[{"_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",6221376,"mediaKeyId","3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52","parentId",3614321,"title","Conference committee delays broad window‑tint enforcement changes pending inspection‑cost report and rulemaking","audioSeconds",254,"startMs",3246000,"endMs",3500000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52&start=3246&end=3500","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52/thumbnail_3246000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6221376/Vermont/Conference-committee-delays-broad-windowtint-enforcement-changes-pending-inspectioncost-report-and-rulemaking","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221376-ce74322daa4904e3a82bd3101b443fb0/orig.mp4?Expires=1773473521&Signature=SPfNYwfYFOegRDSE-Zuxh7yU0p91TfruNSrpubRzK1Hnh9kcmznM1T0H8Q1~BgD5FT-bSVfJSOymM-N7aJyNciHiykDQj3t7qvSh3WB6CqNbYpJ8PeCfcp3bQh4Cuj2XWrF05hzCmCwYqKhqH4fi-mxWOwtQdb6WT~LWTJLlVUGDeXd9MuNdjvmlzspykGsiqp9bdjpy1zK03aQ6sNRmAoBjucqaa21pRl-ZcIUxPnvu1WBF~WJATO4UnH-dxsDGbBucZJc4K1lUxF-F5VN9~AHyFCwxY~ImfONRneT1vy7aLnn4EzMo7H-C262i-56oAAhjEEhi8p5SDWilHKCIbQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-30T12:09:39Z","article","On May 29 the Senate committee of conference on S.123 held an extended discussion of proposed window‑tinting changes, including a 70% visible‑light‑transmittance (VLT) threshold and the practical and fiscal challenges of enforcement.

Members and witnesses raised concerns that current inspection practices allow a motorist with advisory denial at inspection to drive without correction, creating an enforcement loophole. Law‑enforcement testimony submitted earlier in the process indicated enforcement would require measurement tools, and committee discussion cited a range of equipment costs “anywhere between a hundred and $400” per unit.

Committee members and staff said the Vermont State Police and inspection stations currently lack uniformly deployed, calibrated devices for measuring VLT and that the calibration, procurement and training implications for police and inspection stations need further study. Several members suggested using the report the committee has requested on motor‑vehicle purchase and use tax and inspections to gather precise cost, calibration and enforcement‑protocol information.

Rather than adopt an immediate enforcement change, the committee directed staff to use the scheduled DMV/inspection report and rulemaking process to clarify how tint measurements would be made, what equipment would be needed, and how law enforcement and inspection stations would be expected to implement the standard. Members said they expect to revisit the tinting issue next year with better cost and enforcement information.

Why it matters: the committee framed the proposal as a safety measure—improving visibility for law enforcement, bicyclists and motorists—but members said they want concrete implementation plans and cost data before mandating a measurement standard in statute.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","S.123 Committee of Conference - 2025-05-29 -1:05 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Lawmakers on the S.123 conference committee discussed a 70% visible light transmittance standard for window tinting, enforcement challenges and equipment costs, and agreed to seek more information in a DMV/inspection report before finalizing statutory enforcement.","taxTitle","Senate Transportation, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",51841,"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},6221381,"Committee declines to use T‑fund dollars for SSI license‑fee relief; asks DMV to include proposal in next budget",475,2577000,3052000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52&start=2577&end=3052","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52/thumbnail_2577000.jpg","/articles/6221381/Vermont/Committee-declines-to-use-Tfund-dollars-for-SSI-licensefee-relief-asks-DMV-to-include-proposal-in-next-budget","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221381-71eb98f5bcec038394ba1edca3bb914f/orig.mp4?Expires=1773473521&Signature=BSCloWvDcob1Zl4Qgblm1dAraGSWLkjbRap~2B9r~GRuwvpihOx4uy4glFtu0d7HM6-3jxaqrG~-CNM29RpIS-g9usSZU8VTM7xq8zj0RYTnxSSGDuqYDiuJZvIgZSduQ99aWy0-E9CzjoIo8hBOG9Hfna-De5xf9c7pQe28XXPl8GDKebgpn3PO9H5kD2-zju8gdJUXzELltSr9trbKVItCZRB3dJ5JKE3SgEI6FcIilYaWYB26Z~7BLJAOxuGJMaUm8yqoyH~8zh75MQw1xvFX523I3dM55nYMpK4iGgAB7OkMzlVLT5~7O5LuD-OcX0cY7S~G5xaQ8Tk-ntxKjQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A proposal to use Transportation Fund dollars to reduce or waive license‑renewal fees for people on Supplemental Security Income received extended discussion on May 29 but was not adopted by the conference committee on S.123.

Committee leaders said T‑fund dollars are tightly constrained and must be prioritized for core transportation needs. One member summarized the committee’s stance: “T‑fund dollars are incredibly precious and need to be leveraged” to meet the highest priorities. Members said they had taken testimony from advocates and heard from individual constituents on fixed incomes who struggle to pay renewal fees, but that the committee had repeatedly denied other T‑fund requests this session and preferred to protect the fund’s primary uses.

