Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: Thank you. Welcome

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: back this afternoon, House Government Operations and Military Affairs. We are here with Sheriff Mark Anderson to discuss It's 02:55.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Thank you.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: for the record, Mark Anderson, Windham County Sheriff. I I don't know how much more the committee needs to hear, and I'm really happy to answer any questions. I feel that we've talked about this quite a bit, and having heard some of the questions from committee members of other witnesses, everyone seems to have a good grasp of what we're doing. I understood Sheriff Marcoux had some questions in his testimony. Happy to respond to those questions, if you would like me to.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yes, please.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: And notes are on my phone. Perfect. So, one of the first questions, I'm going to paraphrase this questions in my words as I understood them. One was, if the bill changed the basis for county taxation or special assessment, the short answer is no. It's not really changing anything in statutory law. So, we look to use existing statutory law for a lot of reasons. It was a way that we could navigate these issues that Sheriff Marco was concerned about without upsetting the system, which is what has happened in prior attempts. So, we're intentional on avoiding that. The second was, let's see, the impact on the county tax structure. If there was an impact on the county tax structure, no. What this does, you heard reference to the Supreme Court case of Stoe v. Lamoille, the Supreme Court. If I were to summarize it in one sentence, the Supreme Court says the county can raise money for what the legislature says the county can raise money for. So, this would be saying the county can do this in this structured system that gives the towns input. So, that's the way that we're able to navigate some of the sticking points that case from 1976, I believe, said this is an issue in a way that comes with the support of the towns. I'll remind you that this comes with the support of 17 towns from Wyndham County. So, we were really intentional in saying, how do we give them a seat at the table in a conversation they've historically felt out of, and in the contract conversation they are part of. So we're trying to mimic these things in a similar way. The other question, there's a limitation in existing statute of how much money the county can raise. It's 5¢ on the grand list. The current Wyndham County tax is about 1¢. So there's still quite a bit of room if the assistant judges wanted to do something. But again, it would need to be supported. In the structure of this bill, it would be the towns telling the assistant judges how much it's going to raise. And that will be treated more as a special assessment than a tax. So, there's a nuance there. But at the end of the day, those are features and factors of that question. There's a question on the grand list being the county taxation method. That is true, that doesn't change for the purposes of the county tax. None of this impacts existing statutory law. What this does impact is the special assessment related to raising fundings for the public safety portions of this bill. So with that, there's a special assessment that would be assessed to towns. The way I would explain it is everyone's used to seeing an invoice. Line item one would say this is the county tax. Line item two for towns that are participating would then have an additional assessment for the public safety services. So, that would be itemized out effectively. Discussion about vehicles, equipment, who takes possession of the property if things go sideways to ends. We're using existing statutes in Title 24 that already addresses this. So, 24, Section two ninety C and Title 24, Section two ninety one A, Sub B three, that deals with it, which really we negotiate this out. And so, there's still going to be a contract. What we're doing is eliminating, what's currently in my county 15 contracts, if all 17 towns were to join, it'd be 17 contracts, or I shouldn't say we're eliminating it. We're reducing that from 15 to 17 contracts down to one that's negotiated with this body. So, we still maintain and preserve all of the nature of how it works right now, but we allow the county to be the one raising the funding and negotiating on behalf of the representative governance body. There's a question of, if it's successful, can other counties do it? As designed, this is only for Wyndham County. I'm not here to say that it is like I'm trying to keep other people from doing it. I'm saying, you need to do the work. And there's a lot of stakeholder work that goes into this. What brought us here to the legislature with this bill was three years worth of public meetings, meeting with town administrators, select boards, town clerks, members of the public, public meetings. We did a lot of work. And I think we have a roadmap that was effective, and that could probably be consolidated into one year's worth of work. But we had to make some mistakes along the way to realize we missed some people. So what we did was learned a lot in the last three years to come up with how to do this effectively. There was a comment or a question posed, I forget which, basically why would we want to do this as a pilot project? And the reality is, I don't know that this is going to be right. In fact, we designed this to find flaws, to find errors, things we never expected. And we designed this for when it does break, for it to fall back to what it is today. So the ground floor is what we know and what we're comfortable with. We're not changing anything in statute for that reason. If we did a really good job and we're right, we'll come back to the legislature and say, Hey, we think we actually found a way, can we actually codify this into statute? If we find that we were 80% along the way, and these are the 20% we could not come to resolution, we come back to the legislature and present those items to say, we couldn't come to reconciliation with problem X, whatever that may be that we can't think of today. But really what we're trying to do is empower this group of people to say, let's make decisions, let's make it in the messy democratic way that Vermont is capable of doing. And then let's write it down and report back of this is what we did, and maybe that won't be favored. But that's okay, because really, as I wrap my head around this, what we're doing is a study, but a study in practice. So, that was all intentional to say, let's not put too many guardrails on the group. Let's let them make decisions, but let's not at the or let's make it not Mark making a decision. This is going to be the people who are raising the funds that are making the decisions into our other governance models. I truly believe if this were successful, if we actually did thread the needle, find all the solutions and we just don't know it yet, It would probably be about two years before we know that and be able to answer it. So, at the end of the day, is it a five year project? Yes, because that gives us three years to show it. But right now, and for the last thirty, forty, fifty years, we've been demonstrating the service. We do it through contracts. It's the governing mechanism that I'm trying to change with this bill, which is what we're ultimately building in this. So, we are setting up governance in the first year. If this passed tomorrow, we would be pulling together all the towns to see if they're interested. If they are interested, we would start that. All of that's before any money is even spent. It's not upsetting any delivery services, because towns have existing contracts right now. So, with that, we find out who is committed to it under the structure that is codified in the language. And then we're able to really start planning organizational meetings, actually building the organization and seeing where the rubs are and where they're not. So within that first two years, actually think the operational portion of what we need to examine will be done. But part of my belief of why this should be a five year project, I want to have a thing that people can look at and say, we want to continue that initiative. And most people don't know or care about the governance portion of it. They care about what they're getting out. They care about the outcomes and the results. So I wanna show them the thing that they can embrace and support. And what I'm telling them, the professional eye on this, is really it's the governance. It's not how we do it. Our training's great, our resources work. We have the things as best as anyone in Vermont has the things. So I'm confident that governance is the portion that needs to be addressed. The question of unintended consequences, if we were to do this, does it set precedence? Because this is all session law, I don't see any precedence. Troubled to find anything that would demonstrate precedents based on a pilot project that said, well, we did this as a pilot project in Wyndham County, so now 13 other counties come in tomorrow and say we wanna do it too. I I haven't found a pilot project that has demonstrated a precedence that the legislature could not say, no, we're just not doing that. We wanna learn from this. But as I've already told you, we're trying to create a road map that would learn some lessons along the way, make it a little bit more efficient for everyone's time. If we have a better way, great. If it falls apart, we revert back to what it is today anyways. And so that's all baked into the bill, as well. There's a question if other counties did participate, what safeguards would be needed. I'm not recommending other counties participate. I'm not saying because I don't want other counties to participate. This is not my ball. You need to do the work. And so what's good in Chittenden County or Bennington County, Lamoille County, Franklin County? Like, I know my county. I know it really well. And I know things about your communities, but I don't know them well enough to walk in and have them greet me and say, let's talk about that bill. My community, I run into that problem all the time. So we're having that dialogue and that's part of what I say you need to do the work. We need to build the stakeholders, the community engagement for it. There was a question of it.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Before you go on, Robert Hooper had a question.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: You really think you can fall apart? I I bet you're gonna build a great roadmap. This possibly not going to work out? It feels like you're lining everything up the way you're supposed to.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: I have a high degree of confidence that we know what the problem is, and there's about fifty years worth of studies that talk about the problem in some way, shape or form, they all come back to governance. There's been several attempts in the last twenty years to do regionalization in a variety of different ways. They usually break down because of governance. The problem that we have always failed at every time we've tried regionalization, we try to deliver the service. So I'm trying to attack the governance portion of it, and nobody wants to talk about it. And a bunch of government operations policy wonks, well, you've seen this. So at the end of the day, do I think it's going to work? Yes. I have a high degree of confidence, but it's been fifty years, there's been many attempts. And so I don't want to come into this arrogant, cocky, or as a know it all.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: I see it.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: And so I want to make sure that if I'm wrong, that I can stand before you in five years and say, we were wrong and this is what we learned and use our mistakes, failures, and errors to learn and grow.

