Monday, September 18, 2017 Closed Session

Home , Diggers

Monday, September 18, 2017 Closed Session – 6:30 p.m. Regular Session – 7:00 p.m. Room 102

CALL TO ORDER

CLOSED SESSION PROPERTY ACQUISITION

REGULAR SESSION ROLL CALL PRAYER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (matters not on the Agenda)

CITY CLERK ANNOUNCEMENTS

ALDERMEN ANNOUNCEMENTS

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Award Bid for Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrade (utilizing applicable ComEd energy efficiency incentives) to Jasco Electric Corporation, 2750 Barney Court, McHenry, IL in the Amount of $291,491. Budgeted Funds – TIF #1/R&M Buildings and Structures. 1a. RESOLUTION R-152-17: A Resolution Approving an Agreement with Jasco Electric Corporation to Upgrade Existing Lighting and Exit Signs at the Library and Metropolitan Square Parking Decks

2. Approve License Agreement with Operation North Pole, Inc., 50 West Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL for the Temporary Use of City-Owned Property 2a. RESOLUTION R-153-17: A Resolution Approving a License Agreement with Operation North Pole, Inc., to Permit the Temporary Use of 1486 and 1486 ½ Miner Street for the Storage of Toys and Children’s Coats

3. Award Bid for the 2017 Sewer Lining Project to Michels Pipe Services, 817 Main Street, Brownsville, WI in the Amount of $369,619.00. Budgeted Funds – Capital Improvement Program - Water/Sewer. 3a. RESOLUTION R-154-17: A Resolution Approving an Agreement with Michels Corporation for Sewer Lining Project as Part of the 2017 Capital Improvement Project

4. Minutes/Regular Meeting – September 5, 2017

5. Minutes/Closed Session – September 5, 2017

6. Approve Final Bona Fide Offer to Acquire Fee Simple Title to Certain Property Located at 1476 Miner Street 6a. ORDINANCE M-20-17: An Ordinance Authorizing the Making of a Final Bona Fide Offer to Acquire Fee Simple Title to Certain Property Located at 1476 Miner Street

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

1. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION – Alderman Mike Charewicz, Chair a. Warrant Register in the Amount of $3,569,000.12 – RESOLUTION R-155-17 b. Consideration of a Resolution Providing for the Redemption of Series 2007A and 2007B Bonds in the Amount of $2,206,135. Budgeted Funds – Debt Service and Capital Projects Funds – RESOLUTION R-158-17

2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – Alderman Dick Sayad, Chair a. Consideration of Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Avenue, Case #17-055-SUB (5th Ward) – RESOLUTION R-157-17 b. Consideration of Text Amendment to Sections 12-11-5 and 12-11-6 of the Zoning Code and Section 10-13-2, Case #17-057-TA – ORDINANCE Z-21-17 c. Approve Business Assistance Program, Multi-Unit Retail Grant Program for 554-570 E. Algonquin Road (3rd Ward) – RESOLUTION R-156-17

3. BUILDING CODE – Alderman John Robinson, Chair a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title 6 of the City Code Regarding the Keeping of Chickens – ORDINANCE M-19-17 (deferred from 9/5/2017 City Council Agenda)

4. PUBLIC SAFETY – Alderman Rodd, Chair a. Discussion of Photo Red Light Enforcement Program

IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN UNDER NEW BUSINESS, THESE ITEMS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING CONSENT AGENDA OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE ACTION ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING, THEY MUST BE REPORTED OUT BY THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN UNDER “NEW BUSINESS”

UNFINISHED BUSINESS N/A

NEW BUSINESS: IF REPORTED OUT BY COMMITTEE 1. a. RESOLUTION R-155-17: Warrant Register in the amount of $3,569,000.12 b. RESOLUTION R-158-17: A Resolution Authorizing the Calling and Payment of All Obligations Related to Series 2007A and 2007B General Obligation Refunding Bonds 2. a. RESOLUTION R-157-17: A Resolution Approving Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois b. ORDINANCE Z-21-17: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of Title 12 and Chapter 13 of Title 10 of the City of Des Plaines City Code c. RESOLUTION R-156-17: A Resolution Approving a Business Assistance Program Grant for Façade Improvements at 554-570 E. Algonquin Road, Des Plaines, Illinois 3. a. ORDINANCE M-19-17: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title 6 of the City Code Regarding the Keeping of Chickens 4. a. n/a

MANAGER’S REPORT

ALDERMEN COMMENTS

MAYORAL COMMENTS

ADJOURNMENT

City of Des Plaines, in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in the meeting(s) or have questions about the accessibility of the meeting(s) or facilities, contact the ADA Coordinator at 391-5486 to allow the City to make reasonable accommodations for these persons.

PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1111 Joseph J. Schwab Road Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5464 desplaines.org

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 25, 2017

To: Mike Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager

From: Tom Bueser, Superintendent of General Services Timothy Watkins, Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering

Cc: Timothy P. Oakley, P.E., CFM, Director of Public Works and Engineering

Subject: Award Bid – Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrades

Issue: Bids for Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrades were opened on August 23, 2017.

Analysis: The Facilities and Grounds Division is routinely changing bulbs and ballasts at both the Library and Metropolitan Square parking garages. This budgeted project aims to reduce maintenance and energy costs while improving current lighting for safety and security. Walker Parking Consultants conducted a review of current lighting systems in the Library and Metropolitan Square Parking decks to make a recommendation for replacing lighting fixtures for the Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrades project. The CREE IG (ceiling mounted) and OSQ (pole light mounted) Series has been specified and utilized successfully in similar applications by Walker Parking Consultants. The City received seven bids for this contract with a summary listed below:

Company Total Bid Price

Jasco Electric $291,491.00 All Tech Energy $313,831,43 Power Energy $315,122.30 Eco Lighting Services $350,539.00 Facilities Solutions Group $442,554.00 Hecker & Co. $458,949.10 Genesis Electric $473,047.00

The low bid received for this project was submitted by Jasco Electric Corporation in the amount of $291,491. The bid also includes hourly labor pricing and a material mark-up not to exceed 15% for any additional work required. Jasco Electric Corporation has been in business since 1995 and we

Page 1 of 34 have received positive feedback through reference checks which included the following municipalities: Evanston, Buffalo Grove, Oak Lawn, Tinley Park, and Schaumburg as well as Northwestern University and the River Trails School District.

The City has completed a facility assessment for both parking decks with representatives from Com Ed to estimate potential annual savings and energy incentives. A standard pre-approval incentive form has been submitted to Com Ed which will be utilized for this project which are listed below:

Location Estimated Annual Energy Com Ed Energy Efficiency Savings Program Incentives Library Parking Deck $23,050 $25,635.44 Metro Square Parking Deck $27,670 $24,517.69

Based upon the submitted Com Ed energy efficiency program incentives to the City for this project, the cost after rebates will be approximately $241,337.87. The annual estimated energy savings the City receives by completing this project is approximately $50,720; which results in an approximate project payoff of 4.75 years.

Recommendation: We recommend utilizing applicable Com Ed energy efficiency incentives and award of the bid for the Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrade to Jasco Electric Corporation, 2750 Barney Court, McHenry, IL 60051, in the amount of $291,491, with alternate pricing of $102 per man hour and material mark-up of 15%. This purchase will be funded from TIF #1, R&M Buildings and Structures (201-00-000-0000.6315).

Attachments: Resolution R-152-17 Exhibit A – Jasco Electric Corporation Contract

Page 2 of 34 CITY OF DES PLAINES

RESOLUTION R - 152 - 17

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH JASCO ELECTRIC CORPORATION TO UPGRADE EXISTING LIGHTING AND EXIT SIGNS AT THE LIBRARY AND METROPOLITAN SQUARE PARKING DECKS.

WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the City to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the City has appropriated funds from the TIF #1, R&M Buildings and Structure fund during the 2017 fiscal year to upgrade parking garage lighting and exit signs ("Work"); and

WHEREAS, Pursuant to Chapter 10 of Title 1 of the City of Des Plaines City Code and the City’s purchasing policy, the City solicited bids for the procurement of the Work; and

WHEREAS, the City received seven bids, which were opened on August 23, 2017; and

WHEREAS, Jasco Electric Corporation ("Contractor") submitted the lowest responsible bid for the Work in the total not-to-exceed amount of $291,491; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an agreement with Contractor for the performance of the Work in the not to exceed amount of $291,491 ("Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into the Agreement with Contractor;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby approves the Agreement in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and in a final form to be approved by the General Counsel.

SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute and seal, on behalf of the City, the final Agreement.

Page 3 of 34 SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law.

PASSED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____

MAYOR

ATTEST: Approved as to form:

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

DP-Resolution Approving Bid Award to Jasco Electric Corporation for Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrades 2017

Page 4 of 34 Exhibit A Page 5 of 34 Exhibit A Page 6 of 34 Exhibit A Page 7 of 34 Exhibit A Page 8 of 34 Exhibit A Page 9 of 34 Exhibit A Page 10 of 34 Exhibit A Page 11 of 34 Exhibit A Page 12 of 34 Exhibit A Page 13 of 34 Exhibit A Page 14 of 34 Exhibit A Page 15 of 34 Exhibit A Page 16 of 34 Exhibit A Page 17 of 34 Exhibit A Page 18 of 34 Exhibit A Page 19 of 34 Exhibit A Page 20 of 34 Exhibit A Page 21 of 34 Exhibit A Page 22 of 34 Exhibit A Page 23 of 34 Exhibit A Page 24 of 34 Exhibit A Page 25 of 34 Exhibit A Page 26 of 34 Exhibit A Page 27 of 34 Exhibit A Page 28 of 34 Exhibit A Page 29 of 34 Exhibit A Page 30 of 34 Exhibit A Page 31 of 34 Exhibit A Page 32 of 34 Exhibit A Page 33 of 34 Exhibit A Page 34 of 34 PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1111 Joseph J. Schwab Road Des Plaines, IL 60016 Tel: 847-391-5464 www.desplaines.org

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 29, 2017

To: Mike Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager

From: Tom Bueser, Superintendent of General Services Timothy Watkins, Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering

Cc: Timothy P. Oakley, P.E., CFM, Director of Public Works and Engineering

Subject: Operation North Pole License Agreement

Issue: Similar to last year, Operation North Pole, Inc. has requested the temporary use of our vacant building space at 1486 and 1486½ Miner Street.

Analysis: Operation North Pole, Inc. (ONP) is a Des Plaines based 501(c)(3) volunteer public charity that provides terminally and seriously ill children and their families with a day of fun and fantasy each holiday season. Their organization networks closely with the Des Plaines Fire, Police and Public Works Departments, hosting 75 families to a chartered train ride to the “North Pole” to visit Santa.

This year, ONP is in need of temporary storage space beginning October 20, 2017 through December 20, 2017. They have requested the use of City owned space at 1486 and 1486½ Miner Street during that time to store gifts and used coats. Since this space is currently vacant, we are able to accommodate the request.

Recommendation: We recommend approval of the license agreement with Operation North Pole, Inc., 50 West Oakton Street, Des Plaines, Illinois, 60018 for the temporary use of City owned property.

Attachments: Attachment 1 – Request from ONP Resolution R-153-17 Exhibit A – License Agreement

Page 1 of 10 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 10 CITY OF DES PLAINES

RESOLUTION R - 153 - 17

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH OPERATION NORTH POLE, INC., TO PERMIT THE TEMPORARY USE OF 1486 AND 1486 ½ MINER STREET FOR THE STORAGE OF TOYS AND CHILDREN’S COATS.

WHEREAS, the City owns that certain property commonly known as 1486 and 1486 ½ Miner Street in the City ("Property"); and

WHEREAS, Operation North Pole, Inc. ("Licensee"), desires to temporarily use the Property for the storage of donated toys, children’s winter coats, and other items collected as donations for charitable purposes ("Donations"); and

WHEREAS, the City and Licensee desire to enter into a license agreement permitting Licensee to temporarily use the Property for the purpose of storing the Donations ("License Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into the License Agreement with Licensee;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF LICENSE AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby approves the License Agreement in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and in a final form approved by the General Counsel.

SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE LICENSE AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute, and the City Clerk to seal, on behalf of the City, the final License Agreement.

SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

Page 3 of 10

PASSED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____

______MAYOR

ATTEST: Approved as to form:

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

DP-Resolution Approving a License Agreement for Operation North Pole at 1486 Miner St 2017

Page 4 of 10

LICENSE AGREEMENT

THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), dated as of this ____ day of ______, 2017, (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF DES PLAINES (“City”), and OPERATION NORTH POLE, INC. (“Licensee”), an Illinois not-for-profit corporation.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, mutual covenants, and agreements set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby mutually agree as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS.

A. The City is the owner of the property commonly known as 1486 - 1486 ½ Miner Street, Des Plaines, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A to this Agreement (“Licensed Premises”).

B. The Licensee desires to use the Licensed Premises for the storage of toys, children’s winter coats, and other items collected as donations by the Licensee as part of the Operation North Pole Secret Santa Program (collectively, the "Donations").

C. The City and the Licensee desire to enter into this Agreement to permit the storage of the Donations within the Licensed Premises.

SECTION 2. GRANT OF LICENSE; LIMITATION OF INTEREST.

A. Grant of License. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, City hereby grants to the Licensee, and the Licensee hereby accepts, a license to enter and use the Licensed Premises for the sole purpose of storing the Donations within the Licensed Premises pursuant to and in strict accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement (“License”).

B. License Fee. In consideration of the License granted by Section 2.A of this Agreement, the Licensee agrees to pay the City a one-time license fee in the amount of $10.00.

C. Limitation of Interest. Except for the License granted pursuant to this Agreement, the Licensee shall have no legal, beneficial, or equitable interest, whether by adverse possession or prescription or otherwise, in the Licensed Premises.

SECTION 3. AS-IS CONDITION; DELIVERY, STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DONATIONS AND THE LICENSED PREMISES.

A. As-Is. The Licensee hereby accepts the Licensed Premises in its condition at the time of the execution of this Agreement. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that: (i) the City has made no representation or warranty as to the suitability of the Licensed Premises for the Licensee’s intended purposes; and (ii) the City will have no responsibility to maintain the Licensed Premises in any particular condition or manner. The Licensee waives any implied warranty that the Licensed Premises are or will be suitable for the Licensee's intended purposes.

Exhibit A Page 5 of 10 B. Delivery and Storage. The Licensee shall deliver and store the Donations within the Licensed Premises in a safe, good, and workmanlike manner and in a safe, secure, and neat condition.

C. Maintenance.

1. Acknowledgment of Licensee Obligations. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the Licensee, and not the City, is solely responsible for the delivery, storage, protection, maintenance, and replacement of the Donations.

2. Maintenance in Safe and Secure Condition. The Licensee shall store and maintain the Donations at all times in a safe, secure, and neat condition and in a condition of good repair.

3. Compliance with Laws. The Licensee shall deliver, store, and maintain the Donations in compliance at all times with all applicable laws, ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations, as the same have been or may be amended from time to time.

D. Security of Licensed Premises. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the City will not provide any security services at the Licensed Premises and will not be responsible or liable to the Licensee for, and the Licensee hereby waives any claim against the City with respect to, any loss by theft or any other damage suffered or incurred by the Licensee in connection with any unauthorized entry into the Licensed Premises or any other breach of security with respect to the Licensed Premises.

SECTION 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS.

The City hereby reserves the right to use the Licensed Premises in any manner that will not prevent, impede, or interfere in any way with the exercise by Licensee of the rights granted pursuant to this Agreement. The City further reserves its right of full and normal access to the Licensed Premises for the maintenance of any existing or future utility located thereon.

SECTION 5. LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY OF CITY.

A. Liability. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the City is not, and shall not be, in any way liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as the result of: (i) the City’s issuance of any approvals for the delivery and storage of the Donations within the Licensed Premises; and (ii) the delivery and storage of the Donations within the Licensed Premises by the Licensee.

B. Indemnity. The Licensee agrees to, and does hereby, hold harmless and indemnify the City and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims that may be asserted at any time against the City in connection with: (i) the delivery and storage of any portion of the Donations within the Licensed Premises; and (ii) the Licensee’s performance of, or failure to perform, its obligations under this Agreement.

-2- Exhibit A Page 6 of 10 SECTION 6. TERM; TERMINATION; RESTORATION.

A. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on October 20, 2017 and shall end on December 20, 2017.

B. Termination by the City. In the event that the Licensee violates any provision of this Agreement, the City shall have the right, upon 10 days written notice and an opportunity to cure the violation, to terminate this Agreement.

C. Termination by Licensee. The Licensee may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to the City at any time with or without cause.

E. Restoration of Licensed Premises. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, shall remove all Donations from the Licensed Premises and restore the Licensed Premises as nearly as practicable to its condition as of the Effective Date.

SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT.

A. Enforcement. The City and the Licensee may, in law or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus or any other proceeding, including, without limitation, specific performance, enforce or compel the performance of this Agreement.

B. Prevailing Party. In the event of a judicial proceeding brought by one party against the other party, the prevailing party in the judicial proceeding shall be entitled to reimbursement from the unsuccessful party of all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with the judicial proceeding.

SECTION 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

A. Notices. All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be given by the parties by: (i) personal delivery; (ii) deposit in the United States mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope with first class postage thereon; or (iii) deposit with a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, addressed as stated in this Section 8.A. The address of any party may be changed by written notice to the other parties. Any mailed notice shall be deemed to have been given and received within three days after the same has been mailed and any notice given by overnight courier shall be deemed to have been given and received within 24 hours after deposit. Notices and communications to the parties shall be addressed to, and delivered at, the following addresses:

If to Licensor: City of Des Plaines 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 Attention: Director of Public Works and Engineering

-3- Exhibit A Page 7 of 10 with a copy to: Holland & Knight LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street, 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Attention: Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel If to the Licensee: Operation North Pole, Inc. 50 W. Oakton Street Des Plaines, IL 60018 Attention: Timothy J. Crossin with a copy to:

B. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

C. Amendments. No amendment or modification to this Agreement shall be effective until it is reduced to writing and approved and executed by all parties to this Agreement in accordance with all applicable statutory procedures.

