Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Alright. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to government operations and military affairs. It is a little after 09:30 on Thursday, April 2, and we are picking up work again on s two five five, an act relating to establishing a pilot law enforcement governance council in Wyndham County. Have three folks here for testimony this morning, and I guess we'll just go right down the punch list. We're gonna start off with, chief Evans, Brattleboro Police Department, and joining us Zoom. How you doing, sir?

[Chief Gary Evans (Brattleboro Police Department)]: Good morning, and thank you for having me here today. I really appreciate it.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we're just looking for some insights, some feedback, and some perspective on this piece of legislation. So we've we appreciate your time. So I'll just hand it over to you. Gary, your thoughts.

[Chief Gary Evans (Brattleboro Police Department)]: Awesome. First of all, like I said, thanks for thanks for having me here. Just I looked at the list quick and I'm not sure I know anyone on the committee. So just to throw out who I am in case none of you know who I am.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Vice Chair Lisa Hango)]: Yeah, please.

[Chief Gary Evans (Brattleboro Police Department)]: I've been I'm the current police chief in Brattleboro. I'm on day three of that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I saw you on the news the other day. Congratulations on the post.

[Chief Gary Evans (Brattleboro Police Department)]: No. Thank you. So I do have about twenty seven, almost twenty eight years in law enforcement here in Vermont. Started at the sheriff's department and did a few years there in Wyndham County before I moved to Brattleboro, where I've been since then. So with this bill, I've I've come out in support of this. I feel that this is a very positive step for us overall. I have a couple brief points that I'll that I'll hit on that just how it affects us down here and and from the, you know, from the perspective of a municipal police department. But they're pretty I'm going pretty broad in overview. So if you have technical questions, I would really refer you back to Sheriff Anderson on that. So the key part for us, the financial impact only on towns that opt in. I think that's important when we're looking at viability for the program. I see the program as just a net positive for policing in our county. There is quite a diverse equity in services for our county. We have places like Brattleboro or Dover or Wilmington, for example, that provide some high level policing services for their community. And then you have other you know, the vast majority of the rest of the county that really receives very minimal, law enforcement services unless they're able to, contract. So I see this really as a way to expand out for that and give better equity in policing services to the rest of the community. And when I talk about the community, I mean the countywide. And as far as a pilot, I think Sheriff Anderson is a perfect person to run this pilot. When you have a pilot program of something like this, you're going

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: to want someone that can

[Chief Gary Evans (Brattleboro Police Department)]: be a strong leader and make, you know, do what it takes to make it successful as a pilot program so that we can all learn from it, both, you know, here and in the legislature and see how it can be successful and expand. And I think Mark is the I think he's the perfect person for that. And you also have a county, I believe, that's pretty engaged in wanting to see this move forward and see how it'll work. And I think those are two key parts for it.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Thank you.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: No. Thank you. I mean, that all seems relatively positive for feedback, so I appreciate that.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: You're welcome. Any

[Chair Matthew Birong]: questions for our guests from the committee? It caught everybody before the coffee kicked in, so you're lucky. Yeah. Feel free to hang out, and if anything pops up that's relevant for you, if if if you'd like. But, appreciate the time, and, yeah, we'll let you know if we have anything else for you for questions or feedback.