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: Well, can appreciate your thinking on that because I was like, wow, you keep mentioning how it's very possible that you don't succeed. I don't believe that. Bet you will.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: Think this is, as far as I can tell, this is the first attempt that's attempted to solve the governance side of it. I shouldn't say the first, but I mean, the existing statute has been identified as problematic, which is why we're approaching it this way.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: You want to continue on with the rest of the points that you had?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: Yes, I think I only have two or three, and they're the easy ones. So, why would we terminate in five years if it didn't work well? Because it's a pilot project that I'm not trying to forecast that I actually know the answers. If it's working well, I think I'm going to have enough people showing up to say, we need to continue this, and it will require future active legislation. If it fails, then there's no need to come back and ask for it to end. And actually, I've already addressed all the other ones. So I think that solves all of the questions Sheriff Markku asked. I did have a conversation with him last week, as well as this morning. And I think that we are in a good spot as best as I can tell. So I'm happy to respond to any questions if there are any.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Great, thank you. It is Wyndham County's project that's being asked for in this bill. So ultimately, your confidence and your explanations are good for this committee. It's what we need to hear, and it's really helpful to hear what other people across the state have to say about it, and hopefully they can build on that if they want to have something similar to this in the future in their own region. Like you said, I think every region has to do their own work. I have one question, and then we've got Rep Coffin. Was that a hand? Yes. Rep. Pinsonault? Yes. Coffin, Pinsonault, Boyden? Yes. No. Okay. My question is really simple. Do I understand that the Sheriff's Advisory Committee met this past week and had a vote of some kind? Could you tell us about that?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: So a brief explanation of the Sheriff's Advisory Committee. The sheriff is a constitutional officer elected by the people every four years. And so, I don't answer to boards or groups of people, except as we would conduct business. So, I took office, I said, this is kind of a lonely place to be the sole person trying to come up with the policy for Windham County. How about I find some people from my community who can at least advise me? So, we built a group of people that does that. We created the county officials as ex officio officers. So, the assistant judges, the high bailiff have a seat on it if they want to, which they do. And then a number of members of the public from various communities. And they're all volunteers. It's advisory only, but it's a tremendous group of people who come together and hit me with questions and thought processes I just never would have thought of. So, we did meet on Monday. We meet once a month each year. You're all welcome to come. Not technically an open meeting. We treat it like it's an open meeting, because there's not really any capacity. It's just a group of people getting together. So, we did meet, we talked about this bill. We've talked about this bill many times. The group is supportive of it, because it's not a formal organization. It's not like there's a formal vote. There's not like formed meetings or anything like that, except that we meet the first Monday of each month. So, and we take the summer off.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Great, thank you. Rep Coffin.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: I just, comment and observation because of some of the concerns that were raised in our last. I I do like because of the reporting and evaluation and what's listed in there as far as financial statements, service delivery, the challenges encountered, but also the recommendations for improvement. All of that, after that first report, if other counties were looking to say, hey, maybe this is something we need or we would like to look into, They could actually learn from this report because it's public knowledge being, you know, being given to the, our house committee here and the senate government ops. I think that would actually give them a leg up and say, this is what's working. This isn't what's working. But coming back to us every year with that, I think, gives you a better chance of success too.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: I think I was accused by former Senator White of talking to everyone who was willing to listen to me, and in some cases, some who were not. I have no issue sharing this. We thought it was appropriate to say who we're going to formally report this to, but I believe, I truly do believe and I'm confident we found a way to do this. The problem will always be a human problem. So, we will never know how to deal with human problems until we're presented them. But with that, my intent is to talk to the other sheriffs and say, this is what we learned or didn't learn. If we make errors, let's learn from them. And I'm a strong believer in continuous improvement. So, my plan is to follow that as long as the voters will have me.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Rep. Pinsonault? So you may

