By Kolby LaMarche

A Burlington ordinance amendment that would give the Public Safety Committee more flexibility to schedule hearings and issue decisions on trespass appeals is moving forward amid questions about a new City Hall policy that limits how long people can remain in public areas of the building without explicit business.

The draft change to the Burlington Code of Ordinances, sponsored by Councilor Buddy Singh, received its first reading on Sept. 14 and was referred to the Ordinance Committee. 

It addresses the appeal process for notices of trespass issued under the city’s general rules for city property. Those rules apply to City Hall, city parks and other municipal facilities, though the library operates under a separate ordinance.

The amendment comes after the Public Safety Committee handled about six trespass appeals over the summer. Many of those cases involved requests for security camera footage, body-worn camera video and internal communications. 

Processing that material, particularly video that must be authenticated frame by frame, city staff say, has proven time-consuming. Appellants sometimes followed up with additional records requests, further compressing the existing 10-business-day window for scheduling a hearing.

City Hall itself now operates under an additional set of rules. 

On July 22, the city enacted a City Hall Policy on Prohibited Behaviors. Under it, remaining in a public area longer than 10 minutes without explicit business and with intent to disrupt or impede employees is a Class C offense that carries a 30-day trespass.

Acceptable purposes for remaining in the building for an extended period include a scheduled meeting with city staff, using drop-in services in the City Clerk’s office, attending an event in designated meeting rooms, or using the public restroom on the first floor. 

A verbal warning is generally required before a trespass notice is issued, except in cases of serious harmful conduct, the policy says. 

Under the citywide trespass ordinance, a person who receives a notice may file a written appeal within seven calendar days at no charge. Filing the appeal generally stays the order beginning the next business day unless the issuing official finds exigent circumstances — an immediate and substantial threat or danger to the health, safety or welfare of another person.

When an appeal is filed, the Public Safety Committee is currently required to meet within 10 business days, a timeline that city staff say is too fast, particularly with records requests. 

The draft amendment would keep that starting point but allow the panel to take additional time if the matter is complex, either on its own initiative or at the request of either party. 

Hearings would still need to be scheduled no more than 30 days after the appeal is filed, though that outer limit could be extended on a reasonable request. 

Appellants who request a hearing would continue to receive at least three business days’ written notice. The panel would apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, with the burden on the charging official, and would issue a written decision within 10 business days of the hearing, with room for flexibility when the order is stayed or the appellant consents.

At the Ordinance Committee’s Oct. 2 meeting, Singh described the practical difficulties the current timeline creates. Exporting and reviewing authenticated video can take hours, staff testified. 

Assistant City Attorney Hayley McClenahan noted that the existing ordinance already provides for a stay in the absence of exigent circumstances. She suggested closer coordination with the officials who issue notices so the threshold for withholding a stay is applied consistently. 

She also observed that the three-business-day notice requirement exceeds the minimum under Vermont’s Open Meeting Law and that formal written decisions often take longer than 10 business days because councilors deliberate carefully and refine the language.

Councilor Gene Bergman, who chairs the Ordinance Committee, said decisions that affect legal rights should not be rushed. He supported a clear outer timeframe for scheduling a hearing while allowing optional extensions, and suggested that any decision to withhold a stay should include a written statement of the exigent circumstances.

Former long-time City Councilor Sharon Bushor, speaking during the public forum, urged caution. She said the city sometimes issues notices to people who do not deserve them and that the volume of appeals should be weighed carefully.

The Ordinance Committee scheduled a follow-up meeting for tomorrow at 5:30 p.m. to continue work on that draft. 

Members indicated they want to refine the language, return an amended version to the full City Council, and leave open the possibility of later harmonizing the citywide rules with those used by the library.

If the committee advances the draft after the Oct. 13 session, the full City Council would next consider it on second reading. 

Any final version would still need council adoption and the mayor’s signature before taking effect.