D. Rights Cumulative. Unless expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, each and every one of the rights, remedies, and benefits provided by this Agreement shall be cumulative and shall not be exclusive of any other such rights, remedies, and benefits allowed by law.

E. Non-Waiver. Neither party shall be under an obligation to exercise any of the rights granted to it in this Agreement. The failure of either party to exercise at any time any right granted to it shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of that right, nor shall the failure void or affect the party's right to enforce that right or any other right.

F. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, construed, and enforced in accordance with the internal laws, but not the conflicts of laws rules, of the State of Illinois.

G. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is construed or held to be void, invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the remaining part of that provision and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby, but shall remain in full force and effect. The unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the enforceability of that provision in any other situation.

H. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior agreements and negotiations between the parties, whether written or oral, relating to the License granted pursuant to this Agreement.

I. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be construed without regard to the identity of the party who drafted the various provisions of this Agreement. Moreover, each and every provision of this Agreement shall be construed as though all parties participated equally in the

-4- Exhibit A Page 8 of 10 drafting of this Agreement. As a result of the foregoing, any rule or construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting party shall not be applicable to this Agreement.

J. Exhibits. Exhibit A attached hereto is, by this reference, incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between an exhibit and the text of this Agreement, the text of this Agreement shall control.

K. No Third Party Beneficiaries. No claim as a third party beneficiary under this Agreement by any person shall be made, or be valid, against the City or the Licensee.

L. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to constitute a duly authorized original.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed, effective as of the date first written above.

ATTEST: CITY OF DES PLAINES

By: By:

Its: Its:

ATTEST: OPERATION NORTH POLE, INC.

By: By:

Its: Its:

-5- Exhibit A Page 9 of 10

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

THE SOUTHEASTERLY 30.0 FEET OF LOT 67 (EXCEPT THE NORTHEASTERLY 8 FEET TAKEN FOR ALLEY) IN TOWN OF RAND, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF SECTIONS 16, 17 20 AND SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

PIN: 09-17-415-024-0000

Commonly known as 1486 and 1486 ½ Miner Street, Des Plaines, Illinois

Exhibit A Page 10 of 10 PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1111 Joseph J. Schwab Road Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5464 desplaines.org

MEMORANDUM

Date: September 6, 2017

To: Mike Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager

From: Joel Gehrett, Superintendent of Utility Services

Cc: Timothy P. Oakley, P.E., CFM, Director of Public Works and Engineering Timothy Watkins, Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering

Subject: Bid Award - 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining Project

Issue: The 2017 budget includes $350,000 in funding for Sewer Lining. Four (4) bids were received and opened on September 6, 2017.

Analysis: The scope of work includes installation of approximately 6,778 linear feet of cured in place pipe (CIPP) for various sewer main pipe segments along Des Plaines River Road and collecting lateral mains from Whitcomb Avenue to Rand Road. The breakdown of sewer lining consists of approximately 1,126 ft. of 8 inch, 583 ft. of 10 inch, 732 ft. of 12 inch, 1810 ft. of 15 inch, 1143 ft. of 18 inch, 119 ft. of 20 inch and 1265 ft. of 24 inch diameter gravity sewer main of varying material type including vitrified clay, concrete and brick.

The bids for the lining project range from $369,619.00 to $535,544.50 and are as follows:

BIDDER’S NAME BID AMOUNT Michels Pipe Services $ 369,619.00 Hoerr Construction $ 370,996.00 Insituform $ 447,389.40 Visu-Sewer $ 535,544.50

Recommendation: We recommend award of the 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining project to Michels Pipe Services, a Division of Michels Corporation; 817 Main Street, Brownsville, WI 53006-0128 in the amount of $369,619.00. Funding source for this project will be Capital Improvement Program Water/Sewer Fund (500- 00-580-8100).

Attachments: Resolution R-154-17 Exhibit A – Michels Contract

Page 1 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES

RESOLUTION R - 154 - 17

A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH MICHELS CORPORATION FOR SEWER LINING PROJECT AS PART OF THE 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

WHEREAS, the City has appropriated funds in the Capital Improvement Program Water/Sewer Fund for use by the Department of Public Works and Engineering during the 2017 fiscal year for completion of water and sewer service projects that are part of the 2017 Capital Improvement Program ("Work"); and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 10 of Title 1 of the of the City of Des Plaines City Code and the City purchasing policy, the City solicited bids for the procurement of the Work; and

WHEREAS, the City received four bids, which were opened on September 6, 2017; and

WHEREAS, Michels Corporation ("Contractor"), submitted the lowest responsible bid in the not-to-exceed amount of $369,619; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a contract with Contractor for the performance of the Work in the not-to-exceed amount of $369,619 ("Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into the Agreement with Contractor;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby approves the Agreement in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and in a final form approved by the General Counsel.

SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute and seal, on behalf of the City, the final Agreement.

Page 2 of 52 SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law.

PASSED this ___ day of ______, 2017.

APPROVED this ___ day of ______, 2017.

VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____

MAYOR

ATTEST: Approved as to form:

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

DP-Resolution Approving 2017 CIP Sewer Lining Project Bid Award to Michels Corporation

Page 3 of 52

CITY OF DES PLAINES

CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 2017 SEWER LINING

Exhibit A Page 4 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 2017 SEWER LINING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ARTICLE I The Work ...... 1 1.1 Performance of the Work ...... 1 1.2 Commencement and Completion Dates ...... 2 1.3 Required Submittals ...... 2 1.4 Review and Interpretation of Contract Provisions ...... 3 1.5 Conditions at the Work Site; Record Drawings ...... 3 1.6 Technical Ability to Perform ...... 4 1.7 Financial Ability to Perform ...... 4 1.8 Time ...... 4 1.9 Safety at the Work Site ...... 5 1.10 Cleanliness of the Work Site and Environs ...... 5 1.11 Damage to the Work, the Work Site, and Other Property ...... 5 1.12 Subcontractors and Suppliers ...... 6 1.13 Simultaneous Work By Others ...... 6 1.14 Occupancy Prior to Final Payment ...... 6 1.15 Owner’s Right to Terminate or Suspend Work for Convenience ...... 6

ARTICLE II Changes And Delays ...... 7 2.1 Changes ...... 7 2.2 Delays ...... 7

ARTICLE III Contractor’s Responsibility For Defective Work ...... 8 3.1 Inspection; Testing; Correction of Defects ...... 8 3.2 Warranty of Work ...... 8 3.3 Owner’s Right to Correct ...... 9

ARTICLE IV Financial Assurances ...... 9 4.1 Bonds ...... 9 4.2 Insurance ...... 9 4.3 Indemnification ...... 10

ARTICLE V Payment ...... 10 5.1 Contract Price ...... 10 5.2 Taxes and Benefits ...... 10

Exhibit A Page 5 of 52 5.3 Progress Payments ...... 10 5.4 Final Acceptance and Final Payment ...... 11 5.5 Liens ...... 11 5.6 Deductions ...... 12

ARTICLE VI Disputes And Remedies ...... 13 6.1 Dispute Resolution Procedure ...... 13 6.2 Contractor’s Remedies ...... 13 6.3 Owner’s Remedies ...... 13 6.4 Owner’s Special Remedy for Delay ...... 15 6.5 Terminations and Suspensions Deemed for Convenience ...... 15

ARTICLE VII Legal Relationships And Requirements ...... 15 7.1 Binding Effect ...... 15 7.2 Relationship of the Parties ...... 15 7.3 No Collusion/Prohibited Interests ...... 15 7.4 Assignment ...... 16 7.5 Confidential Information ...... 16 7.6 No Waiver ...... 16 7.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries ...... 17 7.8 Notices ...... 17 7.9 Governing Laws ...... 17 7.10 Changes in Laws ...... 18 7.11 Compliance with Laws ...... 18 7.12 Compliance with Patents ...... 19 7.13 Time ...... 19 7.14 Severability ...... 19 7.15 Entire Agreement ...... 20 7.16 Amendments ...... 20

Contractor’s Certification Attachment A: Supplemental Schedule of Contract Terms Attachment B: Special Provisions Attachment C: List of Drawings Appendix 1: Prevailing Wage Ordinance

Exhibit A Page 6 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 2017 SEWER LINING

In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, the City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street / Northwest Highway, Des Plaines, Illinois 60016, an Illinois municipal corporation (“Owner”), and Michels Pipe Services, a division of Michels Corporation, (“Contractor”), make this Contract as of September 18, 2017, (the “Effective Date”) and hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE I: THE WORK

1.1 Performance of the Work

Contractor, at its sole cost and expense, must provide, perform, and complete all of the following, all of which is herein referred to as the “Work”:

1. Labor, Equipment, Materials, and Supplies. Provide, perform, and complete, in the manner described and specified in this Contract, all necessary work, labor, services, transportation, equipment, materials, apparatus, machinery, tools, fuels, gas, electric, water, waste disposal, information, data, and other means and items necessary to accomplish the Project at the Work Site, both as defined in Attachment A, in accordance with the specifications attached hereto as Attachment B, the drawings identified in the list attached hereto as Attachment C, and the Special Project Requirements attached hereto as Attachment D.

2. Permits. Except as otherwise provided in Attachment A, procure and furnish all permits, licenses, and other governmental approvals and authorizations necessary in connection therewith.

3. Bonds and Insurance. Procure and furnish all Bonds and all certificates and policies of insurance specified in this Contract.

4. Taxes. Pay all applicable federal, state, and local taxes.

5. Miscellaneous. Do all other things required of Contractor by this Contract, including without limitation arranging for utility and other services needed for the Work and for testing, including the installation of temporary utility lines, wiring, switches, fixtures, hoses, connections, and meters, and providing sufficient sanitary conveniences and shelters to accommodate all workers and all personnel of Owner engaged in the Work.

Exhibit A Page 7 of 52 6. Quality. Provide, perform, and complete all of the foregoing in a proper and workmanlike manner, consistent with the highest standards of professional and construction practices and in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract, and with the greatest economy, efficiency, and expedition consistent therewith, with only new, undamaged and first quality equipment, materials, and supplies.

1.2 Commencement and Completion Dates

Contractor must commence the Work not later than the “Commencement Date” set forth on Attachment A and must diligently and continuously prosecute the Work at such a rate as will allow the Work to be fully provided, performed, and completed in full compliance with this Contract not later than the “Completion Date” set forth in Attachment A. The time of commencement, rate of progress, and time of completion are referred to in this Contract as the “Contract Time.”

1.3 Required Submittals

A. Submittals Required. Contractor must submit to Owner all documents, data, and information specifically required to be submitted by Contractor under this Contract and must, in addition, submit to Owner all such drawings, specifications, descriptive information, and engineering documents, data, and information as may be required, or as may be requested by Owner, to show the details of the Work, including a complete description of all equipment, materials, and supplies to be provided under this Contract (“Required Submittals”). Such details must include, but are not limited to, design data, structural and operating features, principal dimensions, space required or provided, clearances required or provided, type and brand of finish, and all similar matters, for all components of the Work.

B. Number and Format. Contractor must provide [three] complete sets for each Required Submittal. All Required Submittals, except drawings, must be prepared on white 8-1/2” x 11”. Two blueline prints and one sepia transparency of each drawing must be provided. All drawings must be clearly marked in the lower right-hand corner with the names of Owner and Contractor.

C. Time of Submission and Owner’s Review. All Required Submittals must be provided to Owner no later than the time, if any, specified in this Contract for their submission or, if no time for submission is specified, in sufficient time, in Owner’s sole opinion, to permit Owner to review the same prior to the commencement of the part of the Work to which they relate and prior to the purchase of any equipment, materials, or supplies that they describe. Owner will have the right to require such corrections as may be necessary to make such submittals conform to this Contract. All such submittals will, after final processing and review with no exception noted by Owner, become a part of this Contract. No Work related to any submittal may be performed by Contractor until Owner has completed review of such submittal with no exception noted. Owner’s review and stamping of any Required Submittal will be for the sole purpose of examining the general management, design, and details of the proposed Work, does not relieve Contractor of the entire

Exhibit A Page 8 of 52 responsibility for the performance of the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to this Contract, and may not be regarded as any assumption of risk or liability by Owner.

D. Responsibility for Delay. Contractor is responsible for any delay in the Work due to delay in providing Required Submittals conforming to this Contract.

1.4 Review and Interpretation of Contract Provisions

Contractor represents and warrants that it has carefully reviewed this Contract, including all of its Attachments, and the drawings identified in Attachment C, all of which are by this reference incorporated into and made a part of this Contract. Contractor must, at no increase in the Contract Price, provide workmanship, equipment, materials, and supplies that fully conform to this Contract. Whenever any equipment, materials or supplies are specified or described in this Contract by using the name or other identifying feature of a proprietary product or the name or other identifying feature of a particular manufacturer or vendor, the specific item mentioned is understood as establishing the type, function and quality desired. Other manufacturers’ or vendors’ products may be accepted, provided that the products proposed are equivalent in substance and function to those named as determined by Owner in its sole and absolute discretion.

Contractor must promptly notify Owner of any discrepancy, error, omission, ambiguity, or conflict among any of the provisions of this Contract before proceeding with any Work affected thereby. If Contractor fails to give such notice to Owner, then the subsequent decision of Owner as to which provision of this Contract governs is final, and any corrective work required does not entitle Contractor to any damages, to any compensation in excess of the Contract Price, or to any delay or extension of the Contract Time.

When the equipment, materials, or supplies furnished by Contractor cannot be installed as specified in this Contract, Contractor must, without any increase in the Contract Price, make all modifications required to properly install the equipment, materials, or supplies. Any such modification is subject to the prior review and consent of Owner.

1.5 Conditions at the Work Site; Record Drawings

Contractor represents and warrants that it has had a sufficient opportunity to conduct a thorough investigation of the Work Site and the surrounding area and has completed such investigation to its satisfaction. Contractor will have no claim for damages, for compensation in excess of the Contract Price, or for a delay or extension of the Contract Time based upon conditions found at, or in the vicinity of, the Work Site. When information pertaining to subsurface, underground or other concealed conditions, soils analysis, borings, test pits, utility locations or conditions, buried structures, condition of existing structures, and other investigations is or has been provided by Owner, or is or has been otherwise made available to Contractor by Owner, such information is or has been provided or made available solely for the convenience of Contractor and is not part of this Contract. Owner assumes no responsibility whatever in respect to the sufficiency or accuracy of such information, and

Exhibit A Page 9 of 52 there is no guaranty or warranty, either expressed or implied, that the conditions indicated are representative of those existing throughout the Work or the Work Site, or that the conditions indicated are representative of those existing at any particular location, or that the conditions indicated may not change, or that unanticipated conditions may not be present.

Contractor is solely responsible for locating all existing underground installations by prospecting no later than two workdays prior to any scheduled excavation or trenching, whichever is earlier. Contractor must check all dimensions, elevations, and quantities indicated in this Contract within the same time period as set forth above for prospecting underground installations. Contractor must lay out the Work in accordance with this Contract and must establish and maintain such locations, lines and levels. Wherever pre-existing work is encountered, Contractor must verify and be responsible for dimensions and location of such pre-existing work. Contractor must notify Owner of any discrepancy between the dimensions, elevations and quantities indicated in this Contract and the conditions of the Work Site or any other errors, omissions or discrepancies which Contract may discover during such inspections. Full instructions will be furnished by Owner should such error, omission, or discrepancy be discovered, and Contractor must carry out such instructions as if originally specified and without any increase in Contract Price.

Before Final Acceptance of the Work, Contractor must submit to Owner two sets of Drawings of Record, unless a greater number is specified elsewhere in this Contract, indicating al field deviations from Attachment B or the drawings identified in Attachment C.

1.6 Technical Ability to Perform

Contractor represents and warrants that it is sufficiently experienced and competent, and has the necessary capital, facilities, plant, organization, and staff, to provide, perform and complete the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract.

1.7 Financial Ability to Perform

Contractor represents and warrants that it is financially solvent, and Contractor has the financial resources necessary to provide, perform and complete the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract.

1.8 Time

Contractor represents and warrants that it is ready, willing, able and prepared to begin the Work on the Commencement Date and that the Contract Time is sufficient time to permit completion of the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract for the Contract Price, all with due regard to all natural and man-made conditions that may affect the Work or the Work Site and all difficulties, hindrances, and delays that may be incident to the Work.

Exhibit A Page 10 of 52 1.9 Safety at the Work Site

Contractor is solely and completely responsible for providing and maintaining safe conditions at the Work Site, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the Work. This requirement applies continuously and is not limited to normal working hours. Contractor must take all safety precautions as necessary to comply with all applicable laws and to prevent injury to persons and damage to property.

Contractor must conduct all of its operations without interruption or interference with vehicular and pedestrian traffic on public and private rights-of-way, unless it has obtained permits therefor from the proper authorities. If any public or private right-of-way are rendered unsafe by Contractor’s operations, Contractor must make such repairs or provide such temporary ways or guards as are acceptable to the proper authorities.

1.10 Cleanliness of the Work Site and Environs

Contractor must keep the Work Site and adjacent areas clean at all times during performance of the Work and must, upon completion of the Work, leave the Work Site and adjacent areas in a clean and orderly condition.

1.11 Damage to the Work, the Work Site, and Other Property

The Work and everything pertaining thereto is provided, performed, completed, and maintained at the sole risk and cost of Contractor from the Commencement Date until Final Payment. Contractor is fully responsible for the protection of all public and private property and all persons. Without limiting the foregoing, Contractor must, at its own cost and expense, provide all permanent and temporary shoring, anchoring and bracing required by the nature of the Work in order to make all parts absolutely stable and rigid, even when such shoring, anchoring and bracing is not explicitly specified, and support and protect all buildings, bridges, roadways, conduits, wires, water pipes, gas pipes, sewers, pavements, curbs, sidewalks, fixtures and landscaping of all kinds and all other public or private property that may be encountered or endangered in providing, performing and completing the Work. Contractor will have no claim against Owner because of any damage or loss to the Work or to Contractor’s equipment, materials, or supplies from any cause whatsoever, including damage or loss due to simultaneous work by others. Contractor must, promptly and without charge to Owner, repair or replace, to the satisfaction of Owner, any damage done to, and any loss suffered by, the Work and any damage done to, and any loss suffered by, the Work Site or other property as a result of the Work. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract, Contractor’s obligations under this Section exist without regard to, and may not be construed to be waived by, the availability or unavailability of any insurance, either of Owner or Contractor, to indemnify, hold harmless, or reimburse Contractor for the cost of any repair or replacement work required by this Section.