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: have answered this in some of your other testimony, I didn't look back at my notes, but there's 17 towns within Woodbury.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: We have 23 towns in Wyndham County, three towns have a police department.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Oh,

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: town has a police department, I'm sorry, One town does not have a police department for the town, but it has a village that has the police department and it gets a little harder to explain from there. But at the end of the day, it exists. We have 17 15 towns that I currently contract with, 17 towns interested in this project, two towns that were so small, they said, this just, we probably won't participate. So, thanks for letting us know, but we're good. So, we do see this as pretty much everyone.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: And do each of those towns have representatives on your advisory committee?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: We've offered them. No, they do not. It's a volunteer group, so some people come, some people go. But we're certainly open to public input. I woo them with food.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: You mentioned that likely within two years of this, you'll have a lot of information and knowledge about how it's going. And right now in the bill, Coffin, kind of our retention list, there's a standard annual report that is issued annually, and then also a more comprehensive evaluation that is issued at the very end of the pilot. I'm wondering if you would have the capacity to do a preliminary comprehensive evaluation in the middle of the pilot period. Right now, the final report is in 2033, so maybe 2030 or so. I

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: do not see any issue in bringing forward a preliminary report before 2033. Do we have the capacity? We'll find it.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: I don't

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: have the capacity to do anything right now when we're here doing that. Yes, we'll figure it out if that's needed. But again, I think the real work is going to actually be mostly finalized. And I mean, let's be real, if I can give a report two, three years in to say, we think that the governance is the real solution to this whole problem, here is a roadmap. And you say, let's terminate the pilot and let's make this permanent. Okay. So that might actually be a nice milestone in the middle that we say this was a success as opposed to wait five years for success. So, have no issue with that.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Any additional questions at the table? Okay, thank you very much for coming all the way back in to answer those concerns or respond to those concerns.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: Thank you committee, I really appreciate your time and thank you madam chair.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Welcome. So we will definitely talk about this some more. I don't know if you all want to have a discussion now while we're waiting for our chair to return. Why