Several members suggested an alternative: ask DMV and the agency in charge to build a fee‑relief option into the department’s next budget request so the legislature can consider any fiscal impact in the budget process rather than placing a new T‑fund obligation in S.123. Committee members signaled they were willing to accept an implementation delay and to ask the department to budget for the program next year if members decide later to adopt a narrower relief targeted at low‑income residents.

What happens next: Committee members asked staff to expect the department to include the fee‑relief option in its upcoming budget and left the effective date of any legislative fee change to future budget negotiations.

Why it matters: advocates told the committee some low‑income residents delay license renewal because of fee costs. Members balanced that testimony against fiscal constraints on the Transportation Fund and existing priority allocations.","Members of the conference committee declined to include a fee‑relief provision for Social Security Income (SSI) recipients in S.123, citing competing demands on Transportation Fund (T‑fund) resources, and asked the Department of Motor Vehicles to include any targeted relief in its next budget submission.",{"_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},6221386,"Committee revisits DMV identification language after USDOT memo; staff warns of germane‑ness challenges",200,224000,424000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52&start=224&end=424","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52/thumbnail_224000.jpg","/articles/6221386/Vermont/Committee-revisits-DMV-identification-language-after-USDOT-memo-staff-warns-of-germaneness-challenges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221386-75b56a88aec438fbb5a48694d8b8651c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773473521&Signature=OT7Hc7F6J~O-4h-yM0EOMXdX4zerKPM5rExb15MGQVe0Uq-ThHCix5Pg-0UjSVFJst7TlqihCQlNAi8xrg1ScksGX98u~zWDmSEFo6EL9KJh4HJ59rVu2oH97vRMb-0XviN87EeCwetB5We3HEiNzLtvYAGt~kfST2toWBXoETJVNw9K28rLfiiH0JFjtmjl4wwr7g4YjTHUjVJTvNhZ9uvhU8ERh0B~Mc~evS76IMK-7cPqq5TcIzNcL7YEaoJSnuz~mQAPJkpEQ4dne-Um2wG3hgBierG5W8Q232CYZ6~0XowWEglT8ymIbZnt~sR3f17RVAK1MTupyuuvVXVt7g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Conference committee staff told members that DMV counsel requested revision to the bill’s language on privilege cards and non‑driver identification after the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a memo on April 24 that raised legal concerns.

Staff counsel explained the procedural risk: if conference text alters language in a way that a chamber’s floor members regard as not germane to the original bill, a point of order could be raised on either chamber’s floor. That point of order would go to the chamber’s parliamentary officer, whose ruling could be overridden by a chamber vote; staff noted those are high-level procedural risks outside the committee’s control.

Committee members said they had previously agreed with the principle of addressing DMV counsel’s request and that they wanted to review the exact text. One member summarized the staff guidance: the change can be addressed in conference to fix a legal issue but carries a “slight risk” that someone will challenge germaneness if the floor thinks the change is not germane.

What the committee will do next: staff will pull up the side‑by‑side language for the members to review, and the conference will either accept the clarified language or refer the question back to the chambers if members prefer to leave the matter to each chamber’s process.

Why it matters: the exchange shows how federal guidance and agency counsel can create legal issues for state draft language and how conference changes may trigger procedural floor challenges that could affect whether the provision survives final passage.","Staff told the Senate conference committee that a U.S. Department of Transportation memo prompted DMV counsel to request changes to identification language in S.123; the committee discussed the risk of germane challenges on the floor if the language is altered in conference.",{"_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},6221391,"Committee keeps two‑abreast ban for bicyclists, sets July 1, 2026, effective date and calls for outreach",162,496000,658000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52&start=496&end=658","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52/thumbnail_496000.jpg","/articles/6221391/Vermont/Committee-keeps-twoabreast-ban-for-bicyclists-sets-July-1-2026-effective-date-and-calls-for-outreach","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221391-10b39369f9545b1942e065c91387abeb/orig.mp4?Expires=1773473521&Signature=W9DW27i1LiKH6pPYYI1mNiKNVSHBlge1AQbX61OzL4F-jOqUbdEzFvGApbhwJP8fJYbH7YFj80dJy8FgtdBwz8bQbDZVznqiCtKM-OUC~HIc5BOmZQ4alwh5984u4eEYmA6VFSk2MR-KZGkoLEkxu9pydjrXxtyw1V83~2jCPLH7MJs3RemAMrgzXuIzb8FNjPIVn3eolBk2mGV5Un3liVsIbFV-8lAf7U~SUX62f5NOf6Qd0i1kXi2kq8H6QgoEzGlOZ7wj8mtAce~P9ljkBlqOU85MGAE7ynnX7D43qpEyHEmvKlKrAD9RXtKrbHn0R2awsfIMPaKQZJKnrFusiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate conference committee on S.123 agreed May 29 to retain language that makes riding two abreast illegal on roadways and bicycle paths, and to add an education-and-outreach component with an enforcement delay to July 1, 2026.

Committee members said outreach and training are “probably the most important thing” for bicycle safety and that a delayed effective date would allow agencies to produce materials and notify the public. The committee discussed moving the effective date so that the new rule would take effect after a full season of municipal outreach and training.

