Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Policy Backyard Fowl topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Marysville council tables chicken ordinance after extended public comment; directs staff to refine permitting and fees
Summary
Residents filled the council chamber to debate a draft animal-code change that would allow backyard fowl. After extensive public comment both for and against, the council amended a motion to include ducks and quail, then rescinded the motion and agreed to return a revised ordinance and fee resolution at a later meeting.
Dozens of residents urged the Marysville City Council to adopt rules allowing backyard chickens, while others warned of disease, odor and enforcement challenges, leading the council to pause action and send a revised draft back for more work.
Supporters and opponents used the public-comment period to make competing cases. "Please vote yes to enrich our community with the sustainable family friendly opportunity," said Britney Owen Scribe, who identified her address and wards and urged the council to permit chickens for food and educational benefits. Rob Shelburne of Ward 3 told the council that with "permits and inspections, we can make sure everything's done right," and argued permit fees could defray enforcement costs. "If someone is properly taking care of their chickens and following the guidelines, why should it matter what they're doing on their property?" he said.
Opponents cautioned about health and nuisance risks. "Chickens are a very dirty bird," said Robin Rose of Ward 4, citing concerns about salmonella, rodents attracted to feed, coop maintenance, yard damage and who would enforce the rules. She urged council members to prioritize housing, roads and other city concerns over allowing backyard fowl.
Council discussion ranged from model ordinances in nearby cities to enforcement mechanics. Members referenced examples such as Kansas City (six hens with permit), Manhattan and Wichita and discussed permit fees and inspection regimes. A councilmember said many larger cities reported few chicken complaints after permitting systems were established; another councilmember emphasized that animal husbandry is work and underscored the need for an educational pamphlet for permittees.
On motions: a councilmember moved to amend the cityanimal code to adopt the draft chickens ordinance; another councilmember proposed including ducks and quail under the same limit. The motion was seconded, then later rescinded; councilmembers agreed to pause and return a cleaned-up ordinance and an accompanying fee-resolution for a future council meeting. The topics staff were asked to refine include whether larger lots (two acres or more) should be treated differently, the permit fee schedule, the ordinance's effective date and an educational packet for new permit holders.
The council emphasized enforcement realities: some members said many communities receive few complaints, while others noted Marysville currently lacks a full-time code enforcer and stressed the city must balance priorities. Several speakers said a phased or delayed effective date (examples discussed included April 1 or beginning the following year to align with tag renewals) might ease administration. The council asked staff to return a final ordinance and a fee resolution with clear implementation timing.
The city did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting; instead the council voted to have staff and the appropriate committees produce a refined ordinance and fee schedule for a future vote.
The public-comment portion and subsequent council debate made the chicken ordinance one of the meeting's most attended topics; council members thanked attendees for turnout and said they would continue work with committees and city staff to finalize details.
