Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee on Congress and Economic Development and the Vermont House Committee on Transportation. This is a joint hearing between our two committees to go over the report to the legislature on towing practices in Vermont. And that's in accordance with Act 41 from last year. And I believe that was your transportation bill manager. So we're glad to be here. We have Chris Curtis from the Attorney General's office to go over the report to with us. We're here to listen to that, ask questions and see where we go from here after we hear the report. So, anything you'd like to add? No, it is very appreciative that it's really nice to be with the House Commerce Committee and looking forward to our time together. Very good. Chris, it's welcome. Thank you. Coming this afternoon. I look forward to hearing your report. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of your respective. I appreciate you taking some time out of your busy schedules to learn more about towing practices in Vermont and across the country. For the record, my name is Christopher Curtis. I'm the director of the consumer assistance program at the office of the Attorney General. So that is the place in our office where we receive consumer complaints, try to deal with them as quickly and effectively as we can to help both consumers, individuals, and businesses to resolve their disputes. So, I'm very grateful to have been afforded this opportunity. This is a really interesting area of law and practice. And at the outset, maybe let me take a step back and give you just a 50,000. Foot, you know, evaluation of what this report represents, what it is and what it is not in terms of the menu of recommendations that are ultimately before you. This is and before I even do that, let me just commend the various stakeholder groups and parties who participated in the process. That includes our sister agencies across state government, but more importantly, it includes representatives from the towing association, individual toers themselves, ordinary Vermonters that have questions or concerns about this area and advocates for consumers generally. So, a lot of interested parties and a lot of interest in the topic, but we can't do our work to understand the industry or to learn the full scope and impacts of any particular issue area. If we don't have meaningful participation from all of the parties who are affected, that helps us. And ultimately, I hope that that helps you to come to some conclusions about whether or if any particular action might be either necessary or required or helpful. So we had a robust collection process. We encouraged everybody to submit their perspectives or background or research in writing. All of that information is available on the attorney general's website. If you go to our consumer action link, you'll see on the sidebar, there's a towing practices link and you can review all of the material that was collected and the public hearing that was held on the topic. So you can actually watch the discussion unfold. So if any of you are interested in that, or if any viewers are interested in that, you can find the material, the source materials, and you can find the hearing at that location. So, with respect to the contents of the report itself, and we'll walk through the report because I want you to have a full briefing of it. And then hopefully that will spur questions, discussion among you all as well. This is not a report that focuses on regulating an industry, as you may understand formal regulation pursuant to the powers of the Secretary of State and its office at professional level. That process is typically started by either a request by industry or a request from other parties or even state government stakeholders to look into whether regulation is necessary or appropriate. And it typically commences with a sunrise review process. So there's a series of public hearings, stakeholder means, and it really gets into the question of, you know, is regulation necessary or appropriate? And it really gets into the question of, you know, is regulation required? Is there a showing of enough arms or concerns or impacts that would warrant strict regulations? And that could be one of any three types, right? It could be a simple registration requirement. It could be a certification requirement or it could be a licensure requirement. This report is not attempting to go down that road. That is the purview and province of the Secretary of State. And it may be that at some point in the future, industry is interested in that. Or if other parties are interested in that, that could be its own process to determine whether or if there should be some qualification for operating in this space. But what this is, is a look at what are the best practices across a number of jurisdictions? What are the best practices currently deployed in Vermont? What are the standards existing in Vermont law? And what's the right shape size effort of trying to, as in considering all of those elements, you know, is there a menu of recommendations that can be presented to you all for consideration that might ameliorate some of the concerns that we've heard as we've engaged in the process? So any questions about our process or any of that sort of high level background? Senator Campbell? Yeah, just one question. Does the Secretary of State have purview to order a sunrise report or is that something that the legislature needs to request? That's a great question. I don't know. I don't, it's typically not, I don't think Sue Sponte, I suppose it might be. It might be the request of lawmakers. But again, that would be a question more properly directed to the Secretary of State's office. Just because that really is their lane and the Attorney General's office doesn't really delve into that. It's typically a process that they either by request or by design, you know, they, they deploy.  And so we're starting to get into that area that gets more into the question of regulating the industry and are there minimum qualifications required to engage in the activity itself? Okay, thanks. Just so everyone knows and for the people that are listening in and watching. This report is on our House Commerce webpage. So you can pull that up anytime you like. It's on House Transportation as well, their webpage. So it's available now if anybody wants to look at it. The other thing I would like to orient the members to and any viewers to is the nature of the report itself. This is about a 10 page report or so. That gives a broad overview and set of recommendations based on all of the materials collected and probably 40 or 50 pages of Hendix, which is really a comprehensive look at other states and other jurisdictions and everything that they do. So this is not a new question or a novel question that's being presented. Many, many other states have looked at this issue. And there are national scale reports that look at the panoply of laws in place or not in place across the rest of the country. So rather than trying to recreate those kinds of reports, you can find them in the references in the report itself, or you can look at the appendix to see a comprehensive, you know, state by state grid of the statutory requirements of those jurisdictions. I've tried not to recreate that because I want to be clear and relatively brief and to the point about what we learned through the process as opposed to just recreating one of these other reports that already exists. So that's part of the explanation for the length and duration of the report itself. One thing I note to is, Vermont has a long history and tradition of consumer protection in our state, we have a wonderful Consumer Protection Act, and you all have engaged over the years in trying to ascertain when and whether and if to deploy certain practices of best practices in many, many other industries. Most recently, you might recall there was an effort to do this in the home improvement contracting area. So some minimal elements, not heavy handed regulation, but minimal elements to say, in an unregulated industry here to four, there's an interest in preserving the balance between the, you know, the industry, and, you know, the people who are accessing the industry. There's not a desire to put anyone out of business or to create such a burden that it becomes impossible to act. What I think you've attempted to do, whether it's rent to own contractors, you know, any number of different areas, you've tried to strike a balance. And I heard that in the request for the report was, is there a balanced approach that the legislature might consider to deploy and maybe consistent with other laws, bring some transparency and best practices to your constituents. And so that's another element of the report that you'll see sort of scattered throughout references to other statutes, other places in Vermont law where you've done similar kinds of activities where prior to that the industry itself might have been unregulated. So I want you to note that there's an effort on our part to sort of seek consistency rather than try to create something brand new. And I can tell you as a consumer protection attorney for the state, this often starts with disclosure, right, transparency around like what am I purchasing, what is the cost, what's fair and reasonable. And so that was, frankly, a huge part of the initiative here was to determine what is how do we strike a balance in terms of what's reasonable or not reasonable in the scope of towing so that's all here as well. So let me share my screen so people at home and so you all can see the towing report. So the first thing to know about towing practices in Vermont is this very little regulation or very little statutory law on the books in this area. There are a few. For example, there's $125 limit on towing from abandoned vehicles from public spaces, for example. So that's a that's a bright line and that's a figure that was amended a few years ago I think originally it was a $40 fee, and my understanding of the history of that is their desire to amend that to better reflect actual costs to the industry over time and this is an important figure because we'll circle back to it. And a little bit when we get to the recommendations. There are set out in the statute guidance that toes from highways or crash remediation sites be reasonable. And there is some case law discussing what is reasonable or not. But as you might imagine that would probably be in some cases subjective, depending on whether you are the consumer, or whether you're the business. And it might ultimately be left to the course to sort out whether something is reasonable or not. And it might be a very fact specific inquiry as to each and every type of toe and the nature of the toe. So, it might be a non consensual passenger vehicle toe. It might be a consensual commercial vehicle toe. It might be a toe from a crash remediation site. All of those are different variables and might have different costs that attached to them, and they might require different equipment. But the question of what's reasonable in each and every context really may well be in the eye of the beholder and that was one of the things that jumped out to us as we started to look at what are other jurisdictions doing in this area. And it's a source of great discussion and debate that we will work. But very little on the books as it stands. And also, by