Smithfield council adopts parks dog ordinance after months of complaints about off‑leash dogs and feces

Smithfield City Council on May 13 adopted Ordinance 2026‑07, amending the municipal code to add rules for dogs in city parks, after a lengthy public hearing that highlighted repeated complaints about dog feces on sports fields and questions about enforcement and signage.

The ordinance, as approved, clarifies that dogs must be on a leash in parks and explicitly prohibits dogs — even on leash — from being present on painted or fenced sports fields. Councilmembers removed an unclear clause about suspension of park privileges and replaced it with a civil fine structure: $50 for a first offense and $100 for repeat offenses within a one‑year period. Council also directed staff to use the phrase 'city staff' (rather than the broader word 'city') when designating off‑leash areas, to reflect operational responsibility.

Brett, a public‑works representative, told the council the problem has worsened in recent years and stressed the practical effect on maintained fields: "If you're a good dog owner and you keep your dog on a leash, you won't have a problem. If you are a bad dog owner and refuse to take care of your dog, then you will have a problem." He asked for an ordinance to give staff and police a code reference to point to during education and enforcement.

Police Chief Allen said the department intends to emphasize education first: "We're not gonna go out and start issuing citations right off the bat. We're gonna start warning people first and give them the opportunity to come into compliance before citations are ever issued." He described a stepped approach in which public‑works and recreation staff would notify police when repeated offenders are identified.

Council discussion focused on three primary concerns: how to define the physical boundary of a "field" (painted field lines versus general turf areas); whether to designate an off‑leash area or dog park for responsible owners; and how to ensure enforcement does not place untrained rec staff in confrontational roles. Several councilmembers urged a public‑education and signage campaign before strict enforcement begins. One councilmember suggested Heritage Park as a possible fenced off‑leash area for future consideration.

Resident commenters supported stronger enforcement and signage. Glenn Thornley, a longtime resident, used his public comment to urge broader community stewardship, saying the city should "clean up our community" and foster what he called better citizenship.

The council approved the ordinance with the amendments by voice/roll call vote. The ordinance authorizes signage at park entrances and directs staff to return with any implementation questions or suggested refinements.

What's next: Council and staff said they will begin an education and public‑relations campaign to inform residents of new park signage and penalties, and staff will continue to evaluate potential off‑leash sites for future consideration.