Senate Transportation reviews DMV bill draft; JFO estimates roughly $775,000 annual hit to Transportation Fund

The Senate Transportation Committee reviewed a draft DMV miscellaneous bill (referred to in the hearing as draft 2.2 and later 3.1) and heard a Joint Fiscal Office summary that the proposal could reduce Transportation Fund revenue by roughly $775,000 per year.

The fiscal estimate — presented to the committee by a Joint Fiscal Office analyst, Logan — said the projected revenue loss is driven mostly by two items: a proposed online replacement registration certificate waiver (section 5) and a reduced-fee proposal for Vermonters receiving Supplemental Security Income or Social Security Disability Insurance (section 8). "This call estimate is for the 2.2 draft," Logan told the panel, and the analysis assumed a worst-case utilization pattern in which all eligible transactions take the new, lower-cost path.

Why it matters: committee members said the proposed reductions matter to the Transportation Fund budget and urged staff to produce options that would make the package revenue-neutral or close to it. Several senators pressed whether modest fees (for example, a $10 fee instead of full waiver) or splitting reductions in half would strike a balance between the consumer convenience goals of the bill and the fund shortfall.

Key items and fiscal estimates described at the hearing

- Replacement registration certificates (section 5): Under current statute the replacement registration fee is $20 (transcript references the statutory provision the presenter cited). JFO counted 17,519 replacement/correction requests in 2024 and, because DMV cannot reliably separate corrective requests (which would still incur a fee) from replacement-only requests, JFO modeled a conservative scenario. That scenario produced an estimated annual revenue reduction of about $350,000 if online replacements are provided at no charge.

- EV infrastructure fee exemption (section 6): The draft would exempt state- and municipal-owned electric vehicles and volunteer emergency vehicles (including volunteer fire departments and ambulance services) from the EV infrastructure fee enacted last year. Using DMV’s reported count of roughly 300 state/municipal/volunteer EVs, JFO estimated the fiscal impact in 2026 at about $29,000; the committee noted adoption of electrified fleets could increase that amount over time.

- SSI/SSDI reduced fees for credentials (section 8): The draft would reduce issuance and renewal fees for operator’s licenses and privilege cards for individuals receiving SSI or SSDI. Using an assumed 5.4% share of Vermonters on SSI/SSDI, JFO estimated about $395,000 in annual Transportation Fund revenue reduction under a full-utilization assumption.

- Motorcycle learner’s permit replacement (section 9) and junior operator exam waiver (section 12): These changes would waive small replacement and exam fees for narrow populations. JFO described both as de minimis; the motorcycle learner-permit replacement was estimated from a base of 22 occurrences last year.

- Road-test scheduling fee (section 13): The draft would remove a $29 scheduling fee that statute allows; DMV is not currently collecting that fee. JFO noted roughly 4,000 no-shows would equate to about $116,000 annually if the fee were collected, but because DMV does not collect it now the draft eliminating the fee has, as-of-now, no immediate fiscal impact.

- License plates and printing/postage savings: DMV staff raised a separate but related proposal to issue a single rear plate (instead of a pair). DMV estimated printing-only savings of roughly $485,762 based on last year’s plate counts (112,968 pairs printed), and additional postage savings (DMV estimated $25,000–$27,000 tied to mailing replacement registrations). Committee members asked DMV to include the front-plate savings and postage in the next fiscal worksheet.

Other policy changes and work items included in the draft

- Inspection and tinting language: The draft contains revised tinted-window language intended to align inspection practice with permissible manufacturer-installed tint. Committee discussion focused on how to write a statute and inspection manual guidance that inspection stations and police can apply without repeatedly requiring purchase of the private SAE technical publication cited in the federal rule. Members asked staff to work with DMV and manufacturers to return draft language that permits compliant manufacturer tint while limiting aftermarket darkening that could create safety or enforcement problems.

- Purchase and use tax collection and appeals (title 32 changes): The draft adds language directing the commissioner to establish an administrative procedure for taxpayers to resolve disputes (including an informal resolution step) and to provide outreach materials describing options for appeal or informal resolution.

- Classic/antique vehicle valuation and title issues: Multiple senators raised constituent issues about title/valuation for classic vehicles that lack a standard "clean trade-in" value. Legislative counsel and DMV will follow up; the draft currently does not contain final language on that point.

- Foster-care registrations: The draft includes placeholder language and DMV/AHS staff said they are working to reduce friction for youth in foster care who need credentials; currently, DCF pays by credit card for many transactions and committee members asked for counts and cost estimates so the committee can consider whether to change statutory practice.

- Study committee (section 40): The draft creates a short-term study committee to examine (1) whether purchase-and-use tax assessment should rely on actual purchase price rather than clean trade-in value, and (2) whether vehicles with an illuminated onboard-diagnostics (OBD) malfunction indicator light should be permitted to pass inspection when the underlying condition does not affect safety. The proposed study would be chaired by the DMV commissioner (or designee) and include legislative and stakeholder members; a report to the committee would be required by January 15.

What committee members asked staff to do

- Logan (Joint Fiscal Office) was asked to produce a revised fiscal worksheet that: (1) models compromise fee levels (for example, a $10 fee or halved fees for particular items), (2) includes the plate-printing and postage savings tied to a single-plate option, and (3) updates any counts (DMV counts of EVs, postage weights and costs, and the split between replacement versus corrective registration requests). The chair instructed: "include the front license plate on your new sheet."

- DMV (Andrew Collier and other staff) was asked to supply supporting counts (e.g., exact state/municipal EV registrations, postage weight/pricing through BGS, counts of foster-care credential transactions) and to advise whether inspection stations would need equipment or guidance to measure window tint percentages.

- Legislative Counsel (Damien/Damon Leonard) presented draft 3.1 as the working text and said additional requested language (trans-inclusive renewal extensions, ATV definitions, etc.) would be circulated for committee consideration.

Discussion tone and caveats

Presenters and committee members repeatedly cautioned that the JFO estimate is preliminary and that many line items are subject to substantial uncertainty. Logan told the committee the estimate "assumes the worst" because DMV cannot separate replacement requests from corrective requests in its current data, and committee members raised administrative-cost and IT-cost concerns (several senators noted that electronic account systems themselves have operating and development costs that should be accounted for when proposing full fee waivers).

Next steps

Committee leaders asked staff and legislative counsel to return a revised fiscal sheet and updated draft language that addresses the committee’s requests (including plate-printing/postage numbers, alternate fee levels, and draft language for tinting/inspection guidance). The chair and members said they wanted a version that is nearer to revenue-neutral before moving the bill forward toward crossover.

Ending: The hearing concluded with agreement to reconvene the discussion once JFO, DMV and legislative counsel provide the revised fiscal numbers and draft language for the items flagged by senators.