McMinnville officials review police-focused changes to animal control code after recent cases

City Attorney David Lightenberg and Chief of Police Cordwood led a work session with the McMinnville City Council to present proposed changes to the portions of the city's animal-control code enforced by police. The discussion focused on simplifying, updating and narrowing provisions that officials said are currently convoluted, inconsistent with practice, and in some cases obsolete.

Lightenberg summarized the existing code and its shortcomings. "To be perfectly honest, [it] is convoluted," he said, highlighting overlapping provisions, obsolete procedures and confusing penalties in the section identified as 6.04.150. He told councilors police already have some prosecutorial tools but that the recent high-profile cases revealed parts of the code that should be rewritten.

The recommended changes presented by Cordwood and Lightenberg center on law-enforcement authority and public-safety responses rather than broader code-enforcement topics such as containment or nuisance (which the presenters said are handled elsewhere). Chief Cordwood described the department's aim to make procedures more familiar and usable for officers: "My focus has been primarily on how can we simplify those with familiar processes to law enforcement staff while making those processes easier and more streamlined for other departments to administer." He said the department has seen hundreds of staff hours spent on a single extreme case over the past six months.

Major elements discussed included: - A new ordinance creating an offense for unprovoked attacks by any animal, proposed as a misdemeanor (the presentation proposed class B for injuries to animals and class A for killing an animal), with possible restitution to owners for veterinary costs or loss of property; Lightenberg said restitution is broadly assessed by municipal court and would be at the judge's discretion unless the council adopts a schedule. "If we provide no schedule, it'll be at the discretion of the judge," he said. - Revising the current 'vicious dog' definition and aligning penalties to owner responsibility rather than focusing only on the animal; presenters and community members suggested escalating penalties for owners when repeat incidents occur. - Requirements tied to animal behavior levels, such as containment, muzzling off-property, sterilization and microchipping for animals with a record of dangerous behavior. - Improved protections and clearer authority for officers and others (for example, Oregon Humane Society law-enforcement partners) when responding to animals that are extremely aggressive, sick or pose immediate risk, including clarification about lawful use of force in self-defense situations. - Clarifying impoundment procedures, impound authority for unlicensed or rabies-suspect animals, and removing obsolete practices such as tattoo requirements for 'vicious' animals.

Councilors pressed on program costs and enforcement capacity. Councilor Peralta said the city currently has no dedicated revenue stream to cover enforcement and administrative costs and asked whether the city should consider its own licensing program rather than relying on the county. Cordwood and Lightenberg said municipal licensing is an option the council could explore; Lightenberg noted that local licensing, if adopted, would supersede the county's program within city limits. Councilor Chenoweth and others urged collaboration with Yamhill County because the county has set aside funds in its budget to consider restoring dog-control services.

Councilors also asked about tracking and court processes. Cordwood said the municipal court does not currently track animals by name or breed in a searchable way, and Lightenberg said tying enforcement to owners rather than to animal names helps the court manage enforcement using its current systems. Chief Cordwood provided a workload snapshot: "Since January, this year, we've had over 500 animal-related calls for service. 350 of those have been titled animal nuisance ... and then we've had 20 instances that were termed as an animal bite." That figure was presented as departmental data during the session.

A group of residents submitted recommendations to council that largely mirrored the presentation, including requests to escalate owner penalties for repeat incidents, improve licensing enforcement and collection, seek additional kennel space through contract, adopt clearer dangerous/dangerous-potential definitions consistent with ORS (Oregon Revised Statutes), and consider prohibiting wolves and wolf hybrids (the presenters warned breed-restriction enforcement has been difficult elsewhere). Lightenberg said breed-determination and enforcement could be administratively challenging and would require expert vetting.

No formal ordinance or vote occurred at the work session. Staff said they will return with drafted ordinance language for council review and that the presentation intentionally limited its scope to police-enforceable code provisions. Councilors asked staff to consider several follow-ups, including analysis of a city licensing program, revenue implications, how restitution for city costs might work, and clearer public messaging about escalation of penalties and definitions.

Councilors expressed varying caution about criminalizing first-offense behavior. Lightenberg noted a trade-off: a stricter code allowing first-offense application can help handle dangerous single incidents but risks penalizing owners who had no prior indication; he cited ORS distinctions between definitions that depend on a documented history and local code language that can be broader. "There are trade offs," he said.

City staff said next steps will include drafting ordinance language reflecting the chief's recommendations and the community letter, further consultation with municipal court and prosecutors about tracking and penalties, and exploring licensing options with county partners. The presenters asked councilors to provide any additional items they want included before staff return with a formal ordinance proposal for deliberation and possible adoption.

Ending: Councilors did not take formal action at the session; staff will prepare draft ordinance language and fiscal analyses for a future council meeting.