Barre City Council advances public-conduct ordinance to second reading after extended debate on enforcement and appeals

The Barre City Council voted Monday night to send a revised public-conduct ordinance and an accompanying notice-of-trespass policy to a second reading after detailed debate about enforcement, appeals and community supports.

Councilors and members of the public spent most of the meeting discussing a draft ordinance and a separate policy that would authorize city-designated officials and sworn officers to issue notices against trespass on specific city property for criminal or unreasonably disruptive conduct. City staff said they removed proposed new fines from the ordinance and narrowed its scope during revisions.

City Manager (unnamed) told the council the ordinance is intended for “dangerous, illegal or unreasonably disruptive” behavior and to preserve “livability” while recognizing constitutionally protected activity. Police Chief Vale described the intended use as a civil tool to trespass individuals from specific city locations after verbal warnings for repeated or serious misconduct; criminal charges still apply where a criminal statute is violated. The manager said notices would be location-specific (for example, City Hall Park) rather than citywide and that the policy would require a verbal warning except where a serious allegation (arson, assault, harassment) was involved.

Supporters, including downtown business owners and some residents, urged passage to protect customers and families from aggressive panhandling, vandalism, public urination and open-drug activity. Opponents and civil‑liberties advocates pressed for stronger procedural safeguards. Councilors and community members repeatedly asked for clarity about who decides whether behavior is “unreasonably disruptive,” how appeals will work, and whether the process could have a disparate impact on unhoused or other marginalized residents.

Council discussion led to multiple revisions the manager said could be finalized in policy (not in the ordinance) before second reading. Among ideas discussed at council request were: recording appeal hearings, permitting an advocate or representative to attend an appeal, providing an option for restorative justice or community service as a follow-up, and narrowing or clarifying terms such as “manner inconsistent with intended use” (for city property). The manager and chief said they would work with the city attorney and community stakeholders to refine the policy language and appeal procedures, and staff agreed to double-check code citations referenced in the draft.

The motion to move the ordinance to second reading passed; the council will take up the ordinance again with the refined policy at the next meeting. Councilors noted the ordinance is only one element of a broader strategy that includes increased directed patrols, portable restrooms, trash pickup, security cameras and outreach to social-service providers.

What happens next: the ordinance returns for a second reading at the council’s next meeting; staff said they will circulate a revised policy that incorporates council requests on appeal process transparency, recording, and options such as restorative justice before then.