the way, there are no statutory requirements or maximums for storage. And I say statutory because there may be ordinances that have limitations on both towing fees for storage fees. So, in terms of like a uniform state law, nothing that's going to be consistent no way for, you know, a consumer in Bennington, you know that they're going to be treated the same in Newport treated the same in Burlington treated the same in St. Johnsbury so you don't have a uniform standard and some municipalities treat these differently than others, and some are just silent. So again you're going to get back into a reasonable test. What can be proven what were the actual costs. Part of all the parties have an interest in trying to say is there a way to avoid creating conditions that are so polarizing that they somehow end up having to be litigated, or that one party or the other feels so affronted that you sort of broken a community trust of some kind. So that's an effort to, you know, clarification and creating some basic standards might be one way to address some of those issues as well. There are references throughout the statute in Vermont laws to what constitutes a passenger vehicle and what constitutes a commercial vehicle and there are federal and state standards on that. I don't want to belabor it because you'll see as we move through the report that the basic gist of this report is really focusing on the common complaints that come to the Attorney General's office or that we become aware of through other jurisdictions and locally which primarily are driven by consumers the individual consumer not necessarily a business or a commercial entity. That's a sort of a separate discussion area and it's a very real concern for all of the parties, but for the purposes of this report and in terms of identifying some best practices that can work for most of your constituents were focused primarily on passenger vehicles, because those are the complaints that we get. And the average consumer is going to be in a position of in terms of, you know, vis-à-vis the powers in play, they might be less sophisticated, they're not going to necessarily have a business behind them. They might not have access to counsel, whereas larger, you know, commercial enterprises might have access to some of those things. Industry practitioners might have access to those things. So it's a different level of concern. I will say the amounts at issue in those commercial cases are much larger than in the traditional consumer passenger vehicle context. So, but just note that some jurisdictions use a, you know, per pound per vehicle analysis to determine what's a passenger vehicle and what's a reasonable amount for a tow.  We're going to consider passenger less than 10,000 pounds. It's really almost less than 6,000 pounds for the most part, for most common passenger vehicles that you're going to find. That's not to say there might be an outlier somewhere there, but for the most part that's what we're talking about. And of course, you all would have the power if you elected to act to determine kind of what threshold you might want to seek that would constitute a passenger vehicle. So you could look to those other standards, other jurisdictions or you could get from DMV. What's the, you know, max average for passenger vehicles? I think that's what we're talking about. And happily share that with you. No doubt. Interestingly, at the public hearing, and this was telling too, because there was sort of some cognitive dissonance. I think for me, as I'm trying to think through, we had just in the last year, the consumer assistance program, about a couple of dozen complaints related to tow. And so I'm well aware of the kinds of the kind and scope and nature of the complaints that we get. I included an example in the report that kind of checked sort of a number of the boxes that you all might be concerned with. But we don't typically get commercial complaints. And the department for financial regulation, which of course regulates the insurance industry, and, you know, banking and might have, they also have their own consumer assistance program. So I get calls from businesses or insurers that have questions in this area. And they said, we don't see a lot of complaints in this commercial area either. So, but what was really striking was at the public hearing, there was a greater emphasis, it appeared to be on the commercial side of the question in terms of when a towing owner or operator might be paid for a very significant expense that they're incurring for clearing a roadway with highly specialized equipment, or what happens with the merchandise that's being transported and whether or if a third party who's not the owner of the vehicle, but who has goods on there can retrieve the items associated with with that shipping, or how long or whether or if the vehicle can be held to ensure that a payment is forthcoming. The length of time it might take, it might take to get paid. So all of those things were sort of fascinating because from my perspective, like those aren't the complaints that we get on a, you know, fairly routine basis year in and year out from the average consumer. Most of those tend to be non consensual passenger tows, passenger vehicle tows, right. I parked in the wrong spot. The city called the tow truck. The tow came and, you know, pursuant to the contract, my car is gone. How do I find it? How much do I owe? How do I retrieve it? Can I retrieve my personal possessions from it? And so on and so forth. Those are the typical types of complaints that we receive. And so it was just interesting to me. I think that there's a very interesting and complex question that looms for commercial parties in the context of serious and very expensive tows and crash remediation sites that involve, you know, a level of complexity that is beyond most consumer tows. So just be aware of that because the report focuses on the kind of primary nature of complaints that are received probably by, you know, by you all as state representatives in your communities and certainly by state agencies. But it's less focused on these perhaps bigger dollar, bigger ticket items between the commercial players in that space. And that's a really important, you know, sort of holding claim. I wanted to keep in your mind because I think that's going to be potentially outstanding and might be an ongoing conversation that needs to happen either among the parties or potentially in the legislature at some point. So we look at best practices from other states. That was a logical place to go. And as I mentioned, there are plenty of national reports out there on this topic. You can see appendix B provides you a very detailed graph that shows every jurisdiction across the country and gives you the statutory basis and what you'll find in there is there are many of those other states, you know, maybe, you know, half and half that either say, there's no form of, you know, sort of some tow assigned or some that say, well, there's a mix. It's either has to be reasonable, which is what Vermont, the Vermont standard is, or there's an actual cap. There's a maximum, you know, you shall charge no more than X in certain circumstances. And some of them get very detailed and some of them really get into the weeds of these commercial carriers and how many specialized tow trucks have to arrive at the scene to get a semi off the road. And what's the weight or the value of the weight associated with those commercial trucks. I think in Vermont, given the number of towers that have that level of machinery and that level of expertise, there is a major outstanding question of what happens to ensure that there is payment for service in those cases. And do you have a solid basis on which to intervene at this point to say, yeah, we could create a construct in Vermont that's similar to one of the other jurisdictions that has this very detailed analysis of each and every one of those costs. We did not find that to be the case as yet, at least based on the efforts that we had. I want to give some credit to the tow operators who were explaining to us, there is a divide in terms of what's available and what part of Vermont at what time. And we don't want to find ourselves in a position where necessary equipments for necessary personnel might not be available to someone because somehow they can no longer perform under rates that might be pulled in just verbatim from another jurisdiction that might not work here. Because other states are larger and there might be more options for especially commercial carriers. So, you know, I've already basically said, you know, the number of states that have some kind of fixed rate or don't. And this is an important consideration to because I think to the credit of some advocates and from consumers that have shared concerns with our office. The notion that each and every type of tow, especially if it might be sort of a standard non consensual passenger. Which is not typically going to require a lot of specialized equipment. It's not typically going to require two or three different types of tow trucks to arrive at a scene and remove it from a parking meter that's expired. You can even pay your tickets or you parked unlawfully in a zone in the city. I think other jurisdictions have demonstrated that in fact there can be reasonable caps that can be deployed that clear up the confusion or the lack of consistency in a place, even like Vermont, where there might be some scarcity and even some municipalities. I think you could reasonably come to a conclusion that if you can vest all the other jurisdictions, I think the national average was something like $109 for a standard non consensual passenger vehicle tow. I know in Burlington the municipal ordinance is $95. There are other municipalities that have waited into this area with various caps. But I think you could reasonably say that the same standard established. For an abandoned vehicle tow of $125 is not unreasonable to say for non consensual passenger vehicle that could be the ceiling that could be the limit. And you don't want to preempt local laws that might have been operating just fine for years and years on either a contract basis or an agreed upon basis between a municipality and you know a towing group. So, like in the case of Burlington the 125 if you elected to create that you'd be creating a unified unified statewide standard, but you'd be saying not more than 25. And then the city could continue to maintain its ordinance and they would not upset that agreement. But you could also have other jurisdictions where it's never been regulated or where that municipality hasn't spoken on the issue, and they would then know like this is what the reasonable standard is. So I think that's a way of kind of getting at this issue and saying we've looked at the landscape. We can canvas that we can come up with a reasonable amount. There is a construct already living in Vermont statute that says this is a reasonable limitation. And that's one of the recommendations for your considerations for. Yes. So, just a question and I don't know if you did this analysis or not in cases where a town does set a maximum amount. Do you see that that becomes the rate for towing? Or do you see that that is truly a maximum amount and the rates can vary below that. Well, it may depend. And the reason I say that, and I don't know if you did it. You didn't research it. That's