Committee reviews draft of miscellaneous OPR bill with fee changes, cosmetology training and repeal of motor-racing rules

Legislative counsel on Wednesday walked the Government Operations & Military Affairs committee through draft request 250244, a miscellaneous bill that would change several licensing fees and regulatory provisions administered by the Office of Professional Regulation.

Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, told the committee, “This is draft 1.1, and this is the miscellaneous amendments to, laws of possessions and occupations, sometimes referred to as the miscellaneous OPR bill.” He said the document adds and adjusts fees, repeals a subchapter governing motor vehicle racing and contains staggered effective dates for some changes.

The bill would remove motor vehicle racing from the professions regulated by the Office of Professional Regulation and repeal the subchapter that governs motor-vehicle-racing events. Legislative counsel said that, under Vermont law, no other statute would require inspection of racing tracks or vehicles used only in those events; Title 23 would apply only if the vehicles were street-legal and used on state highways.

The draft proposes multiple fee changes: increasing a license-verification fee from $20 to $30; creating a $200 biennial fee for electrology shops; a $50 apprenticeship-application fee; a $100 specialty-endorsement application fee; and a new annual data‑feed fee of $1,500. The draft also would add a $250 disciplinary-action surcharge payable after a finding of unprofessional conduct, with proceeds deposited into the professional regulatory fee fund. Anderson described the surcharge as a civil fee, not a criminal fine.

Another proposed change would repeal a current provision that prevents boards from collecting renewal fees for years during which a license lapsed. Legislative counsel warned the committee that simply repealing that provision may not by itself grant explicit authority to collect fees for lapsed years and recommended further research on whether additional statutory language would be needed to authorize such collections.

The bill would raise the civil penalty available under the unauthorized-practice section from $2,500 to $5,000 and confirm that enforcement may be pursued by the attorney general or an attorney assigned by the Office of Professional Regulation.

The committee was also briefed on proposed updates to cosmetology licensure. The draft would require training on the care, styling and treatment of textured hair, defined in the draft as hair that is coiled, curly or wavy. Anderson summarized the proposed curriculum areas as techniques for cutting, styling and chemical treatments; product and tool knowledge; hair and scalp health best practices; and “cultural competency and historical education on the significance of textured hair in diverse communities.”

The draft would also repeal a statutory requirement that prepaid funeral funds be held by an appointed escrow agent and eliminate the statutory duties for such escrow agents; Anderson said the repeal would not extinguish existing escrow arrangements but would remove the statutory requirement going forward.

Most provisions of the draft would take effect July 1, 2025. One increase — the biennial renewal fee for peer support providers and peer recovery specialists, from $50 to $75 — is written to take effect July 1, 2027.

Committee members raised practical questions and flagged follow-up work. Members requested further research on whether the repeal of the lapsed-license-fee restriction would in practice authorize collection of fees for lapsed years; staff were asked to consult the Office of Professional Regulation about how many additional training hours, if any, the new cosmetology requirements would impose on students; and lawmakers discussed checking with the attorney general and administration legislative affairs offices about the broader fiscal and enforcement impacts of the proposed fee changes. No formal votes or final committee actions were recorded during the walk-through.

The draft remains under committee review; staff and counsel said they will gather the outstanding details and bring those clarifications back to the committee before moving the bill forward.