Commissioners set hearing to add definitions to county dog-control ordinance

County staff presented proposed amendments to Ordinance 2026‑XX to add three definitions — agricultural operation, boarding facility and livestock operation — aimed at clarifying exemptions in the barking/howling section of the county dog-control ordinance.

Staff said the lack of precise definitions has allowed some individuals to claim exemptions (for example, saying they are a boarding facility or agricultural operation) even when they are not operating as such. The proposed agricultural and livestock definitions are rooted in state Title 15 definitions used for taxation and assessment; staff said the livestock definition would require the activity to be a primary or significant secondary source of income and ideally be evidenced by state licensing or a Schedule F tax form. The boarding-facility definition aligns with a board of health regulation used for kennel licensing.

Commissioners expressed support for clearer language to aid enforcement. One commissioner asked whether the income threshold language should read “primary or significant secondary source of income”; staff agreed to double-check the wording and confirm the draft matches applicable state law. The board agreed to post the ordinance for a public hearing (approximately three weeks' public notice) and to coordinate timing with any board-of-health changes.

The hearing will give residents an opportunity to comment on the proposed definitions and any carveouts the county proposes to adopt. Staff noted they will verify references to Title 15 and confirm how nonprofit operations will be treated under the proposed language.