[Chief Gary Evans (Brattleboro Police Department)]: Great. Thank you for letting me come today. Appreciate it.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Yeah.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Up next, Cheaper Bhargou.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: Morning. Thank you for for me the time to come this morning. It's the first time I've testified in this new room. Looks spacious. We are fortunate. So, first of all, I'm Roger Marco. I'm the Lemoyle County sheriff, and and I've been in law enforcement for forty six years and, with both state and federal agencies. And, I come to you today, and I've had several conversations with, with sheriff Anderson on this bill. And, first of all, I hold sheriff Anderson in high regard. And what I wanna talk about is some questions that I have about the bill for you to contemplate between sheriff Anderson and legal counsel. Maybe, you find these questions, valid in things that you'd wanna consider during the the legislation. So, I've been the sheriff for, going on twenty six years now, and, we have a unique situation, in Lemoyle County where we have a version of regional policing, right now where we are the we are the, twenty four seven police department, if you will, for three towns. And we have a regional dispatch center, which covers all of the towns in Lemoyle County and a few towns beyond that. So, and all of this that I'm in charge of now really started 1975 over an issue between, assistant judges and the sheriff at that time in the town of Stowe. And the town of Stowe paid, I think back then, around 42, 45% of the county taxes. So what the sheriff had been doing back then was working with the assistant judges and then using the county taxes to fund the county wide law enforcement operation. And STOW took issue with that because they had their own police department, and they they took they didn't feel it was right for them to pay for their police department, pay for the state law enforcement agencies through state taxes, and also the county law enforcement. And it ended up going to the supreme court where the supreme court said, you really can't force a well, what they said is it was illegal for the county to tax the town of Stowe for constabulary service, police service. So that forced the parties to get together and come up with a formula that's still in existence today. Formula to pay for towns that want dispatch services, and and we are the dispatch center for the area, 911 called the Clean Center, was, based on a town's half of their brand list and half of their population. And when you went through the the formula, that established what each community, including Stone, would pay for services. With respect to patrol, the patrol in in Lemoyle County, the three towns that have twenty four seven patrol, that is based strictly on their population. Johnson And Hyde Park are roughly the same, around 40% of the population. They pay 40% of the overall costs that it takes to conduct the services. So I have talked to some know, people in Stowe or, that are had questions about this bill. The way that this bill is structured, it sets up for for Wyndham County to have their own governance, and, and we don't have a problem with that. And, but the issue of accessing the county tax system, I have some questions about. And I've discussed these with with sheriff Anderson. And, and I I think that it's worth looking into to see if there is possibly any unintended consequences because this bill sets a precedence. And the sheriff's association really wasn't this was a a Wyndham County only initiative, so we weren't in on any of the conversation leading up to that. But, you know, one of the I'll go down my my list so that I don't, go over the place. But so the county tax mechanism is based on on the grand list. I believe that this bill would base that on the population. If I'm wrong, then that's you know, that can somebody can correct me down the road on that. But, would that require the question is, would that require a change, or does require a change in the way county taxes are are administered? And as I go through this, I'm gonna end by saying, can all of the sheriffs be part of this? And I'll I'll get into the pros and cons of that later on. So the council would submit an approved budget to the side judges who would pass that on to the county treasurer. So one of the questions I have is, do the assistant judges have any say in what that's going to be? Because if you've got three towns, like I have three towns, and it's over a million dollar credit, what does that do to for those three towns to the current 5¢ on a 100? They can tax up to 5¢ on a 100. So I'm not sure about that question. So that that's a question I have. And, this population version that I have said that the assistant judges shall include council's approved budget as a separate item in the county budget. The county treasurer shall levy and collect a special assessment in proportion to each municipality's population. So, again, I I believe, if I'm correct, that it's currently assessed on the grant list. So that's a that's a question that I have. And then under the service delivery, it does not this is a problem or not a problem, but a question that's come up in my own operation is what happens to the equipment that is purchased during the agreement? Cards, what happen what happens to to, that equipment after, if if a if a community opts out. So that's something else I've tried to pick up. And then lastly, well, thanks to last, is the the five year. So so this is a five year pilot. If this should happen to have great benefit to you know, if it works out well for Wynn County, I I'm pretty happy with the structure I have in Lemoyle County right now. The because all of my budgets are voted on each town meeting. So but if this should happen to work out, can other sheriff's departments participate in this sort of program before the five years? I've talked to sheriff Anderson about that. If I believe, and he can speak for himself. It wasn't his intent just to box people or other narrative counties out. Having said that, could all counties have the the ability to participate in this program? So I've said a whole sheriff Anderson in high regard. We all know that we've had some issues with other sheriffs in the state that don't have the same level of experience, management experience, what have you, that sheriff Anderson does. So if we're setting a precedence here, that is something I think that we carefully wanna consider. And lastly, and I don't think I talked to sheriff Anderson about this. I I did, but I I guess I still don't understand this. Why if this works out well, why why is it going away in in five years? So does that mean that we will no longer if it's working for other communities, they would no longer be able to to participate in this. So, as I said, this is a Wyndham County initiative with the governance and everything, and I don't want to be a person driving a state through the heart of this. And that's not my intention. My intention is I'm a person that's been around quite a while as a sheriff, and these are the questions that we might wanna address so that we don't there's an there's not an unintended consequence down the road that we missed in in causing a program that might be working well for some to to go. So

