Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: So good. Alrighty. Welcome to the Senate Committee on Government Operations Committee meeting of Wednesday, 02/25/2026. Up first for our consideration is s one ninety two, an act relating to municipal authority to So Alright. Alright.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: What's this accurate? We're still on.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I think we're still on. Municipal authority to compel the cleaning or repairs of premises. I was expecting to take testimony from the president of Vermont Bankers Association, but I don't see him in the room. So we'll move to Tucker unless people have no questions, we can move to the rest of witnesses. We did walk through this. We had a couple days worth of testimony, and I don't see any hands up.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: No. I would

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: just say I did I did see Chris Lily outside at one point. So do you want I don't know if he's there.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: Now I can do them now. We'll swap roles today.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I'll just do a quick walk.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: And you might wanna call it up on your computers if you don't get far with it. I know it's written as well somewhere.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: We have now having a draft if it's written. No. Need. And our act duty is one ninety two from the court. You should have a copy there. Oh, well,

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I'm being I'm getting this place about who since it's the original bill. I have another one here. Oh, that's okay. Thanks, Lexi. Does anybody need a copy?

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: No.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: No. I think I have one thing. But if I don't, I I have it right here. Why don't I need to?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Let's just give Mr. Dealey a couple of another minute. Number. Number. Okay. Well, with that, and I don't see Senator Weeks or Representative Christie Morris, so Samantha.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Me, oh, me or Tucker? Me?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: You, I guess, and then we'll have Tucker I weigh in on

[Former Sen. Jeanette White]: feel like we saw so much

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: of these, so much more of these down in the last sentence.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Thank you. So for the record, my name is Samantha Sheehan. I am the municipal policy and advocacy specialist for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, and I'm happy to talk about s one ninety two today. So thank you for considering this bill. It largely reflects a bill introduced in the house last session, which we, supported and worked with the sponsor of, and, think this helps address a very specific, but very important problem that happens in some Vermont communities. And provide some remedy to problematic properties, including those that are abandoned and uninhabitable or and or have suffered a sort of devastating event such as a structure fire or a major flood or or, erosive event and sort of cannot be occupied and must be addressed for the safety of the immediate neighbors and the community as a whole. And this does happen. It doesn't happen everywhere all the time, but it happens with enough frequency that like, we do've heard from your own constituents about properties that fall into these categories that neighbors are seeking to be remedied and addressed through them, through municipal authority.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: So

[Samantha Sheehan]: I wanna highlight one subsection of the bill that is particularly important to us, which is in section one subsection c, this provides that the municipality could recover expenses that the municipality incurs through the same manner and to the same extent as taxes assessed on the grant list. And so, that's in that's a really important provision because that's what you're changing, really. Because now municipalities can pass and enforce, like, vacant building ordinances or ordinances related to certain particular hazards being kept on a property that are not allowed. Typically, I so Brattleboro has a vacant building ordinance, and Burlington has a vacant building ordinance. Typically, are used to maintain, like, fire safety and make sure that fire marshals and firefighters have access to the building, as well as to ensure that the buildings are secure and not likely to have, you know, adventurous, like, teenagers breaking into them in an easy and apparent way, and to prevent sort of pests from being out of control and unaddressed, certain types of pests that could be dangerous and could impact neighboring properties. But it's important to say, like, there are legitimate reasons for buildings to fall vacant. Like, they could be in probate court. They could be slated for redevelopment. Their redevelopment permits could be under appeal. Like, sometimes the property owner very much does not want the building to be vacant, but it is. It's still important that some municipal regulation apply so that people visiting in and around that building are kept safe.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: So undercut. Mhmm.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: It's vacant and blighted. It's not just vacant. And what was the other town that has other building ordinances? So I tried to Because Springfield this is based on the Springfield ordinance Okay. And and the charter change. And we had enough other communities where that have had similar problematic properties.

[Samantha Sheehan]: So the ones I know of are Brownboro and Burlington. That's not to say that comprehensive. Bennington is considering one now. And, you know, different municipal ordinances seek to resolve different issues. Right? So the center's question actually brings me to our one minor but really important suggested change

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: Okay.

[Samantha Sheehan]: That I've discussed with one of our municipal attorneys. So we are always concerned about potential constitutional challenges, both because we don't want a municipal official of courts to infringe upon a constitutional right. We also don't want the sort of product of of municipal legislative body or municipal planning commission under, you know, sort of seeking to leverage or use the authority of this law to set up a constitutional challenge. And whenever we're sort of talking about enforcement in this category, well, any sort of enforcement restriction or regulatory regime on property, that's something we look carefully for in changes to state law. So in that area of concern, so subsection I, it begins The Roman Act I? Yeah, the Roman I. It begins the legislative body determines so this is under powers enumerated, I think. Yeah.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Finished. Yep.

[Samantha Sheehan]: The legislative body determines to be vacant, flooded, or damaging to the general appearance of the municipality. So we've discussed very similar language in these words specifically in a number of legislative proposals over the last couple years in the tax in successive tax sale reform bills in h seventy three, which was introduced in the house last year, in another bill, which number I forget, before the house general committee, that has to do with uninhabitable properties. And we find vacant, to be challenging because, how long is it is something empty before it's vacant?

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Mhmm.

[Samantha Sheehan]: And we find blighted to be sometimes not well received for very good reasons, but also problematic because it's a subjective adjective and it could be applied in a subjective way.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: That's what we heard from the committee as well. Okay, great. Did you just say General Parent? Sorry, Christy Morris. May I just interrupt and ask, Lynn, were Christy Morris and David Weeks invited to this, and did they say yes? David Weeks said yes. Christy Morris didn't respond. Oh, she was invited. He he he sorry. Yeah. He just didn't know any about it. Okay. That's great. So I just asked him to get his little thing.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: You did text him?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I tested it.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: To

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: So what was the suggestion?

[Samantha Sheehan]: The suggestion is unfit for human habitation. Oh. Or abandoned. Yes. If abandoned, it's defined as well.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: It's defined in statute is my guess.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Is it? It's not.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: No. It's not. Oh, interesting.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Yeah. President Rutland District.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Is there a definition somewhere for a fit for human habitation? There's a good definition in a subsection law, which I can send you, but it pertains to mobile homes. So mobile homes in parks that are abandoned and become unfit for human habitation, but the mobile home is owned. And so the park owner has to resolve that. There's a sort of long standing provision in the law that defines unfit for human habitation and allows the mobile home park owner to seek an order of a judge to declare it unfit. And so there is a definition for unfit. Okay.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: But there's also a judicial declaration involved in that.

[Samantha Sheehan]: It has been well, yeah, in that provision that pertains to mobile home park owners.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Yeah.

[Samantha Sheehan]: On the language damaging to the general appearance of the municipality, Our the our attorney who I spoke with today I had a concern about this, and our attorney agreed, actually, the suggestion is just to strike that. We appreciate the sort of effort, but we think that may be the most right to set up an appeal or a constitutional challenge, which could be very serious and sort of end everyone in court. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: So that's our feedback. So your feedback is the unfit for human habitation or abandoned, and second one? Strike damaging to the general appearance. Yeah, right. Indris, do you feel that interest should be spelled out both economic and physical?

