DMV backs dropping front-plate mandate but warns against issuing specialty front plates

Matt Russo, deputy commissioner for the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles, told the Senate Transportation committee on Feb. 12 that DMV supports removing the statutory requirement that vehicle owners produce and display front license plates but opposes any bill language that would direct DMV to issue specialty front plates.

Russo said the plate shop’s economics make producing small quantities of specialty plates costly and that creating a mechanism for DMV to produce specialty front plates would risk opening demand from many organizations that have previously requested specialty plates. He said private vendors, including dealerships, already produce front-plate-style products and that third-party production could be an alternative.

Committee members pressed Russo for cost estimates and for whether fundraising or specialty‑plate revenue could offset DMV or DOC production costs. Russo said he did not have the detailed plate‑shop quantity or cost numbers in the meeting and that the plate shop or Department of Corrections would have to provide those figures. Several members said a key missing piece for their decision was whether the Department of Corrections plate shop would incur a deficit if production moved from two plates to one.

Safety and enforcement concerns surfaced repeatedly. Members noted prior testimony from the Judicial Bureau and asked whether removing the front‑plate requirement would reduce enforcement effectiveness; committee members said state police were invited to testify but declined to attend. Richard Gallagher (DMV) said enforcement appears to have dropped for front‑plate violations under current practice and cited other jurisdictions (Ohio, Quebec) where removing front plates did not produce enforcement issues in their experience.

Why it matters: The change would alter an element of vehicle identification used in some enforcement and commercial operations and could shift costs between state agencies. The committee asked DMV and DOC for specific cost data and enforcement metrics before moving forward.

Next steps: Committee members requested follow‑up information — cost estimates from the plate shop and DOC, and enforcement data — and scheduled a brief recess before reconvening with Natural Resources to highlight transportation projects under Act 250.