fine to say too. I was just curious. We looked at a number of municipalities to see what the maximum rates were. We did not canvas every single tower to see do you skew to the rate or do you just operate somewhere within the rate? Or does it depend on the circumstances, which would be a good question. And that's why I say, you know, if you're thinking about a statutory construct, you might say no more than $125 and that would allow flexibility for ongoing practice, or it would allow for existing contracts, potentially to remain in place. So, it's a great question and but we did not try to canvas every single, you know, every, every toe operator to see, depending on the jurisdiction, are you, you know, how would you obsess whether or not I do think what it says is there's a bright line and so there's there's clarity for those jurisdictions that have elected to do that. But we just, we also know that that's not uniform throughout the rest of the state. And so I think a reasonable consumer might ask the question, why am I being treated one way and one jurisdiction and another way in another. And so if everything's falling below a ceiling, then at least you have a, you know, you have a space within which to work that everyone can understand and adhere to. So we think that that's a reasonable, reasonable place to look. You will also notice that I think there's an important legitimate consumer question around what's colloquially referred to as a drop fee. I think it's reasonable to hear from the towing association and people in the industry say, well, if we get a call out, and we have to deploy we're taking worker time away from, you know, from the business, and we're sending them out on a call to pick up a car that's illegally parked. That's our employee time, which has only gotten more expensive over the years. That's the cost of the equipment going out to the site it might even be the cost of attaching the vehicle to the, the tow truck. But there is a question about some of those costs are ameliorated if you don't in fact have to take the car away and bring it back to the lot and store it for some period of time, because the consumer arrives on the scene and says, oh my goodness. I'm happy to, you know, pay whatever fee there might be but can you just release my car. Save me the trouble of going across town save you the trouble of taking up a space on your lot. Save me the trouble of having to find out where it ended up or getting transportation for myself to that unit and a number of jurisdictions have addressed that and said the drop fee is reasonable. Here's what it is. And you can identify that pretty quickly and easily and charge a sort of a nominal fee, but interrupt the removal of the vehicle or the dispossession of the vehicle from the consumer on the spot. So that's another place to look to another place to see other jurisdictions have done it. I don't think it's terribly foreign. It's not a foreign concept. But right now there's no regulation on point. So it's really up to the tour and I think some consumers have been in a position of seeing the vehicle towed away. You know, before their eyes and they sort of feel like, well, that's not fair. That's not right. I'm here. I should be able to retrieve my vehicle. And there's a question to the extent that we're hearing, you know, industry doesn't want to absorb costs that they need to externalize. If someone can pay it there on the spot. Maybe that's a reasonable way to solve that problem and eliminate those kinds of disputes. That seems reasonable. Storage fees. Another very good example of a place where Vermont law is silent on the question of a uniform storage fee. And I do think, you know, I recognize that towing operators have a wide variety of facilities. Some might have multiple lots. Some might have one lot. Some might have lots that have shelter and are covered. Some might be open lots. Some might have fencing around their lots. Some may not. So there's a wide variety. I understand that. On the other hand, you know, other states have also spoken to this issue.  They all fall into a certain range. And you can see that. So I encourage you to look at the appendix, look at each state that does impose a reasonable storage fee and say, you know, we might clear up some confusion. We might say, and that would make it easier for everyone to know. On the question of storage and important one is on the day that the vehicle is brought to the station or the owner's slot. Does that constitute a storage day? Or is that just a removal day? And if somebody gets in there that day and pays the fee and it's gone within the span of an hour or two. Is that really a full day storage? Did they have to do anything to safeguard the vehicle? Especially was there some kind of security that was deployed? There's there's certainly not occupying a space on the lot for terribly long period of time. So might be even within the storage fee context, if there's some agreement that that might be a place to look to. You might ask yourselves the question, does it make sense to create an. Burlington City Ordinance is another good place to look. They basically say, you know, the first day, the day of impoundment. Weird sound. I think we're getting a little echo. So just pause for a moment. Can you control it on this? It might be instructive. If there are other people watching online, if you can mute your devices, then we won't get the echo or the feedback. I was just going to point out to the members that it might be a consideration. And again, ultimately, it's a policy decision that you all, you know, will have to decide, but you might. A reasonable person could ask the question, if I'm there within an hour or two to get my car, is that really a storage fee day? Burlington already absorbing not to say, well, the day of impoundment is $20 and then every day thereafter is 30. So the recommendation here is to say $25 seems reasonable seems consistent with what a number of other jurisdictions have done. Private parking per day is often much cheaper than that to begin with. So for something like this, especially where there's incentive on the part of the consumer to go and get the vehicle pretty quickly. It just seems like that might be a place that's pretty ripe to sort of settle any outstanding questions. Come up with a reasonable fee structure. Maybe give, you know, worth a little additional conversation with certainly with the industry, but could fair-minded people agree that maybe the first day, if you're there within a few hours, you can. That might be a place that's pretty bright to sort of settle the actual reasonable structure. Thank you, representative. So that might be a place for your consideration as well as just is there a circuit breaker to say we can save a little get the car out a little quicker. Save on the cost. There's not that much of a detriment to the industry, but set a standard so they know that they're going to get paid if there's a significant delay and they should be paid for the storage of the vehicle. If it's going to be, you know, take some time to retrieve it. Again, sort of a standard industry price, if you will. We had testimony from various parties about various situations that might come up in the context of this situation was reported to our association or this situation was reported to, you know, by a consumer. I don't, I honestly didn't find the anecdotal stories as compelling because every single one is very fact specific or fact intensive. I shared one report we received from the by the consumer assistance program because it actually illustrated like a number of the common elements all together in one vignette. So I'm hoping to try to crystallize for the committee what a common consumer complaint might look like it was bundled into one each one might come to us at different times with different parts of it. It involved somebody a passenger involuntary passenger vehicle tow where somebody was way laid at the border, the vehicle ended up being towed. They were presented with the $850 demand for payment. And we're then told cash only. And I don't know about you, but I don't tend to carry $850 in cash with me. What really jumped out of me is that if that's a condition for retrieval and that the tension in industry is that they want to be paid for services making it easier for people to have the payment of their choice and commonly accepted forms whether it's cash or credit or debit. So I'm going to put the report in the report by check. And what I mean by that is that certainly might be true and it's increasingly common that people have concerns about accepting personal checks, because there's a question about whether the money is really there. But I think any reasonable business could say certainly a cashier's check is an acceptable form of payment. Certainly a money order is an acceptable form of payment those are essentially cash equivalents, because you've paid up front for the instrument. And I can't imagine what the reason would be for a declination of a reasonable form of payment and commonly accepted practice. And yet we hear kind of throughout and as you see the canvas from other states. There are states that have not waited in this area but then there are states that have said, Yes, we live in a modern economy, consumers should be able to pay, and we want the tow owners and operators to be paid. So there should be no reason why there should be a barrier or some sort of artificial reason why somebody is declined the payment or to retrieve their vehicle. So really important I think that's a, it's maybe a detail but it came up in the context of this story, the person was required to pay in cash they didn't have it. I was ultimately told that they would be driven by the tow owner operator to a local establishment to get a wire transfer to get the cash, only going to cost $150 for the privilege of the trip to do that. And they did it because they felt they had no choice, made the payment, went back to the lot to find the vehicle, the vehicle wasn't even on the lot. And they discovered the vehicle in a private driveway some ways away where they were brought and ultimately were able to reclaim the vehicle. So it raises a sort of a host of these sort of issues around form of payment reasonable fees and expenses. The one thing I will point out in this examples happen in a rural area, and there's mileage involved. So I think it's not unreasonable to say, as other states have done, there is a construct by which you can have minimum be consistent with other areas of Vermont law or say abandoned vehicles consistent with what other jurisdictions have done. And if a tow owner operator has to travel significant distance, they can get a per mile rate for that. And that's not unreasonable. We, you know, if it's a taxi service you're getting charged a meter rate, whatever it is it's there's there is some common usage and there are expenses and having to travel significant distances in order to retrieve a vehicle. So I don't think it's unreasonable to say other states have done this Vermont can do it too. And we want to protect our tow owners and operators from unreasonable additional expenses on top of what otherwise might be a basic tow. So that's that's a construct that you all can work with you're familiar with these kinds of elements you've done it in other areas of statute. You could consider doing that in the in the towing industry as well. So