[Samantha Sheehan]: We feel because the purpose of this power enumerated is to create an opportunity for enforcement against a person who maintains private property rights. The more you define in the most objective way, the more confident a municipality could proceed with an enforcement action and the less likely they would be to misapply the authority or be challenged in the enforcement of the authority.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: So are you saying the more we define it, the better? Yes. That's what I think

[Samantha Sheehan]: I missed. Okay. Which so if you Because when we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: went through this with Springfield, we a, I do not believe we've not had a constitutional challenge on this in Springfield, but we're about to hear from Springfield. Oh, maybe we have. No. Correct. Okay. So we haven't had a constitutional challenge. And the second thing is the injured the injuries were both economic and possibly to an individual

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: With really challenging properties. Mhmm. We like

[Samantha Sheehan]: so we're we're saying strike vacant, replace with unfit for human habitation. There's an option b if if the committee prefers vacant or feels it's more specific to the intent of this change. Define vacant. Or Like, define a period of time. Define

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. So the second part of my the other part was could we say vacant and blighted so that they're they're both? Because I appreciate that some properties are vacant and are being held, but then they're probably not blighted if they're planning to be something done with them. But it was they get blighted and unfit for human. If you add

[Samantha Sheehan]: If it was and the and. Yeah. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Okay.

[Samantha Sheehan]: So Yeah. So the mobile home law is good. It works. It it has gone forward in a productive way that helps the other neighbors and community members in a mobile home park or cooperative. And that one, I'm almost positive on, like, speaking from memory, is abandoned and unfit. Is that definition?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: So we could look at

[Samantha Sheehan]: Lighted, like, just still feels, like, too squishy and, like, could I mean, what is like, my mind like, is my mind box blighted? He has a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: female voice. Right.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Yeah. Right. So but if you define it and you defined it in an objective way, it could be functional within a municipal ordinance.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Okay. Thanks, Samantha. Okay. Christie, try to sit this table if you'd like.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: It's such an honor to be here.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Well, it's an honor to have you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Good morning. Thrilled to have you. We based this, as you know, on Springfield law. Yes. On the ordinance. On the chart.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Yep, so for the record, Representative Christie Morris, Thomas Springfield. Yep. We're here to talk about, and I just heard some conversation about vacant, blighted, and unfit. I'd like to, on the record, say that there are some of our buildings that are not vacant, that fit that description. They're blighted, and they're unfit for human living, and there are people living there. It's true. Which is a problem because people are put in harm's way. There's you have a couple of businesses where there's raw sewage that is leaking from one floor 2nd Floor to the 1st. It has exposure to the elements, dilapidation, and we did pass our charter release within the last couple of years, trying to address vacant, lighted buildings, but we're blessed with some buildings that the owners are now willing to update, including addressing rubbish that just piles up outside. Senator Clarkson and I have taken her to a couple of sites I have photos. To visit, and it's concerning to the the inhabitants that live there. We just came across another one Monday night at a select board meeting that was brought to our attention that is on the outskirts of town. The owners are deceased. The children of the descendants no longer want anything to do with property because it really has very little value. And there are slaughters there living. It has no running water. It has sewage issues, wastewater issues. And then there's trash. It's it's dilapidated to some extent. It's concerning that there are people living there. It it I I can't tell you if there's children there. The first one, yes. The second one, I can't tell you if children are there or not because it was just brought to our attention and we are looking to address an inspection review of the property. But as you all know, these are very time consuming. In some cases, they get appealed by the owner. Example one, they get appealed by the owner and has to go through the court system all the way up to Superior. And there's people in harm's way, and it's an eyesore in the residents, we can't take action with the trash, that's a health complaint. We can deal with that, but then it's recovering cost. So we have an ordinance that will charge the owners to fix or address the trash and life that's on the property, if I can use that word. I'm a little nervous about it right now. We're open to the elements, and it's a refusal to comply. Even if we initiate the ordinance, there's penalties in there eventually. The court system is a little reluctant to confirm the $800 a day fine that can be solved if we get that extended. So they lower the penalty and there's no action taken. Senator Vyhovsky?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: Is the issue that they refuse to or that they can't? Because I can't imagine too many people that would choose to live in the conditions that you were describing if they had another option.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: That's an opinion that I would be giving you, and this person owns multiple properties in Springfield, up to 14 or 15 owns multiple properties in another town South of Springfield. Okay. You have to believe that there's some sort of means there because he is charging rent.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: Oh, so this is a landlord that is putting their tenants. If only we have some sort of registry so we knew these things were happening and could do something about it.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: We we we instituted one another. They got repeal for by the citizens of petition and vote action.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I'm not stick by this.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I know. I am. And I appreciate that. So I'm curious too, Christy, if the town, your municipality involved affects a cleanup of the property, what happens after a month if do you have to go back and clean it again, or do you, after charging whoever it is $800, say, well, the heck of that. That's a waste of the time, and then it just degenerates further. Just trying to Just a bill calls for cleanup or repair or and repair. Yes.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: So Thanks, mister chair. Just for the record, we haven't got to the point where we're actually charging them at all. Yeah. It it's certainly within our ordinance capability, and we can do that. Goal is to get the properties cleaned up and repaired so that they're in capital safely and remain on the property grand list as a rental. We have no issues with that being a rental.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: It's just not fit for human habitation.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: It that's questionable. I've been looking

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: Lawrence, some of these issues be addressed through landlord tenant law. Like, that's not legal. It it doesn't meet the requirements for safe housing under Vermont law. So why wouldn't we be able to use our arguably not robust enough laws to protect tenants in this instance without wholesale? Because my my concern, as it was with the Spring Hill Charter, is that it could do there are instances where these things happen where the reason it is happening is because people are too poor to maintain their home the way someone else might think they should. And that by assessing fines and potentially sending it to tax sale does not solve the underlying problem of poverty. In fact, it's going to make it worse because now this person is homeless. And so I know we don't have the right attorney in the room, but I did see Tucker nodding. Like, that has to be a way through Amorite Penant Law to deal with that because it's literally not legal.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: That's right.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: It goes through the court system, if not mistaken, where they can try to take civil action, but then what happens is they've seen around different parts of the state, that starts an eviction process. So Well, there's

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: a solution to that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: too. Well, have a bill coming to us from, landlord tenant, a bill coming from House General, the issue the issue don't you have a health officer that could condemn and require some of this at the moment?

