City Thinks it has to hire more to cover chickens

[Cleebee]

So - we're down and dirty here in Aurora, CO, trying to get City Council to change their mind about allowing chickens. We've addressed most issues (noise, smell, predators, etc.), but the one BIGGEST argument against them is that if the city allows chickens, they will have to hire more personnel to deal with permits, complaints, and compliance. [Never mind that the only way this is true is if many many people want chickens, in which case City Council needs to be representing all those in favor, not fighting them.]

Anyway - I need proof that this isn't so. I have an article from Longmont, CO, stating that there aren't many complaints. But does ANYONE know of a city where this happened? They had to hire more animal care or neighborhood services people to cover the flocks of chickens??? Or even better, a city where they thought they would and DIDN'T. Or hired people and then they had nothing to do??

It's an absurd argument and I'm not sure how to address it with facts.

Thanks.

 

[HEChicken]

What about not requiring a permit? I now live in the country with no restrictions but previously lived in a city where the city ordinance was that you could have 5 hens without getting a permit and up to 12 if you did buy a permit that cost $25 per year. They didn't need to hire additional personnel to issue these permits because so few people applied for them, and they were handled by the same office that issues dog licenses. The form to fill out was so generic I had to write in the species - i.e., it was the same form they already had in use for other purposes.

Animal control investigated any reports of "illegal chicken activity", just as they responded to complaints about dogs (and any other critter). To my knowledge they did not need additional personnel, as there were so few complaints about chickens.

Long and short, if they allow some number without a permit, it won't add to their work load at all. I know of a city close to me to that allows up to 20 with no permit. If Aurora writes up an ordinance stating the number, that no roosters are allowed (if that is the case) and that they must be confined to the owner's property, they shouldn't need to do a whole lot more to "maintain".

 

[chfite]

The consideration of an ordinance here was discarded upon considering: is there a problem with chickens that needs to be specifically addressed, do we need more paperwork, should we pay someone to inspect coops, runs, complaints? The decision was there weren't enough concerns about chickens to warrant more laws, paperwork, or specific inspectors. So chickens are handled in the same manner as barking dogs and loud parties, individually as needed.

Chris

 

[Big Bubba]

I live in a semi-urban area. Years ago they decided parking needed to be controlled. So they issued permits. Originally it was free to get a permit if you lived here. Now it costs $30 for each car. If you park here without a permit it will be an $80 ticket. I know who wins in this game and it ain't me or the people without permits.

So, with chickens set fines high for non-compliance and low for the actual permits. Permits can be automated on a Web site. Police, or another government entity, can handle the complaints and they can keep the fines. Pays for it self.