crash site remediation, whole other kettle of fish. And I think, again, this is an area where we know that Vermont statue already requires the cost of the crash site remediation and the cleanup is actually born by the driver of the vehicle that's in the statute. It's already, but we also know that the tow owners and operators are the ones that are often they're doing the cleanup. So they're upfront on the hook for helping get the roadways cleared, making sure it's safe for other passenger vehicles and commercial carriers to get to clearing the space doing the initial cleanup. And there's a significant cost to that and each crash site is going to be highly specific to whatever happened. I mean it's very different if it's a single vehicle crash that's just gone up the road into a snow bank, and you're just pulling it out and the vehicle still operable compared to, you know, a multi car collision, God forbid, or a commercial vehicle that's that issue that has, you know, cargo on board, all highly individualized highly particular and we take the industry as word very difficult to assess in a specific way or in broad strokes, what limitations or what costs, you know, should be applied to the industry in that context. That's an area where typically if you're dealing with commercial carriers, they are required to carry insurance. So it's ultimately going to be likely a question for the insurance company to answer about what's the scope of coverage, is it enough to cover the costs are expensive, have the adjusters all verified the claims and the expenses and then when is the payment going to issue. But this report is not making recommendations to disturb or change crash site remediation as is currently understood in Vermont. The, you know, tow operators and owners have concerns that oh, they're going to impose a cap, you know, on us, I don't think that's what this report is suggesting. I think we're suggesting that those highly individualized costs and expenses. They're already born by the by the by the driver of the vehicle, whether commercial or passenger. And those in many cases will be consensual because you're calling out for help, you're calling the station say I need help and I've got coverage. In some cases, unfortunately, we've heard that maybe there isn't coverage that might be a passenger vehicle and their insurance has lapsed for whatever reason. But I think for the most part, we've understood the industry's position that those might be highly tailored and highly fact specific inquiries. The blanket regulation is not going to necessarily be the most effective way of resolving those kinds of claims or disputes. Vehicle access for removal of personal belonging so happily this is an area where I think there's broad agreement, both industry and consumer advocates individual consumers. You know, in terms of personal belongings, there's broad agreement that really, if you left your wallet in the car, you left your cell phone in the car, you left your medication in the car, maybe left your house keys in the car. The fact that your vehicle has been towed and you may or may not be able to pay the money to pick it up that day. You should not that should not be a barrier to getting the essential items of daily life and many, many other states have already acted in this area. I think the best practice the industry and I think most good hearted business owners would say that's a reasonable thing. You should be able to come in and get what you need to move on with your life for today tonight, tomorrow. Hopefully you get your money together. You can pay us, you know, for the service that was provided. We're not going to stop you or I think in the industry's parlance and their letter to the, you know, to us as part of this process and we're not going to hold these things hostage to the pain and I, it's a, it's a valuable and important concession. I think it will resolve a lot of headaches and make life easier for the average person who's stuck in that position. And it just removes any ambiguity or any dispute over that it just is a common sense reasonable thing to do. It's a very basic consumer protection that you all could extend to people to make their lives a little bit easier. I don't think the industry opposes it. So that's a, that's an area of commonality and of common interest. So, nice to be able to have some, some common ground. And on the question of fees, I'll be honest. I think that the industry has said clear and conspicuous disclosures, regardless is a good thing. Notice an opportunity to understand it's a good thing. And I don't think there's a, I mean, how that notice gets provided. There might need to be some discussion because some people may not have a website. They may be posting a sign in the shop. Right. This is our hourly rates. We need three guys to come out. It's going to cost as much. We need two trucks. It's going to be this, you know, per truck. It's going to be this much specialized equipment might be this. So you can, you know, the owners and operators, especially on the commercial side or in the consensual toe side could probably address for themselves how they're going to set those rates and how they're going to disclose them. But you could have a requirement. I don't think it's broadly contested that having people know what your disclose rates is a bad thing.  It just says, this is what I got. This is what I paid for. This was the rate and I can check it online. I can look it up. I can go into the store, see it there on the shelf and I can make an informed decision about whether if I want to purchase that good or service. Many industries are no different consumers want to know industries want to be forthcoming. I think a little more transparency could be a good thing. Again, I don't think this is a big bone of contention. Details around how and where and when that all gets applied. Those are, you know, questions for you all to answer as a matter of policy. But I think you could find broad agreement from stakeholders that that's overall probably a good thing and might lessen some of the confusion or disagreement. I think we have a question. No, you didn't. Oh, we answered. All right. Chris. Yes, sir. Go back to the example. Yes, the consumer. Looks like. Customs board of protection. All the toe company. And then it sounds like this. Company really took them for a ride. Maybe. Yeah. We're. I see what I think there's another question here is how do our law enforcement. That companies that they're dealing with. To make sure that they're not. They're not predatory. It's a great question. And I know that. My, my understanding is that there is some awareness of. You know, particular actors out there where there might be questionable practices employed. I will say, I think in fairness to law enforcement. It might also be the case that in some instances, there are limitations depending on who is available to do the toe. And the given community, the proximity to other towing services in rural areas. And so there might be times when there. Is only one toe service available at a particular time to engage in a toe. I want to speak for the state police or department of motor vehicles or other agencies, but. I think there's some awareness that there might be some questionable practices going on out there. I think that's in part why some reasonable rules of the road, so to speak, could be helpful to clear some of that up. But I guess if there's at the end of the day, limited choice, and then everyone else is out on falls, and you're left with one entity who does have the machinery or the equipment. And that is, you know, are you sort of left with that circumstance where that's sort of the last best slash only option. And I'll let law, you know, that might be a good question to ask of law enforcement direct more directly is to say, like, how do you distinguish or how would you know, or do you have do you have internal protocols to sort of pause and wait until maybe another, you know, outfit becomes available. I need to create some type of clearinghouse for law enforcement to know who to call. I think they do have, you know, lists of tow operators around the state that they know are generally available to them and to the public. How they distinguish between those various, you know, actors and sort of what comes into play and each circumstance might be a question of fact and timing. Absolutely. Yeah, and when it, you know, when it comes to betting and then comes to transparency. You know, any situation should law enforcement, if they're calling someone be providing that person that they've stopped holding up and having their vehicle towed with where it's going. What the rates are that type of thing so that people know upfront where it's going to be. What kind of cost they can expect to incur. So it sounds like this person really gets stuck. Yeah, it's an unfortunate circumstance. So on the question of access to vehicles, the one place I do want to draw the community's attention to that we did look into vis a vis commercial vehicles. I heard some testimony about this as well and then I looked in deeper into what other states are doing in this area there are eight other states that do require in some circumstances what they call a cargo drop. So that's if you have a commercial, you know, driver, and they've got cargo in the back either a flat bed or container of some kind. The third party is shipping the goods. So the third party isn't, you know, they've hired the trucking company, they hired the driver, but they're not responsible for whatever might have happened that led to crash, or a scene where I tell where has to come and get the you know the truck itself off the road, or taken, you know to a site. And so there's a question about whether or if that cargo should be allowed to continue on to where it's ultimately supposed to be going in a reasonable manner or whether it should be secured with the vehicle and essentially held much in the same way as personal belongings might be held in a vehicle. I do think, you know, there's some precedent in other jurisdictions say, if you have if if the merchandise is owned by the trucking company itself, then maybe it stays with the truck because you've got to claim, you know, the tow operator as a claim as to sort of everything that's kind of contain as one owner. And so maybe that's a situation where then you do have to work out the costs, eventually. Or if you even if you own the cargo if you're trying to get it on to its eventual destination, if you have insurance policy that you can prove I've got enough coverage here on just the vehicle itself. The cost of this tow are going to get covered or it's going to go through that insurance process but we have enough so that's not going to be in dispute. Now you can release the cargo. Or if there's evidence that the cargo just belongs to somebody else altogether that it's just not involved in the transaction. Then those states will allow the cargo to move on, but you have to have evidence of that and there's there's statutory basis on which you can describe how that happens. But it's a good question. It's an important question because there might be a lot of money at issue for the third party who is now caught up in a controversy between the owner operator of the tow. The trucker whose responsibility was to get the goods safely to market. There is, in some ways, almost a theory of waste involved if you've