Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good afternoon. Welcome in to the Senate Committee on Government Operations meeting of first two thousand twenty six. The three items to consider today, we're gonna start with s oh, I'm sorry, h five one nine. This would be an act relating to Vermont Stadium Equity's Retirement System Group g membership, specifically for the three towns that are in that. As I remember, it's Bethel, Danville, and Randolph. Randolph, however, is the only ones that had active law enforcement members. So this passed the house and was referred to our committee. It's a nine page bill. Hopefully, you all have a copy of it on your desk, along with a fiscal note. And Chris Rutland. And, why don't I have I guess, Cameron, you could walk us through the bill if you would,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: You know, got something next.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. Good afternoon. The record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. Would it be helpful for me to share my screen? Do you all have it

[Speaker 0]: in front of you? We have it. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can be extremely succinct if that would be helpful for you all. Sure.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What this bill does is it moves law enforcement officers who are employees of the municipalities that are participating in the state retirement system. It has a definition, so for those who are employed, have attained a level two or level three law enforcement officer certification, and their primary job duties are law enforcement duties, the primary function of their employment, So we're talking about law enforcement officers here for those municipalities. It moves those members from group f over to group g. So it has the corresponding changes here at the beginning, you know, the first few pages, adding in the definition section, definition definition of of group group g g member, member, going all the way down to the bottom of page two and the top of page three. We're adding in to group g these employees, and then we're amending the normal retirement date to add in these new employees, providing them with a normal retirement date under group g, and depending on when they began their service, they have the corresponding normal retirement dates. Key language there, following twenty years of service, being able to retire at the age of 55, and then moving forward, everything else in the bill is simple technical amendments to effectuate that change. Can I ask you, Cameron, back on page three, line six, this is strictly for level two and three? Yes, sir. Not level one? Yes, sir.

[Speaker 0]: Am I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna ask you why? Other Yes. That's a policy question? Yes. I can I can validate that, yes? They okay. So in this language, they need the level two or the level three certificate. I am not an expert on what those levels mean, I don't

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: I would not be able

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to answer the why or

[Speaker 0]: Level two. Level one is the top entry level. Yeah. Level three is then level two then. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So I mean, twos and threes you would expect would be full time police officers as opposed to

[Speaker 0]: just getting into it.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: We spent some time on

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: this one. No. You've had a

[Speaker 0]: lot of time. The other way around.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Level one is lowest. No.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No. It's the other way. Here is the sheriff's.

[Speaker 0]: No. Yes. Pretty sure. Well, maybe Oh,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. No. I was corresponding with Okay. That it it it mirrors what's there with

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: the other law enforcement officers and statutes. Right. But we also thought this was just for a one town.

[Speaker 0]: Well, one

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: town is active. There are three municipalities that participate in the state system. My understanding is there's only one municipality that currently employs individuals that fall under this definition.

[Trini Brassard (Former Chair, Randolph Selectboard)]: Yeah. Bethel doesn't have the police. Right?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: We have the state police.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's Randolph as

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: the only town that actually

[Speaker 0]: I think there's a little

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: bit of side on Randolph. The survival. And

[Speaker 0]: I may have it completely backwards because I thought level one was the level that you could do more than anything else in terms of law enforcement, but maybe that's level I think

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: that's level three. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Oh, Vickers.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Are there currently retired individuals from the other two towns that don't currently have law enforcement working there that this will impact?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If they're already retired? No. Okay. Shouldn't. Would be, you know, collecting whatever pension under the retirement system that under the membership that existed at the point they retired. Okay. Sooner.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: What group are they in now?

[Speaker 0]: F. Okay. I don't wanna go ahead and take They were sort of left out.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Were in the F for forgotten.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so Maybe Grucci core.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So sorry. What was the other two towns? It's Randall. Bethel. There's one more. What's the third? Danville. But

[Trini Brassard (Former Chair, Randolph Selectboard)]: Bethel and Danville

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: don't That's the chief. Correct. Counts. Thank you, Chris. Stick it to me?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. No, ma'am. No. No.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Not No. It just says that any laws There they are. Right here. Municipal law enforcement that is in the state employees' plan. Because the rest the others are in the municipal plans. Yeah?

