The maze of bucolic dirt roads on the west side of the Foxstand Bridge in Royalton are within earshot of Interstate 89.

But with the bridge over the White River closed to traffic, residents there may as well be a world away.

“I now have food delivered,” said Gidget Lyman, a former Royalton Select Board member who lives about a mile from the 165-foot truss bridge. “Really, to go anywhere and plan to be on time, I have to add an additional 20 minutes onto my commute.”

Lyman and roughly 80 other households have been in a state of waiting for more than two years, since engineers working for the state visited the century-old bridge and, finding it in remarkably poor condition, immediately recommended the state close it to traffic. Today, graffitied cement barriers wall it off to vehicles. Getting around the river requires a circuitous, mostly dirt-road route.

Though state officials say the timeframe for replacing the bridge is not unheard of, the yearslong wait has caused mounting strife within the Windsor County town — the closure even prompted a lawsuit earlier this year.

Meanwhile, the estimated cost of the project has risen to more than $11 million. That’s creating a new headache for local officials, who must find a way to pay for the town’s portion of the expenses.

Like most bridges in Vermont, the Foxstand Bridge is town-owned. But bridge projects are often expensive, and towns usually rely on a grant program through the state Agency of Transportation to help pay for them.

According to a list sent to state senators in April, 18 town bridges around Vermont are currently closed and another 17 sites have temporary bridges. The Agency of Transportation prioritizes projects based on a weighted scoring system, said Project Manager Jonathan Griffin. “The projects actively advancing forward are systematically those in the poorest structural condition,” he said.

Ryan Britch, the town administrator in Royalton, said it’s been a battle to get the bridge replacement on the state’s priority list. But this spring, the state verbally committed to finishing the project by 2028, Britch said. That end date is reiterated on the bridge’s project fact sheet.

“So I’m feeling very confident that that will be the official opening date,” Britch said.

Neighbors of the Foxstand aren’t so sure.

They’ve experienced setbacks dating back to 2022, when the Foxstand was on the state’s funding shortlist and construction was slated to be fully funded through a federal grant. That pot of money ran out before its turn came.

Then, after the state closed the bridge in 2024, Royalton’s stranded residents were told they’d soon get a temporary bridge from the state until a new permanent one could be built. But after the temporary bridge’s price tag tripled, the town’s select board voted against installing it so as to not pass increased costs off to taxpayers.

As time has ticked on, the town has found itself in a similar conundrum. Britch, the town manager, said they were preparing to foot the local match for a $6 million project. But this spring, he said, the state came back to the town with a final $11 million total project estimate, meaning the town needs to come up with more than $500,000 for its match.

Now, Royalton is considering levying a local option tax to help pay for the unforeseen costs. Residents will likely vote on whether to implement such a tax at their town meeting next March. (Royalton voters previously rejected a 1% local option tax in 2025.)

Sabine Poux

Advertisement

/

Vermont Public

Griffin, with the state, said the original cost estimate was a “back-of-the-napkin” figure that wasn’t intended to encompass the complete project cost.

But he also explained that projects across the board have gotten more expensive due to rising construction costs, which have almost doubled from pre-pandemic levels due to inflation. 

Those high costs are putting even more of a strain on the state’s transportation budget, which has been under pressure due to declining gas tax revenue. Calling the Foxstand’s issues the “tip of the spear,” State Sen. Becca White, who represents Royalton, said she thinks paying for municipal infrastructure projects will only get harder from here.

In the meantime, a small group of Royalton residents are bearing the costs of the bridge closure in less quantifiable ways.

Earlier this year, one resident, Tyler LaGrange, went so far as to sue the town for financial damages. He said he was spending more on gas and car maintenance as a result of all the detouring, and he argued that the town was negligent because it hadn’t repaired the bridge sooner.

But citing sovereign immunity — the principal that holds municipalities harmless for indirect damages to residents — a Windsor County judge dismissed his case. LaGrange said he has since appealed the decision.

Another set of Royalton residents, the Bigelows, own Foxville Farmstand right on the west end of the bridge.

They opened their farmstand during the pandemic and rely on drive-by traffic.

Since the bridge closed, “it’s much quieter,” said Jim Bigelow. And after a big drop in business the last two summers, they’ve closed the stand this year and are trying to find other ways to sell their corn and spinach.

Rachel Bigelow said she’s heard about the 2028 reopening. And she’s wary.

‘I’ll believe it when I see it,” she said.

Sabine Poux

/

Advertisement

Vermont Public

MONTPELIER — The Vermont State Police trooper who shot and killed a mentally ill man in Putney last July was justified in his use of fatal force, the Vermont Attorney General’s office said Tuesday afternoon, concluding its almost 12-month investigation into the shooting.

Attorney General Charity Clark, in a lengthy press release, outlined the events of July 6 and 7, 2025, which resulted in the shooting death of Scott Garvey, 55, by Vermont State Police Trooper Peter Romeo. Garvey was not armed with a firearm at the time he was shot; a metal pipe which he used to resemble a rifle, was found near his body.