Exhibit A Page 11 of 52 1.12 Subcontractors and Suppliers

A. Approval and Use of Subcontractors and Suppliers. Contractor must perform the Work with its own personnel and under the management, supervision, and control of its own organization unless otherwise approved by Owner in writing. All subcontractors, suppliers, and subcontracts used by Contractor must be acceptable to, and approved in advance by, Owner. Owner’s approval of any subcontractor, supplier, and subcontract does not relieve Contractor of full responsibility and liability for the provision, performance, and completion of the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract. All Work performed under any subcontract is subject to all of the provisions of this Contract in the same manner as if performed by employees of Contractor. Every reference in this Contract to “Contractor” is deemed also to refer to all subcontractors and suppliers of Contractor. Every subcontract must include a provision binding the subcontractor or supplier to all provisions of this Contract.

B. Removal of Subcontractors and Suppliers. If any subcontractor or supplier fails to perform the part of the Work undertaken by it in a manner satisfactory to Owner, Contractor must immediately upon notice from Owner terminate such subcontractor or supplier. Contractor will have no claim for damages, for compensation in excess of the Contract Price, or for a delay or extension of the Contract Time as a result of any such termination.

1.13 Simultaneous Work By Others

Owner has the right to perform or have performed such other work as Owner may desire in, about, or near the Work Site during the performance of the Work by Contractor. Contractor must make every reasonable effort to perform the Work in such manner as to enable both the Work and such other work to be completed without hindrance or interference from each other. Contractor must afford Owner and other contractors reasonable opportunity for the execution of such other work and must properly coordinate the Work with such other work.

1.14 Occupancy Prior to Final Payment

Owner will have the right, at its election, to occupy, use, or place in service any part of the Work prior to Final Payment. Such occupancy, use, or placement in service must be conducted in such manner as not to damage any of the Work or to unreasonably interfere with the progress of the Work. No such occupancy, use, or placement in service may be construed as an acceptance of any of the Work or a release or satisfaction of Contractor’s duty to insure and protect the Work, nor may it, unless conducted in an unreasonable manner, be considered as an interference with Contractor’s provision, performance, or completion of the Work.

1.15 Owner’s Right to Terminate or Suspend Work for Convenience

A. Termination or Suspension for Convenience. Owner has the right, for its convenience, to terminate or suspend the Work in whole or in part at any time by written

Exhibit A Page 12 of 52 notice to Contractor. Every such notice must state the extent and effective date of such termination or suspension. On such effective date, Contractor must, as and to the extent directed, stop Work under this Contract, cease all placement of further orders or subcontracts, terminate or suspend Work under existing orders and subcontracts, cancel any outstanding orders or subcontracts that may be cancelled, and take any action necessary to protect any property in its possession in which Owner has or may acquire any interest and to dispose of such property in such manner as may be directed by Owner.

B. Payment for Completed Work. In the event of any termination pursuant to Subsection 1.15A above, Owner must pay Contractor (1) such direct costs, excluding overhead, as Contractor has paid or incurred for all Work done in compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract up to the effective date of termination together with ten percent of such costs for overhead and profit; and (2) such other costs pertaining to the Work, exclusive of overhead and profit, as Contractor may have reasonably and necessarily incurred as the result of such termination. Any such payment may be offset by any prior payment or payments and is subject to Owner’s rights to withhold and deduct as provided in this Contract.

ARTICLE II: CHANGES AND DELAYS

2.1 Changes

Owner has the right, by written order executed by Owner, to make changes in the Contract, the Work, the Work Site, and the Contract Time (“Change Order”). If any Change Order causes an increase or decrease in the amount of the Work, an equitable adjustment in the Contract Price or Contract Time may be made. All claims by Contractor for an equitable adjustment in either the Contract Price or the Contract Time must be made within two business days following receipt of such Change Order, and may, if not made prior to such time, be conclusively deemed to have been waived. No decrease in the amount of the Work caused by any Change Order will entitle Contractor to make any claim for damages, anticipated profits, or other compensation.

2.2 Delays

A. Extensions for Unavoidable Delays. For any delay that may result from causes that could not be avoided or controlled by Contractor, Contractor must, upon timely written application, be entitled to issuance of a Change Order providing for an extension of the Contract Time for a period of time equal to the delay resulting from such unavoidable cause. No extension of the Contract Time will be allowed for any other delay in completion of the Work.

B. No Compensation for Delays. No payment, compensation, damages, or adjustment of any kind, other than the extension of the Contract Time provided in Subsection 2.2A above, may be made to, or claimed by, Contractor because of hindrances or delays from any cause in the commencement, prosecution, or completion of the Work, whether caused by Owner or any other party and whether avoidable or unavoidable.

Exhibit A Page 13 of 52 ARTICLE III: CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFECTIVE WORK

3.1 Inspection; Testing; Correction of Defects

A. Inspection. Until Final Payment, all parts of the Work are subject to inspection and testing by Owner or its designated representatives. Contractor must furnish, at its own expense, all reasonable access, assistance, and facilities required by Owner for such inspection and testing.

B. Re-Inspection. Re-inspection and re-testing of any Work may be ordered by Owner at any time, and, if so ordered, any covered or closed Work must be uncovered or opened by Contractor. If the Work is found to be in full compliance with this Contract, then Owner must pay the cost of uncovering, opening, re-inspecting, or re-testing, as the case may be. If such Work is not in full compliance with this Contract, then Contractor must pay such cost.

C. Correction. Until Final Payment, Contractor must, promptly and without charge, repair, correct, or replace all or any part of the Work that is defective, damaged, flawed, or unsuitable or that in any way fails to conform strictly to the requirements of this Contract.

3.2 Warranty of Work

A. Scope of Warranty. Contractor warrants that the Work and all of its components will be free from defects and flaws in design, workmanship, and materials; must strictly conform to the requirements of this Contract; and will be fit, sufficient, and suitable for the purposes expressed in, or reasonably inferred from, this Contract. The warranty herein expressed is in addition to any other warranties expressed in this Contract, or expressed or implied by law, which are hereby reserved unto Owner.

B. Repairs; Extension of Warranty. Contractor, promptly and without charge, must correct any failure to fulfill the above warranty that may be discovered or develop at any time within one year after Final Payment or such longer period as may be prescribed in Attachment B or Attachment D to this Contract or by law. The above warranty may be extended automatically to cover all repaired and replacement parts and labor provided or performed under such warranty and Contractor’s obligation to correct Work may be extended for a period of one year from the date of such repair or replacement. The time period established in this Subsection 3.2B relates only to the specific obligation of Contractor to correct Work and may not be construed to establish a period of limitation with respect to other obligations that Contractor has under this Contract.

C. Subcontractor and Supplier Warranties. Whenever Attachment B or Attachment D requires a subcontractor or supplier to provide a guaranty or warranty, Contractor is solely responsible for obtaining said guaranty or warranty in form satisfactory to

Exhibit A Page 14 of 52 Owner and assigning said warranty or guaranty to Owner. Acceptance of any assigned warranties or guaranties by Owner is a precondition to Final Payment and does not relieve Contractor of any of its guaranty or warranty obligations under this Contract.

3.3 Owner’s Right to Correct

If, within two business days after Owner gives Contractor notice of any defect, damage, flaw, unsuitability, nonconformity, or failure to meet warranty subject to correction by Contractor pursuant to Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this Contract, Contractor neglects to make, or undertake with due diligence to make, the necessary corrections, then Owner is entitled to make, either with its own forces or with contract forces, the corrections and to recover from Contractor all resulting costs, expenses, losses, or damages, including attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses.

ARTICLE IV: FINANCIAL ASSURANCES

4.1 Bonds

Contemporaneous with Contractor’s execution of this Contract, Contractor must provide a Performance Bond and a Labor and Material Payment Bond, on forms provided by, or otherwise acceptable to, Owner, from a surety company licensed to do business in the State of Illinois with a general rating of A and a financial size category of Class X or better in Best’s Insurance Guide, each in the penal sum of the Contract Price (“Bonds”). Contractor, at all times while providing, performing, or completing the Work, including, without limitation, at all times while correcting any failure to meet warranty pursuant to Section 3.2 of this Contract, must maintain and keep in force, at Contractor’s expense, the Bonds required hereunder.

4.2 Insurance

Contemporaneous with Contractor’s execution of this Contract, Contractor must provide certificates and policies of insurance evidencing the minimum insurance coverages and limits set forth in Attachment A. For good cause shown, Owner may extend the time for submission of the required policies of insurance upon such terms, and with such assurances of complete and prompt performance, as Owner may impose in the exercise of its sole discretion. Such policies must be in a form, and from companies, acceptable to Owner. Such insurance must provide that no change, modification in, or cancellation of any insurance becomes effective until the expiration of 30 days after written notice thereof has have been given by the insurance company to Owner. Contractor must, at all times while providing, performing, or completing the Work, including, without limitation, at all times while correcting any failure to meet warranty pursuant to Section 3.2 of this Contract, maintain and keep in force, at Contractor’s expense, the minimum insurance coverages and limits set forth in Attachment A.

Exhibit A Page 15 of 52 4.3 Indemnification

Contractor hereby agrees to and will indemnify, save harmless, and defend Owner and all of it elected officials, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, and representatives against any and all lawsuits, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses, that may arise, or be alleged to have arisen, out of or in connection with Contractor’s performance of, or failure to perform, the Work or any part thereof, whether or not due or claimed to be due in whole or in part to the active, passive, or concurrent negligence or fault of Contractor, except to the extent caused solely by the negligence of Owner.

ARTICLE V: PAYMENT

5.1 Contract Price

Owner must pay to Contractor, in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Article V and Attachment A, and Contractor must accept in full satisfaction for providing, performing, and completing the Work, the amount or amounts set forth in Attachment A (the “Contract Price”), subject to any additions, deductions, or withholdings provided for in this Contract.

5.2 Taxes and Benefits

Owner is exempt from and will not be responsible to pay, or reimburse Contractor for, any state or local sales, use, or excise taxes. The Contract Price includes all other applicable federal, state, and local taxes of every kind and nature applicable to the Work as well as all taxes, contributions, and premiums for unemployment insurance, old age or retirement benefits, pensions, annuities, or other similar benefits. All claim or right to claim additional compensation by reason of the payment of any such tax, contribution, or premium is hereby waived and released by Contractor.

5.3 Progress Payments

A. Payment in Installments. The Contract Price must be paid in monthly installments in the manner set forth in Attachment A (“Progress Payments”).

B. Pay Requests. Contractor must, as a condition precedent to its right to receive each Progress Payment, submit to Owner a pay request in the form provided by Owner (“Pay Request”). The first Pay Request must be submitted not sooner than 30 days following commencement of the Work. Owner may, by written notice to Contractor, designate a specific day of each month on or before which Pay Requests must be submitted. Each Pay Request must include (a) Contractor’s certification of the value of, and partial or final waivers of lien covering, all Work for which payment is then requested and (b) Contractor’s certification that all prior Progress Payments have been properly applied to the payment or reimbursement of the costs with respect to which they were paid.

Exhibit A Page 16 of 52 C. Work Entire. This Contract and the Work are entire and the Work as a whole is of the essence of this Contract. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract, each and every part of this Contract and of the Work are interdependent and common to one another and to Owner’s obligation to pay all or any part of the Contract Price or any other consideration for the Work. Any and all Progress Payments made pursuant to this Article are provided merely for the convenience of Contractor and for no other purpose.

5.4 Final Acceptance and Final Payment

A. Notice of Completion. When the Work has been completed and is ready in all respects for acceptance by Owner, Contractor must notify Owner and request a final inspection (“Notice of Completion”). Contractor’s Notice of Completion must be given sufficiently in advance of the Completion Date to allow for scheduling of the final inspection and for completion or correction before the Completion Date of any items identified by such inspection as being defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming, incomplete, or otherwise not in full compliance with, or as required by or pursuant to, this Contract (“Punch List Work”).

B. Punch List and Final Acceptance. The Work may be finally accepted when, and only when, the whole and all parts thereof have been completed to the satisfaction of Owner in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract. Upon receipt of Contractor’s Notice of Completion, Owner must make a review of the Work and notify Contractor in writing of all Punch List Work, if any, to be completed or corrected. Following Contractor’s completion or correction of all Punch List Work, Owner must make another review of the Work and prepare and deliver to Contractor either a written notice of additional Punch List Work to be completed or corrected or a written notice of final acceptance of the Work (“Final Acceptance”).

C. Final Payment. As soon as practicable after Final Acceptance, Contractor must submit to Owner a properly completed final Pay Request in the form provided by Owner (“Final Pay Request”). Owner must pay to Contractor the balance of the Contract Price, after deducting therefrom all charges against Contractor as provided for in this Contract (“Final Payment”). Final Payment must be made not later than 60 days after Owner approves the Final Pay Request. The acceptance by Contractor of Final Payment will operate as a full and complete release of Owner of and from any and all lawsuits, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses of, by, or to Contractor for anything done, furnished for, arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the Work or for or on account of any act or neglect of Owner arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the Work.

5.5 Liens

A. Title. Nothing in this Contract may be construed as vesting in Contractor any right of property in any equipment, materials, supplies, and other items provided under this Contract after they have been installed in, incorporated into, attached to, or affixed to, the Work or the Work Site. All such equipment, materials, supplies, and other items will, upon being so installed, incorporated, attached or affixed, become the property of Owner, but such

Exhibit A Page 17 of 52 title will not release Contractor from its duty to insure and protect the Work in accordance with the requirements of this Contract.

B. Waivers of Lien. Contractor must, from time to time at Owner’s request and in any event prior to Final Payment, furnish to Owner such receipts, releases, affidavits, certificates, and other evidence as may be necessary to establish, to the reasonable satisfaction of Owner, that no lien against the Work or the public funds held by Owner exists in favor of any person whatsoever for or by reason of any equipment, material, supplies, or other item furnished, labor performed, or other thing done in connection with the Work or this Contract (“Lien”) and that no right to file any Lien exists in favor of any person whatsoever.

C. Removal of Liens. If at any time any notice of any Lien is filed, then Contractor must, promptly and without charge, discharge, remove, or otherwise dispose of such Lien. Until such discharge, removal, or disposition, Owner will have the right to retain from any money payable hereunder an amount that Owner, in its sole judgment, deems necessary to satisfy such Lien and to pay the costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses, of any actions brought in connection therewith or by reason thereof.

D. Protection of Owner Only. This Section does not operate to relieve Contractor’s surety or sureties from any of their obligations under the Bonds, nor may it be deemed to vest any right, interest, or entitlement in any subcontractor or supplier. Owner’s retention of funds pursuant to this Section is deemed solely for the protection of its own interests pending removal of such Liens by Contractor, and Owner will have no obligation to apply such funds to such removal but may, nevertheless, do so where Owner’s interests would thereby be served.

5.6 Deductions

A. Owner’s Right to Withhold. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract and without prejudice to any of Owner’s other rights or remedies, Owner will have the right at any time or times, whether before or after approval of any Pay Request, to deduct and withhold from any Progress or Final Payment that may be or become due under this Contract such amount as may reasonably appear necessary to compensate Owner for any actual or prospective loss due to: (1) Work that is defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming, or incomplete; (2) damage for which Contractor is liable under this Contract; (3) state or local sales, use, or excise taxes from which Owner is exempt; (4) Liens or claims of Lien regardless of merit; (5) claims of subcontractors, suppliers, or other persons regardless of merit; (6) delay in the progress or completion of the Work; (7) inability of Contractor to complete the Work; (8) failure of Contractor to properly complete or document any Pay Request; (9) any other failure of Contractor to perform any of its obligations under this Contract; or (10) the cost to Owner, including attorneys’ fees and administrative costs, of correcting any of the aforesaid matters or exercising any one or more of Owner’s remedies set forth in Section 6.3 of this Contract.

B. Use of Withheld Funds. Owner is entitled to retain any and all amounts withheld pursuant to Subsection 5.6A above until Contractor has either performed the

Exhibit A Page 18 of 52 obligations in question or furnished security for such performance satisfactory to Owner. Owner is entitled to apply any money withheld or any other money due Contractor under this Contract to reimburse itself for any and all costs, expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, suits, judgments, awards, attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses incurred, suffered, or sustained by Owner and chargeable to Contractor under this Contract.

ARTICLE VI: DISPUTES AND REMEDIES

6.1 Dispute Resolution Procedure

A. Notice of Disputes and Objections. If Contractor disputes or objects to any requirement, direction, instruction, interpretation, determination, or decision of Owner, Contractor may notify Owner in writing of its dispute or objection and of the amount of any equitable adjustment to the Contract Price or Contract Time to which Contractor claims it will be entitled as a result thereof; provided, however, that Contractor must, nevertheless, proceed without delay to perform the Work as required, directed, instructed, interpreted, determined, or decided by Owner, without regard to such dispute or objection. Unless Contractor so notifies Owner within two business days after receipt of such requirement, direction, instruction, interpretation, determination, or decision, Contractor is conclusively deemed to have waived all such disputes or objections and all claims based thereon.