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Yes. After trash, bar mites, if there's rodents, rats, and such, or sewage if we have a wastewater issue. We do have the ability to address that. However, and I'm not opposed to this, but it's process.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Yeah.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: You have to send out an inspection committee, comes back, they have five days to write up a report. That report gets approved by the select board to take action. If action is taken, notice goes out to the property owner, and they have fifteen days to respond or appeal the decision of the inspection committee, And then when it comes back and it gets heard again at the select board, we can uphold our decisions, and that stacks the block for we give them a fair amount of time. In one case, to remove the trash, it was thirty days. The fixed part of the structure that's still out there became one hundred and fifty days. But it it's the trash and the sewage and open to the elements in certain areas that are most concerning. Well, yes. We can take action on that. It's just time to consider. So currently,

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: most of this is in your existing chart.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Did I hear that right? A lot of this? I don't know that word for word it is, but a similar provision was included in there. Think it's word. Not word for word.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: And then we have a blank.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Okay. Okay.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: So under under, I think, page two b, it says to control the removal of rubbish and waste objectionable material. So you can you can kinda do that now if you want to with

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: a junk ordinance or things of that nature. Yes. We can order that. Does it get done is the question.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: Yeah. Then there's civil penalties that you that the municipality can put. If they don't respond, then then you can go to COR. So does that is that only external to the the building? Okay. So there's no okay. I didn't I didn't really

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Full disclosure, we have EMS that responds to one of these sites regularly. There's there's a woman there that has issues. So we're going there once or twice a week, and the inside is not much better. It's it's more inhabitable. It's not necessarily the trash or the rubbish that you would see that gets piled up outside.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: So my question is, would you be able to, with the town, village, whatever, be able to take care of that as well, and then is that put on are those costs also put on as a lien, you know, as a form of a tax?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: They could be.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: Really?

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: My

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: guess is that Chris Delia, who's the president of the Vermont Bankers Association, has concerns about this bill because there'll be a lien on it Yeah. That's would complicate transactions that might result in the sale of the property. So So you were gonna hear from him, but

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Yeah. So with the town charter, he actually had some pushback on that as

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: well. Yeah.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: And so we have applause in there that any lien holders have to be notified at the time we're notifying the property owners. The issue with the buildings that we're talking about mostly, and why we're trying to address it with this bill, is there is no legal holder. You're buying a tax sale or at a very low margin, property price, in the picking month, so there's no bank loan. And we've had

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: a pretty in-depth look at a tax sale bill,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: and For the last couple of years.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Decided to put it back up until we can take a look at it again, so we didn't move that along. Well, not Did you mess up?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: That was in part because of the pending Supreme Court case that is looking at whether or not that type of fat sale is constitutional.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Heard today.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Heard today?

[Samantha Sheehan]: No, that it'd be incurred today.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Did you have another question, Senator?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: I was just reading it. So it goes in the form of the lien, but then in here, could it be tax sailed as well?

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Well, yeah, I believe the tax sale rules are have changed within the last couple of years. We

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: could we could put it up

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: for tax, but we're not that would that could displace people eventually if it went to takes a year process. Yeah. Yeah. And then if we decide it's bought for tax seal, then you could be displacing people. It could go to tax seal, but our our we have been putting liens on the property for the ones that are not compliant. But if this

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: came out of, I'm just curious, if this came

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: out of way, you would be able to perform a tax sale on that property. I believe we do have the option. Okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Any other questions for Representative Morley? How many properties I know the rental properties in Springfield, they're how many these are all rental properties as far as I know that we're talking about it, that it's Springfield the one we're most familiar with. The ones we reviewed are rentals. There are

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: a couple of there's a new one that came up Monday night. It's not a rental thing. So for lack of a better word, it's a squatter situation. The owners are deceased. The descendants don't want it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Descendants don't want it. The owners are deceased, and there's someone living there.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: And there's somebody living there. Who the the police or whoever goes to visit, what, twice a week?

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: That's not the one that the police know. A police go there regularly in the summertime because it's also dispensary of sorts. Oh.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Ah, I believe that we've heard about us.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: That's a novel way to describe it. It's a good point. Well,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: it's pretty simple for something.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Christy. Thank you for joining us today. We appreciate your time.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Well, I appreciate you taking the talk. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: would just before you depart, would this would be a useful tool. I mean, Springfield has its own ordinances. What would be helpful for you here in particular would be the ability to recover the costs. That's and speeding up the process.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Correct. Because as the senator mentioned, we we can put a lien on the property. We can tax sale it if that doesn't happen. But that's our goal is to keep these properties online, occupied, so that people have housing with limited means, because they are affordable, it's just the owners are not necessarily stepping up to fix.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: The owners are not responsible for maintaining a habitable property. I mean, I've seen them there. There's already a solution to that through I don't know what the solution but sprinkled should be. With exercising. Yes.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: But this isn't I'm sorry, miss. This isn't just cleaning. This is also repairing.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: This is repair, making it happen. I think. The habit of I it's I I I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: can't wait to hear from Tucker, but I I believe that making apartments happen can already be addressed through the law.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I know you had your hand up at one point.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: Did have my hand up and I apologize for stepping up. That's okay. We just had to check-in on something. I just want to say, Representative Morris, I really appreciate all the work you've done. I think you started this when you were the chair of your select board.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: Still

[Samantha Sheehan]: chair. You're still chair.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: So I really appreciate the work that Springfield did. And ultimately, I will be voting no on this bill if we just choose to take a vote on it. Because while I respect what Springfield has done, I think the organic process that you had as a community individually is the direction that I would wanna see those kinds of conversations continue rather than the state kind of moving forward with a with a shared perspective for town. So that doesn't mean I disagree with the work, and I obviously I voted for the Springfield Charter when we did that last time. But Thank you. So it's not a reflection on the good work that you have all done. And I think you are a leader in it, but I do Springfield, I think, is has done a lot of work on this. And you have project action, and there's not every community in the state that has that type of collective understanding of the problem. So I would prefer if we kept it the way it is.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: So the senator mentioned project action. I don't know if other senators are familiar with what we're doing, the action that we're undertaking. So the Assembly community to improve our neighborhood was patterned after Project Vision at a Rutland when Carly Farrell was practically killed Chief Jim Baker stood up the program. So we had copied that. It's a collaboration of multi agents that deal with health, law enforcement, housing. You name it, we have over 60 agencies that belong to this consortium, and we've instituted the situation table, which is under the governor's 10 public safety plan that he stood up. We've done the training, and we actually physically address individuals that have problems, either with substance abuse, mental health, or other challenges. We're trying to get the right agency to the right person at the right time. It's working very well, we think. It's had a lot of success. There are other communities around the state that are going here. Fanden, Brattleboro, Lake John Ferry, Barry? I don't know. White River, I think. And We

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: have talked about it. Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: We have I don't know. Yeah.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: These are proven successful because it's hitting the people that help with the need.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Yep. And, How has it helped with this particular piece of the problem? If this Yeah. This specifically,

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: getting to the right person at the right time and the willingness for the person to address the issues is the problem.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Getting landlords to actually do the work of making their house habitable.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: It's safe

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: for They're in a habitable, inhabitable and unsafe for human habitation.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Well said.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: And this is something people don't think other towns should have the opportunity to act up?

