Glenwood Springs council debates enforcement, cleanups and services for unhoused population as fire season looms

The Glenwood Springs City Council devoted extensive time on June 5 to discussing how the city should respond to visible encampments and public safety risks posed by the unhoused population, with a focus on legal constraints, cleanup costs and near‑term wildfire danger.

City Attorney Carl opened the discussion by emphasizing constitutional and statutory limits: enforcement must be based on conduct, not status. "We cannot enforce based on status. We can only enforce based on conduct," he said, noting that Colorado and federal court rulings also require courts to consider alternatives to incarceration for indigent defendants and that municipal enforcement and trespass rules are constrained in public rights‑of‑way.

Police leadership described the practical limits of enforcement: of roughly 25,000 calls for service last year, 400–600 involved unhoused individuals (about 2%), and officers frequently must issue citations or personal recognizance bonds for low‑level offenses because the jail accepts mostly violent offenders. Staff recommended a 72‑hour notice practice for removing encampments on private property and noted that jurisdictions vary on how quickly they clear camps; post‑Grants Pass court guidance has led some cities to shorten notice windows, while others have faced litigation.

Councilors pressed staff about costs and options. The city currently budgets about $100,000 for encampment removal and cleanup but staff said the number is often exceeded; some councilors favored targeted, frequent cleanups this year because of heightened wildfire risk, and others asked for proposals to dedicate 1–2 officers or a combined response team (police plus social/mental‑health workers) to address repeat problem locations.

Council discussion produced several concrete, staff‑directed follow‑ups: explore costed options for more frequent cleanups, estimate the price of dedicating 1–2 officers (or alternative non‑officer teams) for an ongoing detail, evaluate code or retailer outreach options to address local contributors to the problem (large numbers of discarded mattresses near retail clusters and small propane canisters), and study Durango’s model for lessons learned and pitfalls. Staff also noted operational limits on BLM land where 14‑day camping rules apply and that some cleanup activities require hazmat disposal.

Public comment reflected local frustration. Resident Ray Tenney said concentration of services downtown draws repeat users and described safety and sanitation issues in the parking garage and parks; Councilors acknowledged the difficulty of balancing humane service delivery with maintaining safe, sanitary public spaces for residents and visitors.

The council did not adopt a new ordinance or funding commitment at the meeting but expressed consensus to have staff return with detailed cost estimates, possible code amendments, and an implementation plan—particularly to address wildfire season risks.

Next steps: staff will prepare costed proposals and draft code or policy options for council consideration, including estimates for increased cleanup frequency, staffing models (officer detail or multidisciplinary teams) and targeted measures addressing mattresses, canisters and high‑risk encampment locations.