Blue Springs approves backyard‑hens ordinance after amendment; ballot request fails

The Blue Springs City Council adopted an ordinance on May 19 that allows residents to keep backyard hens under a new city section added to Chapter 215. After a council amendment, permits will be a one‑time city permit (valid in perpetuity while standards are met), the annual permit fee was removed, and staff inspection language was pared back; the ordinance passed on second reading and was assigned ordinance number 5421.

Public comment at the meeting was sharply divided. Supporters said backyard hens increase household food security and family wellbeing; Jen Klein told the council that passage would "bring forth new opportunities for our city and new ideas for bringing our community together." Erica Knight, a District 3 resident, said many backyard chicken owners seek self‑sufficiency rather than commercial sale: "I want the eggs for my family. I have 4 kids. So what I'm looking for is self sustainability."

Opponents urged a citywide vote and cautioned about enforcement. Ken Harrell and Chuck Zuvers asked the council to place the question on the ballot so voters could decide directly; Harrell recommended, "begin with the end in mind" and put it before the electorate. A motion by Council member Erickson to place the ordinance on the next available election ballot failed on a roll‑call vote.

Council member Brummell offered an amendment that staff summarized at the dais. The amendment kept the ordinance’s substantive rules—purpose, applicability, defintions, limits on noncommercial use, coop enclosure standards, setbacks, odor and noise requirements—but replaced an annual permitting and inspection regime with a single permit process (no fee), removed certain preapproval denial language, and removed a requirement for a city inspection as a condition of issuing the permit. Under the amended language, permits are not transferable to new owners, and the city may act if long‑term noncompliance is documented.

Council members debated whether the issue should be decided by the council or by ballot. Supporters of the ballot argued the topic generated strong public interest and that petition efforts had previously attempted to place it before voters. Opponents said elected officials are chosen to make such decisions and raised cost concerns about putting the question to a special election.

The council approved the amended ordinance on second reading; the final roll call recorded several "ayes" and two "no" votes and the ordinance was assigned number 5421. Staff said the adopted language will require a city permit, adherence to the enumerated standards for keeping hens, and that the permit will be enforced through code complaint procedures.