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. The

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: emergency. Which is not as good as this. This is better. Right? Group g is better.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Maybe I've let others with better agencies answer that question than me. I think it it depends, but

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, okay. But so back

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to us. Just it it's again, the first few provisions here, amending the definition. Section two and section three is gonna be just, you know, technical cleanup, as I mentioned, to kind of carry out the fact that you're moving these individuals over, so amending the section dealing with normal retirement to reference back to the fact that we've added definitions for these positions, and then you get to section three, which is where there's a default for these employees of municipalities participating in the state system in group F, with some exceptions, adding them here in the exception, and then you have in section four, which is on page eight and page nine, the one time election that you all are familiar with when you're moving these divisions over from one group to another group. You provide those employees that are currently employed with the option of remaining in the groups that they're currently in or moving over to the the new group that you're moving them to, and so that's what section four on page eight and nine does. Just carries out that one time authorization which would occur at the end of this year. And that's

[Speaker 0]: the bill.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And it's the verdict.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is the only municipality that currently has employees that meet

[Speaker 0]: the definition. In effect, it is.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But it doesn't make a list, and you know ID lists.

[Speaker 0]: So I'm again, except for for law enforcement municipal law enforcement that may be hired after this, they already have the ability to go into group Well, would with this bill. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's where I'm trying to be careful. There's only one municipality that has employees that meet the definition, but that doesn't prohibit the other municipalities from employing individuals that meet the definition in the future. Okay. In the future, if they were to employ an individual law enforcement officer, then those law enforcement officers wouldn't have the choice, they would be in group G. Currently, they're in group F, and this bill is moving them over to group G because it offers what they would argue is a better retirement opportunities and makes them more competitive with other types of law enforcement positions throughout the state. So for the towns that have testified town that has testified, it would make their jobs more competitive and hopefully allow them to retain This is

[Speaker 0]: a fake that they have. Right. Other questions for attorney Wood? Okay. And I think we'll get it fleshed out, to a greater degree, some of the other witnesses we have. So, Cameron, thank you very much. You're welcome. I'm here. Hang on. So this should be like Will do. We're gonna hear from Tim Duggan from the state treasurer next. Good afternoon. Tim Duggan, here at

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: the Vermont Retirement Systems and the of state treasurer. It's very today. Thank you for the invitation. The bill that you have in front of you, the way I like to think about it, it completes the work that was begun in act one thirty of 2024. That's when we brought the sheriff's offices that participated in the state system into group g. You know, looking back on it at the time, you know, probably would have made sense because to do this work with the towns, we hadn't had the same outreach that we had had with the sheriff's department. So that's why the focus of this from our perspective was there. But this follows all of the same policy and fiscal decisions that act one thirty does. We do not see an impact on the funding levels of the system, mostly because of the de minimis nature of of this bill. We're talking at this point, as I understand it from folks at Randolph, three people, as many as five positions possible are currently in the municipal police department there. So it's a very small from that perspective, and it it queues closely to all the policy decisions that we that were made in act one thirty of 2024. We've been working with Randolph for a while on this effort, and so we're pleased to support it, and we think it's all very feasible and that we could do it within the allotted time frames here. I'm happy to answer any other broader questions on this if have them.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes, senator Claus.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Would you be kind enough to to remind well, first, my first question is, what could other towns conceivably decide they also wanted to make this transition?

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: Towns that are in the state system. So most of the towns, for obvious reasons, are in the municipal system, and they have a twenty year plan. That's group d in the municipal system. And so that is the the home, if you will, for most towns that want a specific retirement plan for their law enforcement. By whatever quirk of history that occurred before my time that brought the three towns we're talking about, Bethel, Danville, and Rand Olph into the state system. I you know, I I'd only anticipate more towns coming into the state system. And it's just you know, it doesn't seem So No one is doing that. We have a municipal system specifically built for towns. The state system does have language that allows other municipal sub other public subdivisions in. I think that was probably yeah. I don't I don't know this for sure, but my understanding is that was all in place before the municipal system was created. And remind us when the municipal system was created. Wanna say '74. I know it's in the seventies, but I'm not. I think it

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: was seventies. Senator Vyhovsky? I wanna be clear.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I don't oppose this. I'm just curious why these three groups don't simply join the municipal system. Yeah.

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: The that's the the decisions made to join a a system are irrevocable. And so, you know, if if these towns were to think about leaving, we would have a lot of work to do about figuring out legacy unfunded liabilities and apportioning them because, as you know, the state system is is not 100% funded right now. So that there would be a cost to that. Okay.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Who are currently employed people, but what would stop the whatever from saying everyone hired after this date goes into the municipal system? Do you see so that it transitions over?