B. Negotiation of Disputes and Objections. To avoid and settle without litigation any such dispute or objection, Owner and Contractor agree to engage in good faith negotiations. Within three business days after Owner’s receipt of Contractor’s written notice of dispute or objection, a conference between Owner and Contractor will be held to resolve the dispute. Within three business days after the end of the conference, Owner must render its final decision, in writing, to Contractor. If Contractor objects to the final decision of Owner, then it must, within three business days, give Owner notice thereof and, in such notice, must state its final demand for settlement of the dispute. Unless Contractor so notifies Owner, Contractor will be conclusively deemed (1) to have agreed to and accepted Owner’s final decision and (2) to have waived all claims based on such final decision.

6.2 Contractor’s Remedies

If Owner fails or refuses to satisfy a final demand made by Contractor pursuant to Section 6.1 of this Contract, or to otherwise resolve the dispute which is the subject of such demand to the satisfaction of Contractor, within 10 days after receipt of such demand, then Contractor will be entitled to pursue such remedies, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Contract, as it may have in law or equity.

6.3 Owner’s Remedies

If it should appear at any time prior to Final Payment that Contractor has failed or refused to prosecute, or has delayed in the prosecution of, the Work with diligence at a rate that assures completion of the Work in full compliance with the requirements of this Contract on or before the Completion Date, or has attempted to assign this Contract or Contractor’s

Exhibit A Page 19 of 52 rights under this Contract, either in whole or in part, or has falsely made any representation or warranty in this Contract, or has otherwise failed, refused, or delayed to perform or satisfy any other requirement of this Contract or has failed to pay its debts as they come due (“Event of Default”), and has failed to cure any such Event of Default within five business days after Contractor’s receipt of written notice of such Event of Default, then Owner will have the right, at its election and without prejudice to any other remedies provided by law or equity, to pursue any one or more of the following remedies:

1. Owner may require Contractor, within such reasonable time as may be fixed by Owner, to complete or correct all or any part of the Work that is defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming, or incomplete; to remove from the Work Site any such Work; to accelerate all or any part of the Work; and to take any or all other action necessary to bring Contractor and the Work into strict compliance with this Contract.

2. Owner may perform or have performed all Work necessary for the accomplishment of the results stated in Paragraph 1 above and withhold or recover from Contractor all the cost and expense, including attorneys’ fees and administrative costs, incurred by Owner in connection therewith.

3. Owner may accept the defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming, incomplete, or dilatory Work or part thereof and make an equitable reduction in the Contract Price.

4. Owner may terminate this Contract without liability for further payment of amounts due or to become due under this Contract.

5. Owner may, without terminating this Contract, terminate Contractor’s rights under this Contract and, for the purpose of completing or correcting the Work, evict Contractor and take possession of all equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, plans, specifications, schedules, manuals, drawings, and other papers relating to the Work, whether at the Work Site or elsewhere, and either complete or correct the Work with its own forces or contracted forces, all at Contractor’s expense.

6. Upon any termination of this Contract or of Contractor’s rights under this Contract, and at Owner’s option exercised in writing, any or all subcontracts and supplier contracts of Contractor will be deemed to be assigned to Owner without any further action being required, but Owner may not thereby assume any obligation for payments due under such subcontracts and supplier contracts for any Work provided or performed prior to such assignment.

7. Owner may withhold from any Progress Payment or Final Payment, whether or not previously approved, or may recover from Contractor, any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses, incurred by Owner as

Exhibit A Page 20 of 52 the result of any Event of Default or as a result of actions taken by Owner in response to any Event of Default.

8. Owner may recover any damages suffered by Owner.

6.4 Owner’s Additional Remedy for Delay

If the Work is not completed by Contractor, in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract, within the Contract Time as such time may be extended by Change Order, then Owner may invoke its remedies under Section 6.3 of this Contract or may, in the exercise of its sole and absolute discretion, permit Contractor to complete the Work but charge to Contractor, and deduct from any Progress or Final Payments, whether or not previously approved, administrative expenses and costs for each day completion of the Work is delayed beyond the Completion Date, computed on the basis of the “Per Diem Administrative Charge” set forth in Attachment A, as well as any additional damages caused by such delay.

6.5 Terminations and Suspensions Deemed for Convenience

Any termination or suspension of Contractor’s rights under this Contract for an alleged default that is ultimately held unjustified will automatically be deemed to be a termination or suspension for the convenience of Owner under Section 1.15 of this Contract.

ARTICLE VII: LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS AND REQUIREMENTS

7.1 Binding Effect

This Contract is binding on Owner and Contractor and on their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, and permitted successors and assigns. Every reference in this Contract to a party is deemed to be a reference to the authorized officers, employees, agents, and representatives of such party.

7.2 Relationship of the Parties

Contractor will act as an independent contractor in providing and performing the Work. Nothing in, nor done pursuant to, this Contract may be construed (1) to create the relationship of principal and agent, partners, or joint venturers between Owner and Contractor or (2) except as provided in Paragraph 6.3(6) above, to create any relationship between Owner and any subcontractor or supplier of Contractor.

7.3 No Collusion/Prohibited Interests

Contractor hereby represents that the only persons, firms, or corporations interested in this Contract as principals are those disclosed to Owner prior to the execution of this Contract, and that this Contract is made without collusion with any other person, firm, or corporation.

Exhibit A Page 21 of 52 If at any time it is found that Contractor has, in procuring this Contract, colluded with any other person, firm, or corporation, then Contractor will be liable to Owner for all loss or damage that Owner may suffer thereby, and this Contract will, at Owner’s option, be null and void.

Contractor hereby represents ands warrants that neither Contractor nor any person affiliated with Contractor or that has an economic interest in Contractor or that has or will have an interest in the Work or will participate, in any manner whatsoever, in the Work is acting, directly or indirectly, for or on behalf of any person, group, entity or nation named by the United States Treasury Department as a Specially Designated National and Blocked Person, or for or on behalf of any person, group, entity or nation designated in Presidential Executive Order 13224 as a person who commits, threatens to commit, or supports terrorism, and neither Contractor nor any person affiliated with Contractor or that has an economic interest in Contractor or that has or will have an interest in the Work or will participate, in any manner whatsoever, in the Work is, directly or indirectly, engaged in, or facilitating, the Work on behalf of any such person, group, entity or nation.

7.4 Assignment

Contractor may not (1) assign this Contract in whole or in part, (2) assign any of Contractor’s rights or obligations under this Contract, or (3) assign any payment due or to become due under this Contract without the prior express written approval of Owner, which approval may be withheld in the sole and unfettered discretion of Owner; provided, however, that Owner’s prior written approval will not be required for assignments of accounts, as defined in the Illinois Commercial Code, if to do so would violate Section 9-318 of the Illinois Commercial Code, 810 ILCS 5/9-318. Owner may assign this Contract, in whole or in part, or any or all of its rights or obligations under this Contract, without the consent of Contractor.

7.5 Confidential Information

All information supplied by Owner to Contractor for or in connection with this Contract or the Work must be held confidential by Contractor and may not, without the prior express written consent of Owner, be used for any purpose other than performance of the Work.

7.6 No Waiver

No examination, inspection, investigation, test, measurement, review, determination, decision, certificate, or approval by Owner, nor any order by Owner for the payment of money, nor any payment for, or use, occupancy, possession, or acceptance of, the whole or any part of the Work by Owner, nor any extension of time granted by Owner, nor any delay by Owner in exercising any right under this Contract, nor any other act or omission of Owner may constitute or be deemed to be an acceptance of any defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming or incomplete Work, equipment, materials, or supplies, nor operate to waive or otherwise diminish the effect of any warranty or representation made by

Exhibit A Page 22 of 52 Contractor; or of any requirement or provision of this Contract; or of any remedy, power, or right of Owner.

7.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries

No claim as a third party beneficiary under this Contract by any person, firm, or corporation other than Contractor may be made or be valid against Owner.

7.8 Notices

All notices required or permitted to be given under this Contract must be in writing and are deemed received by the addressee thereof when delivered in person on a business day at the address set forth below or on the third business day after being deposited in any main or branch United States post office, for delivery at the address set forth below by properly addressed, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested.

Notices and communications to Owner must be addressed to, and delivered at, the following address: with a copy to: City of Des Plaines Holland & Knight LLP 1111 Joseph Schwab Rd. 131 South Dearborn Street, 30th Floor Des Plaines, Illinois 60016 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Attention: Joel Gehrett Attention: Peter Friedman

Notices and communications to Contractor must be addressed to, and delivered at, the following address:

Michels Pipe Services 817 Main Street Brownsville, WI 53006

The foregoing may not be deemed to preclude the use of other non-oral means of notification or to invalidate any notice properly given by any such other non-oral means.

By notice complying with the requirements of this Section, Owner and Contractor each have the right to change the address or addressee or both for all future notices to it, but no notice of a change of address is effective until actually received.

7.9 Governing Laws

This Contract and the rights of Owner and Contractor under this Contract will be interpreted according to the internal laws, but not the conflict of laws rules, of the State of Illinois.

Exhibit A Page 23 of 52 7.10 Changes in Laws

Unless otherwise explicitly provided in this Contract, any reference to laws includes such laws as they may be amended or modified from time to time.

7.11 Compliance with Laws

A. Compliance Required. Contractor must give all notices, pay all fees, and take all other action that may be necessary to ensure that the Work is provided, performed, and completed in accordance with all required governmental permits, licenses or other approvals and authorizations that may be required in connection with providing, performing, and completing the Work, and with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations, including without limitation the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS 130/0.01 et seq. (see Subsection C of this Section) (a copy of Owner’s ordinance ascertaining the prevailing rate of wages, in effect as of the date of this Contract, has been attached as an Appendix to this Contract; if the Illinois Department of Labor revises the prevailing rate of hourly wages to be paid, the revised rate applies to this Contract); any other applicable prevailing wage laws; the Fair Labor Standards Act; any statutes regarding qualification to do business; any statutes requiring preference to laborers of specified classes; the Illinois Steel Products Procurement Act, 30 ILCS 565/1 et seq.; any statutes prohibiting discrimination because of, or requiring affirmative action based on, race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, or other prohibited classification, including, without limitation, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq., and the Public Works Discrimination Act, 775 ILCS 10/0.01 et seq.; and any statutes regarding safety or the performance of the Work, including the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act, 220 ILCS 50/1 et seq., and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq.

B. Liability for Fines, Penalties. Contractor is solely liable for any fines or civil penalties that are imposed by any governmental or quasi-governmental agency or body that may arise, or be alleged to have arisen, out of or in connection with Contractor’s, or its subcontractors’ or suppliers’, performance of, or failure to perform, the Work or any part thereof.

C. Prevailing Wage Act. Contractor and each subcontractor, in order to comply with the Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS 130/0.01 et seq. (the “Act”), must submit to the City a certified payroll on a monthly basis, in accordance with Section 5 of the Act. The certified payroll must consist of a complete copy of those records required to be made and kept by the Act. The certified payroll must be accompanied by a statement signed by the contractor or subcontractor that certifies that (1) such records are true and accurate, (2) the hourly rate paid is not less than the general prevailing rate of hourly wages required by the Act, and (3) the contractor or subcontractor is aware that filing a certified payroll that he or she knows to be false is a Class B misdemeanor. Contractor may rely on the certification of a subcontractor, provided that Contractor does not knowingly rely on a subcontractor’s false certification. On two business days’ notice, Contractor and each subcontractor must make available for inspection the records required to be made and kept by the Act (i) to the City and its officers

Exhibit A Page 24 of 52 and agents and to the Director of the Illinois Department of Labor and his or her deputies and agents and (ii) at all reasonable hours at a location within the State.

D. Required Provisions Deemed Inserted. Every provision of law required by law to be inserted into this Contract is deemed to be inserted herein.

7.12 Compliance with Patents

A. Assumption of Costs, Royalties, and Fees. Contractor will pay or cause to be paid all costs, royalties, and fees arising from the use on, or the incorporation into, the Work, of patented equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions.

B. Effect of Contractor Being Enjoined. Should Contractor be enjoined from furnishing or using any equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions supplied or required to be supplied or used under this Contract, Contractor must promptly offer substitute equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions in lieu thereof, of equal efficiency, quality, suitability, and market value, for review by Owner. If Owner should disapprove the offered substitutes and should elect, in lieu of a substitution, to have supplied, and to retain and use, any such equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions as may by this Contract be required to be supplied, Contractor must pay such royalties and secure such valid licenses as may be requisite and necessary for Owner to use such equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions without being disturbed or in any way interfered with by any proceeding in law or equity on account thereof. Should Contractor neglect or refuse to make any approved substitution promptly, or to pay such royalties and secure such licenses as may be necessary, then Owner will have the right to make such substitution, or Owner may pay such royalties and secure such licenses and charge the cost thereof against any money due Contractor from Owner or recover the amount thereof from Contractor and its surety or sureties notwithstanding that Final Payment may have been made.

7.13 Time

The Contract Time is of the essence of this Contract. Except where otherwise stated, references in this Contract to days is construed to refer to calendar days.

7.14 Severability

The provisions of this Contract will be interpreted when possible to sustain their legality and enforceability as a whole. In the event any provision of this Contract is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, in whole or in part, neither the validity of the remaining part of such provision, nor the validity of any other provisions of this Contract will be in any way affected thereby.

Exhibit A Page 25 of 52 7.15 Entire Agreement

This Contract sets forth the entire agreement of Owner and Contractor with respect to the accomplishment of the Work and the payment of the Contract Price therefor, and there are no other understandings or agreements, oral or written, between Owner and Contractor with respect to the Work and the compensation therefor.

7.16 Amendments

No modification, addition, deletion, revision, alteration or other change to this Contract is effective unless and until such change is reduced to writing and executed and delivered by Owner and Contractor.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and Contractor have caused this Contract to be executed by their properly authorized representatives in two original counterparts as of the Effective Date.

CITY OF DES PLAINES

By: ______Name: ______Title: ______Attest: By: ______Name: ______Title: ______

MICHELS PIPE SERVICES

By: ______Name: ______Title: ______Attest: By: ______Name: ______Title: ______

Exhibit A Page 26 of 52 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS COUNTY OF ______)

CONTRACTOR’S CERTIFICATION

______executing officer, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states that all statements herein made are made on behalf of Contractor, that this deponent is authorized to make them, and that the statements contained herein are true and correct. Contractor deposes, states, and certifies that Contractor is not barred from contracting with a unit of state or local government as a result of (i) a violation of either Section 33E-3 or Section 33E-4 of Article 33E of the Criminal Code of 1961, 720 ILCS 5/33E-1 et seq.; or (ii) a violation of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, 107 Public Law 56 (October 26, 2001) (the “Patriot Act”) or other statutes, orders, rules, and regulations of the United States government and its various executive departments, agencies and offices related to the subject matter of the Patriot Act, including, but not limited to, Executive Order 13224 effective September 24, 2001.

DATED: ______, 20___.

MICHELS PIPE SERVICES

By: ______Name: ______Title: ______

Attest: By: ______Name: ______Title: ______

Subscribed and Sworn to before me on ______, 20___.

My Commission expires: ______

______Notary Public

(SEAL)

Exhibit A Page 27 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 2017 SEWER LINING

ATTACHMENT A

SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF CONTRACT TERMS

1. Project: Project consists of approximately 6,778 linear feet of Sewer Lining using CIPP for sewer mains ranging in size from 8 inches to 24 inches.

2. Work Site: Work will be performed throughout the City of Des Plaines with areas concentrated along River Rd. between Rand Rd and Algonquin Rd.

3. Permits, Licenses, Approvals, and Authorizations:

Contractor must obtain all required governmental permits, licenses, approvals, and authorizations, except:

 MWRD –

 IDOT – Utility Permit

 No Exceptions

4. Commencement Date:

 the date of execution of the Contract by Owner.

 ______days after execution of the Contract by Owner.

 OR no later than August 1, 2017

5. Completion Date:

Exhibit A Page 28 of 52  30 days after the Commencement Date plus extensions, if any, authorized by a Change Order issued pursuant to Subsection 2.2A of the Contract

 December 31, 2017, plus extensions, if any, authorized by a Change Order issued pursuant to Subsection 2.2A of the Contract Completion includes the approved and acceptable construction of all pay items: including concrete correction (punch) list items, all hot-mix asphalt items including surface courses and all landscape restoration work, including topsoil and sod placement.

Days and Hours of Work. Workdays for this Contract are Monday through Friday between the hours of 7AM to 6PM. No work shall be done or equipment operated outside of these permitted hours. No work shall be done on any Saturdays, Sundays or the following specified days unless otherwise approved by the Project Manager.

Monday September 4, 2017 Labor Day Holiday Monday October 9, 2017 Columbus Day Holiday Friday November 10, 2017 Veterans Day Holiday Thursday November 23, 2017 Thanksgiving Day Holiday Friday November 24, 2017 City Holiday Monday December 25, Christmas Holiday

In the event, the Contractor works on Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, during which time the Engineer and/or Inspector(s) are required to be present, the City of Des Plaines shall pay the cost for such overtime engineering services and shall deduct such cost from payments due the Contractor. Overtime engineering services shall be charged at the Engineer’s standard hourly rate for all time over eight hours on any single weekday and for all hours on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays and/or Inspector(s) standard hourly rate applied on a one and one-half (x 1 ½) basis for all time over eight hours on any single weekday and for all hours on Saturday and a double time (x 2) basis for all Sunday and holiday hours of the Inspector’s standard hourly rate. If the amount due the Contractor is not sufficient to cover the cost of overtime engineering service, the Contractor shall reimburse the City of Des Plaines in the amount necessary to cover such costs. The Project Manager shall approve necessary personnel and time for engineering services.

6. Insurance Coverage:

A. Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability with limits not less than:

(1) Worker’s Compensation: Statutory; (2) Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 injury-per occurrence; $1,000,000 disease-per employee; $1,000,000 disease-policy limit

Exhibit A Page 29 of 52 Such insurance must evidence that coverage applies in the State of Illinois.

B. Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Liability with a combined single limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $2,000,000 for vehicles owned, non-owned, or rented.

All employees must be included as insureds.

C. Comprehensive General Liability with coverage written on an “occurrence” basis and with limits no less than:

(1) General Aggregate: $5,000,000. See Subsection F below regarding use of umbrella overage. (2) Bodily Injury: $2,000,000 per person; $2,000,000 per occurrence (3) Property Damage: $2,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate.

