Senate GovOps hears divided testimony on Windham County pilot to regionalize policing

The Senate Committee on Government Operations took public testimony Feb. 11 on S.255, a bill that would authorize a pilot law-enforcement governance council in Windham County to fund and govern regional policing services.

Supporters — including town administrators and the county sheriff — said the model would stabilize funding, expand capacity and make certain services (animal control, dispatch and embedded mental-health response) easier to plan and deliver. "He is persistent, and he is out of the box thinker," said Karen Aftley, Putney town manager, describing Sheriff Anderson's work on regional pilots that began with animal control and now serve multiple towns. Erica Elder, Guilford town administrator, said a 2024 town vote to spend up to $68,000 for a part‑time contract was prompted by a local emergency in which state police response was delayed; she called the sheriff's animal-control and on‑call arrangements a workable model.

Opponents and skeptical lawmakers pressed two central concerns: accountability for constitutionally elected sheriffs and the bill's effect on local property assessments. "This is a cart before the horse," said a senator who urged that the legislature first complete the county and regional government study committee's work to set clear governance and oversight rules. Several members warned the bill could permit new assessments on municipal tax bills without adequate transparency on when or how counties would levy additional amounts.

Sheriff Mark Anderson told the committee the pilot is intended to be geographically and time‑limited and to provide "stability and funding that allows us to start out planning, training, acquisition of capital projects." Anderson said Windham County currently raises money through municipal and county assessments for policing functions; he described roughly "three quarters of $1,000,000" in current county funding for policing programs and later said the county tax for certain facility and administrative costs is "roughly about $500,000." He also acknowledged trade-offs for very small towns, noting a town now contracting for $6,000 annually could see that figure rise under the draft formula.

Legislative counsel Tim Dunwood briefed the committee on draft amendments that would change how municipalities enter and exit the governance council (shifting some decisions from townwide votes to legislative‑body majorities) and would alter the budget‑financing clause so the county treasurer levies assessments proportional to member populations; counsel indicated the committee will likely consider a "strike‑all" amendment.

Lawmakers and witnesses debated whether the county model would resolve long response times in remote areas; several senators said it could enable planning and modest staffing increases but would not instantly fix distant response gaps. Town witnesses emphasized that many municipalities already pay for services by assessment and that a governance council could increase municipal input on bylaws and staffing — provided safeguards exist to withdraw from the arrangement or subject larger expenditures to town meeting review.

The committee did not vote. Members scheduled a continuation of the hearing for Thursday, Feb. 19, at 2:30 p.m., and requested an updated draft that incorporates the proposed strike‑all amendments and the counsel's edits. The next session is expected to focus on finance mechanics, entry/exit rules and accountability measures.

For now, the bill remains under consideration as lawmakers weigh local demand for more reliable coverage against long‑standing limits on legislative authority over constitutionally created county officers and the potential for new assessments on municipal tax bills.