Sheriffs tell House Judiciary they’ve been subsidizing court security; seek parity with $75 executive rate
Loading...
Summary
Sheriffs testified to the House Judiciary Committee that courthouse security contracts do not cover full personnel costs and asked the legislature to backfill roughly $1.9 million, including about $600,000 for prior shortfalls and roughly $1.3 million to raise reimbursement to the $75-per-hour executive-branch rate.
The House Judiciary Committee spent part of its Feb. 19 afternoon hearing on a budget request from the Vermont Sheriffs Association, with Mark Anderson, sheriff of Wyndham County, briefing lawmakers on why sheriffs are seeking additional funds for court security.
Anderson told the committee that sheriffs operate under three funding streams — state-paid salaries, county budgets for facilities, and separate contract revenue that must cover personnel and benefit costs. “We operate like a business,” Anderson said, adding that contract reimbursements must cover wages, health care and retirement. He said sheriffs have been subsidizing services the judiciary expects but has not sufficiently funded.
The committee was told the request under discussion totaled about $1.9 million: roughly $600,000 to backfill underfunded prior-year rates and about $1.3 million to raise judicial contract reimbursements to the $75-per-hour rate already used for executive-branch contracts. Anderson described differences between private security and sheriff-provided courthouse security, emphasizing that private guards lack police powers such as arrest and on-site law-enforcement response: “Private security…does not have powers of arrest,” he said.
Lawmakers pressed for detail on how the $75 rate is allocated between base pay, benefits and overhead; Anderson offered a rough breakdown in the hearing (examples included an estimated $25/hour to a deputy, FICA and retirement contributions, and health-care costs that could add several dollars an hour for single plans and far more for family coverage) and agreed to provide precise figures for appropriations staff. Committee members also asked about transport rates, per-diem deputies and whether some counties use part-time deputies to avoid full benefits costs.
Several members raised the practical question of what would happen if appropriators set a lower rate (for example, $65). Anderson said responses would vary by county and emphasized that sheriffs hope to continue negotiating with the judiciary and executive-branch procurement officials rather than simply abandoning contracts. He urged pragmatic solutions and closer coordination among the judiciary, the Executive Branch and sheriffs’ offices.
No vote or formal action was taken at the hearing; Anderson provided to the committee a willingness to submit contract documents and more-detailed cost breakdowns for the committee and appropriations staff to review.
The committee then moved on to other business.
