Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces changes to city animal code, adds unlawful restraint and hoarding provisions
Summary
Lake Havasu City Council voted 7-0 to introduce an update to Title 6 of the city code that revises definitions, escalates repeat at-large and disturbing-the-peace animal offenses, adds an unlawful restraint section, and creates an animal hoarding provision that applies to 10 or more animals under unsanitary conditions.
Lake Havasu City — The Lake Havasu City Council introduced an ordinance on Tuesday to amend Title 6 (Animals) of the city code, updating definitions, penalties and adding new provisions on unlawful restraint and animal hoarding.
The proposed ordinance, introduced by staff and presented at a public hearing, would make a first at-large dog offense a civil violation and convert subsequent at-large or disturbing-the-peace violations within a rolling 12-month period to criminal charges. It adds a new unlawful restraint section aimed at dogs tethered to stationary objects or trolley systems, and an animal hoarding provision that applies when 10 or more animals are kept under conditions that injure animal or human health.
City staff said the changes began as a housekeeping review to align code language with the department’s records and, during that review, staff identified areas that needed substantive updates. “The newly unlawful restraint of dog section does not apply to people walking their dogs,” staff cautioned during the hearing, adding the provision targets animals tethered in harmful situations rather than lawful leash use.
Senior Animal Control Officer Chris Lutchen explained the penalty structure and definition changes in more detail. He said the code now clarifies what constitutes adequate shelter, adds cruelty-related language that covers mistreatment or killing of a domestic animal, and provides temperature-based limits for leaving animals outdoors (below 32 degrees or above 100 degrees). He told the council the first at-large offense would remain civil and that “subsequent within a rolling 12 month period would be a criminal offense.”
Lutchen also described the proposed hoarding clause, saying it covers unsanitary conditions, failure to provide medical care or suitable food and water, and that convictions could include property inspections to verify compliance; he cited past cases in the city where officers seized dozens of animals from unsanitary premises.
Public commenters at the hearing expressed support for the changes. Resident Patty Gilmore said the revisions were “awesome” and long overdue; professional dog trainer M.J. Weaver asked whether breeders with more than 10 dogs would automatically be considered hoarders. Lutchen replied that breeders receiving required veterinary care, keeping animals in sanitary conditions and complying with licensing and rabies requirements would not automatically be considered in violation.
Council members discussed several clarifying points during the hearing, including that the ordinance’s service animal definition was updated to mirror Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and that enforcement typically begins with notices of violation and attempts to work with owners before citations are issued. Council moved to introduce the ordinance as presented; the motion passed 7-0.
The ordinance was introduced (first reading) at the May 13 meeting; staff said additional procedural steps and possible future amendments could follow before final adoption.
The council hearing record shows the item was presented as ordinance number 25-1360 and that staff provided a tracked-changes packet with proposed edits.
