Council advances first reading of public conduct ordinance amid strong public comment

The Barre City Council moved the proposed public conduct ordinance to a second hearing on procedural grounds May 20 after extensive public comment and debate among councilors, the police chief and the state's attorney.

City staff and the police chief framed the draft ordinance as a civil tool to address repeated nuisance behaviors in public spaces that they said existing criminal statutes do not cleanly cover. The chief told the council the ordinance is intended to give officers an additional response option for persistent conduct that affects public use of shared spaces. He said officers would continue to exercise discretion and that the policy is not intended as a revenue source.

State's Attorney Michelle Donnelly urged caution and said civil ordinances can be a preferable alternative to criminal measures, but she also warned the council that the draft contains vague terms that could create enforcement and legal challenges. "A civil ordinance is way wiser than a criminal ordinance," Donnelly said, while also advising the council to tighten ambiguous language before enactment.

Many residents urged the council to reject or substantially revise the measure. Speakers — including representatives from the newly formed JEDI-B committee and multiple residents who work with youth and people experiencing homelessness — urged the council to prioritize services, addiction treatment and housing solutions over new penalties. Others, including downtown business owners, described repeated quality-of-life incidents and urged stronger enforcement tools.

Council discussion covered the ordinance’s scope and wording, the definition of "sensitive zones" such as areas near schools and ATMs, trespass authority, and an appeal and waiver pathway directed to the city manager. Several councilors requested clearer definitions, explicit limits on enforcement authority and an equity impact review. The city's attorney had reviewed the draft and staff said the mayor arranged for that review with the attorney at his expense; that procedural detail prompted questions about process from some councilors.

After public comment concluded, one councilor moved to table a first reading; the motion failed on a voice vote. A subsequent motion to move the ordinance to a second hearing passed. Council leaders said the additional hearing will allow more time for committee review, an equity impact assessment and tighter drafting of definitions and enforcement procedures ahead of any final vote.