Needed for better emergency response, supporters say
By Michael Bielawski
State leaders are rethinking Vermont’s approach to regional governance, which is determined by some as insufficient for emergency responses.
“In summary, Vermont’s county governance is very limited and namely involves regional law enforcement performed by sheriffs and State’s Attorneys and the care and superintendence of county property by assistant judges, i.e. county courthouses and offices for county officers,” stated a report from Tim Devlin of the Legislative Counsel to the County and Regional Governance Study Committee.
A state mandate
According to S. 159 or Act 118, as signed into law this year, requires the State to create the Committee to “address local government capacity challenges, enhance and optimize public safety, regional collaboration and planning, efficient, equitable, and transparent public resource allocation, and effective regional public services for individuals and municipalities.”
Devlin’s report notes that the State Constitution allows the General Assembly “the absolute power to create and modify counties, similar to other political subdivisions of the State.”
It says county governance traditionally ”operates as an electoral district for assistant judges, state’s attorneys, and sheriffs, as well as, in some cases, state senators and probate judges. It is a judicial district for the superior court and some probate court systems, and maintains courthouse facilities.”
What will it cost?
Rep. Mark Higley, R – Lowell, spoke with VDC by phone on Monday about how it’s going with the Committee’s work. The Committee met on Monday morning to hear about how other states function their county governance.
He said at the meeting that he would like to know more about the cost implications. He said, “As we go through this process I think it’s important to compare what the cost is going to be and how it works in regards to the difference between a county form of governance and an increase maybe in administrative costs to do maybe a similar thing [at the county level].”
Sen. Ruth Hardy, D-Addison, co-chair of the Committee, agreed with that sentiment.
“Getting at the cost-benefit analysis I think is something hopefully we’ll be able to do with UVM, with the help of JFO [the Joint Fiscal Office], I think we need to figure out that comparison,” she said.
Higley suggested concerns a new level a bureaucracy could potentially undermine municipal control over a situation.
“What are some of the actual problems and what are some of the solutions?” Higley said. He also said that the committee is “not necessarily looking for a third form of government.”
Are towns really struggling?
Higley said that he would like the committee to hear more directly from some of the small towns if they feel they needed more help or not regarding the federal aid. He also expressed confidence that municipalities found the best uses of federal funds intended as flood relief.
According to a Seven Days report, one thing current local governance needs help with is going after federal funds.
“That makes broader approaches to flood mitigation more difficult, as towns have to effectively band together,” their report states. “Many worry that this also hinders municipalities’ ability to navigate federal bureaucracy and, ultimately, secure funds.”
Yet it notes that the Town of Plainfield, despite its lacking help from a county government, faired OK.
“Nevertheless, the group, which had formed after flooding devastated the town this summer, presented a new, bold vision of Plainfield. They imagined reengineering washed-out Brook Road — a project that would likely cost between $10 million and $15 million — and restoring vast swaths of floodplain.”
The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle