Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Policy Chickens topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Papillion council rejects ordinance to allow backyard chickens after extended public comment
Summary
After more than an hour of public testimony and council debate, the Papillion City Council voted 3-4 to reject an ordinance that would have allowed backyard chickens with licensing, education and other limits.
The Papillion City Council voted 3-4 Tuesday to reject proposed ordinance 2,048 that would have amended Chapter 85 of the Papillion Municipal Code to allow licensed backyard chickens under specified conditions.
The issue drew more than a dozen residents to a public hearing. Maria Hage, who gave her name and address for the record, told the council, "I support keeping chickens in Papillion." Rachel Dunham and several other residents cited education, food access and children’s learning as reasons to allow chickens. Trina Mann said a petition supporting the change had gathered about 884 signatures.
Supporters, including Shelby Zivni and John Wynne, urged the council to adopt rules that would require coops to meet construction and sanitation standards, to limit the number of hens and to include an education requirement for permit holders. The ordinance drafted by Councilman Jason Gaines and city staff proposed licensing, a required training course for applicants, limits on numbers and hours outside the coop, and a ban on roosters.
Opponents and several council members raised concerns about enforcement, covenants and homeowners associations, predator attraction, noise and the practical burden on neighbors. Joe Chase, speaking in opposition, recommended explicit language to exclude multifamily units and to require landlord permission for renters. Council members asked whether the city’s complaint and enforcement procedures were adequate and whether private covenants would override the city allowance in many neighborhoods.
Council debate focused on those implementation details. Councilman Gaines emphasized the ordinance’s education requirement and said it was designed to reduce nuisance and disease risks; he asked colleagues to work with him on further refinements. Several council members said they were sympathetic to the arguments for local food and education but remained unconvinced the ordinance as written protected neighbors enough.
The motion to approve ordinance 2,048 failed on a 3-4 vote. The minutes reflect the tally but do not list a full roll-call of how each council member voted in the transcript excerpt. No related ordinance or amendment passed that night.
The council record shows the conversation and public input will remain available in the meeting file; Councilman Gaines invited colleagues to meet to refine the ordinance for possible future consideration.