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: They can with a charter change.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: But they don't all have charters.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: Then they should have a charter.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Okay. I think we're

[Samantha Sheehan]: No way they are.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: But I

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: don't think that's in the bill.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: No. No. I think so.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: You Thanks, Christy. It's always good to see you. Appreciate your time. Thank you, representative.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Mad at my the bill back. Absolutely.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: I I can't read it anyways. I can read the bill. It's the the Harvard Wilfrichs that are written around.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Okay. You don't like it. You should

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: see what she does calligraphy.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: That is Yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Problem. Is is not not a Probably not a problem. Thank you. Thanks. I still don't see a, so I guess he had other I know he was gonna go in finance, I think, for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: some So I

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: think I had Yeah. Saw him earlier too.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I was like, where are you gonna do?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Thank you. Do you wanna add anything, Tucker, or should we just move to our next event?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I am. Definitions, since you have anything.

[Samantha Sheehan]: Can add one thing, actually?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Yes. Okay, sorry. I

[Samantha Sheehan]: meant to expove it to my testimony initially, and the questions from the senators reminded me of this. So, sorry. Again, for the record, Samantha, am municipal policy So and advocacy if a charter decides, if a municipality has a plan, they may have zoning. They if they have zoning, they may have bylaw. If the bylaw includes building standards, they may require certificate of occupancy. So this is where this confusion on, like, can the municipality require interior standards for rentals or non rentals? And if they have the authority through these steps I mean, every municipality has the authority from the state, but they have to navigate these processes and the statute processes required by statute to achieve and adopt them. But some municipalities in Vermont do have certificate of occupancy requirements, and they make interior inspections. And if and and some have punitive penalties against the property owner if the if it fails inspection, does not receive a certificate of occupancy, but is occupied. And so that is a way that some municipalities that sort of are resourced enough and have the appropriate regulation that meets the state standard can intervene on behalf of a tenant or an occupant of a building and work to take enforcement steps and make the building safer. So what I meant to say in my testimony originally was what's different is this provides a remedy to recover expenses. So many municipalities fall short of like, they may take enforcement action, enforcement action, enforcement action, but not not go farther because they've sort of reached a tipping point of what they feel is responsible to invest public money and resources into that would not be recovered. If they can't recover. And so this so one change is this bill would allow them to recover that through the same means as other municipal fees, services, taxes. Fees for service and taxes. The second big change is it would extend this authority extend this authority to municipalities that do not have building code, certificate of occupancy requirement, rental code standard, or inspection, which most municipalities do not and are not likely to develop that capacity Oh, okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. So, thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. I I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: was actually no. I was waiting for Tucker.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Sorry. That's okay. To email the the committee assistant in education as David weeks come. Like, he's not getting money. Do email that name? He's gonna have

[Tucker Anderson]: to move along here. Yes, Tucker. Good afternoon, Doctor. Andersen. Glad to say it's a consultant. Definitely need to take a step back to some macros, and quickly covers micros on this subject. Okay. Macro, second time that bylaws have come up in the context of this conversation. The universe of this conversation the first time was Senator Morley. So, a lot of municipal conversations have in this committee. Bylaws. Gonna take you back to my Danish ancestors because that's where this word comes from. So is orphans. Okay? Bylaw, is the first word, b y. It means both city and building. It relates to the organization of land within a municipality. Does not have the same force of law as an ordinance, which is an exercise of the police power. Ord, the beginning of ordinance, meaning word, I. E. The word of God. Okay? It has force.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I hope you're not explaining the It can police be in force. No, no. Right. It's enforceable. It's an enforceable

[Tucker Anderson]: What you are dealing with here is an exercise of the police power. As Samantha pointed out, separate from bylaws. It's an exercise, the maxim, salus populi est supreme electis. That means that the people's health is the paramount law, right? You already have authority set up in 24 VSA, section 2,291 around this, and a lot of the conversation today has been about habitability. Habitability of rental housing, habitability of structures in general, already covered by 24 VSA section 200291 Subdivision 24, which allows three officers at the municipal level, the health officer, k, the fire marshal, and the building inspector, to determine that a building is uninhabitable. It's a general term that is used. Ordinance might define habitability, and in fact, there is a requirement procedurally that the ordinance does define what habitability means, and it allows the municipality to maintain the property, and then to be reimbursed for the cost of maintaining that property up to a habitable standard. At the municipal level, there are also potentially building codes. Every municipal corporation is capable of adopting them. There is a ceiling to what can be adopted, and that is because the state develops rules to the Division of Fire Safety, and those rules are the maximum cap, right, on that municipal authority to adopt building codes. What you are dealing with here goes beyond the sphere of mere habitability, and it goes beyond the sphere of another municipal authority, which is to define nuisances. Many of these properties will also fall under municipal nuisance authority. Why? Because they are attractive nuisances to certain issues that affect the They are legitimately public hazards, and they fall under that authority. Separate from all of that, you have local health rules. Rules adopted under the same procedures as municipal ordinances, and are the same exercise of power. If they deviate from Department of Health rules, they have to be approved by the Commissioner of Health, but they may be enforced by the local health officer if the municipality actually has one huge contingency for many of these municipalities. You heard some examples of what the health officer at the local level can enforce. There are also some required programs that health officers are tasked and mandated with enforcing, including the housing that is used by agricultural workers in a given municipality. Beyond that, you have salvage yard and rubbish statutes. They immediately follow the police powers enumerated for each municipality, and it extends to the abatement of unlicensed salvage yards at the local level. But there are specific definitions that were put in place by the general assembly, because this issue of properties that are, well, use the term here, injurious to the general appearance of the town, lanced the heart of an issue that the General Assembly has tangled with for decades. Right. Because how does the law differentiate genuine threats to public health and safety from the appearance of mere object. Brightline standards were put in place that perhaps committee and the general assembly at large may revisit in the future, but it established some issues. Four abandoned junk vehicles is the standard just for the vehicle part that are visible from a common roadway.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: If they're not registered. If they're currently registered, that doesn't count.

[Tucker Anderson]: That is correct.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Not that I know from personal experience. The

[Tucker Anderson]: rubbish statutes were mostly built around the concept of discarding rubbish in public places, not on accumulating scrap and rubbish and other materials on your own property. There are difficulties with enforcement. Some of the constitutional issues that were raised early on exist. I discussed them when we walked through the bill. I pointed them out. But they won't materialize unless and until an ordinance is adopted pursuant to this delegated authority. There's a lot to consider here, and something that I brought up earlier is that the background property law, common law that will define many of his terms is somewhat ancient, and for purposes of Vermont's judicial decisions up to this point, perhaps not as well defined. What if? Vacant? Mhmm. Abandoned? Difficult terms to pin down, particularly because they're attempting to capture an individual's interaction with the property, not simply the state of the property itself.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Did you have a question? I do, because

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: I just wanna make sure I'm understanding based on the wonderful linguistics and legal lesson we just got.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: It sounds to me like the authority already exists for municipalities to deal with what we have been told this bill is trying to solve. A component, which is habitability. Prior to today, I would say that the committee had not really focused in on habitability as the underlying issue.

[Tucker Anderson]: But if you were to take any one of these structures and that has been discussed and have a building inspector inspected for purposes of whether it meets the municipality's habitability standard, you could exercise the same authority for purposes of rendering that building habitable. Doesn't change parts that are put up to replace siding, but it would address things like fire safety issues Or sewage.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Or sewage issues. Exposed.