Clark said she would not be filing criminal charges against Romeo, but expressed sympathy for the Garvey family, which she had met with earlier in the day.

“This event was a tragedy. We cannot imagine the pain that the Garvey family has endured and continues to experience, and our hearts go out to them during this time,” Clark said in a statement.

Shawn Garvey, 61, Scott Garvey’s older brother, said Tuesday the family was dissatisfied but not surprised with the conclusion of the lengthy investigation, which Garvey said basically blamed his brother for his death.

“Do you blame someone with cancer for their death? My brother had a mental illness,” he said.

He said he, his mother and his sister were not surprised at the investigation’s conclusion, and he pointed to the Vermont record of never charging officers in fatal shootings.

Since 1977, he said, there have been 48 cases where police killed someone, he said, and police have always been found justified.

“That 100 percent record is still intact,” he said.

He said the state police did not follow its own policies of de-escalation in such cases, and to seek alternatives to lethal force.

“My brother was by himself, he was sitting in his living room when they barged in,” he said of the police, who did have multiple warrants, including one for his arrest for criminal threatening and disorderly conduct.

Scott Garvey had only moved to Vermont a couple of days earlier from Memphis, Tenn., and he was going to live at the Putney Landing apartment complex, with his elderly mother, Judy. His sister Kara lived nearby in Dummerston.

Garvey had a long history of mental illness, including bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia, and according to earlier statements from his family, it included several psychiatric hospitalizations. The Garvey family said they brought him to Vermont to be closer to family and to get what they hoped would be better mental health care.

Since the shooting, the family has hired a Los Angeles law firm to sue the state of Vermont, and Shawn Garvey has been very active criticizing the state for its handling of the case. Just Monday, Judy Garvey, 85, conducted a vigil outside the Vermont State Police barracks in Westminster, drawing attention to her son’s death, and the lack of action by police.

The attorney general’s office, along with the Washington County State’s Attorney’s office because of the inherent conflict with the Windham County prosecutors’ office, had conducted separate investigations in the July 7, 2025, fatal shooting, with both investigations concluding the use of fatal force was justified and that there would be no criminal charges filed against Romeo.

The AG report included a lengthy narrative and timeline of July 6 and 7, with the focus on July 7, and what it said state police did to de-escalate the situation and bring Scott Garvey under control.

Police believed Garvey was carrying a weapon, which they believed was a rifle, and their efforts to get him to show them his hands were ignored.

Garvey was carrying a metal pipe, which police believed was the barrel of a rifle, and his brother said was his cane. Scott Garvey refused to show his hands to police as requested multiple times, during the fatal confrontation in his apartment, the report stated.

“Trooper Romeo ordered Mr. Garvey to show his hands three times and ordered Mr. Garvey to ‘put it down twice.” When asked what he had seen by Sergeant Hughes, Trooper Romeo responded “I don’t know.” Trooper Romeo again instructed Mr. Garvey to show his hands three times and said “don’t [expletive] do this s***” to Mr. Garvey.

Trooper Romeo again told Sergeant Hughes he was unsure whether the object was a gun when asked by Sergeant Hughes. Mr. Garvey responded by telling Trooper Romeo, “[expletive] you” and to “shoot me in the head,” multiple times while Trooper Romeo further commanded Mr. Garvey to show his hands an additional four times, then to “move,” and then to show his hands three more times.” the report stated.

Police said they spent more than four hours that day either talking to Garvey through the closed door of his apartment or on the telephone, and they were hopeful that he would allow police inside to make sure he didn’t have any weapons.

Police received a search warrant for Garvey’s apartment, as well as an arrest warrant for him and a warrant for an involuntary mental health hearing, and shortly afterward entered Garvey’s apartment with a key.

They encountered Garvey in a dimly-lit downstairs room and according to the timeline outlined by the attorney general’s office, five state troopers, lined up and tried to enter the apartment from both the front and back doors, after discussing various strategies.

Police said they agreed they couldn’t leave Garvey in the apartment complex at Putney Landing, because he had threatened his new neighbors, and told them that voices in his head were telling him to kill them.

Earlier in the day, a Vermont state trooper, along with the police’s embedded mental health clinician, went to apartment 103 to speak to Mr. Garvey, the report stated.

“They spoke with Mr. Garvey through his front door as he refused to open it. At times, Mr. Garvey indicated he had a firearm.

The embedded mental health clinician relayed that Mr. Garvey “said he had a gun” and “if he came out, you would have your guns drawn, and he would have his as well,’” the report stated.

Additional VSP officers arrived and after considering the evidence from the neighbors, determined that there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Garvey, the report stated.

At one point, Garvey had told a mental health screener that he wanted to be killed by the police.

The attorney general’s report did not answer the Garvey family’s questions and furthered its frustration, Shawn Garvey said.

Shawn Garvey said his family had for the past year tried to meet with Gov. Phil Scott to discuss state police training, and had never received a call back or any acknowledgment. He said his family wanted to work with the Vermont government on changes, so that shootings like that don’t happen again.

