Kansas City, MO Backyard Chicken Ordinance - TODAY- Public Hearing June 29, 10:30am, 26th Floor, City Hall

On the heels of Roeland Park's successful Backyard Hen special permit, KCMO is looking at a change to allow more citizens to participate in having backyard chickens. Six families in Roeland Park have backyard hens and CHIRP's journey is featured in July/August Greenability Magazine.  For those interested in supporting this important issue, please consider attending the hearing.  Many supporters backed CHIRP all along the way, some never intending on having backyard hens, but believing those who wanted to should have the opportunity.

Thank You!  It is our supporters that make all of our work successful!  Here are the details:

The Public Safety and Emergency Services Committee of the Kansas City, MO City Council will hear a proposed change to the city ordinance which regulates chickens in city limits.  The proposal would allow the Director of Neighborhood and Community Services to grant exceptions to the set-back requirements and number limits when occupants and owners of properties within the 100 foot set-back approve of the exception in writing.
 
 Read the ordinance online.
 
 This proposed change would protect the interests of adjacent neighbors and allow for responsible urban chicken-keeping.  It is an expansion of an existing process for exceptions that includes homing and racing pigeons, which has apparently worked well for the city for quite some time.  We encourage you to attend and offer support and encouragement to the Committee in considering this proposal.
 
When: Wednesday, June 29, 10:30am
Where: 26th Floor, City Hall, 414 E. 12th St. Kansas City, MO 64106
 
 If you are interested in urban chickens, you will find a great resource in CHIRP, they offer educational and networking opportunities for people interested in backyard chickens: chirpks@gmail.com or www.chirpks.blogspot.com.

CHIRP Comments on: Hens OK, for now - KansasCity.com

City Hens in Roeland Park!  Yes! is what the headline reads for those of us like minded folk who believe we are part of a growing trend in lifestyle choice. What our neighbors need to know is that the permit is very strict in regards to housing and other issues. Prospective hen owners have to apply and neighbors will be notified and given a chance to speak. No roosters, no hens running at large. Generous setbacks and strict guidelines on coop designs. And a steep permit fee of $100.00. While CHIRP was hoping for a straight ordinance and less of a fee (any size dogs are only $10.00 to register), we are satisfied that we have an avenue to keep backyard hens in Roeland Park.

"OK for now" - Why the footnote? A majority vote gives citizens an opportunity to keep a few hens (within strict guidelines).  If you read the article, you will see the arguments against listed first.  The positive impact the backyard hen movement has had in cities nationwide, many right here in the Midwest, is hardly mentioned.
CHIRP has provided viable solutions for all of the issues brought forward in this debate. We have watched as incomplete information and inaccuracies have been stated as fact in public meetings. And so our rebuttal...or the rest of the story...

To Councilor Toni Hull:  It was stated at a recent City Council meeting that this part of the animal ordinance was being rewritten to clarify the ambiguous parts of the animal code-whether the hen permit was approved or not.The time spent on the writing of the permit portion of the ordinance should have been minimal since it was modeled closely after another city's ordinance.

How much time and legal fees were spent on a new ordinance governing massage therapists in our community that was passed in 2010?  How many massage therapists are registered to practice in Roeland Park? And is that ordinance not back on the table for revision because it has been discovered there are different licensing/certifications which were not covered or accounted for in the original ordinance? How much staff time is involved here? If money is an issue, perhaps convincing your peers that spending resources on a repeal and vote is contradictory?

To Councilor Bob Meyers:  CHIRP has always been in favor of a clearly stated ordinance that protects not only the city's interest, but also the citizens of this community. We agree that clarity in the process is important. As was discovered when this issue came to light over a year ago, there are lots of inconsistencies in the ordinances on the books. Perhaps this could be a long term goal of the City Council? To review the city ordinances and codes and clarify ambiguous wording and rectify inconsistent language?

CHIRP has done due diligence and discussed in good faith solutions to all the animal control issues brought forward. No one opposing seems genuinely interested in finding solutions. Everyone says they do not know anything about handling chickens and then with the next breath they are an expert on all the things that cannot be done to catch or handle chickens. Which is it?

Regarding the fact that "NEAC will not deal with this."  The NEAC is charged (according to the ordinance on record) with enforcing member cities' ordinances. They have responded to at least two chicken calls (to notify a resident to remove illegal hens), so a precedent has been set. We have been told that a chicken (gallus domesticus) does not qualify as either wild or domestic so they are not responsible for enforcing this ordinance.  So, what animal category do chickens fall under?   And let the record show that among cities with good ordinances like Roeland Park just adopted, there are virtually no animal control issues concerning chickens. Columbia, MO has had only three calls since their ordinance took effect last year. Longmont, CO Animal Control has gone on record saying that they were pleasantly surprised that they had NO increase in calls due to chicken keeping in their city.  It seems a lot of dust is blowing around what will prove to be a non-issue.

To Councilor Scott Gregory:  An overwhelming majority of the citizens attending meetings where this issue was discussed have been supporters of this action.  There have been perhaps a dozen negative comments made by citizens at public meetings.  When a straw poll was taken at the Town Hall meeting, a majority was in favor of this action.  The majority of your peers voted for this issue. Research into city ordinance would probably reveal that there are a lot of ordinances on the books that serve a minority of the population of Roeland Park. Spending more money and resources on a petition and repeal seems counter productive.

Property values are relative. There is no quantitative evidence that backyard hens affect property values either positively or negatively.  A study done in Oregon reports that the communities who allow backyard hens have higher property values. Seven of the Forbes 500 top 10 Most Livable Cities allow backyard hens. Lawrence, Ks and Columbia, MO allow backyard hens. Two families have moved to Roeland Park in the last six months because they will be able to keep backyard hens.