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: Some people be in the state and some people be in the municipal. Honestly, I don't think we'd have anyone I I've never thought about that, to be I I don't think we've had anyone approach us with that idea, and that's a new one for me.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. I'm gonna think about the Okay.

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: If I'm sorry to interrupt.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: No. That's I actually, frankly, really enjoy being one that gets to stop people with questions no one's ever asked before. It's part of my role.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It's a it's a point of pride.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: Yes. I'm sorry. Well, because so as I'm thinking out loud, it's probably a little bit dangerous. It I I could see that as sort of a de facto departure. Right? Because you the the employer the way money comes into the system from the participating municipalities is through an employer employee contribution rates and on on each individual employee, and were that were all the employees to eventually move over, I think that might be we might view that as a sort of de facto withdrawal, and what I, you know, we I would have to think about that because we have to make sure there's a fairness entity that, you know, folks who've helped curb legacy liabilities help Ravenna.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, absolutely. Just and and, again, I don't I don't have any issue with this. It's just, you know, we created the municipal system, and it's like how did these three end up not in it?

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: It's something we all ask. Okay.

[Speaker 0]: So at the moment, if I'm understanding current landscape, the only other people that could be affected by this would be employees of Bethel and Danville

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Who get hired as law enforcement officers for the municipality, but they, in their initial hiring, could already elect to join Group F, right?

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: No. Because as Attorney Wood said earlier, all members elections only apply to those who are in the job currently. And that makes sense because Okay. Folks take a job under certain terms, work towards that, and it has been this legislature's practice not to, when a change comes into place, not to force those change expectations given election, but then anyone new hired after comes in with the expectation that they're gonna be in that group g, whether they're at Randolph or. Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. Any other questions? Just briefly, just because we don't live in the world the same way you do, Tim.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Oh, shit.

[Speaker 0]: Could you just remind us?

[Scott Clawad (Chief of Police, Town of Randolph)]: A while ago.

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: Yeah. Well, this one This is a big train.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It is retirement compensation now. Because when I retire from the legislature, we have no compensation just to remind everybody up there. Get no benefits for retirement. What is the chief difference between D and G? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?

[Speaker 0]: I think that's soon enough.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Chris will Is that I got one here from Chris. And it's a

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: de minimis They're very similar. They're twenty year plans, and that's the big

[Speaker 0]: They're both twenty.

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: They're both yeah. Group d in the municipal system and group g in the state system are both 20 plans that are designed to get you to 50% of your average final salary. Your last pay.

[Speaker 0]: Your average

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: final salary. That's so that's, you know, last few years. Five years on salary, so it came it's different for each group. So but that's the idea. That's what getting full retirement is, that 50% level. And whereas someone like myself in group f in the state system, that's a thirty year plan. So I would work till for thirty years to get to that 50% level.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And that's what teachers are too, right, aren't they?

[Speaker 0]: Senator Vyhovsky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Does Group G have a mandatory retirement? No. That's just Group C?

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: Group C only.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And Group D and also does

[Trini Brassard (Former Chair, Randolph Selectboard)]: not have mandatory retirement?

[Speaker 0]: Correct. Okay. Anything else for Jim? Maybe state. Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Let me invite Chris Rutland from the Garden And Fiscal

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: then we get 50% of our average last salary, so we'll get $50 we You have

[Speaker 0]: could buy a gallon of gas with that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: You know, I just get actually my pay for gas.

[Speaker 0]: Hi, Chris. Chris here from

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the Joint Fiscal Office. You all have the fiscal note. I'm not gonna display it because it will probably take longer for me to figure out the Zoom minimalist But to tell

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Do you have a de minimis display?