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Yeah. Rep Morgan. More of a

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: statement, sheriff, but maybe kind of a it would cause a reply from you as well. But unless I'm reading this wrong or looking at this incorrectly, yes, applicable to Wyndham County only. Right? Sure. It is a pilot. It would have to come back to this body if it were to expand. I think we could all agree on that. Right?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. I mean, I guess, like, the, like, order of operations would be if, like, this is successful, participations perhaps

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: in

[Chair Matthew Birong]: a pilot format or other could actually maybe occur before it's even on its five year course. Right.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: But it hasn't It's working great. If it's great for all 14,

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Vice Chair Lisa Hango)]: do it.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Then

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: I'm getting that. Yeah. Or

[Chair Matthew Birong]: If it's if it's not, boom. Yeah. You got a date certain where it goes away.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Yeah.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Or you extend it out. You know? And this is, you know, language that's reflective of the work we've been doing on the government accountability concepts and whatnot too to have more of these programs have, like, pilot sunsets, etcetera. Yep. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: And so I think it's I don't for lack of a better word, don't take it the wrong way. I don't think it's a word I wanna say is threat, but I don't like the word threat. It's a little heavy. But to any other entity or agency out there or Fred's a bad word, it's heavy, but you know what I mean. It's not a Territory?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I'm sorry. Territorial?

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Yeah. I think

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: right

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: now it's gonna be isolated to the Southeastern border of Vermont. Yes. Sheriff Anderson, right, and, in Wyndham County. And I think it's, at a little bit of a wait and see because, again, like her chair was just saying, it's going abysmally, and two years, we don't, you know, and future committees may have to go another, let's put in another bill to go that this is, this needs to get cut off the past, or it's tremendous. We get groundswell support from the other 13 chairs out there going, that's wonderful, I love it, or not. So, think there's a lot of unanswered questions on it, that it does open the door to get

[Chair Matthew Birong]: a lot of questions answered and

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: see how other communities, especially, don't have policing entities in there respond with us, and it works for them or doesn't work for them. So I guess a little bit of almost I could give it a chance. I understand some of your concerns. They're not they're not invalid or bad concerns. I I appreciate them, but I just think we have to maybe balance that out a list. I'm not really I guess, don't really have a question. Don't if you have any response to that, what I'm saying.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: But, yeah, just to put some thoughts out there. To clarify where I'm coming from, sheriff Anderson has done his homework. Mhmm. And and so I believe that he'll be successful.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Mhmm. But

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: what if next year a county comes in here, you've got this president, precedence

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Vice Chair Lisa Hango)]: Yes.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: And a county comes in here, let's get some problems. We got your problems, experience problems, what have you. So are you are we going to have 13 other counties come in and do this exact same thing, or is there a way?

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: You could always say that's a pot anything's possible. You can I mean, you see bills that are on our wall that legislators from various districts, counties could put into any legislation to ledge counsel and ask them to craft a bill that addresses Yep? X, y, and z. It's in their purview they can. So that could happen anytime Yeah. For starters. And secondly, I would think it would only occur if there was ground salt support from yourself, for instance, from the Loyal County, with purpose behind it, unless,

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: you

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: know, something was going heinous in your area, unless there anybody else's district. You know, know, I've got sheriff Allen over Grand Isle County, something's going heinous, can come, hey, help me out, please, this is I need help, you know, I mean, I I I but I don't I think that would be remote. I mean, I I think we're I think, I think we're in relatively safe ground to give it a chance. And maybe I don't mean to speak for the whole committee, that's just my personal opinion. I don't think it is a major ask in terms of anything. Think I I like, the word I'm erring on is

[Chief Gary Evans (Brattleboro Police Department)]: I'm erring

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: on the side of I think you'd do more good than harm.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: Right.