Staff and legislators also reviewed municipal authority questions and how the new rule would interact with local traffic-control powers. Committee counsel noted that municipalities generally possess broad authority under general municipal statutes and that specificity in the statute helps avoid ambiguity about whether a town may regulate bicycle operation on local facilities.

The committee proposed keeping intent language in the bill while moving the operative effective date for the enforcement provisions to 07/01/2026 to give the department and municipalities time for training, public outreach and signage. Members also discussed an option to make the outreach effective earlier while reserving enforcement for July 2026.

What happens next: staff will incorporate the outreach requirement and the revised effective date into the conference document and circulate the updated bill text to members before final agreement.

Why it matters: committee members characterized the change as a safety measure for both bicyclists and motorists and as a statutory clarification meant to give municipalities and the agency time to implement outreach and training.","Conference members agreed to make riding two abreast illegal on roadways and bicycle paths under S.123, to add education and outreach requirements, and to delay enforcement until July 1, 2026, so municipalities and agencies can prepare.",{"_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},6221396,"Conference committee clarifies municipal authority on legal trails, sets April 1, 2026, effective date",1470,1009000,2479000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52&start=1009&end=2479","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3614321-47d724390a9c40e53bbdddbf35873d52/thumbnail_1009000.jpg","/articles/6221396/Vermont/Conference-committee-clarifies-municipal-authority-on-legal-trails-sets-April-1-2026-effective-date","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221396-0afcd66f1c413eed47690c6688ec13fe/orig.mp4?Expires=1773473521&Signature=AXxRB5xb8OrheyF9qrXsFP12MhVVmig~-CcHWvxjP6tSKpSTrrPVJvqqCBmPGQe7KSFGu2FLzGhpU~cOmlmOlffFfOORv4AN2UDkvZeNfyOOD~MHMoFycxjQYb7905RNxb5oNw3W0wpqy2icSSm9lBS7jSGteezdwQes9j00hzwbNsDal6ldpVM4aJdu3DxnLdClWMQFqAiNr3ZJ-cbMv3MsF-37rl~DgD1sMnvr7rBmGmQCkxSvJGROrI6G8mdSfmoB1GPycvJWe2k3TgEZ9NUFOYzRRIajVJtK7CwW4c9v8SL82WL15pLpLcTmkxjBVNIEmTnZNLpWHkOaxMDtTg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate committee of conference on S.123 on May 29 agreed to place language clarifying municipal authority to maintain legal trails in the bill’s municipal-authority sections and to make those changes effective April 1, 2026.

Committee members said the change is intended to give towns clearer statutory authority to maintain—or decline to maintain—trails while avoiding language in the bill’s definition that could create new grounds for litigation.

The committee’s staff counsel said a municipal-maintenance provision in the definition could “muddy the waters” and potentially open “a new avenue of litigation” if the court rules differently in an ongoing case. Cale Romanoff of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns told the committee that prior legislative changes already make clear that “a town shall not be liable for construction, maintenance, repair, or safety of trails,” testimony the committee said informed its approach.

Under the compromise the committee discussed, the bill will keep intent language in place but will grant explicit authority to municipalities in the sections that address town highway and local-authority powers (the staff identified those as the sections that will contain the maintenance authority). The committee agreed the bill will add a single effective-date provision—effective 04/01/2026—placed at the end of the bill rather than embedding maintenance dates in the definitions section.

Members stressed the change is driven by litigation that began in 2021 and by testimony from municipal officials and legal advisers who urged clarity. One committee member said the goal is to provide towns “some kind of comfort that they can maintain that season” while not superseding the courts.

The committee also discussed two drafting options: (1) keep a narrow definition of “trail” and place maintenance authority in the municipal-authority sections, or (2) retain maintenance language in the definition but cross-reference it to the chapter. Staff counsel recommended the first approach, saying it reduces the risk that the definition itself could be litigated in a way that undercuts the committee’s intent.

What the committee will do next: staff said they will prepare the conference document reflecting the agreed deletions and the single 04/01/2026 effective-date clause and circulate the revised side-by-side to members before final sign-off.

Why it matters: several towns and local officials told the committee they need certainty about maintenance liabilities and the legal status of trails. Committee members said the clarification aims to protect municipalities and to preserve recreational access without inadvertently creating new legal exposure for towns.","A Senate conference committee on S.123 agreed to clarify municipal authority to maintain 'legal trails' and to make related changes effective April 1, 2026, citing ongoing litigation and a desire to avoid creating new legal ambiguity.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Conference committee delays broad window‑tint enforcement changes pending inspection‑cost report and rulemaking

Committee declines to use T‑fund dollars for SSI license‑fee relief; asks DMV to include proposal in next budget

Committee revisits DMV identification language after USDOT memo; staff warns of germane‑ness challenges

Committee keeps two‑abreast ban for bicyclists, sets July 1, 2026, effective date and calls for outreach

Conference committee clarifies municipal authority on legal trails, sets April 1, 2026, effective date