Coverage must include: - Premises / Operations - Products / Completed Operations (to be maintained for two years after Final Payment) - Independent Contractors - Personal Injury (with Employment Exclusion deleted) - Broad Form Property Damage Endorsement - Blanket Contractual Liability (must expressly cover the indemnity provisions of the Contract) - Bodily Injury and Property Damage

“X”, “C”, and “U” exclusions must be deleted.

Railroad exclusions must be deleted if Work Site is within 50 feet of any railroad track.

All employees must be included as insured.

 D. Builders Risk Insurance. This insurance must be written in completed value form, must protect Contractor and Owner against “all risks” of direct physical loss to buildings, structures, equipment, and materials to be used in providing, performing, and completing the Work, including without limitation fire extended coverage, vandalism and malicious mischief, sprinkler leakage,

Exhibit A Page 30 of 52 flood, earth movement and collapse, and must be designed for the circumstances that may affect the Work.

This insurance must be written with limits not less than the insurable value of the Work at completion. The insurable value must include the aggregate value of Owner-furnished equipment and materials to be constructed or installed by Contractor.

This insurance must include coverage while equipment or materials are in warehouses, during installation, during testing, and after the Work is completed, but prior to Final Payment. This insurance must include coverage while Owner is occupying all or any part of the Work prior to Final Payment without the need for the insurance company’s consent.  E. Owner’s and Contractor’s Protective Liability Insurance. Contractor, at its sole cost and expense, must purchase this Insurance in the name of Owner with a combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000.

 F. Umbrella Policy. The required coverage may be in the form of an umbrella policy above $2,000,000 primary coverage. All umbrella policies must provide excess coverage over underlying insurance on a following-form basis so that, when any loss covered by the primary policy exceeds the limits under the primary policy, the excess or umbrella policy becomes effective to cover that loss.

 G. Deductible. Each policy must have a deductible or self-insured retention of not more than $______.

 H. Owner as Additional Insured. Owner must be named as an Additional Insured on the following policies:

Comprehensive General Liability

The Additional Insured endorsement must identify Owner as follows: The City of Des Plaines and its boards, commissions, committees, authorities, employees, agencies, officers, voluntary associations, and other units operating under the jurisdiction and within the appointment of its budget.

 I. Other Parties as Additional Insureds. In addition to Owner, the following parties must be named as additional insured on the following policies:

Exhibit A Page 31 of 52 Additional Insured Policy or Policies ______

7. Contract Price:

SCHEDULE OF PRICES

 A. LUMP SUM CONTRACT

For providing, performing, and completing all Work, the total Contract Price of (write in numbers only):

$ ______

 All Work will be paid on a force account basis, using the terms of Section 109.04(b) of the IDOT Standard Specifications For Road And Bridge Construction 2012, without limitation to “extra work.” Contractor shall be paid in installments (see below). Contractor must submit Pay Requests including itemized statements of the cost of the Work, accompanied and supported by statements and invoices for all labor, materials, transportation charges and other items of the Work, using standard Illinois Department of Transportation schedules and report forms.

 B. UNIT PRICE CONTRACT

NOTE: If Owner has provided a separate form Schedule of Pricing attached to this Attachment A, then that Schedule of Prices will be used and this Subsection B should not be used. If Owner has not provided a separate form Schedule of Prices, then this Subsection B should be used.

For providing, performing, and completing all Work, the sum of the products resulting from multiplying the number of acceptable units of Unit Price Items listed below incorporated in the Work by the Unit Price set forth below for such Unit Price Item:

Exhibit A Page 32 of 52 COMPLETE TABLE AS INDICATED

Approximate Number of Price Unit Price Item Unit Units Per Unit Extension

1 8” Sewer lining Ft 1126 $23.00 $______25,898.00

2 10” Sewer lining Ft 583 $31.00 $______18,073.00 3 12” Sewer lining Ft 732 $36.00 $______26,352.00 4 15” Sewer lining Ft 1810 $46.00 $______83,260.00 5 18” Sewer lining Ft 1143 $63.00 $______72,009.00 6 20” Sewer lining Ft 119 $88.00 $______10,472.00______7 24” Sewer lining Ft 1265 $95.00 $______120,175.00 8 Traffic Control Per Contract 1 $13,380.00 $______13,380.00

TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE (write in numbers only):

$ 369,619.00

 C. COMBINED LUMP SUM/UNIT PRICE CONTRACT

(1) For providing, performing, and completing all Work related to [describe lump sum work], the total sum of (write in numbers only):

$ ______

(2) For providing, performing, and completing all Work related to [describe unit price work], the sum of the products resulting from multiplying the number of acceptable units of Unit Price Items listed below incorporated in the Work by the Unit Price set forth below for such Unit Price Item:

COMPLETE TABLE AS INDICATED

Approximate Number of Price Unit Price Item Unit Units Per Unit Extension

1 $______$______

2 $______$______

Exhibit A Page 33 of 52 Approximate Number of Price Unit Price Item Unit Units Per Unit Extension

3 $______$______

TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE, being the sum of (1) plus the extension of (2) (write in numbers only):

$ ______

D. Any items of Work not specifically listed or referred to in the Schedule of Prices, or not specifically included for payment under any Unit Price Item, shall be deemed incidental to the Contract Price, shall not be measured for payment, and shall not be paid for separately except as incidental to the Contract Price, including without limitation extraordinary equipment repair, the cost of transportation, packing, cartage, and containers, the cost of preparing schedules and submittals, the cost or rental of small tools or buildings, the cost of utilities and sanitary conveniences, and any portion of the time of Bidder, its superintendents, or its office and engineering staff.

8. Progress Payments:

A. General. Owner must pay to Contractor 90 percent of the Value of Work, determined in the manner set forth below, installed and complete in place up to the day before the Pay Request, less the aggregate of all previous Progress Payments. The total amount of Progress Payments made prior to Final Acceptance by Owner may not exceed 90 percent of the Contract Price.

B. Value of Work. The Value of the Work will be determined as follows:

(1) Lump Sum Items. For all Work to be paid on a lump sum basis, Contractor must, not later than 10 days after execution of the Contract and before submitting its first Pay Request, submit to Owner a schedule showing the value of each component part of such Work in form and with substantiating data acceptable to Owner (“Breakdown Schedule”). The sum of the items listed in the Breakdown Schedule must equal the amount or amounts set forth in the Schedule of Prices for Lump Sum Work. An unbalanced Breakdown Schedule providing for overpayment of Contractor on component parts of the Work to be performed first will not be accepted. The Breakdown Schedule must be revised and resubmitted until acceptable to Owner. No payment may be made for any lump sum item until Contractor has submitted, and Owner has approved, an acceptable Breakdown Schedule.

Exhibit A Page 34 of 52 Owner may require that the approved Breakdown Schedule be revised based on developments occurring during the provision and performance of the Work. If Contractor fails to submit a revised Breakdown Schedule that is acceptable to Owner, Owner will have the right either to suspend Progress and Final Payments for Lump Sum Work or to make such Payments based on Owner’s determination of the value of the Work completed.

(2) Unit Price Items. For all Work to be paid on a unit price basis, the value of such Work will be determined by Owner on the basis of the actual number of acceptable units of Unit Price Items installed and complete in place, multiplied by the applicable Unit Price set forth in the Schedule of Prices. The actual number of acceptable units installed and complete in place will be measured on the basis described in Attachment B to the Contract or, in the absence of such description, on the basis determined by Owner. The number of units of Unit Price Items stated in the Schedule of Prices are Owner’s estimate only and may not be used in establishing the Progress or Final Payments due Contractor. The Contract Price will be adjusted to reflect the actual number of acceptable units of Unit Price Items installed and complete in place upon Final Acceptance.

C. Application of Payments. All Progress and Final Payments made by Owner to Contractor will be applied to the payment or reimbursement of the costs with respect to which they were paid and will not be applied to or used for any pre- existing or unrelated debt between Contractor and Owner or between Contractor and any third party.

9. Per Diem Administrative Charge:

 $1250 per day

 No Charge

10. Standard Specifications:

The Contract includes the following Illinois Department of Transportation standard specifications, each of which are incorporated into the Contract by reference:

 "State of Illinois Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" (SSRB)

Exhibit A Page 35 of 52  "Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Main Construction in Illinois" (SSWS)

 "Illinois Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" (MUTCD).

The Contract also includes Owner’s City Code and Building Codes.

References to any of these manuals, codes, and specifications means the latest editions effective on the date of the bid opening.

See Attachment D for any special project requirements.

Exhibit A Page 36 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 2017 SEWER LINING

ATTACHMENT B

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

Exhibit A Page 37 of 52 INDEX OF SPECIAL PROVISIONS

Page Number Description

2 DEFINITION OF TERMS 2 COMBINED SEWER REPAIR 3 DIRT ON PAVEMENT 3 STORM MANHOLE AND CATCH BASIN CONSTRUCTION 5 MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN, VALVE VAULT ADJUSTMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION 6 SANITARY MANHOLE, TYPE A, NEW FRAME, CLOSED LID 7 SANITARY MANHOLE ADJUSTMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION 8 SANITARY MANHOLE, TYPE A NEW FRAME, CLOSED LID 9 SANITARY SEWER REPAIR 10 SEWER TELEVISING 13 SEWER LINING WITH CURED-IN-PLACE-PIPE LINER 19 TRENCH BACKFILL

Exhibit A Page 38 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 2017 SEWER LINING

ATTACHMENT C

DRAWINGS

AS SHOWN IN THE BID PACKAGE

Exhibit A Page 39 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 2017 SEWER LINING

APPENDIX 1

PREVAILING WAGE ORDINANCE

Exhibit A Page 40 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES

RESOLUTION R - 116 - 17

A RESOLUTION ASCERTAINING THE PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES IN THE CITY OF DES PLAINES.

WHEREAS, the State of Illinois has enacted the Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS 130/0.01, et seq. (“Act”); and

WHEREAS, the Act requires that the City of Des Plaines (“City”) investigate and ascertain the prevailing rate of wages, as defined in the Act, for laborers, mechanics and other workers in the locality of the City employed in performing construction of public works for the City; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this Resolution;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2: PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES. To the extent and as required by the Act, the general prevailing rate of wages in Cook County for laborers, mechanics, and other workers engaged in construction of public works coming under the jurisdiction of the City is hereby ascertained to be the same as the prevailing rate of wages for construction work in the Cook County area as determined by the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois as of June 2017 (which determination is the most recent determination made by the Department of Labor). A copy of that determination is attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Resolution as Exhibit A. As required by the Act, any and all revisions to the prevailing rate of wages by the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois shall supersede the Department's July determination and apply to any and all public works construction in Cook County undertaken by the City.

SECTION 3: DEFINITIONS; APPLICABILITY. The definition of any term appearing in this Resolution that is also used in the Act shall be the same as in the Act. Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to apply the general prevailing rate of wages for Cook County, as ascertained pursuant to this Resolution, to any work or employment except public works construction of the City conducted in Cook County to the extent required by the Act.

SECTION 4: AVAILABILITY OF PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES. The City Clerk of the City of Des Plaines is hereby directed to publicly post or keep available for inspection by any interested party in the City Clerk’s office this determination or any revisions of the prevailing rate of wages for Cook County. A copy of this determination or of the revised

Exhibit A Page 41 of 52 determination of the prevailing rate of wages then in effect shall be attached to all public works construction contract specifications.

SECTION 5: MAILING OF PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES. The City Clerk is hereby directed to mail a copy of this determination to any employer, to any association of employers, and to any person or association of employees who have filed their names and addresses requesting copies of any determination stating the particular rates and the particular class of workers whose wages will be affected by such rates.

SECTION 6: FILING OF RESOLUTION. The City Clerk is hereby directed to promptly file a certified copy of this Resolution with both the Secretary of State and the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois.

SECTION 7: PUBLICATION OF RESOLUTION. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the area a copy of this Resolution, within 30 days after its filing with the Secretary of State and the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois, and such publication shall constitute notice that the determination is effective and that this is the determination of the City.

SECTION 8: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as provided by law.

PASSED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

VOTE:AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____

______MAYOR

ATTEST: Approved as to form:

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

DP-Resolution Prevailing Wage 2017

#46719831_v1

Exhibit A Page 42 of 52 Exhibit A This schedule contains the prevailing wage rates required to be paid for work performed on or after Monday, June 5, 2017 on public works projects in this County. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 130/4, public bodies in this County that have active public works projects are responsible for notifying all contractors and subcontractors working on those public works projects of the change (if any) to rates that were previously in effect. The failure of a public body to provide such notice does not relieve contractors or subcontractors of their obligations under the Prevailing Wage Act, including the duty to pay the relevant prevailing wage in effect at the time work subject to the Act is performed.

COOK COUNTY PREVAILING WAGE RATES EFFECTIVE JUNE 5, 2017 Base Foreman M-F TradeTitle Region Type Class Wage Wage OT OSA OSH H/W Pension Vacation Training ASBESTOS ABT-GEN All All 40.40 40.95 1.5 1.5 2.0 14.23 11.57 0.00 0.50 ASBESTOS ABT-MEC All BLD 37.46 39.96 1.5 1.5 2.0 11.62 11.06 0.00 0.72 BOILERMAKER All BLD 47.07 51.30 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.97 18.13 0.00 0.40 BRICK MASON All BLD 44.88 48.84 1.5 1.5 2.0 10.25 15.30 0.00 0.85 CARPENTER All All 45.35 47.35 1.5 1.5 2.0 11.79 17.60 0.00 0.63 CEMENT MASON All All 44.25 46.25 2.0 1.5 2.0 13.65 15.51 0.00 0.65 CERAMIC TILE FNSHER All BLD 37.81 1.5 1.5 2.0 10.55 10.12 0.00 0.65 COMM. ELECT. All BLD 42.02 44.82 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.88 12.78 0.59 0.75 ELECTRIC PWR EQMT OP All All 48.90 53.90 1.5 1.5 2.0 11.41 16.39 0.00 3.10 ELECTRIC PWR GRNDMAN All All 38.14 53.90 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.90 12.78 0.00 2.75 ELECTRIC PWR LINEMAN All All 48.90 53.90 1.5 1.5 2.0 11.41 16.39 0.00 3.10 ELECTRICIAN All All 46.10 49.10 1.5 1.5 2.0 14.33 15.52 0.70 1.00

Page 43 of52 ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTOR All BLD 51.94 58.43 2.0 2.0 2.0 14.43 14.96 4.16 0.90 FENCE ERECTOR All All 38.34 40.34 1.5 1.5 2.0 13.15 13.10 0.00 0.40 GLAZIER All BLD 41.70 43.20 1.5 2.0 2.0 13.94 18.99 0.00 0.94 HT/FROST INSULATOR All BLD 49.95 52.45 1.5 1.5 2.0 11.62 12.26 0.00 0.72 Exhibit A IRON WORKER All All 46.20 48.20 2.0 2.0 2.0 13.65 21.52 0.00 0.35 LABORER All All 40.20 40.95 1.5 1.5 2.0 14.23 11.57 0.00 0.50 LATHER All All 44.35 46.35 1.5 1.5 2.0 13.29 16.39 0.00 0.63 MACHINIST All BLD 45.35 47.85 1.5 1.5 2.0 7.26 8.95 1.85 1.30 MARBLE FINISHERS All All 33.45 33.45 1.5 1.5 2.0 10.25 14.44 0.00 0.46 MARBLE MASON All BLD 44.13 48.54 1.5 1.5 2.0 10.25 14.97 0.00 0.59 MATERIAL TESTER I All All 30.20 30.20 1.5 1.5 2.0 14.23 11.57 0.00 0.50 MATERIALS TESTER II All All 35.20 35.20 1.5 1.5 2.0 14.23 11.57 0.00 0.50 MILLWRIGHT All All 45.35 47.35 1.5 1.5 2.0 11.79 17.60 0.00 0.63 OPERATING ENGINEER All BLD 1 49.10 53.10 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All BLD 2 47.80 53.10 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All BLD 3 45.25 53.10 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All BLD 4 43.50 53.10 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All BLD 5 52.85 53.10 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All BLD 6 50.10 53.10 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All BLD 7 52.10 53.10 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All FLT 1 54.75 54.75 1.5 1.5 2.0 17.65 12.65 1.90 1.35 OPERATING ENGINEER All FLT 2 53.25 54.75 1.5 1.5 2.0 17.65 12.65 1.90 1.35 OPERATING

Page 44 of52 ENGINEER All FLT 3 47.40 54.75 1.5 1.5 2.0 17.65 12.65 1.90 1.35 OPERATING ENGINEER All FLT 4 39.40 54.75 1.5 1.5 2.0 17.65 12.65 1.90 1.35 OPERATING ENGINEER All FLT 5 56.25 54.75 1.5 1.5 2.0 17.65 12.65 1.90 1.35 Exhibit A OPERATING ENGINEER All FLT 6 37.00 54.75 1.5 1.5 2.0 17.65 12.65 1.90 1.35 OPERATING ENGINEER All HWY 1 47.30 51.30 1.5 1.5 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All HWY 2 46.75 51.30 1.5 1.5 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All HWY 3 44.70 51.30 1.5 1.5 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All HWY 4 43.30 51.30 1.5 1.5 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All HWY 5 42.10 51.30 1.5 1.5 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All HWY 6 50.30 51.30 1.5 1.5 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 OPERATING ENGINEER All HWY 7 48.30 51.30 1.5 1.5 2.0 18.05 13.60 1.90 1.30 ORNAMNTL IRON WORKER All All 45.75 48.25 2.0 2.0 2.0 13.65 18.99 0.00 0.75 PAINTER All All 44.55 49.30 1.5 1.5 1.5 11.50 11.10 0.00 1.27 PAINTER SIGNS All BLD 33.92 38.09 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.60 2.71 0.00 0.00 PILEDRIVER All All 45.35 47.35 1.5 1.5 2.0 11.79 17.60 0.00 0.63 PIPEFITTER All BLD 47.50 50.50 1.5 1.5 2.0 9.55 17.85 0.00 2.07 PLASTERER All BLD 42.25 44.79 1.5 1.5 2.0 13.65 9.50 5.00 0.65 PLUMBER All BLD 48.25 50.25 1.5 1.5 2.0 14.09 12.65 0.00 1.18 ROOFER All BLD 41.70 44.70 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.28 11.59 0.00 0.53 SHEETMETAL WORKER All BLD 43.03 46.47 1.5 1.5 2.0 10.73 21.87 0.00 0.75 SIGN HANGER All BLD 31.31 33.81 1.5 1.5 2.0 4.85 3.28 0.00 0.00

