Lincoln County Approves New Exotic‑animal Ordinance, Extends Grandfathering Window and Amends Fees

Lincoln County’s Board of Commissioners voted to adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 92 of the county code to regulate exotic animals, approving the measure by voice vote (recorded by the chair as 3–1).

County staff said the primary change from the draft presented in December is an extension of the grandfathering deadline: owners of exotic animals that are currently permitted or who obtain a permit within the next 30 days will be considered grandfathered under the new ordinance. The grandfathering date was stated in the meeting as Feb. 4, 2026. Staff also extended the subsequent application-processing deadline so that owners must submit required paperwork within 90 days after the ordinance is adopted to allow Animal Services staff time to process requests.

Commissioner Carpenter moved to adopt the ordinance. Commissioner Alex spoke at length in opposition, saying the ordinance’s language that describes certain animals as “inherently dangerous” and the proposed fees carried the appearance of being punitive. After debate, the chair recorded the ordinance as approved by a 3–1 vote.

The board also considered a related fee schedule. After discussion, a motion by Commissioner Carpenter reduced the grandfathered-animal registration to a $1.50 base fee (with no per-additional-animal $100 charge), and set the exempt-owner permit at $150; the motion was recorded as passing in the meeting (announced as a 3–2 voice vote in the transcript, with some on-the-record confusion about the final tally). Board members stated the intent of the lower fees was not to raise revenue but to recoup processing costs.

The ordinance and the fee schedule drew extensive public comment. Jesse Putnam said the changes would destroy his operation and asked for a 30‑month grandfather clause to have time to relocate, estimating moving costs around $15,000. “I need 30 months to handle all my business here and set up my new business there,” he said. Several other residents said the rules are unclear about which animals are allowed and raised concerns about enforcement capacity and costs for confiscation and long-term care.

Questions at the microphone also focused on microchipping requirements. One resident warned about risks to small exotics from anesthesia for microchipping and questioned whether owners would be able to afford veterinary microchipping, citing potential costs to some owners of “a $5 to $800 bill” for veterinary procedures.

Legal and procedural concerns were raised from the public as well. Valerie Cook cited state law, saying existing statutes criminalize animal cruelty and provide counties with zoning and nuisance authority and urged targeted regulation and permitting rather than a blanket prohibition. County staff repeatedly emphasized that the ordinance’s grandfathering and the 90‑day processing timeline were designed to give existing owners time to comply.

The meeting record does not include detailed implementation steps such as the timing of enforcement actions or a dedicated funding plan for specialized long‑term care or transport of confiscated exotics. County staff said some exemptions for licensed rehabilitators could be addressed later and that animal-services staff have authority to waive fees in limited circumstances.

The ordinance is adopted and the revised fee schedule was approved as recorded; several residents and some commissioners asked the board to clarify implementation details and enforcement processes in follow-up work. The board closed public comment and moved on to other business.