[Tucker Anderson]: Overlapping pieces of unisonal authority there to address it. Sometimes it is difficult for municipal corporations to rally the will, the resources, and the appropriate officers to carry out this authority. And before you even get there, you have to have a willing legislative body to adopt the ordinances and probably appropriate legal counsel to guide them in the adoption of the procedures surrounding that inspection for hazardous ability and a building and reference to the Division of Fire Safety.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: appreciate that. And I just the testimony I heard today was a lot about habitability. And I I guess I just sort of sit in a space this bill is much more expansive and gives I have deep concerns. And if the concern is habitability, there is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: a process to solve that.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: Like, I would rather see municipalities do the work to solve the habitability issue, because I don't want people living with raw sewage. Like, I don't want that. But I also don't want people in poverty losing their homes because people think they're ugly.

[Tucker Anderson]: The other part of this bill that exists in a different space from the existing authority related to habitability, is some of these properties may just not even be maintained for purposes of habitability and might not be touchable under that authority. So if there's just property that is deteriorating over time where no one is living there, there is no plan to establish a habitable structure, but they are slowly However, I know this has come up before, probably meets current understandings ablated under urban renewal statutes and municipal authority there, and probably could be subject to an eminent domain to say. So, that is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: where they came in because they want to be, you know, do eminent domain on these properties. You already can know.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: This one?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: People It's can say a huge So, Probably a good

[Tucker Anderson]: another part of this conversation that, I don't know if I'm over my time or not, they've it all quite a bit in what I've been talking about is that there is a distinction between statutory authorization, I. There's been a delegation of this authority already, and the practical on the ground reality of carrying And out some

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: that's what Christy addressed, is the practical challenge of actually making these things happen

[Tucker Anderson]: is hard. Someone has, over the course of this biennium, asked me about various eminent domain condemnation proceedings every time I have a response to this, including in the context of municipal trails.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Oh. Yeah. Recent supreme court decision. Yes, our

[Tucker Anderson]: Even even when we're talking about town highways, the condemnation proceedings to expand a road by one broad can be a multi year process in evaluating and arguing the value of that 14 foot space adjacent to a town highway and determining what the appropriate compensation to the land owner will be. If you can even get to the consensus point of determining that the land is going to be taken for public purpose.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Many of our highways would have not been built had today's standards been an effect at the time. I the interstate certainly took we've all heard the story about the firearm in Rattler who committed suicide when they took his farm. And weathers go in too. Yeah. So anyway. Okay, Senator Vyhovsky?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: Actually, took off my train of thought on the same thing.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I'm sorry. No, it's okay.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: It's not your fault. So

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Senator White.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: Thank you, mister chair. And just so I understand, what kind of is our process with this bill right now? Where do we expect do we are we planning to do a vote on this? Because if we feel that we wanna do a vote, for example, there may be changes that I would wanna see. At this point, I'm in as I said before, I'm in no on this bill. So I'm just wondering kind of what we're trying to accomplish as a committee today, and what are the next steps process for this?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Fair question.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I was gonna ask a pucker. Is it possible for us I think it would really help us and actually VLCT and all our towns if we actually have a chart of what is possible and what it takes to accomplish the things that supposedly are available already in law. I could absolutely make a chart. I would love to do nothing else in No.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I know you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I'd probably like to do a 100 other things.

[Tucker Anderson]: So that you shall have you shall

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: have a chance. But it does strike me that if this these things are currently paid possible in law, a, why are towns asking us to change the law so that they can make it more easily possible? And if if they're possible, it doesn't necessarily mean that towns are compensated for the work that the towns do. So recovering that, I don't think is covered. So I'd love to know what is possible, what it takes, and how can we ensure towns can recover the costs once they've expended the hunt, trying to keep the public healthy and safe.

[Tucker Anderson]: I'm happy to put together a chart that will show the various pieces of authority in their scope and then the procedures that can be used because there are powers, including the uninhabitable property power, that are attached to a lien for reimbursement that could lead to the same procedures under title 32 as a tax sale. In fact, the language that you see in the bill in the proposed Subdivision 13 is the same procedural language that is already done in Subdivision 24.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Cool. Yeah. Oh, because then I think once we know what those are, maybe that's what this bill should be addressing. So that is, I guess, what I would ask for. So can provide that. Amend the bill to address the holes that don't exist in law and add the measures that would be helpful for towns addressing these properties. But I I my understanding is the LCT supports this work.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. I vote yes to a chunk. Thank you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Okay. Tucker, thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Christie, great to see you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Christie, thank you very much

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: for coming down. And I will come in.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Exactly. Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: Thank you. Remind of you of this.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Doesn't seem to be affecting you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Lost of my heart. Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: I think what we already do. Yes. Think it would be someone else. Yeah. Because what I kept hearing is a lot of what we're we're hearing they can't do, they actually can do. And I think that might be a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: helpful resource for them. But, also, if if they can do it, what does it take to actually do it? And how can they get If we wanna make it, how can we make it easy? I know that's not your day. He has problems with how can we make it happen, but how can we make it happen in a thoughtful way that in a thoughtful way? I I vote yes to a charter. That's why I proposed. So you got a yes on it. And I just wanted to add that David Weeks couldn't leave because then they didn't have any forms. Yeah. Okay. He could have texted me about that. Well You're

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: his chair after all. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I'm not his chair right now. These chairs?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I'd like to move on to our next item of business, which is consideration of an amendment on S two fifty five. It's the reason that we passed over the bill today. I wanted to give committee members certainly a time to look at the amendment, and I had asked well, I'm gonna have Mark Anderson do his testimony from the perspective of the sheriffs, if you would, and because this will be on the floor tomorrow. I'm not necessarily gonna keep putting it off. Don't think that's a very, very good idea. It kinda sets up red flags for folks to say, Why are we picking it up? Did you?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: I was looking at our list before

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I asked, but I

[Samantha Sheehan]: thought we were gonna hear

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: from the Department of State and Research. Well,

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I think Mark's gonna be able to explain why we aren't. He's more part of the group. I did reach out to Jim Leaders Dumont, or Tim Leaders Dumont. Came He was otherwise engaged with a whole bunch of other stuff, but I think that department has already indicated they don't have a position on the bill itself. And to ask them to comment on the amendment of the bill over which they really don't have any opinion is probably not gonna happen. So we're not gonna be able to to have any I I think. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing that. But

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: No. Yeah. They were if I remember, we had they were neutral

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Right.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: On the bill, but I do wonder if we could get them I mean, we can hear from sheriff Anderson, obviously, but if they were able to provide how they felt about the amendment. Because it it it is so separate in in some way.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: It's much broader scope, so it doesn't just impact Oh.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Share up. Yeah. Okay. It's a big policy. It's that's big policy Ruth has in that event. Yeah. The rest of this pilot is in session. It's not it's not Green Books. It's session law. It's kind of a little bit mixing apples and oranges, and that there may be something from that amendment that they would be willing to to consider. So Okay. Let's see what the sheriff has