got cargo sitting there and it's worth $100,000 is supposed to be in market. You're depriving the retail establishment from selling it you're driving the consumers from ultimately getting those things. I mean, all of which is a little attenuated from what you're dealing with that. But it's a good question. And so we wanted to raise it as for your decision, I would say, probably not a sort of a primary recommendation. It's not the thing we're getting complaints about. But if you wanted to do something in a commercial context, you could consider do we want to achieve some parity with other states on this point and say, yeah, if you're a third party, you're separate apart from this. The trucking company trucker is responsible for the costs, and they're involved in the conflict potentially with the tow operators if there's a question about the cost or who's going to pay for it. Do you want to allow for a cargo drop where that shipment can be picked up and then brought to market some other way or might have to be disposed of. It's just like produce, something like that, but then at least nobody else is having to deal with the costs of, you know, rotting produce, the commercial entity that was shipping it can come in and get it and dispose of it appropriately. So, it's just a question and it's one that we flag for you we put some of the language or some of the criteria that other states use into the report. So you might weigh that as you're considering the panoply of other potential remedies here. There's statutory liens. So there's a fairly lengthy section in here on statutory liens and an examination by Vermont courts of the question of liens in Vermont and the short answer is we don't have a statutory process we know that the owners and operators have requested statutory mean authority, which just means like we can hold the vehicle indefinitely until we are paid. That is the leverage through which we can pay. And if we can't call the vehicle, then the risk or threat to our business is that we will no longer be able to afford and the absence of prompt payments or any payment at all we will no no longer be able to afford to offer these services to everyone. And this is a real this is like a critical aspect of looking into practices and Vermont around that around the country because I will be the first person to say that if you are in an accident, or if you are in need and you're stuck in a snow bank somewhere, or if your father, mother, kid, friend, whoever it is, has something go wrong with their vehicle, like we all want on demand service for access to a toe to get us out of the jam. I mean, I think it's just, it's a critically important industry. And every effort should be taken to, you know, maintain and preserve the smooth functioning of towers in our communities. And for testimony from and read news reports of the towers who are worried that any effort to dive into this area any effort to create a set of best practices by regulation or by statute, you know, might be sort of a death knell for their business and I want to pause it like that is not the intention of or the goal of this report. Or the Attorney General, I certainly hope and expect nobody around this table or watching wants that to be a natural consequence of any action it might take, because we all need it at some point in our lives right we all need some help. So the question of payment and prompt and timely payment. One thing is, can you by adopting a set of clear and conspicuous disclosures, some reasonable limitations for non consensual passenger vehicles, some limitations on what might be charged for storage fees and can you actually make consumers better able to pay in a timely fashion in order that tours bar in fact getting paid quickly and efficiently for the services that they're providing so that people can move on with their lives, retain their vehicles and the services that they need for this sort of the smaller, maybe more day to day, more basic set of toes that they're providing to communities. The larger question of, you know, major removal of commercial trucking on the public roadways. And I think it's a, it's a major issue. And there's question about, you know, some of the testimony was sort of like, you know, we're not getting paid I think the question is, what's the timeliness of the payments and who is making the payments, because I think that again if you're a commercial trucker you're required to carry insurance so the insurance is going to be there for the most part would be a rare and dangerous exception if you were operating without that, and you probably be facing some other, you know, challenges and looking at some other people who are operating without that, but for the most part, you're going to have insurance in the mix. The question is the timing of the insurance and how quickly the insurance get paid and who is whose insurance is, you know, offering the coverage. I think it's a larger looming question. But from our perspective and from the Department of Financial Regulations perspective, we didn't hear enough from, you know, evidence or testimony, frankly, to suggest that in a certainly certainly in a non consensual circumstance, that there's a basis on which to say either in common law or in statute, there should be lean authority to just hold these vehicles indefinitely till payments are made. I think a better question might be, is there something to be done through the insurance laws and regulations or in communication with insurance companies and the banks and financial institutions, what could be done to improve the best practices in those areas to make sure that there is smooth and efficient payment coming for services that are actually rendered. And there's no question that the services are getting rendered.  And then they're waiting to say, where's the check? Who's covering this? We just devoted, you know, after hours on a weekend, it's an ablizzard. You can imagine all of the circumstances that come up in front and, again, highly detailed in fact specific, but I think the question is when is the payment coming and who's going to be responsible for it? So, Chris, you keep mentioning non-consensual tows. And is that, are you only referring to when police have a vehicle towed or are you also referring to a private lot, for example, that has something marked they tow from that location? That's a great question. Thank you. So in terms of setting sort of a mandatory maximum, that is something that these recommendations were suggesting would be all non-consensual passenger vehicle tows. So that would be, you know, private lot removal. Too many tickets that you didn't pay. And now you're getting called in. Some jurisdictions are just putting a boot on your car.  But there might be any number of circumstances. You know, you hear stories all the time. You parked at somebody's house or you parked on a snow day. You didn't know it was a snow day. You parked on the wrong side of the street. So the tow trucks are coming through in their vehicles. Those are all the range and scope of sort of non-consensual passenger vehicle tows. Again, accepting for extra mediation, arguably, if you're in an accident and you can't respond, it's non-consensual. But presumably, if you could consent, you would because you need to get your car off the road safely. And we're sort of setting that aside as a special circumstance because you're either in it and it might be a minor accident and you are calling affirmatively for help get your vehicle brought to a safe space and ultimately repaired. Or if you're not able to respond, the police are going to be there and they're going to go emergency personnel and they're going to be calling sort of on your behalf. But again, there might be other expenses involved with that for cleanup mileage, other things like that. So thank you. So the bottom line is Vermont courts just said there is no lean authority. You can't fold these vehicles. You shouldn't be opening these vehicles. And if there's a demand made for the vehicle, arguably, you don't even get to, if you're delaying somebody from picking up their vehicle and then demanding that they paid for every day of storage after they made the demand, you actually don't even get those fees because you denied them the right to come and take the vehicle and now you've just run up the meter on all the days that you have held the vehicle. So it's been litigated. There is that question out there, but there's no basis in fact or in law in Vermont for doing that. And most of the authority out there basically says certainly in the case of there's a great American law report on this that delves into all of the you know, towing practices and lean specifically across the country and certainly in jurisdictions where you have a non consensual tow at issue, there's no lean authority. So they're not supposed to be holding those vehicles in the first place. I know that there's often a negotiation that takes place. Sometimes there's a reasonable repayment agreement that can be entered into or sometimes somebody can say, back tomorrow, what can you do for me? Our office gets complaints very often. There's like a compromise that happens where somebody says I can only come up with this. And now it's been like the clock has been running and the charges are adding up. But you know, can you come down and help me out and resolve it? And very often, owners and operators of good faith will simply do that. They'll come to an accommodation. And the question is, why aren't we doing this upstream in a preventive way so that everybody knows what the rules of the road are so that costs can be capped, and people can more readily and easily quickly, you know, get their vehicles restored to them. So, both DFR and the AGO have taken a position we don't see a basis right now for statutory lean provision. I think it would add to the notion or the feeling on the part of consumers that their vehicles are being held against their property, very expensive in some cases, private property, sort of without due process. You're kind of holding it and it's locked in. I can't get it. I haven't gone to court. It might be a dispute, but I'm stuck until I pay the bill. And so I just think it's not good. We don't typically dispossess people of their personal property without some form of due process and going through a process. Because outside of your home, your vehicle might be either the most expensive or the most important element you have in your life to get you where you need to be day to day. So we don't want to be putting people out where they just can't have access to transportation or real estate. And then just what's the law around abandoning a vehicle? And I don't, I'm sorry that I don't know this, but you probably know so that is there a time period in which the owner of the lot can claim that the vehicle has been abandoned and they can claim that it's now theirs and that's how they're going to recoup their costs or is that not a thing in Vermont? It is, it is. And so it's an important area that, again, I think with some modest changes and some clarity and transparency in the law should you elect to go there. You might actually see a decline in sort of the number of instances of a title transfer to referred to by the Department of Motor Vehicles for an abandoned vehicle. I think the fundamental question is the vehicle actually abandoned, whereas the person just unable to pay. I'll