Department of Motor Vehicles absorb the change in its upcoming budget.

Members emphasized that Transportation Fund (T Fund) dollars are limited and typically reserved for core transportation programs; one member said the committee had resisted using the fund for a long list of special requests and that T Fund money must be leveraged carefully.

Other members said they had heard from constituents on fixed incomes who said they delayed renewing licenses because of cost, and argued a modest $20 reduction could help seniors and people on SSI avoid difficult monthly tradeoffs. Testimony from constituents was cited as evidence that some affected residents do not testify formally but are nevertheless affected.

There was no vote recorded in the transcript. Committee members said they expected the DMV and agency to propose the fee change in next year’s budget if the committee were to move forward, or to consider a delayed effective date (members referenced July 2026 as one possible implementation date). The transcript records a direction to expect the department and agency to build the proposal into their budget for consideration.","Committee members heard testimony from low‑income constituents and debated whether to fund a $20 fee reduction for driver license renewals from the Transportation Fund, ultimately asking the DMV to include the change in its next budget rather than immediately reallocating T Fund dollars.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6221629,"Committee delays legal‑trails authority to April 1, 2026 amid pending litigation and language debate",1360,1000079,2361000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0&start=1000&end=2361","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0/thumbnail_1000079.jpg","/articles/6221629/Vermont/Committee-delays-legaltrails-authority-to-April-1-2026-amid-pending-litigation-and-language-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221629-56985282e8c7203d0ec4d76b80ab9cdb/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135683&Signature=EtB1NRlx~ZQGmY-gqZExFNKM0O5DHb3t2uibaeK2Wh9IUZrfydPTRlD6kN6K~ZSIYjEn2tyWDVXPnc7FAHq6X6vPUUtWQorIjBIlvsjeuHAC1hd8X48J57CAKJuQEm0xeOPT7QFyUnMgiT~mZoqhWAHV3H6CSHqm93B5RefBwL-HCluZrgOcZDjd7tituFmKNf-JuKdvgn2D62ceVq0b0ph9WY4wXwUwmm7UBJZ9Mui12SbBsOt1DlzzNBSTCj8RJYoC5A0q2QHRMdHPHCUQ8ukTIJLfCzp-V1slt89CLUt0R7TkK-lN~ey3GAvow4OuwbMUKZlrppF4ULP4qIWj4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A legislative conference committee agreed to preserve intent language about legal trails while moving the operative authority clarifications that permit municipalities to maintain trails to take effect April 1, 2026, citing ongoing litigation as the primary reason for the delay.

The committee said the delay is intended to protect municipalities from potential liability until litigation is resolved; members cited testimony and constituent concern about municipalities' ability to maintain or decline maintenance of trails without creating new liability.

Legislative counsel (Damien) walked the group through options for the trail definition and authority. Counsel advised that explicitly granting maintenance authority inside the statutory definition could open new avenues for litigation; instead, counsel recommended putting the authority in the municipal authority sections (notably the sections analogous to 302 and 304) and placing the effective date at the end of the bill so the authority becomes effective 04/01/2026.

Committee members cited testimony from municipal representatives and from Cale Romanoff of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) that amendments and past legislative history (including past changes referenced to a 2019 legislative item) supported towns' ability to maintain trails while protecting them from liability for construction, maintenance or safety in certain statutory language. Members said the intent language provides reassurance to towns and that moving the effective date reduces the chance of interfering with judicial proceedings.

The committee asked staff to prepare a conference draft that keeps intent language, places maintenance authority in the municipal authority sections, and makes the consolidated authority effective April 1, 2026. No formal roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript; the transcript records agreement to adopt the drafting approach and to circulate the recommended version before final sign‑off.","Facing ongoing litigation about legal trails, the conference committee agreed to keep legislative intent language but move most operative authority clarifications to take effect April 1, 2026; staff counsel recommended placing maintenance authority in specific sections rather than the definition to reduce litigation risk.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6221634,"Committee narrows bicycle rules, delays start to allow outreach; municipalities' authority discussed",156,477474,634000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0&start=477&end=634","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0/thumbnail_477474.jpg","/articles/6221634/Vermont/Committee-narrows-bicycle-rules-delays-start-to-allow-outreach-municipalities-authority-discussed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221634-8102466e500631c6c00cf6ea2e4f83bc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135683&Signature=NqtN4tWKOws~tA4A9OS-9gmdQmzZ7CC4xH~tFfi3xWeLj2YxkyvpvRjEkC6d~pa03O6k5cscsPhbM1lknIeiMAJeFw7ncUJyYd~ftyLDwtIx0RBrpiHLotGfI4a24jNIxewoaUuhIy5cUbAamjcjU94DPLDMT6IgDX-YzPX9RVx6HbRxfwzH3HS74dVPKcC4W~o9nMSyCxBa5x8mG-uxiLrK8wLQfy1R5j-eSWyArMM0jgKs0w40xktV79c69oF7Q90owR6~mvYUTKehJ2VydySKWgl-7xcZRp4Qo34UfeRL0bQYtv7XQKt2Cw1eiFGDWLLLWOTQ4EBrIx-MtTKDAw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A legislative conference committee approved language clarifying that riding bicycles more than two abreast is illegal on roadways and bicycle paths and agreed to prioritize education and outreach, setting an effective date of July 1, 2026 to allow time for training and materials.

