By Kolby LaMarche

Burlington’s debate over public safety, homelessness, and downtown disorder is expected to reach another pivotal moment tonight as the City Council takes up the Democrats’ sweeping “Burlington Forward” resolution, a proposal that has quickly become one of the most contentious issues at City Hall this year.

At the heart of the clash are clear policy differences between Democratic council leaders and Progressive Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak on a whole range of Burlington issues. 

The Democrat’s resolution calls for greater scrutiny and quicker removal of unauthorized encampments, technically illegal but currently tolerated on many city-owned parcels, alongside expanded shelter capacity and the possible designation of sanctioned camping sites.

It also seeks a more visible public safety presence downtown, stronger accountability for illegal activity including open drug use and drug trafficking, expedited hiring and deployment of additional police, and new public space response teams that could issue citations while connecting people to services. 

But Mulvaney-Stanak has rejected that approach. In statements since the resolution’s unveiling, she has warned that it contains “concerning ideas that move Burlington away from its values of being an inclusive community by suggesting we should remove people and legislate restrictions that contradict what public health data tells us works.” 

She argues many of the initiatives are already underway or duplicate existing efforts, such as the Situation Table, City Circle, Chittenden County Accountability Court, and Safe Outdoor Sites meetings and further risks shifting the city’s focus toward enforcement and incarceration over longer-term housing, treatment, and social-service based solutions, which the mayor has long advocated for.

At the core of that disagreement is a difference in means and emphasis: Democrats want faster, more assertive enforcement tools, quicker clearances of illegal camps, stronger visible policing and citation authority, and explicit accountability for repeat offenders. 

While the mayor prioritizes maintaining a lighter enforcement posture tied to stronger, existing outreach programs and public-health strategies, arguing that forced removals and tighter restrictions will not solve the underlying crises and may conflict with Burlington’s legal and values framework. 

Rather than voting immediately on the resolution’s policy recommendations, councilors are likely to consider referring the proposal to multiple council committees, where individual sections would undergo legal, policy, and operational review. That process could stretch for weeks before any substantive action is taken, but Democrats could decide to pass it in-full. 

Tonight’s vote comes after nearly two weeks of increasingly public disagreements between Democratic council leaders and Progressive Mayor Emma Mulvaney-Stanak over both the substance of the proposal and how it was developed. 

The dispute has expanded beyond policy into a broader debate over collaboration, public messaging, and the direction of Burlington’s response to public safety concerns, with multiple statements from the mayor whirling around this week. 

On the table, too, for tonight is an initial legal review prepared by City Attorney Jessica Brown, no doubt on the request of the mayor, which identifies numerous practical and legal questions that would need to be addressed before several portions of the resolution could be implemented.

Rather than recommending against the proposal, the memorandum largely outlines issues requiring further analysis.

Among the most significant concerns is equitable enforcement, the report states.

The legal review notes that if the city increases enforcement of permit requirements for activities in City Hall Park—such as food distribution—it must apply those rules consistently across all organizations. Selective enforcement could expose Burlington to legal challenges alleging unequal treatment.

Several sections involving expanded public safety staffing would also require additional agreements and liability protections if nonprofit employees or volunteers are expected to perform functions on behalf of the city.

Similarly, proposals establishing volunteer graffiti removal efforts would require insurance review, volunteer agreements, and formal permission from private property owners before work could proceed.

The memorandum also cautions that Burlington’s existing policy governing sheltering on public land stems from a previous settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union. Any move toward a more restrictive enforcement policy without consultation regarding that agreement could expose the city to additional litigation, the department said.

On accountability, however, the City Attorney’s Office identifies one area where policy changes may already be forthcoming.

After reviewing the first six months of Burlington’s City Circle program, attorneys concluded existing ordinances often do not allow repeat violations to accumulate quickly enough for criminal prosecution. The office says it has already drafted ordinance changes intended to provide more rapid enforcement authority and is prepared to present those proposals to the council’s Ordinance Committee.

The legal memorandum also says that regulating overdose prevention centers or syringe service programs through zoning would require a formal amendment process rather than simple council action.

The Burlington Forward resolution was unveiled by Democratic councilors last month as a comprehensive framework aimed at addressing persistent complaints about open drug use, homelessness, downtown disorder, and public safety. 

The proposal includes recommendations ranging from expanding police and public safety staffing to strengthening enforcement of unauthorized encampments, accelerating graffiti removal, increasing partnerships with nonprofits and property owners, and reviewing zoning regulations surrounding harm reduction facilities.

Supporters have framed the resolution as an acknowledgment that many residents and business owners continue to express concerns despite recent city investments and improvements. They argue the document provides a roadmap for balancing compassion with greater accountability.

The proposal immediately drew criticism from Mayor Mulvaney-Stanak.

Over the past week, the mayor has issued multiple public statements defending her administration’s approach while urging Democratic councilors to postpone consideration of the resolution. 

She argued that many initiatives outlined in Burlington Forward are already underway, duplicate existing work, or risk shifting the city’s approach toward policies that prioritize enforcement over long-term solutions.

The disagreement escalated publicly after the mayor’s office said repeated requests to meet with Democratic leadership before Monday’s meeting had gone unanswered. Democratic leaders disputed aspects of that timeline, creating a public back-and-forth over whether meaningful discussions had been attempted before the issue reached the council agenda.

Since the resolution’s introduction, the debate has also unfolded against the backdrop of renewed state involvement in Burlington’s public safety efforts.

Gov. Phil Scott recently directed the Vermont State Police to resume supplemental patrols in downtown Burlington through mid-August after discussions with community and business leaders about ongoing safety concerns. While the mayor welcomed the additional law enforcement presence, she also said it was unfortunate that her administration was not informed directly before the decision became public.

The resolution calls for stronger enforcement against unauthorized encampments while also discussing potential sanctioned camping alternatives. According to the legal review, creating any city-sanctioned camping area would likely require staffing, insurance approval, and additional operational planning.

Outside City Hall, political organizing has continued ahead of Monday night’s meeting.

Progressive-aligned organizations and supporters have encouraged residents to attend and speak during public comment, arguing that portions of Burlington Forward place too much emphasis on enforcement while overlooking investments in housing, treatment, and social services. 

Supporters of the Democratic proposal, meanwhile, have continued arguing that residents have consistently called for stronger action on public safety and visible disorder.

Burlington Daily News will be there tonight to gather all the details. Readers will find a report tomorrow online or by listening into WVMT 101.3 FM and AM 620 at 12:30 PM tomorrow, Tuesday.