share with you. I mean, it's not sort of made explicit in our report, but I mean, you're not seeing BMWs and Teslas lose title to the vehicle because somebody just left it at the lot. My surmise is that the vast majority about three to 500 vehicles every year, titles are transferred to cars, primarily low income and working people who probably could not come up with the money to retrieve the vehicle. So some might actually be abandoned. Some might be stolen vehicles from either other jurisdictions coming here and they're used for a particular unlawful purpose and then they truly are abandoned. And in those events, certainly the lot owners and operators that have a duty to hold them for a certain period of time, they give notice to the Department of Motor Vehicles after 21 days with the declaration that the vehicles abandoned. And the department will try to find the last verified owner or title holder of the vehicle. And that could be a financing agency or it could be the owner themselves, or in some cases both, perhaps in the hopes that, okay, we're giving actual notice to somebody before the title just goes we give them an opportunity to come forward and reclaim the vehicle. I'm sorry, 21 days. So all of the daily fees have racked up to that point and then the amount of time that it takes for someone to get tracked down. And there are still fees associated with that. So by the time somebody actually is tracked down, these could be exorbitant. It could be. And I think that's, you know, part of the challenge is there are to be sure actual vehicles that are actually abandoned. And a lot owners should not be stuck with those vehicles indefinitely. I think that's a fair proposition and that is well established in Vermont law there's there's a process and mechanism for that. And the question is, is there an opportunity for some kind of circuit breaker, some kind of reasonable way to maybe correct a situation for people who truly just don't have the resources. What is the mechanism by which the owner operator can ultimately get paid, and by which those owners of those vehicles can ultimately retrieve them for some reasonable cost. Without feeling like gosh that meter is running every single day and every time I come back and try to pay. Nope. Now the amount is this much. Nope. Now the amount is this much. And that it's like a little bit of a moving target for people that might have a hard time to get the resources to make some kind of lump sum payment. It's a really important question. I don't know that we have before us a settled answer. There might be creative ways to get at that, you know, down down the road future. But it's a good one and it would I think involve no questions about what's the existing process. These would be the department of motor vehicles. How can the owners and operators of lots where cars can sit sometimes for long periods of time. How can they be made whole. And is there an access point through which, you know, very low income from honors, you know, frankly, can figure out some form of address. Because I think, you know, there's a reasonable expectation that that vehicle make thing that helps them move ultimately off public assistance where it might be the thing that gets them to a job or might get their kid to school or to a doctor's and we know that there are a fair number on the roads that, you know, have challenges around inspection. But that they're meeting daily needs for people, even if they're a little bit on the margins of, you know, keeping them road worthy. And there's a really difficult balance here for low income people with, you know, access to reliable cars. And it comes up in the context of inspection and comes up in the context of used vehicle sales comes up in the context of these abandoned vehicles title transfers.  And these days, goodness, I would hate to think that that was like somebody's shelter, right? It's just so it's a real it's a real thing if you're a low income person you need the vehicle, the deprivation of that vehicle is very dramatic and you know some of the national reports on this go, you know, paint a very vivid picture of maybe extreme circumstances in this area and you can read those and, you know, again, but staying away from the anecdotal I think practically speaking, what you have before you are some sort of common sense consumer protection elements that are very consistent with other aspects of consumer law that you've already dealt into. The question would be like, could you do something that would make things a little better, probably reduce the incidence of some of that, just by itself, by creating some reasonable limitations and guardrails. And would that help clarify, you know, some of the some of these issues and maybe reduce that number of that. Just wanted to get back to the reasonable access to a vehicle for your house keys and things like that. You know, I imagine some of these lots are only open a certain amount of time and so that, you know, seems like it could be a barrier to get your your things. And then the other question I had was, you show up where you thought you could park in your cars gone. So is there anything as far as, you know, how do you find out who has you, who has told your car. Great questions, both of them. So one many jurisdictions have said that, yes, there sometimes are set hours for tow owners and operators is not a 24 seven proposition so if you're calling after hours, or you need to have somebody work overtime to come in and help you with that there might be a modest And that is something that you can anticipate and contemplate as part of a statutory construct. It seems reasonable that if somebody's absorbing extra costs. I think you would want to confine it so that there's, you know, there's a youth, you're going to determine what's reasonable and set it out in statute so you're not leaving it to somebody's discretion to say well boy if I had to come and do overtime. So this is what it is. You could also create something that says to stop the clock from ticking somebody makes a call and it's on a weekend or a holiday or they're not going to deploy. If they won't deploy the assistance to help you get into your vehicle to get access, then it, it calls a time out on the storage fee rate, right, because you've made the request maybe even pick up the vehicle. They make the payment, but they're saying, oh gosh, well we won't be in until it's a holiday weekend. So it's Friday night will be there Tuesday. You're thinking what Jesus that could be even even if you put a, you know, mandatory maximum of 25 bucks is in those 75 bucks, right, three days. And so you might in that instance say, if you're not going to deploy personnel to help the person retrieve their personal effects or to retrieve the vehicle. So it's all a pause on the daily rate, because the person's made the request, right. So I think there's some practical constructive ways you could get at that. At that issue. And then the sorry the second part of your how do you show up to the parking lot and your car is gone. Oh yeah, yeah. Well, I dropped a footnote in here because I think one of the best most useful tools I've seen is New York's 311, which is a website that anybody can go to so you can use your handheld device you can use a computer you can get from library. And you can quickly and easily like everybody, all the owner operators know that you upload. Here's the license plate. Here's the make and model. And here's where it's located. And so you the consumer can just like quickly and easily look it up in an ideal world in the modern era that we live in that would be an excellent way to just resolve this problem would save everybody time in trouble. And police wouldn't have to take phone calls from people who are scrambling whatever my car, maybe they know maybe they don't. If it's a tow operator that has a contract with the police they likely know which operator it is so if you're calling local law enforcement they very often will be able to point you in the right direction. And hopefully there's no requirement in state law that says, okay, you tow the vehicle is how you report, or there's a centralized database where you can upload that information and somebody can access it quickly and easily. I don't know that you need in in Vermont. I don't know that given the time and expense of, you know, standing up a new system and be wonderful if that could happen, but at a minimum we do acknowledge in the report that there should be some standard. Some states have said within the hour, I don't know how reasonable that is for a lot owner if you have to maybe get a move three cars out of the way for you to put the one on the lot where it needs to go. And the limited staff and really are they going to remember to, you know, I don't know that you'd want to make a violation of somebody to get you know within an hour get the car but I think within a reasonable time certainly within 24 hours somebody should have to have an application to alert local law enforcement say, not unreasonable to say we're telling somebody in position of authority if somebody's looking for their vehicle here's where you can find it. A lot of states do that. I'm mindful of the fact that you get a lot of small operators in Vermont, and you got some municipalities that they don't have a full on local police staff police force. So what happens then they all going to go to the Vermont State Police, you know, or the local sheriff's department. It's a lot of good questions there but I guess I think where I'm thinking of your question I think there's a reasonable I guess this to assume that there should be some mechanism by which the owner can get notified and relatively quickly. And there could be a number of options and ways to do that. Thank you. Okay. Mindful of the time here at how much more time do we have. Mr chairman chair. I think our friends from transportation are not used to being. They start earlier than we do so they get out early. We generally will go till three o'clock, but we'll leave it up to. I would love I would love to hear you get to your recommendation. I think that's really terrific, but I don't. I think this is very useful because I'll just say what what you're doing. Christopher has done the work that we were logging through on our committee. A lot last year so I think we are very interested in it so I just make sure that we have the time that we need.  