Council introduced an ordinance amending codified ordinance chapter 505 to address wild and farm animals and to establish rules for keeping chickens, but members voted unanimously to refer the measure to committee for further work.
Councilman Nutt introduced the ordinance; he and other members said the intent was to provide enforcement mechanisms and penalties for violations. During discussion the law director and an assistant law department attorney advised council that relocation of animals, destruction of coops and similar remedies are properly imposed as conditions of a court sentence rather than as direct directives to the judge from council.
The law director said prosecutors can seek conditions in sentencing and that his office would "make that recommendation to the court" to relocate animals and require destruction of coops if violations are proven, but council should not attempt to dictate individual sentencing terms. He noted existing city code provides for fines and jail time on certain offenses and that the court can impose conditional sentences.
Councilmembers raised definitional issues, including whether horses and emotional‑support animals would be captured by the ordinance's wording. Councilwoman Greenhouse said she wanted clearer language and asked that the item be sent back to committee to "lock down this language and clearly define what the intent is of this ordinance." The motion to refer carried unanimously.
No ordinance was adopted that night; the committee referral means staff and council will further clarify definitions, enforcement pathways and possible penalties before returning it for council consideration.