Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident seeks exemption after $500 citation as council explains petition/ballot route for chicken ordinance
Summary
A Lincoln resident asked the council for written permission to keep a duck and two chickens after receiving a $500 citation; councilors explained the process for placing an ordinance change on a ballot and noted timing and signature thresholds determine when voters can decide.
A Lincoln resident, Brandy Lopen, told the City Council on Nov. 21 that she bought a duck and two chickens before a recent vote on an animal ordinance and later received a $500 citation. Lopen asked the council for written permission to keep her birds, which she described as emotional-support animals, and said she is circulating a petition that had about 115 signatures as of the meeting.
Why it matters: residents and councilors said the city’s ordinance (referred to in meeting discussion as ordinance 50205) currently prohibits keeping fowl without written permission. Lopen described how adjacent cities allow backyard chickens under various rules and urged Lincoln to consider matching surrounding municipalities’ ordinances or to place a change before voters.
What council said: councilors clarified that the Nov. 21 meeting was not the venue to change the ordinance on the spot. Several council members noted a prior ballot measure on chickens failed this year (a speaker quoted a margin, saying it failed by about 33 votes out of 591). Council members advised Lopen that proponents can draft an ordinance and ask the council to place it on a regular election ballot; they also noted that special-election routes are constrained by signature thresholds and statutory deadlines. One councilor said they would prefer a vote during a normal election to avoid city costs.
Request for individual permission: Lopen asked whether she could receive written permission for her three birds; council members were mixed—some expressed sympathy for emotional-support claims but said purchasing animals prior to final approval complicates granting a retroactive exemption. One councilor said they would lean toward denying a one-off permit in this circumstance; another encouraged pursuing a petition and ballot process.
Next steps: staff and council instructed Lopen on petition and ordinance-submission processes and advised her to check Secretary of State deadlines for ballot placement. Council did not grant the requested written exemption at the meeting.
