Williams News Logo
Grand Canyon News Logo

Trusted local news leader for Williams AZ and the Grand Canyon

Round three for city of Williams animal ordinance
City Council requests further revisions regarding animal containment on private property

Ryan Williams/WGCN<br>
Williams City Councilman Bill Miller discusses revisions to the city’s animal ordinance.

Ryan Williams/WGCN<br> Williams City Councilman Bill Miller discusses revisions to the city’s animal ordinance.

WILLIAMS - Proposed changes to the city of Williams' animal ordinance were discussed at length during the April 14 regular Williams City Council meeting.

Williams Animal Control Officer Leah Payne outlined two prominent changes to the ordinance language.

Penalty fees have been incorporated into the Animal Control ordinance and the term "nuisance animal" has been defined, specifically addressing persistent barking dogs.

"The definition for barking gives the city the ability to approach people and stop that barking and giving the police some help," Payne said.

Following Payne's initial remarks, Councilman Bill Miller voiced concern about language in the ordinance requiring that "vicious" animals be restrained on a six-foot leash.

"Does that protect the public? When we talk about a vicious animal, is that an animal that needs to be muzzled?" he asked.

Payne said a dog deemed to be vicious should likely be on a shorter leash and be muzzled.

City Attorney Kellie Petersen clarified that the ordinance does require dangerous animals to be muzzled. She added that the six-foot leash requirement could be modified.

"That six feet is just kind of standard from what other cities have," she said. "We can shorten that up if you want. Six feet, depending on the size of the dog can be a pretty short leash. But, if we want to do shorter we can."

Miller further questioned language in the ordinance prohibiting dogs from running freely on private property.

"I like to let my dog run on my property," he said. "He doesn't leave the property. Are we punishing a homeowner for a dog that is well behaved and kept as opposed to a habitual dog that is going over to the neighbors house?"

Payne said that while she doesn't actively enforce that particular provision of the ordinance, it is included to protect Williams residents.

"If they are on their own property and I see the owner is out with the dog I usually just talk to them and ask them to be careful for the dog's sake," Payne said. "So it doesn't run out in the street and get run over."

Petersen said adding that animals must be under the "voice control" of the owner would likely address Miller's concerns although defining "voice control" is difficult.

"That is going to be really hard to define," she said. "There are people that think their dogs are well trained and say 'he was under my voice control' and he is not. The 'confined' definition gives you a very distinct term regarding where the dog is. Is he within your fenced yard? Is he on a 10-foot leash? You know, tethered."

Miller said homeowners like himself with larger amounts of land might still find the animal ordinance restrictive.

"It's hard for me to fence 13 acres," he said. "It says very plainly in here that the animal has to be within an enclosure."

Petersen said she could work on language giving homeowners a bit more room regarding confining animals. She added that any revision would go before police department staff.

Councilman Don Dent said some laws require police department staff to use common sense in enforcement.

"I understand what Bill (Miller) is saying but, under most common sense situations you're not going to be messing with someone whose dog is on their property to start with," he said.

Payne agreed, adding that the ordinance is in place to address habitually problematic animals.

Williams Police Chief Herman Nixon said work on the new animal ordinance came about to specifically deal with barking animals as opposed to animals on private property. He commended Payne for her work as the city animal control officer and application of laws already on the city books.

"If you guys could see the money she saves us by just not taking dogs to the shelter and the things that she does. She has a lot of common sense," Nixon said. "People work with her. She continuously goes and talks to people. Because, she is really concerned about that animal."

Impound and boarding fees have been changed to address repeat offenders.

"I do have repeat offenders that are paying the same as somebody whose dog has been there one time and their dog has been in there five or six times. So, I wanted to change that," said Payne.

Impound fees for a dog's first visit to the city animal pens will be $30 with an additional $10 per day for boarding. A second offense will cost $50 with the same boarding fee with a third offense costing the owner $75.

"Money talks. We all know that," Payne said, adding that she does everything within her power to keep dogs at home or adopted into families where the animal will receive enough attention.

Council members directed Petersen to make revisions to the ordinance. The ordinance will likely be reviewed tomorrow during city council's regular meeting held at 7 p.m. at city hall.


Donate Report a Typo Contact