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: By, like, a lot. Does that make sense to everybody? Or am I outstanding?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I I I think I got them. This I got the direction you're

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: going.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: For me, it was coming here today was, how do I express my concerns without helping on his program. Indicate that I'm trying to to tank on his program, which which are people in his county is is really supportive. But I just am telling you, as you all know, I've been around for a long time. I've seen things that that, in in counties that it's the same old thing. So we just I would just say that I've got some some questions here that you may wanna

[Chair Matthew Birong]: kinda Well,

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: think you said you're you're concerned about unintended consequences, and I get that. And Yeah. And, we have to live in that world every day with legislation that we make. I think that's Yeah. Not an uncommon thought to go, yeah, if we do h blah blah blah, what's gonna be the unintended consequence? I hope that we all I believe we're all pretty thoughtful when we think about And I and and and but it's not but it's certainly very valid for you to be voicing that. That's why we have testimony in. But so nothing you're saying is invalid. Just I understand. Take it all into consideration. Yep. Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Vice Chair Lisa Hango)]: Okay. I got rep

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Coffin, and then I got a,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: basically, a round robin on

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: the table.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Vice Chair Lisa Hango)]: So I have

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: a list that we'll call in order. As far as other counties go, right now, I don't see anything in here that says if this is successful, it has to be done in other counties. I think it's more of an opt in. This gives a framework of a county decides they want to try something like this. It lays the groundwork for them to say, hey, we wanna try this, and this is a pilot, you know, where we need to see where it goes. But the five year pilot gives the opportunity for all the counties to look and say, what is the options? You know? Is this working for Windsor? Is this something we can adapt to our county? Because not all counties are the same. Right. So I don't think it's trying to make it so that every county has to do this. I think it's more of an option for policing for the communities. And being a five year pilot, that doesn't mean it has to go away in the five years because, you know, as things sunset, if this is a viable and it's working and the reports are right and the county it's working for the county, we can then repeal the sunset and it just stays in place without forcing it on other counties.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: In your view, sir, any counties that are interested because there are some that are interested. Mhmm. With the current language as it is, could they come before the five

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: years? I I would think there'd have to be separate legislation that would sorry. We I I think because this is a specificity to Wyndham County.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. I mean, that would be either a separate bill or

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: Yeah. It's the Yep. So what I'm hearing is is that, you know, I've talked with sheriff Anderson about this, but I don't think it's his intent to exclude anybody for five years. But if people are in counties are interested, we could approach and get sponsorship to the Well, I don't

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: think it's meant to include or exclude. I don't think it's either. I think he's looking go it alone, which he's very willing and ready to do, I believe. I might put words throughout sheriff, but

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: Not on the agenda, so I'm happy to speak to all

[Chair Matthew Birong]: of this. Identify yourself for the record, sir, from the gallery.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: Anderson, Windham County sheriff. My intent is not to include or exclude any counties above Windham County. You heard sheriff Markku speak that this wasn't discussed with the Sheriff's Association. We did discuss it. We didn't work on the bill itself because I saw the specifics of Windom County matter. So to that, I have no intent of excluding other counties. It's actually out of my respect to Sheriff Marcoux while we were working on the regionalized dispatch conversation, where he said, Don't break what's already working. And he has a tremendous respectable dispatch center in Lamoille County that's working today. We don't want to interrupt people's calls. We want to make sure they get access to services. And so, the reason, why we used we looked to target this narrowly at Wyndham County, in the very narrow context with the guardrails up, in all the ways that we put them up in this bill was so that we don't interrupt what's going on in other places. What I've brought forward in this bill is not a blueprint of how to do this in every county. I brought forward a blueprint that works in my county right now, that we're trying to figure out what the school is to teach people how to build the blueprint. So it's almost like building the degree program, and that's why we're trying to build it in a way that works. And so everyone's questions all really hit to the heart of what we're trying to do. It's not upset, the apple cart or turn over the apple cart. I don't know. I'm making stuff up. But not not ruin those things while we try to do a positive thing. Mhmm. Yeah.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Rep Waters Evans was next.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So we have we just passed out of the house and sent over to the senate bill that came out of this committee about government accountability and more than just like the reports and stuff that we get. But actually, our hope is to work accountability measures and sort of checkpoints of seeing how successful programs are as we move through time. You know what I mean? And so instead of five years from now being like, I wonder if that worked. Instead, we have things that we can look at and check-in. This seems like it might be a good opportunity in this bill to have some check ins and say, Okay, we can look in two years. We're going to look at these specific things. I don't know if you're open to that. I think this would be a good opportunity to get that worked right into the legislation itself. Your input would be valuable since you do have some questions and you do. It seems like, you know, and you know, the group of sheriffs, maybe everybody could have some. I mean, we don't want to get everybody's input, but maybe we do and just see what are some things that we want to identify those potential hiccups before we get there and to say, what would success look like two years from now or three years from now in the middle of this five year program? That seems like it would get us to a better place, or like a good place. So it's not panic in five years, like, oh, no, what, what have we done? Or, oh, yay, We had a lot of success. Now we wish everybody could do it. And then my other thought was that, you know, everyone's talking about this county and regionalization and how to make that work for our state. And I don't. There are a lot of questions about whether it can, but I'm wondering if we start involving other counties in this, then are we kind of de facto setting up that kind of county system without even like if we say, Okay, that other other counties can do this or other sheriff departments can do this, then all of a sudden we've got this system that everyone's creating on their own. And then that leads me to my next thought, which is

