Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Fowl Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richfield Council approves revised fowl ordinance with three-year permit cycle, asks staff to clarify reapplication after revocation
Summary
The Richfield City Council approved updates to City Code Section 905.37 on March 11, adding permit requirements, education, coop standards and a three-year phased permitting approach; council adopted an amendment directing staff to clarify procedures if a permit is revoked.
The Richfield City Council on March 11 approved changes to city code Section 905.37 governing the keeping of fowl, establishing permit requirements, coop standards and a phased three‑year permitting approach meant to balance public‑health oversight and affordability.
Council member Christiansen introduced the measure and staff summarized changes brought since the first reading, including a move away from a one‑time, indefinite permit toward a three‑year staged permitting period. Community comment submitted in writing raised concerns about rodent increases associated with yard coops.
Why it matters: the ordinance updates set new standards for coop size, setbacks and education for owners, while creating a process intended to give new owners time to learn best practices and give the city a way to track flock locations for public‑health reasons such as avian flu monitoring.
City staff said the three‑year cycle was chosen as a compromise so the city can “monitor where flocks are, especially for cases of avian flu and other reasons,” and to align cumulative permit costs with comparable cities. Jennifer Anderson, a city staff member involved in permitting, told the council, “Three years was landed on as the compromise for that.”
The council also received a written public comment from Kathy B., who described local pest concerns: “Keeping chickens has caused the number of mice to increase to the point that pest control companies are seeing in our area like never before,” the submitted comment read. The comment named multiple addresses where neighbors reported high numbers of birds and called for licensing and regulation of home coops.
Council members asked how revocation would be handled after the three‑year period. The council voted to amend Subdivision 5G to direct staff and the city attorney to add language clarifying the steps a resident must take to obtain a permit again if a permit is revoked. That amendment passed by voice vote and was adopted into the main motion.
The council then approved the ordinance as amended. The final motion adopted the ordinance updates, added the permit application fee to the fee schedule, and authorized summary publication via resolution. The ordinance will be implemented with outreach through city channels and community groups to identify current flock locations and inform owners about the new permit requirement.
Staff said roosters would remain subject to existing nuisance and noise provisions; if roosters create a nuisance, they can be addressed under the city’s public‑health nuisance code. Staff also said the permit application materials will note procedures and consequences, including how revocations are handled.
The council approved the measure as amended; the motion was moved and seconded and passed by voice vote. The ordinance number and effective dates were not specified in the meeting record.
