Kingman Council pauses animal and fowl code update after concerns from 4‑H and residents
Loading...
Summary
The council heard a lengthy presentation and public input on proposed changes to the city nimal code (Ordinance 1988) that would add definitions and tables tying permitted animals to lot size; staff was asked to revise numbers, clarify per-species limits, and consider a point system before returning the item.
The Kingman City Council on Nov. 4, 2025 heard extensive testimony on a proposed overhaul of the city nimal code, then directed staff to revise the draft and return it for further consideration.
Assistant City Attorney Amy presented proposed Ordinance 1988, which would revise Chapter 3 (Animals) to add definitions for "domestic fowl," "other fowl," "small" and "large" livestock and to set allowable numbers of animals by lot-size tables. She said the draft draws on other Arizona city codes and includes shelter-size, setback and sanitation requirements; it also designates running at large of livestock as a class 3 misdemeanor ("punishable up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine," Amy said).
The draft would explicitly allow female chickens and add ducks and geese to domestic fowl; larger birds such as peacocks, turkeys and pheasants were placed in an "other fowl" category that starts at larger lot sizes. Amy said the tables were intended to make the rules clearer: "I looked around at some different codes, and I saw that I liked Flagstaff's because they had the tables that break it down by the animal, the lot size, and how many you're allowed to have." (Assistant City Attorney Amy)
Council members raised several concerns. Vice Mayor Samuley and others asked whether counts such as "six total" for certain categories meant six birds in total or six per species; Amy agreed to make that explicit. Multiple councilors said they were interested in a simpler point system (citing Mesa s an example) to avoid overly complex per-species limits; Councilor Deikens and Councilor Savage both said a points approach could better reflect relative impact of different animals.
Representatives of Mohave County 4‑H urged the council not to narrow allowances that would prevent youth participants from keeping show or breeding stock. A 4‑H representative explained that under the proposed tables a half-acre parcel that previously allowed roughly 20 birds could be reduced to six, which would prevent some 4‑H projects: "Under the new ordinance that was proposed, you'd only be able to have 6... and if I had an acre... I could have approximately 40 birds, and that would drop me down to 6 chicken or 12 chickens plus the 6 other fowl," the 4‑H speaker said.
Resident Judy Lent, who said she has lived in Kingman for 50 years, criticized wide lot-size ranges in the draft and asked for tighter brackets to avoid losing capacity for birds on common lot sizes.
Rather than vote, the council directed staff to return with clarified language and options: explicitly state whether counts are totals or per species, consider a point-based system, preserve reasonable allowances for 4‑H and similar programs, and ensure the domestic-fowl category is not interpreted as permitting large numbers of each species simultaneously. Amy acknowledged the edits and the council set no final vote date.
Next steps: staff will revise the ordinance to reflect council direction and bring the item back for formal action.