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: I have thought on that

[Chair Matthew Birong]: thought when you're done with this.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Do you? I know we're on the train. So then my next thought was, if we do this, then do we say, Okay, do we set a point where we say this is we're going to set up a blueprint and draw a map for not a literal map, that's education committee. But you know what I mean? Like a blueprint for anybody who's trying to work on this or who wants to work on this so that if it comes to the point where other counties and other departments want to do it, then they can all be following the same path. It's it's not disjointed and. And. You know, confusing.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I got a long list.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: All right. Hold on.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. So my thought on that last thought was switching my chair hats now to the co chair of the regional county governance study committee is a template like this could be something that that committee looks like, especially since we set that committee in its new existence up to exist for two years. Yeah. It could look at the evolution of this project and have a conversation about whether or not components or the structure could be applied into these formats, the recommendations I found. So I see a very pain overlay to the intent in here. We're confuted.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: May I just respond? Know.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Yes. Yeah, of course. I got a

[Chair Matthew Birong]: long list. We'll see your other

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: We have the ability And then you're I believe, to do everything that is in this bill, and we are and we are doing this.

[Chief Gary Evans (Brattleboro Police Department)]: I agree.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: The one thing that's different is how it's paid. It's getting into this to the county tax.

[Rep. Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: It's through our through our ability to contract. You know, I have an advisory council and and, you know, and they are advisory to the sheriff. But sheriff could say, I'm not gonna take your advice. I'm gonna do what they want, then they're gonna pull their money. And so it really does have some some power. But just just so you all know that that the the contract system does allow us to do everything that this bill talks about except the the way that it's it's paid.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Rabbi?

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Yeah, I was thinking back to the House bill that we passed, H-seven 62, related to the County Government Study Committee. And we've brought up a lot of valid questions and concerns. And that instead of S-two 55 being a standalone bill that looks at a program for a standalone county, that this may be better for this committee group to further look into and figure out how better work out the mechanics of a pilot and not only own into one. More of a statement.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: guess a couple of questions. I feel like there is a lot of evaluation built into the bill. So it's more of a comment, from what I can understand, that's part of the scope of the bill. So I think that that's my understanding of how it's set up, which is good. And then my question for you is, it sounds like you're bringing up some thoughts that you want us to consider as we're reviewing the bill and then potentially the reports that were, I believe, also in the bill that would be coming to us once a year. And also, in that context, it sounds like you support the bill, but I just want to make sure I'm clear about that too.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: It's a Wyndham County bill. And what I'm concerned about, as I reflect on my thoughts, is this thing goes out further with some of the issues that we've had countywide in different counties. Some things to think about that you're setting a precedent separate now, you know, will you know, because if people if counties come to you next year, you know, their their circumstances may be different than than what sheriff Andersons are. As I've said, it's taken a lot of of time and work to to get people aligned on this and and to support it. But is there a precedence that or an unintended consequence for down the road that you may wanna think about now, particularly around the the tax piece of it?

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: I thought it was also in there. Pardon me? My understanding. I thought the the funding of it was also in the bill.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: Well, that's that's probably one of the the biggest questions I have just because of our history in Lamoille is about bringing in the county tax system. We just bill we we bill our our towns quarterly.