And it's the question of insurance claims and surety bonds that they came up so one of the requests of the industry was that again getting to the question of ultimate payment. Is there something unfair and deceptive going on. These of you the insurance companies and does the department of financial regulation have the tools that it needs to police insurers that may be wrongfully withholding payments that should be going to owner operators. What we heard from the department is they certainly do have authority to act in that area. They have in title eight sort of a very similar consumer protection law that basically in the banking and insurance sector deals with unfair or deceptive acts or practices by insurers or financial institutions, much the same way that we have authority to act in title nine for violations of the consumer protection act. So I think they feel well equipped to act and to enforce if they had to. They reported that they are not getting these kinds of complaints. So I think to the extent that industry feels like there is some unfair deceptive act happening in the insurance space, they should be reporting that to the department. I think the department welcome those kinds of discussions if in fact that is happening. And you know it harkens back to the discussions heard around the table at the public hearing, which is I think some of this might be a timeliness of payment function. And so there might be a question or some discussion that could be had with Department of regulation with the insurance industry with commercial carriers and towing operators themselves to talk about what do we do about timing. And how do we what what is prompt and prompt and reasonable payment on a reasonable time frame. So the question is sort of outside the scope of this report or outside of our expertise but I think it's an important one and we certainly heard it. So we want to flag it but the word that we got from the department recommendation was that they did not see a basis on which to disturb their current powers under title eight or try to shoehorn in additional powers of authority that there would not really be a basis for that. The question of surety bonds was a one that again, I'm not seeing that as a requirement across the other jurisdictions that have taken action in this area and many have many more detailed and many more numerous laws and regulations on point than Vermont in this area. I think, historically, this has been the province of insurance. There's an accident or if there's a toe that requires coverage in the commercial context, it's going to be insurance carriers that are involved in resolving the claims. Surety bonds from the carriers for shippers and carriers perspective I think was a novel concept in the sense of when and how would we, you know, deploy or know that we need to take out a surety bond is this for every transport we would need to get a surety bond. What's the scope and coverage or a surety bond. Would we be overpaying for coverage when it's never even exercise because the transport results in a safe, secure shipment and there's never a problem. What happens if you know there's a wreck on a weekend and we were going to get the surety bond but we didn't get it in time or we need to ship on a weekend, but there's no place to access the surety bond. At the time when we're doing the shipment. A lot of sort of technical logistical questions about how and when whether if that should all apply but again I don't think we felt we had a strong enough basis in which to say this should be an ultimate requirement. In particular for commercial entities. Maybe it's something where if the industry and if commercial carriers could identify a set of circumstances in which surety bonds might help to alleviate and might be beneficial frankly for the for the industry as a sort of liability protection for it depending on the nature of certain kinds of shipments. Maybe maybe there's room for more discussion there but in terms of a blanket requirement that every shipment in commerce requires a surety bond. It sounded like the questions about the size and scope and expense of all of that you know really came into play. We did not have clear answers either internally or from other jurisdictions about when and how that would apply in some kind of uniform way. So we were reluctant to offer a strong you know recommendation in that area. Those were really the key elements and places where we talked a little about bannermint and again you've already got a statute in place so we just give you a little background on that. But that was the gist. We tried to create the you know a walkthrough of the report that was consistent with the requests that the legislature made of us so we tried to do those sort of in order. So as you go back and think more about this report in the future or as you talk to other stakeholders that might come to your committees and want to continue the conversation. You know you kind of have an order that you set out in the statute and the report tries to follow that order. So if you need to go back and look something up you can do that. And then we tried to attach as an appendix to the report. Kind of the full it's like 40 pages of not necessarily recommendations but here's the landscape of how this all plays out in other states so you can take a look at that. I think that you know the biggest takeaway is like Vermont is usually a leader on consumer protection matters especially in areas that are unregulated and that are significant sectors of the economy. And I think the biggest lesson that you know we take away from your active role in these spaces is that it's generally. If there can be areas that can be common ground areas of agreement and you can remove ambiguity. It's actually usually better for industry and it's usually better for consumers. And so that's the biggest takeaway I want you to think about is like are there areas of common ground that all the parties can agree on. Are there some simple basic things you can do to eliminate uncertainty. And create a basis on which you know people can kind of move forward and not have to worry so much about what's going to happen to me in this situation. And that's true for industry to and I think to having some basic framework of best practices can result in improved trust and confidence in the industry. I have to say I read a lot of reports a lot of national reports. And I frankly object to the use of the term predatory or predatory towing because I think most tow owners and operators are trying to do the best that they can and run a legitimate business and help people in need and be able to cover the cost of the services that they deploy. And we all need those services. So I don't think it's a predatory industry. And I think sometimes when you use that term. It just creates unnecessary distraction and emotional reactions from people on all sides of the spectrum. And it's not useful. I think what everyone's trying to do is figure out are there some simple common sense things we can do to make things better for reminders for the businesses and for the average consumer the average person. So I think that's what you're grappling with. I understand that this is an issue that's come before you from time to time, you know, over the years and when that happens I think that's that is a sign that was true of the home contracting industry.  So it's about notice it's about understanding what something costs it's about disclosure. I do think on the payment front, getting a receipt or bill for what you just paid for is really important as a common sense thing that most businesses know how to do as a consumer even if I'm paying a lot for a service. I want to at least know that there was a record of what I paid when I was charged. That doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't think the industry can say that either. But we know it happens sometimes and that's not most the industry that's the outlier. So can we cure those problems and then get people back on track with, you know, what most people would reasonably expect and what most businesses would reasonably deliver. So that said, like I said, this is really mostly to do with with passenger vehicles. There's seven, there's sort of a menu of seven items here that all deal with what we've just discussed. So, clear and conspicuous disclosure of rates fees and the prices mean that this these are adopted in other jurisdictions I just want to give you a numbers you kind of see, well how many states have done this right that might be an easy instead of having to go through every single, you know, box and appendix you can see well most states have done this or some states have done that. So clear and conspicuous disclosure. Again, my understanding is the industry doesn't really oppose this. I think the details about how they would make these disclosures is it like in the shop, is it online, different businesses might handle it different ways but I think that's not a hurdle to too high to clear. And then you've got the issue we've talked about the most today which is the non consensual toes so a limitation of not more than $125. And again, I think it's really important. Again, I won't speak for any particular party but my understanding is when the rate of $40 for abandoned vehicles from public spaces was raised that was by request from some orders that we're saying it's too low. It's not covering the costs of doing that service and so if 125 is the right size and scope for that and the legislature has already looked at that and decided it. Why not create consistency and parity and say okay well how different is it to take an abandoned vehicle from a lot where it shouldn't be, or a parking spot where it shouldn't be, and taking a ticketed vehicle that, you know, municipal authorities have said has to be removed and say, the limit should really be the same, especially if you're not having to transport it too far if it's like in town. Outside of town I think fair and reasonable and other states have said a certain mileage rate, you know if it's beyond three to five miles of a local vicinity, then you get into okay what's a reasonable fee and you can just look at sister jurisdictions but I think it's, you know, pretty common pretty readily identifiable you could come up with that metric. So that works, you want it to work for people. A reasonable drop fee. We think is reasonable that's also consistent with fixed and reasonable rates for vehicle storage 25 bucks a day or 25 bucks for a drop, you know you're basically covering the cost of somebody to go out and check on a vehicle if the owner shows up, just let it go. Don't give everybody the extra time expense and rigmarole of trying to retrieve a vehicle that once it's been taken away. We're going out on the or underscore the question for you all about yes fixed rate for vehicle storage but do you want that to include the day of empowerment, or is that just an actual full day after the fact, right, like it's been there overnight. Okay, now you've got one day of storage but if you pick it up the same day, maybe there's very little detriment to the owner. You can just move on that might be one way to get the cars off the last faster and get the owner and operator paid without having the extra extra money involved. Requirement to accept all reasonable forms of payment. I just I've not heard a good faith argument why that would be objected to by if the complaint is we can't get paid we want to get paid. Let's make it easier to have more means of payment and get people paid. Again, here you'll see certified check. I can understand there are going to be some instances or some people maybe even known to the owner operands like you're going to, going to flow to check that's just not going to be covered like I can't accept that. And that's not unreasonable but if you've got a cashier's check or you got a money order. That's like cash that's an instrument, but you ought to be able to pay it and move on. This was an issue about credit cards and debit cards. I think anecdotally we and we get complaints about people saying they would, you know, cash only. So I think I don't think most of the owners, we didn't hear from the industry, like, oh, no, no, no, like industry standard is, you know, cash only, or we would only do that I think most sophisticated operators are doing it so again it's like a best practice. I think if you go to fairly sophisticated