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: to say. And Jeanette White is on the screen. I still call you madam chair, so feel free to open up your camera and join us.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: And look how relaxed she is. She says her her name is just Jeanette. It's not even Jeanette White.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Like Madonna. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: But we'd love to see your whole face up, Madam Former Chair. Okay.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: And Mark, if you'd like to join us at the table just again to give us a little bit of perspective about where the committee might feel on the amendment because it will be up for consideration tomorrow on the floor.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair Committee for the record. My name is Mark Anderson. I'm the sheriff of Windham County. I'll cut to the chase on the amendment. I'll say it is very much a problem in the context of being associated with this bill. So I'm going go back to my initial testimony to say this is a simple bill. Well, intents and purposes, a simple bill to examine issues related to governance and funding to provide a service. In that case, the service is law enforcement. The service is being rendered to towns in Windham County. Towns in Windham County have been part of a three, four year process where we have had much discussion with them, members of the public, select boards, town managers, administrators, etc. Why is this amendment a problem? This is a policy shift. Senator Clarkson mentioned a policy shift that is related to share accountability. This committee did a lot of work on that topic about three years ago, I believe, where there is a whole new constituency that has not had an opportunity to speak. Do not have exact numbers, but I believe we spent a total of five to seven legislative days to talk just through some of those issues, which got it through this committee, pulled it into other committees, which pulled it into floor amendments, which pulled it into the House, which turned it back into more issues. If we want to do it right, that needs to be a separate policy. Really, that's I'm not afraid of the discussion related to what the amendment does. In fact, I have spoken with many members of this committee and with the general assembly to say happy to do the work. But I could pick just about any other major policy bill that you are working on, attach it to this bill for the same reasons I have a problem. So the straight answer from Mark Anderson and Mark Anderson alone is this amendment itself is problematic in its entirety. Are there ways that we might be able to deal with some of it? There are some things that are probably technical changes. They don't really ship policy change. We can probably work with those things. An example being there's a strike of I believe the sheriff being referenced to he or she and they are now referenced as the sheriff. Can I do that? Yeah. So I don't think anyone would know or care. I don't see any way that it would change anything. I'm not an attorney, but if an attorney said, Oh no, this is the grand problem. We might have to come back reevaluate, but I just, I don't see how it could be problematic in that way. But then I would also acknowledge it would feel performative. I don't want to sit here and give you a straight face that doing something such as removing some of the problematic sections of the amendment would be anything less than that, but they're not necessarily unreasonable changes. Tim Lutland District, spoke with him briefly. He is tied up in testimony in several other committees today, which is in part why he can't be here. But just a brief explanation of the Department of State Securities and Sheriffs. Tim is the executive director of 14 elected sheriffs and 14 state attorneys that are also elected. They were working on some other initiatives today. And at the end of the day, to get a response from 28 elected officials, it's like herding cats. So to get a reasonable answer to this committee in time for today's testimony did not seem reasonable. He's willing to reach out if it makes sense. But I also other question would then be Why is he reaching out to ask the question of do they support the bill? I would assume the answer is going be no just because they haven't been invited to the conversation like they were three years ago. Could they be invited to conversation? Sure, but it doesn't make sense because this is kind of apples and oranges. If you said let's take all the work on education attached to this bill and sit here and say we have the same problem and it's not to say that work is invalid. It's simply to say it's not belonging attached to a pilot project. It's very simple to figure out what sixty years worth of studies have looked at to try to come up with a governance and funding system at a regional level.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Senator White.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I appreciate your comments and there are some sections of the bill that seem I mean, the sheriff versus the gendered pronouns piece, think, is a good example. But, like, I look the First Amendment that Ruth offers on page two of her draft is to add that the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs are also having a boarded report. So I feel like there's some, they don't feel like major changes, and then the same with the audit report going to different committees, for example. It seems like once we get to the part about a written report with the received recommendations that might be where it gets fuzzy, but I do I would appreciate if we could have some openness to those changes.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: Yeah. All of those records identified on page two. So this the financial disbursements.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: It's number one. Kind of like all of them I think what you're saying, Becca, is I hear you saying that all the under section 10 a two ninety, the Yeah. That all that all the auditor and reporting where the reports go Yeah. Could could go through. So and that you the through section contract through down down to to top of page four that begins February a contracts that you that that seems like that would be okay. Do you need a copy of that? What? I

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: have it. Thank you, Senator.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: But I will say once you get to I think you would be comfortable probably with going to the middle of page three because once you get to subsection two on there, it is doing the recommendations made in the report, which I think was where we had some disagreement in previous years. And

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: what I'll come to so all of page two of draft 1.3, I don't see as problematic to myself. I don't have any reason to believe any other sheriff would have an issue with it just based on the word during act 30. But that said, like, we can start saying this is going to open up discussion, which other people might have have thoughts. And so Tim could respond to that from his role. He just, again, wasn't able to do it today. As we get into the second half of Page three, we start talking about recommendations and so recent issue, I worked with the state auditor, the contracted auditor and my certified public accountant to say, I have a problem during my audit, a thing was identified that needs to be done and this is right or wrong depending on professional help. And what we ultimately came down to is that there's an issue about common cash funds that are reported that represent a thing under the generally accepted or I'm sorry, under the Government Accounting Standards Board, which conflicts with state law.

[Former Sen. Jeanette White]: And

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: so then the question is, well, do I accept this and what impact does that have? An option is we have non conforming books, which is problematic if we're doing certain things. We start to get into these things where then we start dealing with what conflicts. So this is just but one example of many iterations of things that require discussion to influence the pharmacy, which is why I say it should be a separate bill. We worked with the state auditor to come to some great outcomes and I appreciate the work. I also don't want to acknowledge that the state auditor would be upset and having to provide these, but they're public records. Is that hard to do? We email them like it's not a big deal for me to do. But it's also as we start considering things in the amendment, it starts opening up who are the constituents, the stakeholders, the people impacted by it and is it fair for Mark to represent their needs on a bill that does affect the work that Mark has done personally.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Senator Vyhovsky.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: I appreciate that because that that was why I asked the question earlier of why Mark and not the Department of State of State of of of of of of State of

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: State

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: one of my primary concerns is we are putting the cart before the we're we're setting up a system where, yes, I know Mark Anderson is, you know, not being arrested for assaulting people. Mhmm. But we can't say that of all of our sheriffs. And I actually don't think I need to circle around and around and around. I've been over it again and again and again. I just, I don't feel good moving forward with something until we have accountability.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Janet, wait, do you want to make any comments?

[Former Sen. Jeanette White]: Oh, I do. Thank you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Okay.

