Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Evansville commission reviews animal-control ordinance changes, agrees in principle on poultry language
Summary
City animal-control advisers discussed revisions to dangerous-dog definitions and poultry/fowl language to resolve clerk-office enforcement issues and streamline chicken licensing; commissioners signaled informal support for staff changes but took no formal vote.
Members of the Bridal Control and Education Commission discussed proposed revisions to Evansville’s animal-control ordinances on July (date not specified), focusing on clearer dangerous-dog language and how the city defines and licenses backyard poultry. Legal adviser Buddy presented draft summaries, saying the dangerous-dog revision removes ambiguous ‘threatens to attack’ language and instead ties the definition to whether an animal actually causes harm: “It’s now a definition based purely on if an animal actually causes harm.”
Staff reported that inconsistent terminology in the municipal code — the code uses the term “fowl” in some sections and “poultry” in others — had led the city clerk’s office to reject certain citations. Buddy recommended reconciling the code language with the clerk’s office so officers’ citations will be accepted. One commissioner said the clerk’s office “wouldn’t take them” when the terminology did not match the prohibited-acts list.
Commissioners debated whether chicken licensing should continue to come before the commission or be handled administratively by animal-control staff after an inspection. Several members said delegating routine license issuance to staff would reduce processing time while preserving a public complaints process: if neighbors object after a license is issued, the matter could be brought before the commission. Staff emphasized that inspections and ordinance compliance would continue regardless of whether licensing was processed as a permit or a license.
The group discussed terminology and fees. Commissioners preferred calling the authorization a “license” rather than a “permit” to reduce confusion. Kelly proposed increasing the annual fee from $5 to $10; commissioners generally found $10 reasonable for cost recovery. Buddy polled the room and reported broad, informal support for adopting Kelly’s proposed language changes, but no ordinance was formally adopted at the meeting.
Next steps: staff will reconcile code wording with the clerk’s office and prepare final ordinance text for review. Commissioners asked staff to send near-consensus items to Councilwoman Mosby’s office for technical drafting before any vote.
The meeting adjourned after a motion that was seconded and approved by voice vote.
