Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Backyard Poultry topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kingman council weighs expanding backyard poultry rules to include ducks and geese
Summary
City staff and 4‑H members urged the council to update Kingman’s poultry code to reflect a new state statute and to allow waterfowl under limits; councilors discussed lot‑size thresholds, setbacks, enforcement and a possible permit for 4‑H projects but took no formal vote, directing staff to return with draft language.
Kingman City Council members on Tuesday discussed proposed changes to the city’s backyard poultry rules after the Arizona Legislature enacted ARS 9‑462.12 last year. Amy Schreiber, city attorney, told the council the state law requires cities to allow chickens on lots of a half‑acre or smaller with prescribed setbacks and other conditions, and she asked whether Kingman should also allow ducks, geese and other waterfowl.
The conversation centered on reconciling the new state statute with Kingman’s existing code, neighborhood impacts and how to accommodate Mohave County 4‑H members who want waterfowl for youth agricultural projects. Schreiber outlined current local rules: “1 hen is allowed per 1,000 square feet of lot size,” a maximum of 36 hens, enclosures at least 20 feet from a property line, and roosters allowed only on lots of 40,000 square feet or more. She said the state statute (ARS 9‑462.12) allows up to six chickens on lots up to a half‑acre with enclosures under 200 square feet, a maximum eight‑foot height and manure removal at least twice weekly.
Why it matters: Councilors said the changes affect many city neighborhoods and raised questions about noise, sanitation, enforcement and fairness if access is limited by property size. Several council members favored a middle path that would comply with state law for chickens while giving staff latitude to propose graduated allowances on larger lots and limits for waterfowl.
Council discussion and community input
Council members pressed staff on property‑size limits. Vice Mayor Samley and others said they wanted a clear way to scale allowances by lot size; Schreiber said the state law applies to properties up to one‑half acre and that setbacks could be imposed by the city. Councilor Staley argued for more liberal allowances, saying residents already keep a range of birds and the city typically enforces complaints rather than proactively seeking violations.
Representatives of Cactus Critters 4‑H addressed the council in favor of allowing waterfowl. Tracy Bowen, Mohave County 4‑H small‑stock representative, said duck and goose care is part of 4‑H training and, in her view, “ducks make soft quacking sounds, and geese only become noisy if provoked.” Bowen and 4‑H leaders asked the council to consider permit exceptions or an accommodation for 4‑H members who need additional animals for fair projects.
4‑H leader comments also described animal‑care practices and training: club leaders said youth take classes on animal quality and care, that waterfowl do not require a natural pond (a small pool can suffice), and that the program emphasizes long‑term responsibility and mentorship.
Enforcement, nuisance concerns and process
Council members repeatedly noted the city enforces animal matters on a complaint basis and that a small number of “problem properties” generate multiple complaints. City staff agreed to obtain data from animal control on complaint volumes and to include that information in the staff report when the proposed code language returns to council.
Several councilors asked staff to craft draft ordinance language that would: - Incorporate the state statute’s minimums for chickens on parcels up to one‑half acre (six birds, setbacks and enclosure sizing); - Specify whether waterfowl (ducks, geese and similar species) would be allowed and, if so, under what lot‑size thresholds and numeric limits; - Consider a permit or temporary exception process to accommodate 4‑H members who exceed the standard limits for fair projects; and - Maintain the city’s ability to prohibit roosters and to enforce nuisance and “running at large” rules.
Direction and outcome
Council gave staff direction but took no formal vote on an ordinance change. City Manager Tim Walsh and Schreiber said they would return with draft code language that is “over‑inclusive” so council could narrow it if desired. Staff also agreed to request animal‑control complaint statistics to inform the next report.
What’s next
The item will return to a future council meeting with proposed ordinance text that reflects the state statute, options for allowing waterfowl tied to lot size or permit rules, and any recommended enforcement language. No formal adoption or amendment occurred Tuesday.