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I do not. I can I can display de maximus things, but de minimis things, we try to talk through? You know, the I think a lot of what is covered in the note has already been covered by the preceding witnesses, but, you know, we don't expect this bill will have any significant impact on the retirement system and no impact to the state budget because of several things. One is the towns that participate in VCRs pay for the employer share of their members. The state doesn't. The other reason is the members of group G pay for the incremental cost, the higher cost of being in Group G, through a rate that is 4.68 higher than it would have been had they remained in Group F. So Group G was designed when Act 114 passed. It was originally for corrections officers certain employees at the Department of Mental Health. And it was designed to provide that enhanced twenty year benefit with the 2.5% multiplier in a way that was cost neutral to the employer. So the added cost of putting these three, currently three people, into Group G would be born by those members. So it wouldn't touch the state. And just to reiterate what everybody else said, we're talking about such a small universe of members that are very similar to folks that are already in group G. Two years ago, you all passed a bill that dealt with sheriff deputies that had been in group F and allowed a very similar transition mechanism so they could move to group G. I think of this bill as dealing with this last historical vestige that probably should have been dealt with back then, but it's a very, very limited situation. I want to be clear to everybody that this isn't really a bill that just singles out one town. It just happens to be that there's one town that's in this position. I think we've sort of got at this, but the main difference between all these plans is all the other plans through the state system or through VMERS for law enforcement allow you to reach 50 of your average final compensation with twenty years service because of that 2.5% multiplier. So that's the issue here is that if you're in Group F, it takes you thirty years to reach 50% of AFC. If you're in the other groups, you only need to work twenty years. And one difference here with between group G and the state system group C that, you know, the state troopers are in, as well as VMR as group B, is that those systems, those groups allow an unreduced early retirement at 50 with twenty years of service. Group G, you still need to have 50, at the age 55 with twenty years of service. So it's a relatively minor in the big picture distinction, but the bigger issue is the benefit multiplier. That 2.5% multiplier is what we see in all the other law enforcement groups. That's to accelerate it so

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: it gets to the 50%.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, so it takes twenty years of service to reach 50% instead of thirty years of service.

[Speaker 0]: And yes, one question. Tim, would

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: you think about creating a chart of all the different groups so that we could have it here in our community just to refer to, so we actually remember year to year?

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: Sure. I think we have some. We definitely have one for municipal. I don't think we we have all the systems with all the charts, but we could work on that. So just keep the characteristics that'd be true.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Or maybe we should ask Chris. I would recommend you pass

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: the Yeah. Yeah. The treasurer's office are I think we're talking to the right guy.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: These materials, at least for and the teachers, and there used to be one for and we might

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: have There is one.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We might have gone beyond the bounds of of the age with recent changes, but those are available on the transferr's website.

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: We'd happy to put something together, though. I think that's good and useful.

[Speaker 0]: For

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: a Daniel, Bethel, or Randall law enforcement person, do they have to stay with that department in order to for the twenty years in order to benefit, or are they able to move? They could move in in those three towns, I assume, but they couldn't move out of that and keep the benefit of that.

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: Go think it's. Go forward. They so within the state system, they could move anywhere within those three towns. The participating sheriff's offices or the state in any capacity maintains a state retirement membership. There is a provision in law that you pass that allows anyone in our three systems, if, you know, I go and get a job in a municipality, I can elect to transfer my state into the municipal system, retaining characteristics of my state membership to keep, you know, to keep the money equal. Like, it it doesn't convert you can't convert by moving from one group to another into a more generous plan that would impact the finances of the system. But you can move your membership in so that it's all in one place, and then you become a member of whatever. Wanna be a teacher.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. And is there anything else?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: This question is also for Tim. And so given that there's already a process for doing this new version, we're talking about three people, I'm sort of going back. It would make sense to convert them into the municipal system. Like, I know I hear you talk, but there is a system for doing that if it's a person who gets a new job. We're talking about three people. It really have that much of an impact? Could we just treat them as if they had moved from the state police to do you know what I'm trying to say?

[Speaker 0]: I didn't know what

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: you were trying to say, and I I would want to I I would wanna think about it, because I I do worry I do worry about sort of partially moving membership into, like, a two member system. I mean, it's there for schools, for example. Like, hires teachers that are in the teacher system and aides and other people that are So in the municipal there's nothing inherently, you know, wrong with being in two systems as a single employer. That said, I would be I would be cautious about affirmatively moving people from one to another, and I gotta believe about that.

[Speaker 0]: That's fine,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: but

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Just to sort of reiterate, I think some of

[Speaker 0]: it does come down to

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the complications of parsing out liabilities and transferring those from system to system.

[Speaker 0]: That can be very technical, and it

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: may be more complicated than shifting three people from one group, to another in the same system. And the one thing I just wanted to mention, just to reiterate, is that, when a member switches from group f to group g, that does not retroactively enhance their benefit for prior years of service. It's all prospective. So if I had worked for fifteen years in group f and then I switched to Group G, I don't get an enhancement for that prior fifteen years. It's like, I I I would earn the Group G benefit moving forward after joining Group G. So I don't want people to think that this switch is a retroactive enhancement of benefits or service already performed under a different system. It's all for real reasons. But would you get credit for the fifteen years?

[Speaker 0]: They're two different calculations.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So you'll get a calculation for the time you spent in Rebeth, and then a calculation for the time you spent in Rebeth.

[Speaker 0]: You mean will they get credit for the fifteen years?

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, that they Depends retirement age? Right, but you're not gonna get 2.5% times those 15. Right. You're gonna get 1.67% times those fifteen years to look at. Anything

[Speaker 0]: else for Chris? Thank you very much. Okay. Well done. So now we're gonna focus a little bit more on the town of Randolph itself. Trevor Lashua is town manager.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: He's on.

[Speaker 0]: He's not on.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. But Scott I'm

[Speaker 0]: sure he's doing something with management since he's the town manager. How about, the Randall police chief, Scott?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Who's on patrol? Look at he's in his Well, I just hope

[Speaker 0]: he doesn't get a call.

[Scott Clawad (Chief of Police, Town of Randolph)]: Good afternoon, folks. How are you today? Scott Scott Clawad, chief of police in Randolph. Just to I I hear, all the conversation. And just so you guys are aware that the Randolph Police Department, was reestablished only, four years ago. So it's a kind of a fresh start, but I do have, you know, both myself and, at least one other officer that have, you know, kind of a blended plan for retirement. I've got a little c. I've got a lot of f. I've got, you know, possibly with g, understanding that, you know, to be perfectly honest, I want my 20 and done. And much like the other officer where he's looking at retirement, you know, like next year, if not this year, which, you know, he's not really gonna be kind of vetted into this piece, but the other two is really for them as they are new officers that are really kind of starting out in their law enforcement career. One unfortunately is on military deployment for the next year, but she will be back and to pick up her job responsibilities and hit the ground running again. But these are really for those newer officers coming in and doing their twenty and hopefully, know, really putting in their time. As you guys know too, law enforcement comes with a shelf life. And the thirty year kind of part and piece is overextending that shelf life. And that's kind of where we were kind of looking at, you know, try you know, trying to get out of this f plan, which is a thirty year plan to the d plan after having a lot of conversations with the treasury department and all the above. This was the best fit all the way around. And that's why we're here before you all today.

[Speaker 0]: Anyone have a question? Yes.

[Trini Brassard (Former Chair, Randolph Selectboard)]: I I know I'm, like,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: beating this dead horse, but if you just if the Randall Police Department was just reestablished, why didn't you join the municipal plan? And

[Scott Clawad (Chief of Police, Town of Randolph)]: Because all of Randolph was still within that state system. So even when Randolph Police Department got reestablished, we automatically fell still within that state system, which was f. We didn't we weren't in those municipalities, or all the above. We were still within that state system.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Got it. Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Anything else for Scott? Yes, any

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: questions? So you're normally a department of five and you're down to four for the moment with the deployment?

[Scott Clawad (Chief of Police, Town of Randolph)]: Right. So recruitment has been extremely challenging for the last couple years. I am short at least two full time officers and the lack of recruitment that we've had thus far is leading those positions to be still vacant. What we're finding is, to be honest, is, you know, at the whims and whimsies of the Randolph voters, my budget is somewhat unstable and my pay is not as comparable as other law enforcement entities. So we're looking also for some kind of tool to stay in the running and a twenty year retirement is way better than a thirty to help that recruitment piece.

[Speaker 0]: Got it.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So it's a recruitment tool too, to some degree.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Recruitment and retention, both.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, both.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah, right. Well, do you have a law enforcement aspect to the Randall CTE Center at the Randall Career and Technical Education Center?

[Scott Clawad (Chief of Police, Town of Randolph)]: We go in and help teach classes, and we also we just did a bunch of marked car stops with the students to hopefully see what we can get for recruitment pieces out of out of those young'uns too.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah, you have a good one right there. Close by.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, Scott, thank you very much. We appreciate your time and hopefully the rest Thank of your day is

[Scott Clawad (Chief of Police, Town of Randolph)]: you for your time. Thank

[Speaker 0]: you. And lastly, have the chair of the Randolph Select Board, Trini Prasar. Welcome.