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: I guess and just one other comment. The vaccine is, an important project, I wouldn't want us to get too far off into making it so big that we drag it down and not let this happen. So I'm hoping that whatever we work out allows the pilot to go forward and see how it goes. I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: just wanted to ask if you'd be willing to submit written comments with your concerns on them so we can further study them as we go through this bill?

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: Yes. Would it be permissible? Probably what I would do, if it's okay, is get together with sheriff Anderson so that if we can work some things out where I understand them better, then I'll have less to comment on.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That would be excellent. I always encourage people to get together and try to work things out before we get opposing sides here that we have to make a decision on things that aren't really in our subject matter expertise.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: Yeah, and I realized I'm commenting on something that hasn't occurred yet. And, you know, and and and so it's more of my concern for the future than it is about, Sheriff Anderson's ability to pull this off.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But honestly, hindsight in this case is foresight because you have so much institutional knowledge of the law enforcement system in the state of Vermont. And I think to not take your concerns seriously would be a detriment. So I appreciate that you're giving us some thought as to what will this look like, not necessarily saying it won't work. But you're looking at it from a statewide perspective that something that works in Wyndham County may not necessarily work in Lamoille County or vice versa. And I think for us to only listen to Wyndham County would be a detriment also. So, I think this is a really important discussion and I would love to have it in writing so I can refer back to it later.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: Very

[Unidentified Committee Member]: well. Thank you.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Rep Yes. Coffin? Yeah. What I have is just a comment more on the reporting because, you know, in in here in the evaluation says beginning in 2027 on or before January 31 of each year for the reports, and it lists what they have what the council needs to report on. We could add a sixth, seventh, eighth, whatever to add to the report that what input has the Windham County Sheriff, this council received from other counties in how it would work in their areas or not work in their areas or what other input they've received, positive, negative from other counties. If that was in the report and then we actually met with sheriff Anderson or where whoever's next, if you're not, to see how this is going and what input we've gotten from they've gotten from other counties so that we're not basing it only on one county. That we get their input already, and it's mandated in the legislation.

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: It's basically what number five says.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: It says recommendations for improvement, but it doesn't say from that's what I'm saying from if there's recommendations from other counties. From other sheriffs. We're gonna pull that info. I I understand what you're Or Boyden?

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: I don't know what's out there. Just back to the government study committee. It just feels like we're getting duplicative here. They also have charges and reporting to review the role and authority of elected county officials in their apartments, reduction of duplicative or conflicting public services and promotion of opportunities, balance of availability and cost of services across municipalities in each county. We're getting very similar here.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah, no, they definitely are intersecting

[Rep. Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Yeah, so So back to maybe the mining mine in some way.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Rev Nugent, you're almost gone, Sheriff.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: Trying to slide off.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: I

