Vermont Sheriffs Association asks for more transport deputies, details work scope and compensation plan

Sheriff Mark Anderson, president of the Vermont Sheriffs Association, told the Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee that sheriffs provide a mix of public safety services statewide, often funded by contracts rather than local tax bases, and requested additional support for state transport duties.

Anderson said Vermont’s sheriff offices perform prisoner transport to court, intrafacility movements, support for mental-health transports, extraditions and various contracted policing services for municipalities. He described sheriff offices as sustained primarily through contracts with the state and municipalities, supplemented by limited county taxes for facilities, rather than a broad local tax base.

Roger Marcoux (identified in the meeting as Memorial County sheriff and association vice chair) and Annie Noonan, director of labor relations and operations for the Vermont Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs, added detail about funding and staffing. Noonan told the committee the administrative budget the department oversees is largely salary and benefits — she said roughly 96% of the sheriff-related funds the administrative department pays are for salary and benefits — and that the sheriffs’ operating budgets are small by comparison. Noonan said the department will request six to eight new state transport deputy positions to meet court transport demand; she characterized the program as underwritten in practice by sheriff offices because transport deputies use sheriff vehicles, uniforms and supervision.

Roger Marcoux highlighted two legislative priorities. First, the association is working on the Act 30 compensation policy to create an equitable cap so sheriff compensation aligns with similar state law-enforcement positions; the association described the plan as reviewed by the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, the Department of Human Resources, and the Auditor’s Office and awaiting central-office approval. Second, the sheriffs raised a statutory gap for writs of possession (commonly referred to as evictions): current statute, as explained in committee remarks, requires county-specific deputization for certain eviction-related service; sheriffs urged statutory language to allow one sheriff to serve a writ of possession in another county without duplicative deputization. Committee members said a bill addressing writs of possession language exists (H.21) and noted that Judiciary has jurisdiction but that Government Operations & Military Affairs could have a role in related adjustments.

Committee questions were limited; Representative Hooper asked whether deputization would be designated or permissive across counties, and the sheriffs and staff clarified the discussion focused specifically on writs of possession. No formal committee actions or votes were taken on the sheriffs’ requests during this session. Committee staff and members asked the sheriffs’ representatives to share any draft statutory language and to coordinate with Judiciary where appropriate.

The sheriffs’ presentation emphasized operational demand: sheriffs’ offices are increasingly asked to provide law-enforcement services where municipal policing resources are limited, and association leaders said some sheriff offices struggle to meet payroll. The association requested legislative and administrative fixes it said would improve accountability and the ability to scale services across the state.