An act relating to creating the Municipal Law Enforcement Assistance Program
H.395 would create a new Municipal Law Enforcement Assistance Program administered by the Vermont Judicial Bureau. Under the bill, a municipality could, if its legislative body first recommends it and local voters approve it by majority vote, impose a $75 local penalty surcharge on civil money penalties handled by the Judicial Bureau for violations or offenses occurring within that municipality. The surcharge would apply only to matters within the Bureau’s jurisdiction under 4 V.S.A. § 1102 and would take effect at the start of the next fiscal year quarter after the municipality gives 90 days’ notice to the Bureau.
The bill directs the Judicial Bureau to collect and administer the surcharge, allows it to retain up to $5 per surcharge to cover administrative costs, and requires quarterly remittance of the remaining funds to the municipality where the surcharge was collected. Municipalities receiving the money must use it exclusively for establishing, supporting, maintaining, or improving local law enforcement services and operations. The bill also provides for refunds if a surcharge is collected in a municipality that has not properly authorized the local option surcharge.
H.395 would add a new section to Title 24 governing municipal law enforcement funding and would create a local revenue mechanism tied to civil penalties processed by the Judicial Bureau. It would affect municipalities that choose to adopt the surcharge, the Judicial Bureau as the collecting and administering agency, and people paying civil penalties for qualifying violations occurring within participating municipalities. The bill would not mandate the surcharge statewide, but it would authorize local adoption and impose restrictions on how the resulting funds may be spent.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a local funding tool for law enforcement rather than a broad statewide policy change. The bill’s structure suggests support for municipal flexibility and dedicated public safety funding, but there is no available discussion record to show formal support or opposition from legislators, local officials, or the public. No vote history is provided, so no consensus or division can be inferred from the record supplied.
The main points of potential contention are the creation of a new $75 surcharge on civil penalties, the use of penalty revenue to fund law enforcement, and the administrative role of the Judicial Bureau. Supporters would likely emphasize local control, dedicated funding, and the ability to strengthen police services without a statewide tax increase. Critics may question the fairness of funding law enforcement through penalty surcharges, the burden on people assessed civil penalties, and whether the revenue source is stable or equitable across municipalities. The refund provision and the requirement that funds be used only for law enforcement may also be relevant to concerns about proper authorization and spending restrictions.