[Rep. Kate Nugent]: guess this is more of a comment anyway. But I think that, yeah, there's obvious intersection with the need for looking at regional efforts. And to me, the difference is this is an actual pilot of seeing how something could work, whereas the regional study is studying what exists now. I think it's actually pretty complementary in a way. You have something to work with. It's hard to react when you don't have a draft, and this is kind of like a draft.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: All right. Anything directly for Cheaper? No. Thank you so much, sir. I look forward to you and sheriff Anderson having a conversation, helping us refine this program.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: Thank you. Take care. Mister Hanford. Welcome. Please. That's not even Hello.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Vice Chair Lisa Hango)]: Yeah. Welcome. Thank you. Josh Hanford, Vermont, League of Cities and Towns for the record. You testified on this bill a couple times over in the senate and are supportive of it, for a couple reasons.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: I think most importantly, for us, we're looking at this it's not necessarily about the police servicing. The opportunity here is to figure out if this is a new model that can work for regionalization that could address lots of needs that smaller municipalities can't fulfill themselves, and we don't have a good structure in the state to deliver those. So it it's really the, promise that this might show us a new way to do something that we're most interested in because the two municipal authorities we have now to sort of do agreements without the municipalities and act regionally don't seem to really do the trick. We've got, intermunicipal agreements, like a cooperative agreement and municipal corporations, they form a whole new municipality. And there's something in the middle that maybe we're missing, and this may prove to be a model that could be duplicated, could be tweaked, could be used in other counties. I think what's important about this and and some of the concerns maybe you heard earlier is I don't see this as something that the league would support expanding to any county if the municipalities weren't asking for it. The the difference here is the municipalities in Wyndham County, many of them have said we need something like this. We've always been able to contract with the sheriff, but the contracts are just that. It's a business arrangement. And that doesn't work. In some cases, it works. In some cases, there's a a lack of of state police in Wyndham County that cover a whole huge county with less of a police force than even the town of Rattleboro has. So there's clearly challenges. And so the communities, the municipalities that Sheriff Anderson has spoken to are the ones asking for this. And so I think that before any rollout in any county, regardless of this successful, we would prefer a bottom up approach rather than a top down. And like, so whatever county you're in, the municipalities that are feeling they can't either afford their own police force, the state police isn't offering it, the contract situation they have with their county sheriff isn't sufficient. They're asking for something different, and then that momentum says, well, what? And and and maybe this pilot proves to be a type of model that either it's Lamoille or any other county could say, hey, let's look at this. Because it's only those municipalities that opt in that are choosing to pay a new fee, a new county tax rate that have to pay that. They're looking at this as better than the existing contract that they've always had. So that's why VLCT supports it. I think that it is very true, the conversations you've had about the county regional governance study, there is an overlap here. I think that with the reporting that's been built in, that is exactly the type of things that the county regional governance study should be looking at every year and talking about, is this a model that we should build on, make it so it could be something that could be leveraged in other counties and for other services, could be built upon. The county regional governance study could look at all sorts of things and ways to do this, but to have a pilot that is active and is discreet, I think would be an advantage to that study group to evaluate rather than millions of ideas you could pull out and people can be bringing to you to say, look at this, look at that. Think that Lamoille County Sheriff brought up a few good questions around, well, what if after a year, this is seeming to meet the needs and other people want to jump in and do it? Do we have to wait the five years? I I didn't see that. I thought I see the sunset is a way to we pass new legislation and new authorities. We don't sometimes it might be hard to pull that back. And so the sunset is like a way to affirm that in order for this to continue, we have to say success, thumbs up, we can do it now and it could broaden. And so that sunset is a relief hour or a governor case, it doesn't work. You have to affirm that you want to do this more, but I don't know if there is through the reports or some other way to state that, if other counties want to follow this path, before the five years is up, it'd be support supportive of letting them do that as well. But I think it's it's really gotta be, ground up. I don't think that a sheriff in any county could be like, we're doing this, unless they've talked to the municipalities and they're saying, we want this as an alternative, or at least we want you to explore it as an alternative. I'm under the impression that the bill doesn't preclude that from happening. A yearly report and a chance for the legislature to look at this each year, if you really did have any particular county that was saying, hey, we've actually been talking to a lot of our municipalities and they're supportive of this as well. We want to start pursuing it. Could you give us that authority to add on to this pilot? I don't think anything in the bill precludes that discussion from happening next year or following year. That's all I really have to say. The league obviously representing all municipalities has a stake in this regional and county government, county governance work. We too want to see a chance for regionalization to successful and add value, reduce costs, solve problems, and not just result in another layer of government that municipalities have to go through, but doesn't increase efficiency, reduce costs and deliver more services. And so, this is a new opportunity that we wanna support to see if this is a path we should

[Chair Matthew Birong]: go to. Simple as that, really.

[Sheriff Roger Marcoux Jr. (Lamoille County Sheriff)]: Anything from VLCT?

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Guess they got it all out of their system here, Mark. You were released, Sure. Thank you. Alright. Thank you very much.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Happy to conversation. Again, and I'm I'm sure there'll be more. This is an important bill even though it's so focused on one one county because the opportunities could be beneficial to the whole state if they get it

[Rep. V. L. Coffin IV]: right. All

[Chair Matthew Birong]: right. Any discussion or comment from the committee on this one before we take a break?

[Rep. Michael Morgan]: Seeing no hands. Okay. We will

[Chair Matthew Birong]: be back at 11:15. We are going to do our first slug of work, introduction walkthrough, and witness testimony on s two zero six, fact relating to licensure of early childhood educators by the office of professional regulation at