Continued Non-Compliance the Issue

TELLURIDE – Barely a year after the Telluride Town Council enacted a tough new ordinance designed primarily to dissuade dog owners from performing that most cardinal of canine guardianship sins – allowing dogs to roam at large and failing to pick up after them – the policy is back for a tune-up poised to impose even heftier penalties than its predecessor.

Last week council revisited the ordinance during a months-in-the-making worksession, directing staff to draft a new ordinance that would hike existing fines to painful places if ultimately enacted.

While the current fines begin at $50 for a first offense, increasing to $125 for a second offense, $250 for a third offense and a civil court summons with the possibility of a maximum $1,000 fine upon the occasion of a fourth violation, the new fines are proposed to begin at $250 for a first offense. From there they could increase to $500 for a second offense and finally a civil court summons with the possibility of a maximum $1,000 fine for a third offense.

Additionally, some form of community service requirement – contemplated at council last week as potentially the retrieval of two five-gallon buckets full of dog poop – would be part of the penalties.

“It’s a very strong statement that we want a cleaner town,” said Mayor Stu Fraser.

The worksession was first contemplated when local resident Shawn Smith implored council to do more about “the dog crap all over Telluride” during the public comment period of its March 30 meeting.

At that time Smith had gained community-wide notoriety by launching a campaign to counter the dog poop deposited on his otherwise immaculate Columbia Ave. lawn by wrapping the deposits in bacon, thereby spurring their spontaneous removal by appealing to a pooch’s most driving of appetites.

While the item is likely to appear before council at its next meeting on Aug. 3, Town Manager Greg Clifton suggested it might be part of another worksession discussion, as opposed to the first reading of a new ordinance.

“I don’t know that we had closure on the issue of the penalties and community service,” he explained. “There might be some more details to be fleshed out.”

For example, “Does council really want to get prescriptive on the type of community service,” or leave it up to the court to determine as it typically does, he asked.

“I think there’s a little more discussion to be had on that,” he said.

And although the topic of dog doo in Telluride is by now the furthest thing from new or novel, from Clifton’s point of view there could still be room for more community education before the town takes such a heavy-handed approach as council is contemplating.

“I think there is a lot more emphasis we need to do out the outreach side of this,” he said. “We need to get the word out and get more buy-in from members of the community.”

“Penalties are a part of the equation but not the way you make community-wide changes.”

Finally, there’s still the question of enforcement.

“It’s not an easy policy to administer when you’re having violations at 4 or 5 in the morning,” Clifton said.

Presuming the town decides to schedule its two code enforcement officers so they are on duty in the wee hours of the morning, is that the best allocation of their time?

“We don’t have a good answer yet,” said Clifton.