Page 45 of52 SPRINKLER FITTER All BLD 47.20 49.20 1.5 1.5 2.0 12.25 11.55 0.00 0.55 STEEL ERECTOR All All 42.07 44.07 2.0 2.0 2.0 13.45 19.59 0.00 0.35 STONE MASON All BLD 44.88 49.37 1.5 1.5 2.0 10.25 15.30 0.00 0.85 TERRAZZO FINISHER All BLD 39.54 39.54 1.5 1.5 2.0 10.55 11.79 0.00 0.67 TERRAZZO MASON All BLD 43.38 43.38 1.5 1.5 2.0 10.55 13.13 0.00 0.79 Exhibit A TILE MASON All BLD 43.84 47.84 1.5 1.5 2.0 10.55 11.40 0.00 0.99 TRAFFIC SAFETY WRKR All HWY 33.50 39.50 1.5 1.5 2.0 6.00 7.25 0.00 0.50 TRUCK DRIVER E All 1 35.60 36.25 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.56 11.50 0.00 0.15 TRUCK DRIVER E All 2 35.85 36.25 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.56 11.50 0.00 0.15 TRUCK DRIVER E All 3 36.05 36.25 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.56 11.50 0.00 0.15 TRUCK DRIVER E All 4 36.25 36.25 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.56 11.50 0.00 0.15 TRUCK DRIVER W All 1 35.98 36.53 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.25 10.14 0.00 0.15 TRUCK DRIVER W All 2 36.13 36.53 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.25 10.14 0.00 0.15 TRUCK DRIVER W All 3 36.33 36.53 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.25 10.14 0.00 0.15 TRUCK DRIVER W All 4 36.53 36.53 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.25 10.14 0.00 0.15 TUCKPOINTER All BLD 44.90 45.90 1.5 1.5 2.0 8.30 14.29 0.00 0.48 Page 46 of52 Explanations COOK COUNTY

The following list is considered as those days for which holiday rates of wages for work performed apply: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and Veterans Day in some classifications/counties. Generally, any of these holidays which fall on a Sunday is celebrated on the following Monday. This then makes work performed on that Monday payable at the appropriate overtime rate for holiday pay. Common practice in a given local may alter certain days of celebration. If in doubt, please check with IDOL.

TRUCK DRIVERS (WEST) - That part of the county West of Barrington Road.

EXPLANATION OF CLASSES

ASBESTOS - GENERAL - removal of asbestos material/mold and hazardous materials from any place in a building, including mechanical systems where those mechanical systems are to be removed. This includes the removal of asbestos materials/mold and hazardous materials from ductwork or pipes in a building when the building is to be demolished at the time or at some close future date.

ASBESTOS - MECHANICAL - removal of asbestos material from mechanical systems, such as pipes, ducts, and boilers, where the mechanical systems are to remain.

CERAMIC TILE FINISHER

The grouting, cleaning, and polishing of all classes of tile, whether for interior or exterior purposes, all burned, glazed or unglazed products; all composition materials, granite tiles, warning detectable tiles, cement tiles, epoxy composite materials, pavers, glass, mosaics, fiberglass, and all substitute materials, for tile made in tile-like units; all mixtures in tile like form of cement, metals, and other materials that are for and intended for use as a finished floor surface, stair treads, promenade roofs, walks, walls, ceilings, swimming pools, and all other places where tile is to form a finished interior or exterior. The mixing of all setting mortars including but not limited to thin-set mortars, epoxies, wall mud, and any other sand and cement mixtures or adhesives when used in the preparation, installation, repair, or maintenance of tile and/or similar materials. The handling and unloading of all sand, cement, lime, tile, fixtures, equipment, adhesives, or any other materials to be used in the preparation, installation, repair, or maintenance of tile and/or similar materials. Ceramic Tile Finishers shall fill all joints and voids regardless of method on all tile work, particularly and especially after installation of said tile work. Application of any and all protective coverings to all types of tile installations including, but not be limited to, all soap compounds, paper products, tapes, and all polyethylene coverings, plywood, masonite, cardboard, and any new type of products that may be used to protect tile installations, Blastrac equipment, and all floor scarifying equipment used in preparing floors to receive tile. The clean up and removal of all waste and materials. All demolition of existing tile floors and walls to be re-tiled.

COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRICIAN

Installation, operation, inspection, maintenance, repair and service of radio, television, recording, voice sound vision production and reproduction, telephone and telephone interconnect, facsimile, data

Exhibit A Page 47 of 52 apparatus, coaxial, fibre optic and wireless equipment, appliances and systems used for the transmission and reception of signals of any nature, business, domestic, commercial, education, entertainment, and residential purposes, including but not limited to, communication and telephone, electronic and sound equipment, fibre optic and data communication systems, and the performance of any task directly related to such installation or service whether at new or existing sites, such tasks to include the placing of wire and cable and electrical power conduit or other raceway work within the equipment room and pulling wire and/or cable through conduit and the installation of any incidental conduit, such that the employees covered hereby can complete any job in full.

MARBLE FINISHER

Loading and unloading trucks, distribution of all materials (all stone, sand, etc.), stocking of floors with material, performing all rigging for heavy work, the handling of all material that may be needed for the installation of such materials, building of scaffolding, polishing if needed, patching, waxing of material if damaged, pointing up, caulking, grouting and cleaning of marble, holding water on diamond or Carborundum blade or saw for setters cutting, use of tub saw or any other saw needed for preparation of material, drilling of holes for wires that anchor material set by setters, mixing up of molding plaster for installation of material, mixing up thin set for the installation of material, mixing up of sand to cement for the installation of material and such other work as may be required in helping a Marble Setter in the handling of all material in the erection or installation of interior marble, slate, travertine, art marble, serpentine, alberene stone, blue stone, granite and other stones (meaning as to stone any foreign or domestic materials as are specified and used in building interiors and exteriors and customarily known as stone in the trade), carrara, sanionyx, vitrolite and similar opaque glass and the laying of all marble tile, terrazzo tile, slate tile and precast tile, steps, risers treads, base, or any other materials that may be used as substitutes for any of the aforementioned materials and which are used on interior and exterior which are installed in a similar manner.

MATERIAL TESTER I: Hand coring and drilling for testing of materials; field inspection of uncured concrete and asphalt.

MATERIAL TESTER II: Field inspection of welds, structural steel, fireproofing, masonry, soil, facade, reinforcing steel, formwork, cured concrete, and concrete and asphalt batch plants; adjusting proportions of bituminous mixtures.

OPERATING ENGINEER - BUILDING

Class 1. Asphalt Plant; Asphalt Spreader; Autograde; Backhoes with Caisson Attachment; Batch Plant; Benoto (requires Two Engineers); Boiler and Throttle Valve; Caisson Rigs; Central Redi-Mix Plant; Combination Back Hoe Front End-loader Machine; Compressor and Throttle Valve; Concrete Breaker (Truck Mounted); Concrete Conveyor; Concrete Conveyor (Truck Mounted); Concrete Paver Over 27E cu. ft; Concrete Paver 27E cu. ft. and Under: Concrete Placer; Concrete Placing Boom; Concrete Pump (Truck Mounted); Concrete Tower; Cranes, All; Cranes, Hammerhead; Cranes, (GCI and similar Type); Creter Crane; Spider Crane; Crusher, Stone, etc.; Derricks, All; Derricks, Traveling; Formless Curb and Gutter Machine; Grader, Elevating; Grouting Machines; Heavy Duty Self-Propelled Transporter or Prime Mover; Highlift Shovels or Front Endloader 2-1/4 yd. and over; Hoists, Elevators, outside type rack and pinion and

Exhibit A Page 48 of 52 similar machines; Hoists, One, Two and Three Drum; Hoists, Two Tugger One Floor; Hydraulic Backhoes; Hydraulic Boom Trucks; Hydro Vac (and similar equipment); Locomotives, All; Motor Patrol; Lubrication Technician; Manipulators; Pile Drivers and Skid Rig; Post Hole Digger; Pre-Stress Machine; Pump Cretes Dual Ram; Pump Cretes: Squeeze Cretes-Screw Type Pumps; Gypsum Bulker and Pump; Raised and Blind Hole Drill; Roto Mill Grinder; Scoops - Tractor Drawn; Slip-Form Paver; Straddle Buggies; Operation of Tie Back Machine; Tournapull; Tractor with Boom and Side Boom; Trenching Machines.

Class 2. Boilers; Broom, All Power Propelled; Bulldozers; Concrete Mixer (Two Bag and Over); Conveyor, Portable; Forklift Trucks; Highlift Shovels or Front Endloaders under 2-1/4 yd.; Hoists, Automatic; Hoists, Inside Elevators; Hoists, Sewer Dragging Machine; Hoists, Tugger Single Drum; Laser Screed; Rock Drill (Self-Propelled); Rock Drill (Truck Mounted); Rollers, All; Steam Generators; Tractors, All; Tractor Drawn Vibratory Roller; Winch Trucks with "A" Frame.

Class 3. Air Compressor; Combination Small Equipment Operator; Generators; Heaters, Mechanical; Hoists, Inside Elevators (remodeling or renovation work); Hydraulic Power Units (Pile Driving, Extracting, and Drilling); Pumps, over 3" (1 to 3 not to exceed a total of 300 ft.); Low Boys; Pumps, Well Points; Welding Machines (2 through 5); Winches, 4 Small Electric Drill Winches.

Class 4. Bobcats and/or other Skid Steer Loaders; Oilers; and Brick Forklift.

Class 5. Assistant Craft Foreman.

Class 6. Gradall.

Class 7. Mechanics; Welders.

OPERATING ENGINEERS - HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Class 1. Asphalt Plant; Asphalt Heater and Planer Combination; Asphalt Heater Scarfire; Asphalt Spreader; Autograder/GOMACO or other similar type machines: ABG Paver; Backhoes with Caisson Attachment; Ballast Regulator; Belt Loader; Caisson Rigs; Car Dumper; Central Redi-Mix Plant; Combination Backhoe Front Endloader Machine, (1 cu. yd. Backhoe Bucket or over or with attachments); Concrete Breaker (Truck Mounted); Concrete Conveyor; Concrete Paver over 27E cu. ft.; Concrete Placer; Concrete Tube Float; Cranes, all attachments; Cranes, Tower Cranes of all types: Creter Crane: Spider Crane; Crusher, Stone, etc.; Derricks, All; Derrick Boats; Derricks, Traveling; Dredges; Elevators, Outside type Rack & Pinion and Similar Machines; Formless Curb and Gutter Machine; Grader, Elevating; Grader, Motor Grader, Motor Patrol, Auto Patrol, Form Grader, Pull Grader, Subgrader; Guard Rail Post Driver Truck Mounted; Hoists, One, Two and Three Drum; Heavy Duty Self-Propelled Transporter or Prime Mover; Hydraulic Backhoes; Backhoes with shear attachments up to 40' of boom reach; Lubrication Technician; Manipulators; Mucking Machine; Pile Drivers and Skid Rig; Pre-Stress Machine; Pump Cretes Dual Ram; Rock Drill - Crawler or Skid Rig; Rock Drill - Truck Mounted; Rock/Track Tamper; Roto Mill Grinder; Slip-Form Paver; Snow Melters; Soil Test Drill Rig (Truck Mounted); Straddle Buggies; Hydraulic Telescoping Form (Tunnel); Operation of Tieback Machine; Tractor Drawn Belt Loader; Tractor Drawn Belt Loader (with attached pusher - two

Exhibit A Page 49 of 52 engineers); Tractor with Boom; Tractaire with Attachments; Traffic Barrier Transfer Machine; Trenching; Truck Mounted Concrete Pump with Boom; Raised or Blind Hole Drills (Tunnel Shaft); Underground Boring and/or Mining Machines 5 ft. in diameter and over tunnel, etc; Underground Boring and/or Mining Machines under 5 ft. in diameter; Wheel Excavator; Widener (APSCO).

Class 2. Batch Plant; Bituminous Mixer; Boiler and Throttle Valve; Bulldozers; Car Loader Trailing Conveyors; Combination Backhoe Front Endloader Machine (Less than 1 cu. yd. Backhoe Bucket or over or with attachments); Compressor and Throttle Valve; Compressor, Common Receiver (3); Concrete Breaker or Hydro Hammer; Concrete Grinding Machine; Concrete Mixer or Paver 7S Series to and including 27 cu. ft.; Concrete Spreader; Concrete Curing Machine, Burlap Machine, Belting Machine and Sealing Machine; Concrete Wheel Saw; Conveyor Muck Cars (Haglund or Similar Type); Drills, All; Finishing Machine - Concrete; Highlift Shovels or Front Endloader; Hoist - Sewer Dragging Machine; Hydraulic Boom Trucks (All Attachments); Hydro-Blaster; Hydro Excavating (excluding hose work); Laser Screed; All Locomotives, Dinky; Off-Road Hauling Units (including articulating) Non Self-Loading Ejection Dump; Pump Cretes: Squeeze Cretes - Screw Type Pumps, Gypsum Bulker and Pump; Roller, Asphalt; Rotary Snow Plows; Rototiller, Seaman, etc., self-propelled; Self-Propelled Compactor; Spreader - Chip - Stone, etc.; Scraper - Single/Twin Engine/Push and Pull; Scraper - Prime Mover in Tandem (Regardless of Size); Tractors pulling attachments, Sheeps Foot, Disc, Compactor, etc.; Tug Boats.

Class 3. Boilers; Brooms, All Power Propelled; Cement Supply Tender; Compressor, Common Receiver (2); Concrete Mixer (Two Bag and Over); Conveyor, Portable; Farm-Type Tractors Used for Mowing, Seeding, etc.; Forklift Trucks; Grouting Machine; Hoists, Automatic; Hoists, All Elevators; Hoists, Tugger Single Drum; Jeep Diggers; Low Boys; Pipe Jacking Machines; Post-Hole Digger; Power Saw, Concrete Power Driven; Pug Mills; Rollers, other than Asphalt; Seed and Straw Blower; Steam Generators; Stump Machine; Winch Trucks with "A" Frame; Work Boats; Tamper-Form-Motor Driven.

Class 4. Air Compressor; Combination - Small Equipment Operator; Directional Boring Machine; Generators; Heaters, Mechanical; Hydraulic Power Unit (Pile Driving, Extracting, or Drilling); Light Plants, All (1 through 5); Pumps, over 3" (1 to 3 not to exceed a total of 300 ft.); Pumps, Well Points; Vacuum Trucks (excluding hose work); Welding Machines (2 through 5); Winches, 4 Small Electric Drill Winches.

Class 5. SkidSteer Loader (all); Brick Forklifts; Oilers.

Class 6. Field Mechanics and Field Welders

Class 7. Dowell Machine with Air Compressor; Gradall and machines of like nature.

OPERATING ENGINEER - FLOATING

Class 1. Craft Foreman; Master Mechanic; Diver/Wet Tender; Engineer; Engineer (Hydraulic Dredge).

Class 2. Crane/Backhoe Operator; Boat Operator with towing endorsement; Mechanic/Welder; Assistant Engineer (Hydraulic Dredge); Leverman (Hydraulic Dredge); Diver Tender.

Exhibit A Page 50 of 52 Class 3. Deck Equipment Operator, Machineryman, Maintenance of Crane (over 50 ton capacity) or Backhoe (115,000 lbs. or more); Tug/Launch Operator; Loader/Dozer and like equipment on Barge, Breakwater Wall, Slip/Dock, or Scow, Deck Machinery, etc.

Class 4. Deck Equipment Operator, Machineryman/Fireman (4 Equipment Units or More); Off Road Trucks; Deck Hand, Tug Engineer, Crane Maintenance (50 Ton Capacity and Under) or Backhoe Weighing (115,000 pounds or less); Assistant Tug Operator.

Class 5. Friction or Lattice Boom Cranes.

Class 6. ROV Pilot, ROV Tender

SURVEY WORKER - Operated survey equipment including data collectors, G.P.S. and robotic instruments, as well as conventional levels and transits.

TERRAZZO FINISHER

The handling of sand, cement, marble chips, and all other materials that may be used by the Mosaic Terrazzo Mechanic, and the mixing, grinding, grouting, cleaning and sealing of all Marble, Mosaic, and Terrazzo work, floors, base, stairs, and wainscoting by hand or machine, and in addition, assisting and aiding Marble, Masonic, and Terrazzo Mechanics.

TRAFFIC SAFETY

Work associated with barricades, horses and drums used to reduce lane usage on highway work, the installation and removal of temporary lane markings, and the installation and removal of temporary road signs.

TRUCK DRIVER - BUILDING, HEAVY AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION - EAST & WEST

Class 1. Two or three Axle Trucks. A-frame Truck when used for transportation purposes; Air Compressors and Welding Machines, including those pulled by cars, pick-up trucks and tractors; Ambulances; Batch Gate Lockers; Batch Hopperman; Car and Truck Washers; Carry-alls; Fork Lifts and Hoisters; Helpers; Mechanics Helpers and Greasers; Oil Distributors 2-man operation; Pavement Breakers; Pole Trailer, up to 40 feet; Power Mower Tractors; Self-propelled Chip Spreader; Skipman; Slurry Trucks, 2-man operation; Slurry Truck Conveyor Operation, 2 or 3 man; Teamsters; Unskilled Dumpman; and Truck Drivers hauling warning lights, barricades, and portable toilets on the job site.

