By Kolby LaMarche

City officials and consultants shared preliminary survey results on Burlington’s planned Overdose Prevention Center (OPC) during a presentation to the Ward 6 Neighborhood Planning Assembly (NPA) last night. 

The assessment process, which gathers feedback from those with “living experience” – an undefined term by the City – and the wider community, is intended to shape operations and must gain City Council approval 90 days prior to opening.

Billed as a listening event as part of the mandated Services Assessment, it attracted very few participants virtually and in-person, but the guided format once again raised questions about the balance between genuine input and directed discussion.

Site selection, despite the City’s request for money to buy a site last month, continued to be a major topic, with the City eyeing more ways to “meet people where they are”.

Convenience, too, was a topic, with a majority of respondents only wanting to travel 5-15 minutes to get to the OPC. Importantly, data from the survey has given the City a new thought: a mobile van where people can enter, shoot up illicit substances, and leave – getting life-saving care if needed, in the van.

It is unknown if the City would be able to get the van insured, given its use. Earlier this year, the City failed to find an insurer for a building they wanted to rent for the OPC. 

68% would likely use a free shuttle from downtown, and 75% said they’d like a mobile van traversing the city. At that presentation, the City said it would explore the option.

According to the report, Downtown Burlington topped preferences in both PWLE and community surveys, followed by the Old North End (ONE) and Riverside/Intervale. Last year, Burlington’s Downtown residents expressed their desire not to have the center be downtown. 

Community respondents prioritized factors like client accessibility (52%), avoidance of schools and playgrounds (40%), proximity to support services (40%), and transportation (38%). 

Among those same 49 in-person survey participants — all recent users of illicit substances — 84% reported unstable housing, including 80% who were unsheltered. Eighty-six percent used drugs at least daily, 43% typically alone, and 47% had experienced at least one overdose in the past year. Notably, 92% indicated they would consider utilizing the OPC, with 73% expecting to do so frequently or always.

The online community survey, with 1,505 responses, showed a broader but nonetheless divided perspective. 

Respondents were primarily Burlington residents (75%), workers (45%), or business owners (2%), with just 8% identifying as past or current non-prescription opioid or stimulant users. 

Rating the OPC’s helpfulness on a 1-10 scale (1 least, 10 most), the average was 6.3, median 7, and 10 was the most frequent choice. 

These numbers, though, don’t make much sense. And this was picked up by Democrat City Councilor Buddy Singh, who requested to see the “raw data”, adding to him – a loan officer by trade – the data was confusing. Singh noted that there may likely be many respondents who submitted a “0”, not seeing the site as helpful.  

On security, the responses were balanced. An interior guard would enhance safety for 53%, reduce it for 19%, and have no effect for 28%; exterior placement yielded 47% safer, 19% less safe, and 34% neutral.

After the data review, the session moved to resident input via three structured questions: 

-“What positive impact do you hope the OPC will bring to our community?”

-“What are your concerns or questions related to the OPC?” 

-“What would you like to see for ongoing communication once the OPC opens?” 

The framing, however, revived critiques of the city’s approach. Starting the first question with a presupposing positive impact has the ability to steer dialogue toward complete affirmation.  

As detailed in prior BDN coverage, OPC-related sessions have frequently emphasized education over unscripted exchange. Our February reporting noted how these events, promoted as “listening” opportunities, often involve polished presentations and guided discussions, with critics labeling them more instructional than interactive. 

In January, we highlighted the city’s reliance on partners like VCJR for “education” initiatives via workshops, which some see as evading direct accountability for community concerns.

City representatives maintain, however, that the method is evidence-based and inclusive, using data from effective OPCs in other locations to demonstrate benefits like lower overdose rates and reduced public use, without corresponding crime increases. 

According to the City, upcoming actions include incorporating qualitative data into the Services Assessment, continued engagement tracking, and submission to the Vermont Department of Health. They also said the City would host a larger “listening” event, where the extended data would be presented. 

The full presentation can be viewed here.