Garvey said he had worked with Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun, D-Westminster, on proposed legislation to address some of the family’s concerns.

Romeo, who at the time of the shooting had been with the state police for a year, was placed on paid administrative leave after the shooting. After a couple of weeks, he has been working at the Westminster barracks in administration for most of the past year and he is now returned to full duty. He is still assigned to the Westminster barracks.

“Under our policy in effect since 2018, troopers involved in critical incidents initially are placed on a period of administrative leave in the immediate aftermath of an incident, followed by a transition to administrative duty status while a case is under review. Upon a ruling by the Attorney General’s Office that a trooper’s use of deadly force was justified, the trooper returns to full duty. Trooper Romeo remains assigned to the Westminster Barracks,” Adam Silverman, a spokesman for the Vermont State Police wrote in an email Tuesday afternoon.

Contact Susan Smallheer at ssmallheer@reformer.com.

Not someday in some distant future. Now.

We are aging, shrinking, and pricing out our own children, workers, and entrepreneurs. Schools face consolidation, taxes are climbing, and employers struggle to fill jobs. We’re too dependent on federal funding to support state spending. A housing shortage is driving up prices, slowing economic growth, and leaves young people feeling forced out.

Staying the course is not a viable option. It only gets worse from here if nothing changes.

The cost of scarcity

For decades, Vermont has treated growth as a threat to mitigate. We are living through the consequences of that mindset, and it hits marginalized communities hardest. True equity requires expanding supply rather than fighting over the crumbs of a shrinking economy. Otherwise, people lose hope and leave. This is already happening: Vermont experienced the nation’s largest percent decrease in population last year, becoming the only state losing population to both natural change and net migration.

The data are clear: Over the next decade, Vermont must add roughly 13,500 workers annually just to maintain economic stability. We need 7,500 new homes each year, yet we only permit about 2,500. When we fail to build, we aren’t “preserving” Vermont. We are pricing out multi-generational families, working-class neighbors, and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Vermonters who represent our state’s fastest-growing demographic. Saying no to growth denies depopulated rural areas the chance to revitalize their communities. A shrinking tax base concentrates economic pressure on fewer people, creating a vicious cycle that erodes even the most resilient communities.

Most Vermonters support more housing and population growth, and policymakers keep saying they intend to follow the will of the people. However, intentions do not house families, fill classrooms, staff hospitals, or make life more affordable. Outcomes do. Right now, tangible outcomes are coming far too slowly or not at all.

It doesn’t have to be this way. We can choose a different path forward.

From roadmap to results

The planning is done. Between the Vermont Futures Project’s Economic Action Plan and the Vermont Business Roundtable’s Systems Innovation Framework, we have the data-informed roadmaps. We know where the hurdles are: a regulatory system that prizes “no” over “how,” and a fiscal trajectory where spending outpaces tax base growth, both exacerbated by unfunded mandates adding layers to an already inefficient system.

Process continues to overshadow results. It is time for outcomes. Future policymakers should focus on these four immediate shifts:

Regulatory Modernization: Move from a culture of “permission” to a culture of “production.” If a project meets established goals, it should be approved in months, not years. Start with “yes” as the default.

Fiscal Stewardship: Align our budget with economic reality. Vermont cannot tax its way out of a shrinking population and a constrained economy. Families and businesses need a predictable environment that allows them to plan, invest, stay, and grow.

Intentional Growth: Actively recruit and retain a diverse, working-age population. Growth funds our schools, supports our healthcare system and sustains our communities, benefiting the people already here.

Accountability: Ensure enacted policies achieve their goals. If the goal is housing, did we build the homes? If it is affordability, did we bring costs down sustainably? Revisit system design and policies if they fail to produce tangible results.

What comes next

Data is not destiny. Vermont’s future is a choice. Let’s choose abundance because Vermonters can no longer afford to choose scarcity. Here’s how you can help.

To the business community: Step forward to share your experiences with the downstream impacts of public policy. Your insights are crucial to modernizing our rules, regulations, and system design, and restoring Vermont’s competitiveness to build an economy where everyone can thrive.

To policymakers: We stand ready to be your partners. The data is clear, our organizations are aligned, and the roadmap is ready. We don’t need endless studies; we need your help to produce results. As the election cycle approaches, remember that accountability is measured by tangible outcomes for Vermonters, not intentions.

To our fellow Vermonters: Say “yes” to the possibilities in your own communities. Welcome new housing, support the local businesses, and champion a growing tax base over rising tax rates. But wanting change is not enough; you must participate to make it happen. Engage with your elected officials, serve on a local board, and turn out to vote for the future you want to see.

Finally, we must all reshape the narrative about Vermont. Share stories about why you love living and working here and why others should consider Vermont too. Your voice can help break the vicious cycle of scarcity. Speak openly about how growth can improve well-being and why you support it.

Growth is not a threat to Vermont; growth is what will save it.