Class 2. Four axle trucks; Dump Crets and Adgetors under 7 yards; Dumpsters, Track Trucks, Euclids, Hug Bottom Dump Turnapulls or Turnatrailers when pulling other than self-loading equipment or similar equipment under 16 cubic yards; Mixer Trucks under 7 yards; Ready-mix Plant Hopper Operator, and Winch Trucks, 2 Axles.

Class 3. Five axle trucks; Dump Crets and Adgetors 7 yards and over; Dumpsters, Track Trucks, Euclids, Hug Bottom Dump Turnatrailers or turnapulls when pulling other than self-loading equipment or similar

Exhibit A Page 51 of 52 equipment over 16 cubic yards; Explosives and/or Fission Material Trucks; Mixer Trucks 7 yards or over; Mobile Cranes while in transit; Oil Distributors, 1-man operation; Pole Trailer, over 40 feet; Pole and Expandable Trailers hauling material over 50 feet long; Slurry trucks, 1-man operation; Winch trucks, 3 axles or more; Mechanic--Truck Welder and Truck Painter.

Class 4. Six axle trucks; Dual-purpose vehicles, such as mounted crane trucks with hoist and accessories; Foreman; Master Mechanic; Self-loading equipment like P.B. and trucks with scoops on the front.

Other Classifications of Work:

For definitions of classifications not otherwise set out, the Department generally has on file such definitions which are available. If a task to be performed is not subject to one of the classifications of pay set out, the Department will upon being contacted state which neighboring county has such a classification and provide such rate, such rate being deemed to exist by reference in this document. If no neighboring county rate applies to the task, the Department shall undertake a special determination, such special determination being then deemed to have existed under this determination. If a project requires these, or any classification not listed, please contact IDOL at 217-782-1710 for wage rates or clarifications.

LANDSCAPING

Landscaping work falls under the existing classifications for laborer, operating engineer and truck driver. The work performed by landscape plantsman and landscape laborer is covered by the existing classification of laborer. The work performed by landscape operators (regardless of equipment used or its size) is covered by the classifications of operating engineer. The work performed by landscape truck drivers (regardless of size of truck driven) is covered by the classifications of truck driver.

MATERIAL TESTER & MATERIAL TESTER/INSPECTOR I AND II

Notwithstanding the difference in the classification title, the classification entitled "Material Tester I" involves the same job duties as the classification entitled "Material Tester/Inspector I". Likewise, the classification entitled "Material Tester II" involves the same job duties as the classification entitled "Material Tester/Inspector II".

Exhibit A Page 52 of 52

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS HELD IN THE ELEANOR ROHRBACH MEMORIAL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, DES PLAINES CIVIC CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

CALL TO The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Illinois, was ORDER: called to order by Mayor Bogusz at 6:03 p.m. in the Eleanor Rohrbach Memorial Council Chambers, Des Plaines Civic Center on Monday, September 5, 2017.

ROLL CALL: Roll call indicated the following Aldermen present: Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, and Smith. Absent: Alderman Brookman and Alderman Charewicz. A quorum was present.

CLOSED Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to enter into Closed Session to discuss SESSION: Collective Bargaining and Purchase of Property. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 1-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried.

The City Council recessed at 6:03 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m.

Roll call indicated the following Aldermen present: Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith. Absent: Alderman Brookman and Alderman Charewicz. A quorum was present.

Also present were: City Manager Bartholomew, Assistant City Manager/Director of Finance Wisniewski, Director of Public Works and Engineering Oakley, Director of Community and Economic Development McMahon, Fire Chief Wax, Police Chief Kushner, and General Counsel Weiss.

PRAYER AND The prayer was given by Cathy Seng of Bahai Community, followed by the Pledge PLEDGE: of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

CITIZEN Resident Wayne Serbin commended the City Council members for the progress PARTICIPATION: that was made during the recent Strategic Planning Sessions.

Resident Wharton Sinkler of the Des Plaines Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee announced the 6th Annual Des Plaines River Trail Bike Ride will take place on Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 10:00 am.

Resident Ronald Moore requested that guidelines be adopted for the enforcement of drones in the city.

DEFER Moved by Rodd, seconded by Smith, to defer Unfinished Business, Ordinance UNFINISHED M-19-17, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title 6 of the City code Regarding BUSINESS the Keeping of Chickens until the September 18, 2017 City Council Meeting. M-19-17: Hand vote indicated the vote was: Page 2 of 6 9/05/17

(Cont.) AYES: 2-Rodd, Smith NAYS: 4-Lysakowski, Robinson, Sayad, Chester ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion failed.

MOVE M-19-17 TO Moved by Sayad, seconded by Chester, to move Ordinance M-19-17, An THE BUILDING Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title 6 of the City code Regarding the Keeping COMMITTEE: of Chickens to the Building Committee. Hand vote indicated the vote was: AYES: 5-Lysakowski, Robinson, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 1-Rodd ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried.

CONSENT Moved by Sayad, seconded by Robinson, to establish the Consent Agenda except AGENDA: for items 1, 1a and 3 and 3a. Motion declared carried.

Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried.

Minutes were approved; Appointments and Reappointments were approved; Resolutions R-148-17, R-145-17 were adopted.

APPROVE Alderman Chester requested this item be removed from the Consent Agenda. PAYMENT ORANGE Alderman Chester inquired as to what consisted of the $140.00 an hour labor rate CRUSH/ from Orange Crush, LLC. Director of Public Works and Engineering Oakley EMERGENCY explained the rate was the overtime rate for the labors to install the temporary flood TEMPORARY wall along the Des Plaines River from Oakwood to Thacker. FLOOD WALL: Consent Moved by Chester, seconded by Sayad, to concur with Staff recommendation to Agenda approve Payment to Orange Crush, LLC, 321 Center Street, Hillside, IL 60162 in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $36,937.50. Budgeted Funds – Sewer Systems, Resolution Miscellaneous Contractual Service; and further recommend to adopt Resolution R-151-17 R-151-17, A RESOLUTION RATIFYING AN EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT AND APPROVING AN EXPENDITURE FOR AN EMERGENCY TEMPORARY FLOOD WALL. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried.

Page 3 of 6 9/05/17

EXTEND Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to concur with Staff recommendation to CONRACT/ approve Extension of Contractual Snow Plowing Contract for the 2017/2018 Snow SNOW Season Pursuant to Pricing Submitted in 2014 from G&L Contractors, Inc., PLOWING/ 7401 North St. Louis Avenue, Skokie, IL in the Amount of $100,000 for 2017 and G&L $100,000 for 2018. Budgeted Funds – Street Maintenance/Miscellaneous CONTRACTORS: Contractual Services; and further recommend to adopt Resolution R-148-17, A Consent RESOLUTION WAIVING THE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND Agenda APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH G&L CONTRACTORS, INC., FOR SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES. Motion declared carried as approved Resolution unanimously under Consent Agenda. R-148-17

APPROVE TASK Alderman Chester requested this item be removed from the Consent Agenda. ORDER NO. 1 ENG. SVCS/ Alderman Chester requested clarification as to the need for additional Engineering SPACECO: Services from SPACECO. Director of Public Works and Engineering Oakley Consent explained due to staff turnover, additional Engineering Services are need on a Agenda temporary basis to provide services primarily for the 2017 Capital Improvement Construction Program. The request is for an amount not to exceed $108,000. Resolution R-150-17 Moved by Chester, seconded by Rodd, to concur with Staff recommendation to approve Task Order No. 1 for SPACECO, Inc., 9575 West Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL to Provide 2017 Capital Improvement Program Construction Observation Services in the not-to-exceed amount of $108,000. Budgeted Funds – Capital Projects; and further recommend to adopt R-150-17, A RESOLUTION APPROVING TASK ORDER NO. 1 WITH SPACECO, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried.

APPROVE APPT./ Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to approve the August 21, 2017 BOARD OF FIRE Appointment of Thomas Green to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, & POLICE Term to Expire 4/30/2020. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously COMMISSIONERS under Consent Agenda. Consent Agenda

APPROVE APPTS./ Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve the August 21, 2017 LIBRARY Appointments of Umair Qadeer (Term to Expire 6/30/2019) and Nicholas BOARD: Harkovich (Term to Expire 6/30/2020) to the Library Board of Trustees. Motion Consent declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. Agenda

APPROVE APPT./ Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to approve the August 21, 2017 PLANNING & Appointment of Rebecca Fowler to the Planning & Zoning Board, Term to Expire ZONING BOARD: Page 4 of 6 9/05/17

Consent 4/30/2018. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda Agenda. (Cont.)

APPROVE APPTS./ Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve August 21, 2017 LIBRARY Reappointments of Bruce Lester, Denise Hudec, and Vincent Rangel to the Library BOARD: Board of Trustees, Terms to Expire 6/30/2020. Motion declared carried as Consent approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. Agenda

APPROVE APPTS./ Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve August 21, 2017 PLANNING & Reappointments of Joseph Catalano and Steve Bader to the Planning & Zoning ZONING BOARD: Board, Terms to Expire 4/30/2020. Motion declared carried as approved Consent unanimously under Consent Agenda. Agenda

APPROVE Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve Minutes of the Regular MINUTES: Meeting of the City Council of August 21, 2017, as published. Motion declared Consent carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. Agenda

Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve Minutes of the Closed Session Meeting of the City Council of August 21, 2017, as published. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda.

APPROVE Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to concur with Staff recommendation to INTERNATIONAL approve Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Des Plaines Professional ASSOCIATION OF Firefighters Union – International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local 4211 FIREFIGHTERS from January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2020; and further recommend to adopt LOCAL 4211 Resolution R-145-17, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FOUR-YEAR BARGAINING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE DES PLAINES AGREEMENT/ PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS UNION – INTERNATIONAL JANUARY 2017 – ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 4211. Motion declared carried as DECEMBER 2020: approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. Consent Agenda

Resolution R-145-17

MAYOR BOGUSZ DECLARED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS NOW RESOLVED INTO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION – Alderman Charewicz, Chair

WARRANT Alderman Sayad presented the Warrant Register for consideration. REGISTER: Moved by Smith, seconded by Chester, to recommend to the City Council approval of the September 5, 2017 – Warrant Register in the Amount of $4,626,400.48; and Page 5 of 6 9/05/17

(Cont.) further recommend that Resolution R-149-17 be adopted at appropriate time this evening. Motion declared carried.

COMMUNITY SERVICES – Alderman Chester, Chair

DISCUSSION/ Alderman Chester requested that the Health and Human Services (HHS) staff NEW PROCESS present to the City Council the process they use to allocate funds to social service TO DISBURSE agency applicants. SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDS: Jeanine Stricker, Social Worker with the HHS Department, explained there was $150,000 in funds available for 2017, in which 36 agencies were considered for funding. In the past, the applicant’s application was reviewed to determine the number of Des Plaines clients served, the number of referrals by HHS, their funding resources and their recent history of funding.

This year, a five-category points system was created based on the following criteria: the number of Des Plaines residents served in the program, the percentage of Des Plaines Clients served, the program budget, staff performance feedback, and if the agency provides a particular type of service. The Social Service Funding State Budget Impact was also considered.

The HHS Department worked with the Finance Department as to how to distribute the $150,000 in funding and provided the results in a Distribution of Funds table.

Alderman Chester thanked Ms. Stricker for providing an empirical approach to calculating the distribution of funding.

CONSIDERATION Alderman Chester explained Des Plaines will be hosting the Vietnam moving wall OF $5,000 and mobile education center and would like the city to authorize a $5,000 or CONTRIBUTION alternate monetary donation to the VFW for the associated expenses. FOR THE TRAVELING Alderman Chester thanked Alderman Brookman for her effort in securing an VIETNAM WALL: approximate $15,000 donation from Rivers Casino for the event.

Keith Renner of the Des Plaines VFW Post 2992 informed the Council members the cost to bring the wall and museum is over $9,000. In addition, there are numerous other associated costs. There are actually four other organizations involved and the committee responsible is the Vietnam Wall Committee.

Moved by Robinson to amend Resolution R-146-17 to replace $5,000 with $15,000, seconded by Sayad; and further recommend that Resolution R-146-17 be adopted at appropriate time this evening. Motion declared carried.

MAYOR BOGUSZ DECLARED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS NOW BACK IN REGULAR SESSION

NEW BUSINESS:

WARRANT Moved by Sayad, seconded by Chester, to concur with recommendation of REGISTER: Committee of the Whole to adopt Resolution R-149-17, BE IT RESOLVED BY Page 6 of 6 9/05/17

(Cont.) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES THAT THE Resolution FOLLOWING BILLS ARE DUE AND PAYABLE AND THAT THE MAYOR R-149-17 AND CITY CLERK BE AND ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR SAME. Total: $4,626,400.48. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lyasakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried.

APPROVE Moved by Chester, seconded by Robinson, to concur with recommendation of CONTRIBUTION Committee of the Whole to adopt Resolution R-146-17 as amended, A FOR HOSTING RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRIBUTION FOR HOSTING THE THE VIETNAM VIETNAM MOVING WALL AND MOBILE EDUCATION CENTER. Upon MOVING WALL: roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lyasakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Resolution Chester, Smith R-146-17 NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried.

ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Robinson, seconded by Sayad, to adjourn the meeting. Motion declared carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m.

` Laura Fast – DEPUTY CITY CLERK

APPROVED BY ME THIS

DAY OF , 2017

______Matthew J. Bogusz, MAYOR

1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org

Date: September 12, 2017

To: Mayor Bogusz and Aldermen of the City Council

From: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager

Subject: Final Bona Fide Offer for Des Plaines Theatre

Attached is an ordinance for your consideration on the September 18, 2017 City Council Agenda authorizing the City Manager and General Counsel to make a final and bona fide offer to acquire fee simple title to certain property located at 1476 Miner Street, otherwise known as the Des Plaines Theatre.

Attachment: Ordinance M-20-17

Page 1 of 5

CITY OF DES PLAINES

ORDINANCE M -20-17

AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAKING OF A FINAL BONA FIDE OFFER TO ACQUIRE FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1476 MINER STREET.

WHEREAS, the City of Des Plaines (“City”) is a home rule municipal corporation in accordance with Article VII, Section 6(a) of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and

WHEREAS, the Des Plaines City Council has sought to stimulate redevelopment in the in the City’s central business district, including specifically providing cultural and educational amenities that serve residents of the downtown area as well as generate foot traffic; and

WHEREAS, the City has established a Redevelopment Project District within the City’s central business district pursuant to the Illinois Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1 et seq.) for the purpose of stimulating redevelopment and supporting downtown businesses (“TIF #1”); and

WHEREAS, the Des Plaines Theater is a historical theater (“Theater”) located in TIF #1 on a parcel commonly known as 1476 Miner Street (“Subject Property”), which is legally described in Exhibit A attached to, and by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the Theater was constructed in 1925 and is a prime example of Art Deco, Spanish Moorish and Spanish Renaissance architecture styles and design; and

WHEREAS, the Theater has fallen into severe disrepair and was declared uninhabitable by the City on February 20, 2014 after its owners failed to repair and remediate numerous health safety code violations; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the acquisition and redevelopment of the Theater by the City would provide a significant cultural and educational amenity to both the residents of the City’s central business district and to the City at large; and

WHEREAS, the City has been negotiating in good faith with the owner of the Subject Property ("Owner"), and the City is continuing such good faith negotiations with the Owner with the goal of reaching a mutual agreement with the Owner on a price at which the Owner would be willing to sell the Subject Property to the City and at which the City would be willing to purchase the Subject Property from the Owner ("Fair Price"); and

1 Page 2 of 5

WHEREAS, because the City has been unable to reach a mutual agreement on a Fair Price with the Owner, the City desires to make a final bona fide offer to the Owner for the purchase of the Subject Property; and

WHEREAS, the City Council specifically finds that it is necessary, advisable, and in the best interests of the City to acquire the Subject Property in the manner, and pursuant to the powers and authority, set forth in this Ordinance and/or in the Illinois Compiled Statues, including specifically but without limitation the provisions of Section 5/11-61-1 et seq. of the Illinois Municipal Code, Section 5/11-74.4-4(c) of the Illinois Municipal Code, and Section 5/7- 101 et seq. of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Ordinance as the findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2: ACQUISITION IS NECESSARY, CONVENIENT, AND DESIRABLE. The City Council finds that it is necessary, convenient, and desirable for the City to acquire the Subject Property in furtherance of the purposes set forth in the recitals of this Ordinance. The City Council finds that the location of the Subject Property is proper and appropriate for the purposes and that the Subject Property is properly and lawfully subject to condemnation by the City.

SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE AND TO MAKE FINAL OFFERS. The City Council, in furtherance of the findings and purposes set forth in this Ordinance, does hereby authorize and direct the City Manager and the City’s General Counsel to negotiate in good faith with, and to make a final bona fide offer to, in an amount not less than the appraised market value as approved by the City, the Owner of the Subject Property for the purchase of the Subject Property, all in accordance with the directions and authority given the City Manager and the City Attorney by the City Council.

SECTION 4: FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR ACQUISITION. If the Owner and the City Manager and City’s General Counsel are unable to agree as to the amount of compensation to be paid by the City to the Owner for the purchase of the Subject Property, and if the Owner fails or refuses to accept the City's final bona fide offer as presented, then the City Council, in furtherance of the findings and public purposes set forth in this Ordinance and in accordance with the authority conferred by the Illinois Compiled Statues including specifically but without limitation the provisions of Section 5/11-61-1 et seq. of the Illinois Municipal Code, Section 5/11-74.4-4(c) of the Illinois Municipal Code, and Section 5/7- 101 et seq. of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, will consider whether to authorize and direct the City’s General Counsel to file and prosecute to completion eminent domain or other legal proceedings to acquire fee simple title to the Subject Property.

2 Page 3 of 5

SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law.

PASSED this ___ day of ______, 2017.

APPROVED this ___ day of ______, 2017.

VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____

MAYOR

ATTEST:

______CITY CLERK

Published in pamphlet form this Approved as to form: ______day of ______, 2017.

