Lake Havasu City Council approves five-year sheltering contract amid public complaint and defense

Lake Havasu City Council voted 6–1 on June 25 to approve a five-year animal care and shelter services contract with the Western Arizona Humane Society (WAZ), authorizing services from July 1, 2019, through June 30, 2024.

The vote came after more than an hour of public comment in which residents, volunteers, former employees and board members delivered sharply divided accounts of the shelter's operations. Some speakers praised the shelter’s new facility and the staff’s medical work; others alleged improper management, questionable fundraising tactics and troubling euthanasia practices.

Why it matters: The contract funds the sheltering services city animal-control officers rely on to care for stray and impounded animals. Council members said the arrangement preserves local shelter capacity while allowing the council and city staff contractual recourse if the shelter fails to meet agreed standards.

Council action and terms The council motion to approve the five-year contract was made by Councilmember Jim Dolan and seconded by Vice Mayor Lane. The motion carried 6–1. The council’s memorandum and the presentation from Police Chief Doyle said the new contract reduces the city’s annual sheltering payment from $250,000 to $225,000 for the first two years and then to $200,000 for the final three years; it replaces an annual renewal process with a single five-year agreement.

What supporters said Steven Jenkins, administrative manager for the Western Arizona Humane Society, described renovations and new medical capacity at the shelter and asked the council to approve the contract so the organization could continue its work. “The Western Arizona Humane Society looks forward to the next five years of partnership with the city of Lake Havasu,” Jenkins said.

Board members and staff who spoke in favor emphasized recent facility upgrades, in-house diagnostics and changes aimed at lowering disease and improving animal care. Board member Linda Deniven, identified herself as a current WAZ board member and said she had donated to the shelter and supported the contract; veterinarian Dr. Litchfield said he conducts euthanasia and medical care and described the shelter’s clinical practices.

What critics said Several former volunteers and individuals identified as past or former board members described management and governance concerns. Volunteer and former fundraiser Cheryl Domm said she was asked to “manipulate” elderly donors and described handling she called improper; Domm said she was “shocked” and urged an investigation. Others alleged personnel and governance problems, resigned board members and concerns about animal-handling decisions.

Multiple speakers described alleged incidents they said merited investigation; at least one speaker urged the city council to request an independent review of the nonprofit’s governance and operations. City residents also asked whether the shelter follows state rules for euthanasia and whether staff and contractors who perform euthanasia are properly authorized.

City and council response Police Chief Doyle and other city staff described the RFP and negotiation history, saying WAZ had been the lone responsive bidder in recent solicitations and that the negotiated contract represented savings compared with previous terms. Jenkins and Mike Bonney (who said his CPA firm does work for WAZ) described community fundraising that funded the new shelter building.

In response to questions about euthanasia procedures, the shelter’s veterinarian, Dr. Litchfield, said he and his medical staff perform euthanasia and that a new policy funnels euthanasia through the veterinary clinic; he said veterinarians and certified veterinary technicians perform medical procedures. Council members pressed for documentation, monthly reporting and board-level review of complaints. Councilmember Dolan said he intended to follow up on governance and personnel concerns; Vice Mayor Lane urged that criminal allegations be reported to police for investigation rather than only raised in public comment.

What the contract lets the city do Council members noted the contract contains a 30‑day termination clause and indemnities that allow the city to cancel the agreement if performance or compliance falls short. Several council members said that while the allegations warranted review, terminating the contract immediately without an alternate plan could leave the city without local sheltering services.

Ending Council members thanked residents on both sides of the issue for attending. Several said they expected follow-up information, and the council’s approval preserves the sheltering option while leaving the city able to act if future contract breaches or public-safety problems are documented.