[Former Sen. Jeanette White]: So first of all, I would say may be wrong, but in my 20 there, I don't ever remember seeing a bill that had both session law and Green Book law in the same in the same bill. I may be mistaken on that, but I don't ever remember that happening. And in this case, if the law said the original bill itself was session and the amendment is green book. So I I personally find that a little problematic. This is, as Sheriff Anderson said, this is a, was a really simple, simple ask of the towns. The towns were asking to let them create a system where they could have law enforcement. These are small towns that don't have other access to anything else except contracting with the sheriff, and this is a more sustainable. As you've heard in the testimony, this is a better system to do that than what we currently have. So this was just an ask from the towns, they weren't asking for any of the rest of the stuff that's in the, in the amendments. And I would say to Sheriff Anderson's point, there are even the ones that seem very simple and that you could maybe everybody might agree on. You've had no discussion of them. You've had no discussion at all. So you don't know what the impact is on other constituents or on anybody else. So I would say that adopting this amendment, even part of it is very, very problematic because it's too soon. You haven't had the discussion. And that is not the way committees work. I, as Senator White, the other Senator White said that these issues both need to be addressed, but they are two separate issues. They aren't, They are not necessarily connected. And here's, I would use this kind of example. Say I have a or Senator Clarkson has a really nice little bill that says we should be teaching civics in high school because and we know we should because the kids don't know anything about civics. So we should be teaching civics. And Senator Morley comes in and says, I think that's a great idea. And I think to that bill, would like to amend it to put the entire education funding system on as an amendment that excuse me, could I finish?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: And

[Former Sen. Jeanette White]: I do, I do appreciate Senator Vyhovsky's comment about putting this in place before we've dealt with the, with the accountability issue. This is a five year pilot. You have five years, two more sessions to address the accountability issue and address it really well. You can do it because that this isn't going to take this isn't going to become permanent for five years if it does ever become permanent. So you have five years to look at those other issues and to take really good testimony on them and to make sure you're doing it right. So I would would ask that you not accept this amendment and the entire amendment and not try to look at little pieces of it and then it will delay it. And so that's my 2¢. Thank you.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Thank you. Senator Vyhovsky.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yeah. First of all, I'm fairly certain I look at bills with session law and ring book law in them at the same time almost every day. And I don't think it is the same as taking a bill that says we should do civics and putting the whole education fund in it. I think it's taking a bill it's like taking a bill that says we should have civics and saying, hey. Maybe licensed teachers should teach it. And my concern, again, is not Sheriff Anderson and I have had long conversations, so he is hearing this probably for the thirty seventh time. My concern is not really about this pilot, but we all know what happens with pilots. They don't end. They get half assed spread across the state, and so I don't feel comfortable because that is how we have the quilt of regional systems we do now. Someone did a pilot, and then they got unrolled differently all across the state, and then someone did a different pilot. And, like, that that is why things look like they do now. And so my concern is not my honestly, my concern is sure Anderson is gonna do an excellent job with this pilot. And then in the other 13 counties that don't have the capacity to do an excellent job, they're going to do a not so excellent job, but we're just gonna keep plowing forward without any of the accountability and concerns answered. And so I I I don't I I understand that it's a pilot. I understand that it is temporary, but I've also seen a lot I've worked on as a community advocate, pushing through a lot of pilots, knowing full well that it was not gonna stay a pilot. I have sat in this building and seen us just extend the pilots without like, so so my concern and and my belief strongly that we need to do accountability first is because I've seen how a lot of pilots go. And I actually think, preferably Senator Anderson, I don't think that's a promotion, is going to do an excellent job, but that that won't be replicable with accountability in all 14 counties.

[Former Sen. Jeanette White]: So may I respond? Just one second. Sure. So if this really won't even If this passes as the original bill, it be a year, at least a year and a half before there's any funding for it at all. The governance body will be able to start working and figuring out budgets and coverage and how they're going to do that. Assuming that all of you will be back here in next January, the you will have the ability to have two years in that session and two years in the next session to do the accountability piece before before there before this is really off the ground. It it's it's going to take a long time to get this going and you have you will have starting in January '29, you can introduce a bill that is all about accountability and you could have it passed out before this pilot is really up and fully functioning. So that's my piece.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: But we don't know that we will. And we do know that this pilot, if we pass this, that this pilot will be fully functioning. Like, we don't know what a legislature beginning next biennium will do on accountability. They may do nothing. But we do know if we pass this, it will start happening.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Senator Clarke? Well, if we pass this, it goes to the House and the House will do its work, so we don't know anything actually. We just know that we will have passed it. Because I don't take the rest of lunch sort of action as a pivot. What I think this continues to raise is the issue that the governance task force should be reestablished, And I actually would like to, in this amendment, have amendment to this amendment, which actually reestablishes the task force going forward.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: It's already in place. The The House has got a bill that will be coming over.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Oh, okay. So the House is doing that part. I'm sorry. I had not appreciated that. Yep. So we're getting that. Great. Okay. So we don't need

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: to do that. I know. Great. And my guess is, and we'll I have for Sheriff Anderson again, if we only accept parts of the amendment, Senator Hardy will just I don't know. But I don't think she'll be She's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: gonna do it anyway.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I thought maybe she'd just withdraw the amendment. Okay. I don't know that. I haven't talked to her, to be fair. I think four of the five of us had an objection to including line 10 on page seven, which in essence would undo what we did in the bill, because

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: it would

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: make it effective only after the Governor's Study Committee made a final report to the General Assembly. So I think, I'm speaking for the board that voted for the bill, that if you accept the amendment, what we just voted for goes away. It kinda nullifies it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Right. That's correct. But I think you could support the amendment without supporting certain sections. And I think what I'm hearing, and of course, we haven't heard from the whole department, but having heard one aspect of the department, but that that none of it is appropriate without more consideration and without without a different bill and a different valid a different consideration. So what I hear is a request to not approve this amendment at all.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Move it away.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I think we have a couple of paths since it sounds like we're going to be discussing this on the floor tomorrow. We could vote on certain sections to be included that were, I think, mutually agreeable to include those. We could vote just yay or nay on the amendment. We could not vote on the amendment as well, I think is an option for us as a committee to not have a perspective. I think it's an option. I personally would be voting if those scenarios played out, I would be comfortable supporting the specific things that seemed not to have an undue impact on the sheriff's association that we discussed. But I'm also happy to just vote no on the amendment, and then we have a floor discussion. And if it wants to be if folks want to buy it, like, I I think I, at this point, would not be able to support the amendment in its entirety and would be comfortable just voting, you know, as

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: And, again, in the normal course of action, the committee would take a position on an amendment. They would either say that we found it favorable and as a friendly amendment or we did not. And I think it's only fair that we let the other twenty sixth senator know that. Or 25.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: I actually help you clarify any question?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: So the way I read the amendment, I didn't expect to need the drafting attorney in here Is Tim not fair? Is that it does not let you do what we're doing. It says there has to be accountability before it goes into effect. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Right.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yeah. Just

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Alright. Well, that's a fair point, but I don't think the Governance Study Committee is going to be in a position to issue a final report before the end of next year since we haven't even met yet. Okay. Well, there is a bill.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Yeah. Oh, okay. Sorry.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: So that is helpful. Thank you. I think if this amendment were to go into the underlying bill, could support the bill, but Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Does anyone have any final thoughts? Is Tim Devlin just not available? What if the Tims are available?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I don't know. He's, he

