Finance committee questions DUI sealing fee as it confirms two appointments

The Vermont Senate Committee on Finance on Oct. 12 reviewed a draft criminal history record‑sealing bill and questioned a $90 fee tied to DUI sealing petitions as it also moved to confirm two gubernatorial appointments.

The committee heard a summary of the 37‑page bill from legislative counsel and technical analysis from Joint Fiscal, then discussed whether the existing $90 fee for DUI‑related sealing petitions remains justified and whether it should be expanded or eliminated.

The bill, as described to the committee, expands the set of nonviolent offenses that may be eligible for sealing and consolidates much of the current sealing/expungement framework into a single process. Michelle (Office of Legislative Counsel) told the committee that "it is 37 pages long, and it gets deep in the weeds on procedure." Christopher (Joint Fiscal) said "the fee is $90 for the DUI, sealing applications. It goes into the criminal history record sealing special fund in 13 BSA 76 10," and reported a fund balance of roughly $26,000.

Committee members pressed for more information about how the special fund is used and whether the fee creates a barrier to sealing records. "It seems to me ... that we just get rid of that fee," said Senator Chittenden during debate, urging the Judiciary Committee to revisit the fee. Joint Fiscal staff warned that predicting future fee revenue or administrative cost savings is difficult because impacts depend on how many more people ultimately petition the court.

Under the draft described to the committee, eligible offenses are primarily nonviolent misdemeanors and a limited subset of felonies (mostly property and some drug offenses); crimes involving interpersonal violence are excluded. The process remains judicial: a petitioner must complete their sentence, meet any conditions such as restitution, and then petition the court. The state (typically the prosecuting agency) is notified and may object; the court makes the final determination.

Committee members said they would request the court administrator (board administrator Terry Horsons was identified to the committee) to appear with details on how the special fund has been used and whether eliminating or expanding the fee would create operational or fiscal problems. The committee did not change statute or fee language during the session and left substantive decisions to further review.

Votes at a glance

The committee also considered and approved two appointments during the same meeting:

- A motion to confirm an appointment described in the record as "Dayton Snyder" (the transcript contains variant spellings and references to the nominee as "David Snedeker" and "David Henneker"); the motion described the appointment to the State Infrastructure Bond Bank for the term beginning 03/01/2025 and ending 02/20/2030. The roll call recorded six senators voting yes and one absence.

- A motion to appoint Ted Foster to the Vermont Economic Development Authority for the term 07/01/2024 to 06/30/2030. Foster was described by a sponsor as a retired dairy farmer and longtime community volunteer. The roll call recorded six senators voting yes and one absence; the motion passed.

The committee directed staff to obtain additional information from the Judiciary Committee and the court administrator about the sealing fee and the special fund before making any recommendation to remove or change the fee.