Commissioners Table Motor Vehicle Records Policy After Lengthy Discussion on Costs and Enforcement

Greene County commissioners on Feb. 18 discussed a proposed motor vehicle records policy and voted to table the item to allow staff to gather more information from the county's insurance underwriter and to consider narrower policy options.

Mark Batson, identified in the meeting as representing a risk/insurance group, told the board that MVR checks focus on employees who drive county vehicles and that "every company requires or pushes, let me put you put it that way, MBRs if there's vehicles involved." He emphasized the underwriting perspective that insurers typically look at a five‑year driving history.

Multiple commissioners and county staff raised questions about enforcement burden, cost and scope. One county official said, "I just think it's a huge undertaking, a huge financial undertaking, and then even tougher for me, the enforcement part of it." County staff and department heads discussed options including limiting checks to county‑owned vehicles or to designated professional drivers, and using an outside vendor to run records. A county staff speaker said the vendor could run checks for the county for a nominal fee, noting in the hearing record that "we can run it... I believe it's a $10 per [year]" for certain runs.

The board directed staff to follow up with the insurance underwriter about whether the county could limit a policy to county‑owned vehicles and to provide sample policy language and cost estimates. A motion to table the MVR proposal until the next meeting passed.

Why it matters: commissioners said the county faces a balance between limiting liability and imposing administrative burdens on departments and employees. Some departments already monitor professional drivers (for example, CDL drivers), but the scope for occasional drivers such as office staff driving to conferences remained contested.

Details and context: topics raised during the discussion included whether GPS telematics already installed in many county vehicles would be credited by insurers, whether driver education could be part of a progressive approach for minor infractions, and that CDL drivers are already tracked under existing procedures. Several speakers noted the county handles sensitive access to driving records under state rules and that personnel privacy and data‑sharing protocols must be addressed.

Next steps: staff will consult the underwriter about targeted policy options (for county‑owned vehicles only, for professional drivers, etc.), estimate costs (including third‑party record runs at about $10 per check as discussed), and return an updated proposal to the commissioners at a future meeting.