Aurora committee holds further discussion on backyard-chicken ban, delays decision a week

Aurora — The Rules, Administration and Procedure Committee of the City of Aurora heard a public comment and an animal-control briefing on Aug. 19 about the city’s ban on “farm animals,” including backyard chickens, and postponed a decision for one week while the petitioner is unavailable. Committee Chair Edward J. Bugg opened and closed the discussion and said no formal action would be taken at the meeting.

Why it matters: Committee members, staff and residents discussed enforcement capacity, rising calls about chickens and the practical burdens of impounding or rehoming birds — factors that affect whether the city should change the ordinance or step up enforcement.

The discussion began after a public comment from Ward 4 resident Austin Fitzcorbit, who urged the committee to choose either to enforce existing rules uniformly or to consider changing them. “We should either enforce the ordinance or we shouldn't,” Fitzcorbit said. He told the committee he had sent research and interactive maps to members and argued that changes in waste management, grocery prices and neighboring municipal policies merit a review of Aurora’s rules.

Cameron DeBoer, animal control manager for the city of Aurora, told the committee that animal-control receives regular chicken-related calls. DeBoer said the department logged 33 chicken-related complaints in 2024 and 43 complaints through Aug. 1, 2025, and that officers sometimes must rehome birds because the municipal facility cannot keep them long term. “When those happen, we go out, we speak to the homeowner, and we let them know, hey, you cannot have farm animals. They need to be rehomed,” DeBoer said. He also described an incident in which staff took in about 14 birds after a household became vacant and staff had to find farms outside city limits to place them.

DeBoer described typical complaint triggers as roosters’ noise, birds roaming off property and poorly maintained coops that emit odors. He said coyotes have become more common in areas where chickens are reported and that chickens are vulnerable to predators. He also said animal-control has limited staffing — typically two officers during most daytime hours and one later shift — which affects response times for investigation and follow-up.

Committee members questioned enforcement logistics. DeBoer said officers usually give owners about one week to rehome birds, then verify removal; if animals remain, the city may impound the animals and pursue citations. He said the department does not have long-term holding infrastructure for larger flocks and sometimes must rely on outside farms or rescues for placement.

No ordinance change was proposed or adopted at the meeting. Chair Edward J. Bugg said the petitioner was not present and the committee would hold the item another week; he said the group may later move to remove the item or take other action once the petitioner participates. “Again, this is still on discussion. We're gonna hold it one more week. The petitioner has been invited. She cannot make it today,” Bugg said.

Ending: The committee maintained the matter as discussion-only and scheduled further consideration at the next meeting. Staff was directed to continue documenting calls and enforcement outcomes; the petitioner’s attendance at the rescheduled hearing was cited as a factor before any formal change or referral would be made.