We have spent ten months providing fact based research and resources addressing every issue brought up regarding the keeping of backyard hens. Now that it is in place, why can't we have a chance to show that this just may indeed be a great thing for Roeland Park?

Hens OK, for now - KansasCity.com

In the Issue of Extra Animal Code Enforcement Expense

Code Enforcement:  In my research I found over and over again commentary by pleasantly surprised public officials who reported little or no increase in animal nuisance call.  Three communities: Longmont, CO;  Montgomery, OH, and Columbia, MO, all have stated publicly that they have few if any complaints. 

Regarding the extra cost of animal control,  

Were they (the NEAC) presented with the fact that virtually no code violations have been a problem in cities across the nation who have good hen / animal keeping ordinances? 

Relevant information: Here are 3 examples of surprised government officials who have see virtually no animal control expense increase in their communities.

Code Enforcement and Burdens on Government

According to the Montgomery Police, Montgomery hasn’t received a chicken‐related
complaint since the 70s, when a family in the Shadowhill neighborhood kept a
rooster and the city received noise‐related complaints. We know that there are at
least two families in Montgomery keeping chickens currently; the police have
received no complaints.

Currently both Madeira and Wyoming allow chickens (under similar ordinances to Montgomery’s current ordinance), do have households raising chickens, and have no complaints related to chickens. There is no reason to believe that chickens in Montgomery will generate any more complaints than those in Madeira and Wyoming.

CFM’s Proposed Ordinance forbids roosters and doesn’t require inspections or

permits. Such an ordinance will generate no significant burden on government. In the absence of complaints – which experience both here in Montgomery and in similar communities such as Wyoming and Madeira has shown is the likeliest outcome – will generate NO burden on government.

The chickens are popular among the family’s neighbors. When one recently
expressed an interest in raising chickens herself, Cati O’Keefe decided she’d better
check into the legalities before giving any advice. It costs quite a bit in both money
and time to get started, and while she’d been willing to risk it herself based on her
own perusal of online ordinances, she didn’t want to take that risk for anyone else.

Her inquiry sparked this new ordinance. The police, far from having received any
complaints, were unaware there were chickens being kept in Montgomery. CFM has
since learned of another household in a neighborhood not far from City Hall keeping
chickens. They prefer to remain under the radar, though, as they and their
neighbors are very attached to their hens. Montgomery, OH Ordinance proposal 

Outlaw chickens  http://www.columbiabusinesstimes.com/7759/2010/04/16/city-chicks-whats-happened-since-the-backyard-birds-became-legal/

In the first two months since the chicken ordinance passed, there were only two substantiated complaints about violations, according to the Columbia/Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services.

Gerry Worley, an environmental health manager who is in charge of animal control for the city, said one involved the Hong Kong Market. The business had ducks — which are illegal — mixed in with chickens, but the fowl were all gone when it came time for the two-week follow-up inspection.

The other complaint was against a West Ash resident who, his neighbors said, allowed his chickens to fly the coop and trespass into their yard. His court date was set for March 19, but the city prosecutor declined to prosecute the case.

Two complaints in two months isn’t too bad, said Worley, who is also working on a plan to address what to do with “unwanted” chickens. 

http://www.dailycamera.com/longmont-news/ci_16539044

LONGMONT -- All that talk that backyard chickens would produce more work for this city's code-enforcement and animal-control officers turns out to be nothing more than clucking.

A report presented by the Longmont city staff to the City Council last week said that since February 2009, when backyard chickens were first allowed on a trial basis, the effect on the workload of code-enforcement and animal-control officers has been nil.

"The biggest concern was the impact on animal-control officers, but almost two years later, they're saying it really hasn't been a problem for them," said Longmont City Planner Ben Ortiz.

After hearing the report and strong support from residents Tuesday night, the council voted 4-3 in favor of extending the city's chicken ordinance and removing the limit on the number of permits that can be issued. Mayor Bryan Baum and council members Gabe Santos and Alex Sammoury dissented.
Read more: Despite earlier brooding, backyard chickens cause few problems in Longmont - Boulder Daily Camera http://www.dailycamera.com/longmont-news/ci_16539044#ixzz17NAwh0OR
DailyCamera.com

New Info to be Presented at Admin Meeting Monday, November 22, 6 PM

It was stated at the Town Hall Meeting that this Admin Meeting would be an opportunity to present new information.

For example, In response to the statement that there are 140 diseases that chickens carry, (link to report cited at Town Hall MTG)  actually only a handful can be transferred to humans. This is considered rare and mostly occurs under poor sanitary conditions or improper animal handling procedures. Source: Merck Veterinary Manual Zoonoses Tables The other chicken to chicken diseases flourish in overcrowded,improperly ventilated, drafty and unsanitary conditions mostly associated with large factory egg and meat production. Not likely this will be duplicated in a backyard micro-flock.

A more common and well known animal to human transmitted disease is taxoplasmosis.  Often one of the first questions a physician will ask a new mother-to-be is whether she has a cat. A common way this disease can be passed is through cat droppings.  If contracted, it can be passed on to the fetus causing birth defects. It is a serious concern, yet no one has to get rid of a cat if one adheres to some basic sanitary practices to avoid exposure during this vulnerable time Go to 2nd page for descriptive list of diseases passed from pets to humans

Isn't it funny that this risky disease does not keep lots of people from having cats as pets?  And how many cities have ordinances against this disease carrying critter because of the public health risk? Regarding most instances of diseases passed from animals to humans, it boils down to this:

Taking responsibility for one's health by practicing good  habits like hand washing after exposure to animals and their habitat, safe food handling to avoid direct exposure and cross contamination with raw food and personal risk assessment for exposure to any situation.

Please write your council representative and the mayor to voice your opinion on backyard hens.

Thank you for your continued support!