Wyndham County sheriff outlines five-year pilot to centralize town public-safety contracts, says tax basis won’t change
Loading...
Summary
Sheriff Mark Anderson told the House Government Operations & Military Affairs committee the Windham County pilot would use existing statutes and a town-participation special assessment rather than altering the county tax base; members discussed interim reporting and a likely vote next week.
Sheriff Mark Anderson of Wyndham County told the House Government Operations & Military Affairs committee on Thursday that a proposed five-year pilot to consolidate town public-safety contracts under county governance would not change the legal basis for county taxation. "If the bill changed the basis for county taxation or special assessment, the short answer is no," Anderson said, adding the plan relies on existing statute and an itemized special assessment for participating towns.
The pilot would let the county negotiate a single contract covering towns that opt in, Anderson said, rather than maintain numerous individual contracts. He cited Title 24 provisions as the statutory mechanism for handling equipment, vehicles and vendor relationships and referenced the 1976 Supreme Court decision Stowe v. Lemoyle to explain the county’s authority to raise funds only as the legislature allows. "We're using existing statutes in Title 24," Anderson said, and the model treats the town contribution more as a special assessment than a change to the grand-list county tax.
Why it matters: proponents framed the measure as a governance experiment intended to surface operational problems and produce public reporting other counties could learn from. Anderson said Windham’s current county tax is about 1¢ on the grand list and pointed to a statutory cap of 5¢, noting there is room under existing limits for special assessments tied to the pilot.
Committee members pressed Anderson for details about town participation and oversight. Anderson said Windham County has 23 towns, that he currently contracts with 15 towns, and that 17 towns had expressed interest in the project while a couple are unlikely to participate. He described a volunteer sheriff’s advisory committee — including ex officio county officials and resident volunteers — that met recently and offered informal support but does not constitute a formal governing board.
Members also discussed evaluation milestones. The bill as drafted would require an annual report (due Jan. 31) and a final comprehensive evaluation at the pilot’s end. Lawmakers on the committee proposed a midterm comprehensive evaluation around 2030 so legislators would have findings before a session; Anderson said he would find the capacity to provide an interim report if the committee requested one. Committee members suggested moving a midterm deadline to late October or November to align with legislative drafting calendars.
Timing and next steps: committee members agreed to ask counsel to draft a simple amendment incorporating a midterm report deadline and to return the bill for further consideration. The chair said the committee would likely vote on the measure next week; if approved with amendment it would return to the senate.
Anderson framed the pilot as reversible if it failed: "If it falls apart, we revert back to what it is today," he said, adding the point of the pilot is to learn governance lessons and, if successful, seek legislation to codify the model. The committee recessed after scheduling additional work on amendments and potential next-week action.