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: not? Yeah.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Why not? We have one new suggestion on the table, and that's an interim report. Did you have

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: a date in mind for that? I wrote down 2030. Yeah, open to suggestions. What

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: do you think? Sooner or later?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: I think the midpoint makes a lot of sense. I don't have a calendar in front of me and I'm kind of a visual person, so I'm just trusting that it's

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: a five or six.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: The pilot will take shape in, I think it was 07/01/2026, saying that it passes, this session. And then you have to do all the work to set it all up. So you really won't have a lot of information until, say, 2027. So then, the final report is in 2033. You would be three years in at 2030 And or then the final report would then be three years later at 2033.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: That makes a lot of sense to me, so yes.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Did you have the time Yeah,

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: I was just here in

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: calendar, so yes.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I it

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: was probably a while for

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: this time of the year that you thought it would be more appropriate to have a report delivered to us based on whether some additional legislation need to be working on budgets.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: Yeah, think

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: I'm to think about that because the annual report is due in January, January 31 annually. And then this more comprehensive evaluation currently says December 31. Maybe it would be helpful to kind of space that out and say that it's due in November. That way you're not at one point in one year or two years, you don't have two large reports due kind of a month away from each other. It'll give you another month, two months away from each other. And then, it's also before the legislative session, so legislators can read the report before the session starts and then be ready with bills with any legislative recommendations.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Right, because we have to take into account drafting deadlines, which are often December 1, depending on which year or the biennium that is.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: It's maybe like November 15.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I was even thinking maybe November 1, just to get a drafting request in or to flesh it out if you need to meet with if anybody needs to meet with anybody else to develop any legislation, if there's something necessary. How about October 31? The one. Brett Pinsonault. I'm just looking at this, so

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: my suggestion, I don't know if this would be appropriate or not, but make that be on or before whatever date the council shall submit a preliminary comprehensive evaluation or a midterm, mid year, mid The one in November. The one in November.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: And then take

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: this B and make that C.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So C is the final one. What happens here is we give the idea to Legg Council and they write the new section.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: It would done before the Right. And they would put it

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: wherever it needs to go and renumber everything for us. So that's something we can flag for Tim and he can get it back to us the next time we talk about the bill. Rep. Hooper. Oh, Rep. Morgan. Oh, sorry. Sheriff Anderson.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: If I might suggest maybe even the September. The reason I say that is because this is going to be a board made up by town members who are going into budget season September to October, November, December, We could have their work on that line I would try to encourage it anyways but at the end of

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: the day I think September would probably be back on

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: time to get back from summer breaks and engaged again.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Really appreciate that, thank you. So, we can ask our attorney that. Who was it? Mike Morgan, you had your hand

[Sheriff Mark Anderson (Windham County Sheriff)]: as No,

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: just a general comment. Think it's a bold, decisive move by sheriff Anderson to jump out, put himself out there, and do this. I I personally see only good cutting out of it. There'll be some bumps in the road, but then I think it could be a good template for others who follow suit, and it

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: would

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: give people like Cheaper Barco a chance to sit back and look at it, feel good from it. I I always stand outside to it. I mean, it's not going be flawless, there's nothing this world is, but I think there's opportunity there. You're pretty flawless.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Robert Hooper, did you have something That's

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: it, actually.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Hi. Anybody else want to comment?

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Yeah, so will we ask the Ledge Council to draft something up first that we can look at next week?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: If you all agree to just a simple amendment. What about any other changes that there is there anything else people want to change about the plan?

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Well, now that he mentioned that, just do we, if we decide that we're not going to end it at the third, two thousand and thirty, and we want to continue to December 2033, do we want to change that date so that, like you said, that people will be budgeting their, We want to change that date too.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I think it's an end of the year date. Yes. So we probably want to keep it at the end of

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: a calendar year. Yeah, either way the pilot ceases to exist 06/30/2034. So after that, if Hooper is issued, there's still about six months. Okay, perfect.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: That's for the track. Yep.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Good catch. Any other comments, questions, concerns? If Okay, we

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: send this to council and they bring it back to us and then we hear it, would we also warrant for a vote?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Yes, we will, but not before next week. Okay. We

[Robert Hooper (Member)]: wouldn't have

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: to list.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Likelihood of voting on it Tuesday of next week, and it gives Tim time to do whatever else he's doing in this and bring it back to us for one last discussion. And then it would be, if we approve it, it would be with amendment. So, it would have to go back to the Senate after this. Great. Any further questions?

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Okay, well, great. Thank

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: you. Yes, did hear that if we pass it, you will be the bill reporters. Very good. I guess that's it. Nick, you can take us off live please and we will be

[Michael Morgan (Member)]: back