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: said he's two years old.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: Mr. Chair. Okay. Yes, Mark. I just want to call out in draft 1.3 secondtion 11 sub A. This section and section 10 A with reference shall take effect on passage. Senator Vyhovsky, the accountability portions would take effect on passage sections one through 10, which is the entirety of the pilot project cannot take effect. And so basically this would become a Trojan horse to deal with the accountability portions and completely nullify the pilot project until after the conclusion of the final report of the committee. I do believe the accountability portion stayed in this, that would be fine except the problem is they would just be doing it without any process. So the other thing I just wanted to reference is that while I understand your fear and concern related to pilot projects just continuing on, number one pilot projects usually continue on when they are successful and I understand you're concerned about replicating. I am very honest and open about saying this pilot project is designed to defraud some very critical issues that we know will have to be addressed, and people who come before this committee to say they support this bill, support it because it's a pilot project, acknowledging that some of these issues will need to be addressed. We cannot address them today. It it's just not based. And at the end of the day, we can get to the point where they can be baked, but I think having a united cause that they can have a discussion around is the key of what they're gonna need to have the tough conversations that we have failed as a state to accomplish in the last sixty years of studies and in delivering regional governance, which I know this committee has a ton of work to do. So my belief is that we're not going to make this bill perfect. I don't think we could ever make it perfect. But what it does is set up an opportunity for success, an opportunity to report back to the legislature what worked and what didn't work. It is not my intent to turn this into the long standing project because at the end of the day, we want something that replicates across the state. We want something that would be effective. If this is not the method, that's great. We learn another lesson there and we take that back. And this is all in the legislative testimony and record to say none of this was our intent to turn it into the never ending pilot project. This is intentional on doing it right because we failed for sixty over sixty years. Senator Clarkson.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: And the governance task force will have met, made considerations and perhaps possibly tweaked and or had impact on the pilot. I see them running on parallel tracks. I don't see this being an either or or it is a little bit cart before the horse, but that's our failure on the task force. I don't think it means we have to stop progress on making inroads and taking a stab at one of the pieces we had all hoped might happen. Sure. And that one thing that we a lot of us have been hoping for is regional cooperation on public safety. So to me, these are parallel tracks. One should inform the other. While this pilot is going on. I'm hoping it has open dialogue and gets asked to come in and report to the governance task force. I would hope that would be they would be actively engaged with each other. But I think I would be open to a recommendation of the pieces of this that we could keep and the pieces that so if there was a recommendation for dividing this amendment, I'd be open to it. I would I thought I heard the sheriff suggest that we divide it

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: and accept certain Midway through page two, I think.

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: Page two and a portion of three, which would be through sub e one.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: On page two, there are two sections on that that are on one and two. There's the two two ninety on page one. That's the the The addition of the department? That is the what?

[Sheriff Mark Anderson]: The addition of the Department of State of Attorneys and Sheriffs for the receipt of financial disbursements.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Yes. I think that's what it is. Yep. Is that right? But I don't see any new language in it. See d one, the two. Yes. There's a report that the the Department of State's attorneys has added. That seems to be And then on page two, the audits, they furnishing the auditor accounts, is that a is that and that just is a group of sending the reports. I believe the auditor shall compile the reports and submit copies to the following. So it strikes me that there might be a division at at are you recommending it go through the middle page three to two?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: I don't think Mark's recommending it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Okay. Is there a recommendation? If you have a treatment

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: You can if you like. I I'd like to just move that we consider the amendment yes or no.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Okay. But that there there are pieces of this amendment I would accept, and there are pieces I would not. I understand. And and I okay. So I would think that we could and and there may be a division on the floor, so I wanna be prepared for that.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Senator Vyhovsky.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: Senator, and I I am trying to pull up the amendment in your bill with my earnest. My Okay. I got it.

[Samantha Sheehan]: And not Rachel. No. I just

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: have a question. So you had suggested that it would be good, and and there are many fundamental places on this. I know we disagree. But that it would be good if the pilot project was engaged within reporting to the governance committee. Is there any language in the bill or amendment that would require that?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: No. There isn't at the moment. And I would and when that governance bill comes to us, we can certainly add add pieces of that that the pilot would have to be working with the governance committee. We could add some language that would that would work, I think. Wouldn't it make more sense to just do it here? I'd rather see the governance bill first and add it to that.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Okay. Well, we have to decide today on whether we support the amendment or not. And Yeah. We go from there.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: If I'm underplaying the chair correctly, perhaps that we just take an up or down vote and then Correct.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: Yeah. Do.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Oh,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: okay. And then we And then what I'm saying is forewarned and fore is forearmed, and tomorrow's discussion on the floor will probably result in some divisions. And I would propose we consider a division we would be

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: happy

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: with, some of us would be happy with.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: Okay. Can I just make a note? I talked to Melissa out in the hallway related to what the right process is. We don't need to alert her if we take a vote, but she's not aware of if the amendment has been put forward on has been added to the calendar yet. So that's what Ruth would have to do.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Yep. That's what senator alrighty. She'll probably pass it out then it's on the calendar. You pass it on the floor.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: Yeah, you don't know if

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky]: I it on the calendar.

[Sen. Rebecca (Becca) White]: Oh, okay, yeah. But that's not our

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: job by this. No, no. So.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Okay. Can people feel, yes, Janet?

[Former Sen. Jeanette White]: I just I know that Senator Clarkson really wants to be accommodating here and accept some of these provisions. I do think that accepting them without any testimony on what they might mean, if you go down, I mean, if you go down to the middle of page three, for example, it then it starts telling you what the sheriffs are going to have to do after the report comes out and the recommendations. So where would you where would you split this? That's part of the same the same section of the bill. It deals with the auditors reports. So I think that I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: can end it on line 12. Yes. Line 12 be the final piece of acceptance.

[Former Sen. Jeanette White]: Well, that's for you. There are 29 other people in there and they might have their divisions at a different place because they don't think that it's going to affect anybody else. I just think that if you start dividing up by lines that you're really anyway, that's your

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: prerogative. Right. I'm just yeah.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Would folks feel comfortable with an up or down vote on the amendment as it was presented to us? So those that will be voting to support the amendment, raise your hand. Those that are gonna vote no. Okay. So I will report tomorrow on the floor that we had an unfavorable vote. I won't identify, obviously, people that or even what the vote told us and ask the Senate to not adopt the amendment. And then I don't know whether that will affect the reporting of the underlying bill or not. I'm hoping that it still is going to be acceptable because I we did a lot of good work on this. I understand your concern, senator Clarkson, with the governance and senator Vyhovsky's concern with the accountability. To me, those are different issues that will take different paths, and I promise that I will attend every governance meeting there is even if it's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: late at night. Oh, that's a big one.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: To get this done. Okay. With that in mind, I thank Sheriff. I thank Jeanette. I will be in Brattleboro, by the way, for my final high school game on Saturday if you wanted to make an appearance.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: What what time?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: What break? She there was only one in Brattleboro.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson]: What time?

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: 04:45 is the game.

[Former Sen. Jeanette White]: Okay. I'll be there.

[Sen. Brian Collamore]: Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm going to ask the committee for a ten minute and we will be back to take up our final item, which is S-two 91 in ten minutes.