Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Angelo advisory committee sends proposed nuisance-animal ordinance changes to city attorney for review
Summary
The San Angelo Animal Shelter Advisory Committee directed staff to send proposed revisions to the city’s nuisance-animal ordinance to the City Attorney for legal review, including removing a proposed "offensive odor" provision and clarifying definitions and enforcement procedures.
The San Angelo Animal Shelter Advisory Committee voted to send proposed revisions to the city’s nuisance-animal ordinance to the City Attorney for legal review, following committee discussion about vague language and potential unintended consequences.
Committee members said the current ordinance contains subjective language that can be difficult to enforce and may harm residents already facing barriers to care. Morgan Chenoweth, interim director of Neighborhood and Family Services, told the committee the staff-drafted changes would clarify what constitutes a nuisance and supply animal services officers with clear, enforceable tools.
Chenoweth said the staff recommendations would add objective criteria such as: an animal found at large three or more times in a rolling 12-month period; animals that damage property; and animals that chase pedestrians or vehicles. She also proposed removing a clause that would allow euthanasia for animals described as producing an “offensive odor,” calling that language “subjective” and recommending it be struck or reworded.
Jenny Wilson, representing Concho Valley Paws, and several committee members urged the group to couple enforcement with community supports. Wilson outlined diversion and rehoming programs that aim to prevent animals from entering the city shelter, and recommended that officers be given resource referrals when household circumstances contribute to nuisance conditions.
After discussion, a committee member moved to send the draft revisions, and the motion was seconded. The committee voted in favor of forwarding the proposed ordinance language and the staff comments to the City Attorney’s Office for drafting and legal clarification. The chair indicated the City Attorney and relevant departments would consult and could return a draft ordinance to the committee before any city council readings.
Votes at a glance: Motion to send the proposed nuisance-animal ordinance revisions to the City Attorney for review — mover: committee member; seconder: committee member; outcome: approved (motion carried).