[Trini Brassard (Former Chair, Randolph Selectboard)]: Thank you. Just as a correction, I did choose not to run for reelection this March. So I am the former chair of the select board, but I did agree to see a few different projects through, of which this is one. Much to Scott's chagrin. So just to go back on some history, years ago, there was an offering out to municipalities. Towns were in a mishmash of retirement programs. And the state employees retirement system was opened up to municipalities that chose to join and there was only three that did, which are Danville, Bethel and Randolph. And of those three municipalities, Randolph's the only one that has a police department. And you heard Scott touch on that we just reestablished ours. We actually had worked with our sheriff's office and gone through and done a whole merger of services looking at a more regional model. And we closed down our police department and put our resources into the sheriff's department in that model. We had one bad election, that kind of blew apart on us, and we quickly, as in five weeks, I think it took us, reestablished our police department, and brought it back to get services back in. So, Scott's correct that the town is part of the state employees' retirement system. So the police department went in that with the rest of the employees that were there. I also don't think in five weeks we had an opportunity to really analyze plans on the retirement fund. We were too busy getting policies, equipment, all kinds of stuff stood up to get them back in service. So now we find ourselves in the fun position and heard Scott refer to this many times. There's a pool of officers. We're all fishing in the same pool trying to get somebody to come to work for us. And we're at a disadvantage. We're the only law enforcement entity in the state right now where you have to work thirty years to get to that retirement piece. So it is the recruitment and a retention piece, because others will do the training piece, get them ready to go, somebody else will steal them away because they have a better benefits package. So it puts us always in a cycle of training, which is, which is challenging. A couple of things I just wanted to bring up is we did work for quite a while with the State Treasurer's Office on this challenge and looked at different options, the different plans and, and how to do it. And we came down to the Plan G. Part of our reasoning for that is we don't want the mandatory age for retirement. Plan C, I believe, has a mandatory retirement age to it. And we actually find that some of our recruiting comes from people who are in plans where they have to retire. So when you look at community policing versus a lot of what the state police do or their special teams do, we can get some interest from some of those groups to come be in the quiet little town of Randolph to finish out their career. We want to be able to take advantage of that. We also don't want to switch into a plan that then takes our officers that are there currently and puts them on a much shorter career path. I mean, they retire at

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: 57.

[Trini Brassard (Former Chair, Randolph Selectboard)]: That's just, that's counterproductive to what our real challenge is here. So, think you've heard from everybody else kind of what it is we're trying to do and why we're trying to do it. But we're just grateful for the time, and hopefully we'll see this come out this session.

[Speaker 0]: Any questions for Trina? I noticed the effective day is July 1. I don't know whether it would be helpful Pass. If we amended the bill to make it effective on passage. It'll save, I don't know, four or five weeks. Depends how quickly the governor puts ink to it. There's an issue I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: can put Tim on that.

[Tim Duggan (Office of the State Treasurer; Vermont Retirement Systems)]: I I don't think from a practical perspective it would matter for us because we like to have folks, like, when we're doing a transition, start on, you know, either a fiscal or calendar year. Oh, okay. So we would be working to that. We've got an established pattern for IIP one thirty on how to do this, and it's so small. You know, we just have to go out and meet with folks and do some counseling. You're suggesting we leave I think so. Okay. Yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And and I would agree with the statutory language that's there. The the primary effective change is 01/01/2027 in regards to no longer having the ability to remain in group F if you're hired between now and then. I think having it effective July 1. Okay. Bringing it shorter than that isn't going to have substantive effects.

[Speaker 0]: I would agree. Just ask the question. You could put a big banner up on the town's website though, coming soon.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Say, can't you love your retirement?

[Trini Brassard (Former Chair, Randolph Selectboard)]: We would love to.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Any other questions, concerns, comments? Okay. Well, thank you both, and, we'll move this along as quickly as we can.

[Trini Brassard (Former Chair, Randolph Selectboard)]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Yep. Take care. Great fun. Thank you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Bye bye.

[Speaker 0]: Why don't we plan on leaving it on the calendar for at least another day or two in case someone comes out of the woodwork somewhere that has a question that we have not anticipated and maybe plan to vote it out. Right? It seems like it would work. I think it the

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: house did a good job on this and cleaned it up well. Okay. And Tim and Chris and Pam.

[Speaker 0]: Right now, the only thing we have Friday is the we have one thing to take up, up funding from the flesh. Right. Let's see. If you wanna move it to Friday and put vote, that'd be great. Yep. Sounds good. And up next is something that doesn't happen till 03:00, so I'll give you folks a little bit of a break. We're gonna walk through h nine seventeen, which is a 23 page bill having to do with military affairs. Sophie Zadotti will be joining us along with Representative Stone and Chris Rutland.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Chris, you're going to have to So that was outstanding. Yeah,

[Speaker 0]: let's take a fifteen minute break and we will be back on around 03:00. And