The change aims to improve safety by codifying a limit on how many cyclists may ride side‑by‑side and by giving municipalities and agencies time to conduct public outreach so road users understand the rule before enforcement begins.

Staff noted the committee had already agreed on education and outreach as an important safety step, and members discussed moving the statute's effective date to allow materials and training to be produced. One member proposed July 2026 as the implementation date; another proposed July 1, 2026, and the committee settled on that date during the discussion documented in the transcript.

Counsel reviewed municipal authority and said Burlington's charter explicitly grants its board of public works commissioners control over traffic on city highways, and that under 24 V.S.A. §2291 municipalities more broadly have the authority to regulate vehicle operation and erect traffic signs. Counsel added that where state highways or state jurisdiction apply, the state traffic committee retains authority, so municipalities cannot unilaterally change traffic controls on state roads.

Members discussed crosswalks on state roads (for example in Hinesburg) and confirmed that municipalities may not change traffic controls on state‑owned roads or interstates without state action. The committee also discussed making the rule effective after one year in some drafts but ultimately agreed that a July 1, 2026 effective date combined with outreach was appropriate.

No formal roll‑call vote was recorded in the transcript; the conversation ended with staff and counsel to place the agreed effective date and outreach language into the draft for review.","The conference committee agreed to make riding two‑abreast illegal in statute, prioritize education and outreach, and set an effective date of July 1, 2026, while staff and counsel clarified municipal authority on state vs. local roads and crosswalks.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6221639,"Conference committee reopens DMV language after federal memo; counsel warns of germaneness risk",303,20605,324000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0&start=20&end=324","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611880-aa6aa8b6277a3bcf59b5aee6c58385b0/thumbnail_20605.jpg","/articles/6221639/Vermont/Conference-committee-reopens-DMV-language-after-federal-memo-counsel-warns-of-germaneness-risk","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221639-cc387ce151202c84d80ea0e48a5fed32/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135683&Signature=nss7HnyDDI3XbU157Apwz6sMp0uW8hJNvPdqEwG-JxBdZZY5T9grNjHADdWX~kozrgOIu3yuWRLCHIvtaZFG0SWuTlS-ssZwDg0hx5hEYlhAO1v80-NsXOG355sDcAtHAjHpHu5WbRZ9zu2Bj7cIkrazqLDPfhjjvLfSgxktT1p5muoLofdt1v2ZytotAq86Ed4rAJEDLFaufExK3wpEprLdNWZqCtjkbPyKBzlWYcMTddmhK7dh7xZ8f5gS3wBVRpys8vKrPxqiBf3PLQ3LsJ~RERo2Bny-s2Py-HllEvCm077xX7ufpqIDle1DALMwbfV6PjHXzjTW9o-GgBJwXA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A conference committee working on miscellaneous motor vehicle provisions revisited proposed changes to DMV language on privilege cards and non‑driver identification after counsel said the agency flagged an issue following a USDOT memo dated April 24.

The discussion matters because the change was raised late in the process and committee counsel told members that altering language in conference carries a risk that a chamber could challenge the change as not germane, which would trigger a parliamentary ruling and possibly an override vote on the floor.

Committee counsel explained the options: a member on the floor could raise a point of order challenging germaneness, the parliamentary officer would rule, and the chamber could override that ruling by vote. Counsel also said the change arose after DMV counsel reviewed the bill in light of the USDOT memo and identified a legal issue that post‑dated earlier drafts.

Several members said they had substantive concerns about how the language could affect people's access to identification. One member said they worried about people whose identity documents do not match their gender presentation or who cannot obtain Real ID, and stressed that the committee was not trying to change DMV policy but wanted to avoid unintended consequences.

The committee did not adopt a final floor action on the language during the session covered by the transcript. Members directed staff to keep the language under review, requested implementation updates (one member referenced a 30‑day and a later ~120‑day update window), and said they would monitor any future agency or federal requests that might affect vulnerable groups.

No vote or formal motion was recorded in the transcript during this segment; members left the language in place for further monitoring rather than rescinding it outright.","A legislative conference committee revisited proposed DMV language about privilege and non‑driver identification after DMV counsel cited a late USDOT memo; staff counsel outlined parliamentary risks if members alter language and members asked for implementation updates rather than immediate policy changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Panel pauses window‑tint enforcement change, asks for cost and enforcement study before moving forward

Panel debates using T Fund or DMV budget for reduced renewal fees for low‑income residents

Committee delays legal‑trails authority to April 1, 2026 amid pending litigation and language debate

Committee narrows bicycle rules, delays start to allow outreach; municipalities' authority discussed

Conference committee reopens DMV language after federal memo; counsel warns of germaneness risk