Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council replaces animal-control language, tightens impound and notice procedures

3115224 · April 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Ordinance 34-22 revises Chapter 3 on animals, repeals prior exotic-animal article, increases penalties for repeated dog-at-large violations and standardizes notice for impoundment; council approved updated version unanimously.

The Guthrie City Council unanimously approved Ordinance 34-22 on April 22, a comprehensive update to Chapter 3 of the city code addressing animals, impoundment and dangerous-animal procedures.

City staff introduced the ordinance as a multi-year effort to replace an outdated two-paragraph rule that gave the city limited enforcement options. The new language repeals the existing article on exotic animals, provides clearer definitions, and includes escalating penalties for repeated dogs-running-at-large violations.

City Attorney Billy Wheeler described multiple clarifications made before the vote: clarification that a finding of a 'vicious' or 'dangerous' animal is ultimately made by the municipal judge after a hearing; standardizing impoundment notice to personal service or certified mail with return receipt; and aligning concrete footing depth language to mirror state statute. Council members asked how notice would be provided and what methods the city would use to ensure owners receive timely notification; Wheeler said staff will use multiple methods (personal service, certified mail, posting) to make a good-faith effort to notify owners before additional action.

The ordinance references a $50,000 surety bond in cases where the municipal judge determines an animal to be dangerous; council members and staff noted they were not aware of common sources for such bonds but said the bond requirement mirrors state law. Council voted unanimously to adopt the updated ordinance as corrected by the city attorney.