Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Committee reviews DMV title fixes, abandoned‑vehicle exemptions and towing reimbursements
Loading...
Summary
Staff explained technical edits to allow DMVs to hand out duplicate titles at service locations, clarified appeals venue, listed exemptions from certificate‑of‑title requirements for some vehicles, and proposed towing reimbursement rules allowing agencies to recover up to $250 for tows from public property. Committee members sought clarifications on policy and administrative tracking costs.
A staff member told the committee Sections 10–12 would allow a DMV office to hand a duplicate motor‑vehicle or vessel title to a person on the spot if the office can produce the title, removing a requirement that titles be mailed even when available in‑office.
Staff said Section 13 is a technical amendment specifying that appeals under the title chapter are to be filed in the civil division of the Washington County superior court; the change is framed as clarifying venue, not changing the underlying appeal right.
Section 14 restructures the abandoned motor‑vehicle title exemption list into separate items. Staff read the list of exempted vehicles to the committee: U.S. government vehicles not registered in‑state; non‑resident vehicles not required to register in Vermont; vehicles engaged in interstate transportation with a valid out‑of‑state title; certain small personal vehicles and motorcycles under size thresholds; trailers under an unloading‑weight threshold; certain mopeds; off‑highway vehicles the commissioner deems exempt; and vehicles more than 15 years old on 01/01/2024 that have not changed ownership since that date. Committee members asked about the rationale for specific exemptions (for example, manufacturer demo vehicles and driver‑training vehicles) and how broad the exemptions should be.
In Section 15, staff described a reimbursement mechanism allowing towing services to charge up to $250 to remove an abandoned motor vehicle from public property and allowing the DMV or Agency of Transportation to reimburse the tow operator upon proof of payment. Staff noted prior testimony from towers and DMV and mentioned the department and agency attended the hearing section. One committee member questioned whether administratively tracking reimbursements between agencies would be worth the effort given existing revenue flows.
No votes were taken on these sections. Committee members asked staff to clarify policy rationales and consider whether broader superior‑court venue options or additional witness testimony are needed.