owner operator or they have probably a contract with the municipality like they're going to accept forms of payment. The other question is like for the outliers, we just make it clear, like, let's, let's, you know, get this get this part resolved. That should not be an obstacle. And a lot of other states have done that as well. Personal retrieval. Let's get in line with the other states that are already allowing for that 20 states offer access to retrieval personal belongings again not contested by the industry and all agree. It's just a basic. It's a good practice. You want to be a good actor. And this gets to your question representative is the question of some form of notification. You know, this is I think this was lifted from all the other states within an hour of its removal that would be ideal. I don't know, you know, practice and practical terms be better to get some clarification on terms of notice. It's easier. I actually think for anyone that has a contract with the local authority, or if it's a state highway, you know, the state police and local law enforcement probably going to know where it is. It was at the direction of law enforcement. But the question is, if it's private tow or tow off the private lot or off private property or if it's abandoned vehicle. You know, strong notice provisions. And I think just having something clear that says this is how you do it. And again, it might be local law enforcement, you know, to local jurisdiction, if you don't have municipal, you tell the sheriff's department, you know, simple as that. And it's just, it seems intuitive and we would all like to not think that that, you know, would be a standard but be a question for I think the local authorities, you know, what kind of a burden administrative burden does that place on them are they able to kind of track that quickly and easily. So you'd want to know that, but it doesn't again it just seems like it shouldn't be too high a hurdle to clear to provide folks with some reasonable resource. And I think the question of people are calling around everywhere and guess what there's a ministry of time from local law enforcement taking calls from people saying, and then the local police are saying, we don't know where it is. Try here, try here, try there, try there.  So, I think, again, removal of ambiguity. And I think that's, 37 states have expressed notice requirements. I will say there is an express notice requirement as we refer to in terms of title transfer. So if it comes to the end point where like somebody truly hasn't been able to identify where their vehicle is at, whether they intended it to be abandoned or not, or couldn't pay for it or not, they will get notice as a title holder from the Department of Motor Vehicle before that vehicle sales. And that is really important and that is in trying to sort of suggest that the state has already taken some initiative to recognize that that's that's part of the fabric here is like people should get notice before they're actually deprived of their vehicle in a permanent sense. So, and yesterday represent quite yeah so in my community during the winter months, there is no others and no parking ban on Main Street the bigger streets in town and their signs posted. No parking between 11 and whatever, you know, November to arch or something. But those individuals call the town office because the town office has an agreement with a towing company, which are few and far between in our area. And so they would call our town office, not our county share. Oh, interesting municipal share. Yeah, they call the town office and we would tell them where their car. Yeah, given the name and number. And is that. Is that in pretty well. Is that in city ordinance that like that's how yeah that village, village ordinance. Yeah. Yeah, so that could be another way you can have you could have, you know, the town clerk. It could be the place that gets notice and then that's who they go. And yeah. And so then if that becomes like the manner mechanism that's like set up in statute, you know, might be a conversation out with the town clerks, but they do handle a lot of information. Right. And to the extent that that's sort of a civic, a part of civic engagement they can assist with they might be. Right. Okay. Happy to do that. Thank you. Not a bad idea. So on on commercial vehicles. Just to wrap up. Very simple straightforward, but they're in conspicuous disclosure of rates fees requirement to accept all reasonable forms of payment. I don't think that's so much an issue with commercial. And then a cargo drop provision. So, you know, this is a sort of menu of options and I don't know whether you want to wade too deeply into the sort of commercial aspects of all of this but I do think there's an important question from third parties that end up having their goods caught up in, you know, potential conflict about who's paying for the telling service itself and if they're truly sort of an innocent bystander. Why are why why are there merchandise being held?  So seems common sense. But, you know, that's the policy decision you all have to make.  You know, in an area where it may be a little more testimony from the parties would help. And we could certainly help to if it, you know, if you want us to reach out to some of those other jurisdictions, either their attorneys general to find out like about this particular provision, how does that work in practice and is it effective, or has it been controversial. So, overall, I think the gist of this is notice disclosure. Helping to resolve your constituent complaints and the complaints that we see on a regular basis, which tend to be average citizens. Consumers private consumers individuals that have complaints about the towing practices and kind of the not knowing the not having clarity around what the rules are in a situation where they're confronted with maybe a deprivation that is causing them some some hardship and heartache, and can be putting some reasonable regulation around that, not regulating the entire industry, and not getting into issues that might be highly fact and cost intensive to the industry itself so commercial vehicles, crash site remediation. All of those things that are going to be have a lot of elements that are going to have to get worked out between the parties and already do. And then the larger outstanding question of just like how and when the payment comes and can there be any improvement in that space. You know, among the insured insurance companies who certainly have every right to do their due diligence and make sure they're not paying out for something that's not an appropriate expense, we're not covered by their insurance. But, you know, that's that's a different order of magnitude than the average person who might be calling you for assistance or calling your town clerk or calling the local police or calling our offices for help with one of these situations where it's gotten really murky really quickly and some common sense reforms might might do the trick to help resolve some of this. So I thank you for your time and and I'm sorry to go on so long. This was a very interesting project. And again, I want to thank the all the participants, the consumers and the industry and commercial actors who came forward and gave us with but to too much information to reasonably digest in one sitting. And I appreciate your your forbearance as we took a little additional time to hear from some parties and collect their testimony as the process went along and I just I hope fundamentally this is helpful to you gives you some information to sort of get you thinking about what is right sized, it's reasonable and balance because I know that was your directed. And we take that very seriously. I don't think anybody is looking to, you know, have owners and operators not able to function. And that's just that's primary, because the reason that you have all these questions and concerns is because it's so essential. So then the question is okay, maybe part of it is getting at this term reasonable which was what for years has been on the books and what's a reasonable expense. People don't know, and now there's sort of controversy and confusion around that. And if you all can take some steps to help address that might go a long way to alleviating some of these concerns. So we've offered you a menu. I hope it's helpful and if we can answer other questions I'm certainly at your disposal now or in the future. And I know that the parties. This will not be the last opportunity for the parties to be heard and certainly if you take up a bill or if you're wanting to pursue some things. I don't want to quite likely be heard and share my thoughts with you about this as well. I just want to say thank you. I really appreciate the work that you've done on this Christopher because and and also just following really the spirit of the legislation that we passed that was in last year's miscellaneous motor vehicle bill. And I think it's really, you did some of the work that we could not do because of lack of time, but also the research and comparing what's going on in Vermont and other states and really the, you know, parsing it apart and also engaging in a meaningful way with the stakeholders because I just want to express, you know, to reiterate, we really care about the towing industry. They they're the, you know, a tow company is the one that pulls us out of a ditch in a storm or takes that wreck off of the highway that might have hazardous waste and we heard a lot about like the, you know, the work that is done and just really appreciate those folks. Those folks are important industry here in Vermont so I'm hoping, you know, I think we're going to be talking with our colleagues in commerce because you parse it apart quite nicely for us, you know, what the passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles, they're related concerns, but I think, you know, we started, there's a lot about the, you know, consumer protections for Vermonters who are doing this and so I just want to express my appreciation to helping us get some good clarity and a really good document so looking forward to hearing, you know, what the commerce committee think it might do and how we might, you know, work together as appropriate. Sounds good. Any other questions before we finish for the day? Thank you. Thank you. First, thank you very much. Thank you to work. Thank you, Madam Chair and transportation for doing this today and look forward to continue working with you. We don't open again screw that you sent us the bill so. But I think it's a, I think it's an area that we need to work with. We've worked with the industry. You said we don't want to shut them down. We want to make sure that they're able to make money. And they do come out day or night. No matter what the weather. We certainly appreciate the service that they provide to us as well. Thank you. Go off the line.


And now to other parts of the continent, Gini will persecute its former president Arthur Cundey for murder and all the crimes committed during the time he roged the country. A document by prosecutor Alphonte Charles Wright notably stated that the former Gini and president and 26 other officials are facing persecution for murder, assassination and complicity. Cundey, who was also accused of detention, torture, rape and looting, had his government toppled in a military court in September last year.