Yamhill County reviews broad updates to dog-control code, including fee increases and kennel redefinitions

Yamhill County commissioners on Dec. 19 reviewed a package of proposed amendments to the county's dog-control ordinance that would rewrite enforcement procedures, change licensing options and fees, and reclassify kennel operations.

The board discussed the draft ordinance during a work session with the county's sheriff and county staff. The draft, which staff said had not been rewritten since 2005, would align local code with state law, add new enforcement categories and make several procedural and fee changes. Commissioners asked staff to revise the draft and return with a final proposal; staff said they would aim to have fee changes not take effect until after an advertised amnesty period that runs through Feb. 1.

County staff and Sheriff Sam Elliott said the ordinance update responds in part to court and procedural changes and to operational problems under the older code. "We got rid of the dog control advisory committee. That's no longer active," a county staff member working on the draft told the board, noting multiple grammar, structure and fee-code updates. The ordinance would allow two- and three-year dog licenses at a discount and reclassify violations for court processing.

Why it matters: County officials said the updates are meant to improve public compliance with licensing and vaccination requirements, reduce kennel costs for the county and make enforcement practices consistent with state statutes. Sheriff Sam Elliott told the board the changes are also intended to improve reunification of found animals with owners and to make the county's kenneling program more sustainable.

Key changes and debate

- Legal alignment and enforcement grounds: Staff said the draft aligns county livestock provisions with ORS 609 and adds explicit reasons a dog may be impounded, including surrender, protective custody, dangerous or menacing behavior, bites to people or animals, or court orders. The draft adds new enforcement categories for destruction of property, failure to inoculate, unlawful tethering and dog-waste violations.

- Cats removed from dog-control code: After discussion about the scope of the code, Sheriff Sam Elliott urged removing references to cats from the dog-control ordinance. "I would propose we just eliminate entirely any reference to cats within the dog control code. They don't get along anyway," Elliott said during the meeting. Staff agreed to remove the leftover cat references from the dog-control sections.

- Kennel definitions and inspections: Commissioners and staff discussed inconsistent definitions in the draft for "commercial kennel," "noncommercial kennel" and references to grooming. Staff proposed clarifying commercial kennels to mean facilities that board or keep animals overnight for pay while excluding stand-alone groomers that do not kennel animals overnight. The draft would require annual inspections for commercial kennels and create a distinct definition for nonprofit rescues.

- Licensing fees, amnesty and compliance goals: Staff said the county will advertise an amnesty period through Feb. 1 allowing owners to renew lapsed licenses with no late fee. The draft includes modest fee increases (examples discussed included a jump from $20 to $25 for an annual license) and options for multi-year discounted licenses. Commissioners repeatedly pressed for a sustainable fee schedule; one commissioner suggested an annual review requirement rather than an automatic percentage increase. Staff agreed to add language requiring the fee schedule be reviewed annually by the board and to allow the board to update the fee schedule by order rather than always requiring an ordinance change.

- Compliance and enforcement context: Sheriff Elliott and others noted license compliance has dropped in recent years. Officials cited historical license counts around 10,000 dogs (circa 2016) versus roughly 3,000 last year; the sheriff's office argued that increased licensing and enforcement would help fund kenneling and reduce stray/at-large problems.

- Right-of-entry and seizure: Commissioners asked whether deputies could enter private property without a warrant to seize dogs. Staff and the sheriff clarified that law enforcement still must establish legal authority to enter private property: either a criminal exigency or a warrant (criminal or administrative) is required. If officers have reasonable belief of imminent danger to an animal, they may take immediate action to mitigate that threat.

Next steps and timing

Staff said they will revise the draft to: remove cat references from the dog-control sections, clarify commercial/noncommercial kennel definitions (and add a definition for nonprofit rescues), add an annual review requirement for the fee schedule, and include the updated fee table. Staff proposed returning to the board with the revised ordinance and options for either adopting it as an emergency ordinance (which would allow immediate effect) or following the standard two-reading ordinance process (first reading, second reading, then 90 days until full effect).

Board members directed staff to return quickly: commissioners indicated a preference that any fee increases not take effect before the advertised amnesty period ends on Feb. 1, and asked staff to bring the revised draft back at the first available meeting in January for further action.

Ending

The board did not vote on the ordinance at the Dec. 19 session. Instead, it directed staff to prepare the clarified ordinance text and fee schedule and to return for formal consideration, with staff aiming to complete updates in time to honor the Feb. 1 amnesty timeline. The board also asked staff to outline the legal and administrative steps for either emergency adoption or the regular ordinance process.