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

3 Page 4 of 5

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY

LOTS 68 AND 69 (EXCEPT THE NORTHEASTERLY 8 FEET TAKEN FOR ALLEYS) IN ORIGINAL TOWN OF RAND (NOW VILLAGE OF DES PLAINES), A SUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF SECTION 16, 17, 20, AND 21, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

PIN 09-17-415-010-0000

Commonly known as 1476 Miner Street, Des Plaines, Illinois

Page 5 of 5 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org

MEMORANDUM

Date: September 7, 2017

To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager

From: Dorothy Wisniewski, Assistant City Manager/Director of Finance

Subject: Resolution R-155-17, September 18, 2017 Warrant Register

Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council approve the September 18, 2017 Warrant Register Resolution R-155-17.

Warrant Register……………………………$3,569,000.12

Estimated General Fund Balance

Balance as of 07/31/2017: $23,512,344

Please use caution when evaluating this number as revenues fluctuate dramatically from month to month due to delays in receiving sales tax revenue from the State and 1st & 2nd installments of property tax revenue.

Page 1 of 32 CITY OF DES PLAINES

RESOLUTION

R-155-17

Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines that the following bills are due and payable and that the Mayor and City Clerk be and are hereby authorized to make payment for same.

September 18, 2017

Page 2 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Fund: 100 - General Fund 1 1880 Due from 2943 Crowe Horwath LLP 707-2107305 Auditing Svcs for Tax Yr 2016 4,400.00 Component Unit (Yr 1 of 3)-Library Thru 06/30/17 2 4160 Real Estate 6981 Aloisio, Estelle Refund 08/23/17 Real Estate Transfer Tax 1,000.00 Transfer Tax Refund 08/23/2017 3 4300 Vehicle Licenses 6980 Dabros, Sylvia J Refund 08/04/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 50.00 08/04/2017 4 4300 Vehicle Licenses 6186 Decker, William A Refund 08/11/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 37.50 08/11/2017 5 4300 Vehicle Licenses 6978 Ellis, Trinia Refund 08/11/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 45.00 08/11/2017 6 4300 Vehicle Licenses 6979 Sroka, Wieslaw & Refund 08/11/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 100.00 Jadwiga 08/11/2017 7 4300 Vehicle Licenses 6977 Khan, Waqas Refund 08/17/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 30.00 08/17/2017 8 4300 Vehicle Licenses 6975 Russo, Beth Refund 08/21/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 25.00 08/21/2017 9 4300 Vehicle Licenses 6976 McDonald, Mary B Refund 08/21/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 5.00 08/21/2017 10 4300 Vehicle Licenses 6990 Roldan, Maria Refund 08/23/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 10.00 08/23/2017 11 4300 Vehicle Licenses 6989 Tahir, Abdul Rehman Refund 08/24/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 60.00 08/24/2017 12 4400 Building Permits 6970 Raymond, Caren 2017-07000132 Permit Refund Originally 40.00 Lucente Issued 7/17/2017 13 4500 Court Costs, Fees 6966 Rafalo Corp / Marek P0238944 Overpayment on Parking 25.00 & Charges Rafalo Ticket 8/11/2017 14 4500 Court Costs, Fees 6965 Kulieke, Marilynn P0239334 Overpayment for Parking 4.00 & Charges Ticket 8/14/17 15 4510 Compliance 6968 Alarcon, Carlos C0238314 Overpayment for Compliance 40.00 Ticket Fines Ticket 8/22/2017

16 4630 Resident 5274 Close, Leo 17-0025570 Medical Reimbursement DOS 91.39 Ambulance Fees 06/27/2017

Total 00 - Non Departmental 5,962.89

Elected Office Division: 110 - Legislative 17 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 571.30 Services 08/13/2017 Total 110 - Legislative 571.30

Division: 120 - City Clerk 18 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 55.13 Services 08/13/2017

Page 3 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 19 6100 Publication of 1050 Journal & Topics 174286 Legal Notice - Sidewalk Snow 73.78 Notices Removal 09/12/2017 20 7000 Office Supplies 1644 Warehouse Direct Inc 3600360-0 3 Binders, 3 Calendars 71.76

21 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 954878054001 Copy Paper, File Folders, Tape, 219.13 Labels, Scissors Total 120 - City Clerk 419.80

Total 10 - Elected Office 991.10

City Administration Division: 210 - City Manager 22 5325 Training 6972 Filippini Law Firm LLP August 18, 2017 RLUIPA Training 08/07/2017 - 5,500.00 Misc Depts 23 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 62.68 Services 08/13/2017 24 7000 Office Supplies 1220 Runco Office Supply 692959-0 3 Cases of Copy Paper and 1 103.24 Literature Sorter Total 210 - City Manager 5,665.92

Division: 220 - Legal 25 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542640 7-17 Non-Retainer Flood 2013 988.00

26 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542651 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 662.70

27 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542652 7-17 Non-Retainer IEMA & 960.00 FEMA Review FEMA 1935 28 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542653 7-17 Non-Retainer IEMA & 9,620.00 FEMA Review 29 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542653 7-17 Non-Retainer IEMA & 104.00 FEMA Review 30 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542654 7-17 Non-Retainer IEMA & 1,820.00 FEMA Review FEMA 4116 31 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542668 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation* 80.00

32 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542673 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation* 351.00

33 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542674 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation* 2,717.50

34 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542675 7-17 Non-Retainer Matters 172.50

35 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542683 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation* 945.00

36 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542684 7-17 Non-Retainer Flood 2017 1,305.50

37 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5548861 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation* 1,890.00

* On-going City litigation items provided separately to the City Council Page 4 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 38 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5548950 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 192.50

39 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP JULY 2017 RET July 2017 Retainer 18,500.00

40 6009 Legal Fees - 1735 Cohen Law Firm PC 04/05/06-17 Administrative Hearing Officer 2,700.00 Admin 04/13-06/15/2017 Hearings/Prosecu tions 41 6009 Legal Fees - 1735 Cohen Law Firm PC 07-17 Administrative Hearing Officer 900.00 Admin 07/06-07/20/2017 Hearings/Prosecu tions 42 6009 Legal Fees - 1073 Bartel, Raymond 17-14 Legal Services 8/18-8/28/2017 565.00 Admin Hearings/Prosecu tions 43 7500 Postage & Parcel 1041 Federal Express 5-907-30955 Delivery Services 07/25- 40.17 08/14/2017 Total 220 - Legal 44,513.87

Division: 230 - Information Technology 44 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 442.76 Services 08/13/2017 45 7005 Printer Supplies 1820 Datasource, Ink 16305 8 Toner Cartridges For 1,309.68 Various City Printers Total 230 - Information Technology 1,752.44

Division: 240 - Media Services 46 6000 Professional 5079 RV Enterprises Ltd 8170143 Promotional Giveaways - 492 487.08 Services Customized Pens for Events 08/23/2017 47 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 55.13 Services 08/13/2017 48 7000 Office Supplies 1220 Runco Office Supply 693203-0 24 AAA Batteries, Carton (8) 9.19 Dishwashing Soap for Lunchroom Total 240 - Media Services 551.40

Division: 250 - Human Resources 49 5530 Employee 4651 Perspectives 87482 2017 Employee Assistance 542.50 Assistance Program 09/01-09/30/2017 Program 50 6000 Professional 4711 Stivers Staffing 5402722 Staffing Services 08/06- 275.40 Services Services 08/12/2017 51 6000 Professional 4711 Stivers Staffing 5402747 Staffing Services 08/13- 131.96 Services Services 08/19/2017

Page 5 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 52 7000 Office Supplies 1220 Runco Office Supply 693075-0 5 Boxes of Folders, 2 Dz Pens 193.55 & 1 Dz Paper Pads 53 7000 Office Supplies 1220 Runco Office Supply 693680-0 Calculator, Tissue, Paper Pads, 56.99 Post-It Pads, Highlighters, Tray

54 7000 Office Supplies 1220 Runco Office Supply 693900-0 2 Hole Punch, 1 Box 73.70 Correction Tape, Pocket Files, Labels, Pens Total 250 - Human Resources 1,274.10

Division: 260 - Health & Human Services 55 6110 Printing Services 1222 Rydin Decal 336064 100 Temporary Handicap 161.65 Parking Placards 56 6530 Subsidy - 6464 Park Ridge Dispatch 00002426 Subsidized Taxi Vouchers June 6.00 Community Inc 2017 & Emergency Outreach Transportation 57 6540 Subsidy - Senior 1383 Frisbie Senior Center 4432 Additional Health & Support 13,333.00 Center Services 2017 R-144-17 58 6550 Subsidy - Senior 6464 Park Ridge Dispatch 00002426 Subsidized Taxi Vouchers June 1,398.00 Citizen Cab Inc 2017 & Emergency Service Transportation 59 6550 Subsidy - Senior 1421 American Charge 100618A Subsidized Taxi Voucher 249.00 Citizen Cab Service Program July 2017 M-12-11 Service Total 260 - Health & Human Services 15,147.65

Total 20 - City Administration 68,905.38

Department: 30 - Finance 60 6000 Professional 2943 Crowe Horwath LLP 707-2107306 Auditing Services for Tax Year 9,300.00 Services 2016 (Yr 1 of 3) Thru 06/30/2017 61 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 155.82 Services 08/13/2017 62 7000 Office Supplies 1644 Warehouse Direct Inc 3569879-0 1 Desk Tray 21.99

63 7000 Office Supplies 1644 Warehouse Direct Inc 3590161-0 4 Packs of Lysol Wipes & 1 1.24 Pencil Holder 64 7200 Other Supplies 1644 Warehouse Direct Inc 3590161-0 4 Packs of Lysol Wipes & 1 23.12 Pencil Holder Total 30 - Finance 9,502.17

Community Development Division: 410 - Building & Code Enforcement 65 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542657 7-17 Non-Retainer Property 1,380.00 Enforcement Matters

Page 6 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 66 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542663 7-17 Non-Retainer Property 108.00 Enforcement Matters

67 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542663 7-17 Non-Retainer Property 1,020.00 Enforcement Matters

68 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542665 7-17 Non-Retainer Property 3,801.50 Enforcement Matters

69 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 651.98 Services 08/13/2017 70 6105 Records 6121 Shred First Inc 124725 Shred 17 Boxes of Code 190.00 Preservation Enforcement Files 8/18/2017

71 6110 Printing Services 1233 Press Tech Inc 40991 1000 Regular, 1000 Window & 254.00 1000 Return Envelopes 8/23/17 72 6110 Printing Services 1233 Press Tech Inc 41033 2 Boxes of Business Cards 40.00

73 6195 Miscellaneous 2234 Chicago Title 1401-8985658 Minutes of Demolition - Title 2,000.00 Contractual Insurance Co Commitment 8/21/2017 Services 74 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 954246737001 Graph Paper, Post-Its, Glass 66.97 Wipes, 4 Packs of Pens 09/21/2017 75 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 954246879001 1 Pack of Trace Paper 22.89 76 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 957427640001 2 Stamps for Shed and Fence 39.58 Permits 77 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 958345701001 Two Cases of Copy Paper 39.26 78 7200 Other Supplies 1066 Office Depot 957427550001 Chairmat 34.99 Total 410 - Building & Code Enforcement 9,649.17

Division: 420 - Planning & Zoning 79 6110 Printing Services 1233 Press Tech Inc 40991 1000 Regular, 1000 Window & 254.00 1000 Return Envelopes 8/23/17 80 6110 Printing Services 1233 Press Tech Inc 41032 1 Box of Business Cards 20.00

81 6195 Miscellaneous 4070 Cerabona, Gale M 77 Joint Review Board Meeting 90.00 Contractual and Minutes 08/15/2017 Services 82 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 954246737001 Graph Paper, Post-Its, Glass 66.97 Wipes, 4 Packs of Pens 09/21/2017 83 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 958345701001 Two Cases of Copy Paper 39.26

Total 420 - Planning & Zoning 470.23

Page 7 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Division: 430 - Economic Development 84 6000 Professional 5215 CoStar Realty 105246069 September 2017 Available 349.44 Services Information Inc Property Database 85 6000 Professional 1332 Kane McKenna & 14829 TIF Document Preparation and 618.75 Services Associates Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 Total 430 - Economic Development 968.19

Total 40 - Community Development 11,087.59

Public Works & Engineering Division: 100 - Administration 86 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 121.84 Services 08/13/2017 87 6025 Administrative 1172 Third Millennium 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 496.46 Services Associates Inc 08/16/2017 88 6040 Waste Hauling & 6047 Vintage Tech LLC 17822 Electronic Recycling - 1,146.93 Debris Removal 08/17/2017

89 6195 Miscellaneous 4711 Stivers Staffing 5402723 PW Temp Services 08/07/- 734.40 Contractual Services 08/11/2017 Services 90 7500 Postage & Parcel 1172 Third Millennium 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 21.05 Associates Inc 08/16/2017 Total 100 - Administration 2,520.68

Division: 510 - Engineering 91 5310 Membership 1563 American Water 7001412398 Asst Dir PW Membership 83.00 Dues Works Assoc (AWWA) Renewal 11/01/2017- 10/31/2018 92 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 266.72 Services 08/13/2017 Total 510 - Engineering 349.72

Division: 530 - Street Maintenance 93 5325 Training 1252 NIPSTA 16983 Flagger Training -3 Street 225.00 Maintenance Operators - 09/26/2017 94 5325 Training 1576 Illinois Section 200030865 Certified Flagger Training 160.00 American Water Works 09/13/2017 - 2 Sewer Maint Association Operators 95 5325 Training 5753 Vaisala Inc 2017RDS- Snow & Ice Training Seminar 255.00 SILS0026 08/22/17-Str Foreman & 2 Maint Oprs 96 6000 Professional 4711 Stivers Staffing 5402748 PW Temp Services 08//14- 906.53 Services Services 08/19/2017

Page 8 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 97 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 434.93 Services 08/13/2017 98 6115 Licensing/Titles 4044 Fininis, William Reimb CDL Renewal - Expires 30.00 08/08/2017 09/24/2021 99 6195 Miscellaneous 1067 Orange Crush 35931 Asphalt Grinding - 08/08- 21,563.88 Contractual 08/18/2017, R-56-17 Services 100 6195 Miscellaneous 4711 Stivers Staffing 5402671 PW Temp Services - 07/24- 918.00 Contractual Services 07/28/2017 Services 101 6195 Miscellaneous 1178 Trugreen Limited 70793706 Vegetation Control Application 3,139.72 Contractual Partnership - 08/09/2017, R-49-17 Services 102 6195 Miscellaneous 1178 Trugreen Limited 70808028 Busse & Miner, Alleys, 2,105.00 Contractual Partnership Riverwalk-Veg Control- Services 08/09/2017 R-49-17 103 6195 Miscellaneous 1178 Trugreen Limited 71161577 Lawn Service Zone 5 - 665.74 Contractual Partnership 08/15/2017, R-49-17 Services 104 6195 Miscellaneous 1732 Traffic Control & 90105 4 Miscellaneous Signs - Food 379.40 Contractual Protection Inc Pantry Services 105 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 949729043001 1 Cs of Copy Paper, 3 Pks of 68.64 Correction Tape & 4 Dz Pens

106 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 949742178001 Stapler 6.99 107 7020 Supplies - Safety 4093 HDS White Cap 10007493068 3 Boxes Earplugs 104.97 Construction Supply 108 7020 Supplies - Safety 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/840910 1 Pair of Slush Boots 14.25

109 7050 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 251 Torch Kit & 2 Couplings 18.95 Streetscape 110 7050 Supplies - 1520 Russo Power 4385222 12 Cans Wasp Spray 47.88 Streetscape Equipment 111 7050 Supplies - 1347 Lurvey Landscape T1-10220130 3 Yds Top Soil - Parkway 80.70 Streetscape Supply Restorations 112 7055 Supplies - Street 1067 Orange Crush 36732 1.11 Tons Asphalt -Sewer 30.95 R&M Repair Restoration- 08/18/2017, R 56-17 113 7055 Supplies - Street 1067 Orange Crush 37282 0.52 Tons Asphalt for Potholes 14.50 R&M - R-56-17 114 7055 Supplies - Street 1067 Orange Crush 37453 0.96 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 26.77 R&M 08/24/2017, R-56-17

115 7055 Supplies - Street 1067 Orange Crush 37588 13.68 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 381.45 R&M 08/18/2017, R-56-17

Page 9 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 116 7055 Supplies - Street 1057 Menard Incorporated 861 Framing Materials for 82.10 R&M Concrete Pads-Salt Dome Conveyor 117 7055 Supplies - Street 1057 Menard Incorporated 99936 4 Quick Links & (2) 5/8"X100' 73.94 R&M Polypropylene Sheets - Salt Pile 118 7055 Supplies - Street 1192 Sherwin Industries Inc SS071819 30 Traffic Barricade 4,118.50 R&M Replacements & Upgrades Total 530 - Street Maintenance 35,853.79

Division: 535 - Facilities & Grounds Maintenance 119 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 178.98 Services 08/13/2017 120 6115 Licensing/Titles 3874 Serpe, Dave Reimb 8/18/2017 CDL Renewal Expires 30.00 06/11/2022 121 6145 Custodial 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75310 Custodial Services - PW - Aug 1,850.00 Services 2017, R-169-16 122 6145 Custodial 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75313 Custodial Services - Police - 2,600.00 Services Aug 2017, R-169-16 123 6145 Custodial 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75315 Custodial Services - City Hall - 3,500.00 Services Aug 2017, R-169-16 124 6195 Miscellaneous 2027 American National 239784 Window Washing - Metra 215.00 Contractual Skyline Inc Station - 03/31/2017 Services 125 6195 Miscellaneous 6664 Diaz Group LLC 24268 Mowing of Additional 2,160.00 Contractual Locations - 07/01-31/2017 Services 126 6195 Miscellaneous 2027 American National 243762 Window Washing - Metra 215.00 Contractual Skyline Inc Station - 06/15/2017 Services 127 6195 Miscellaneous 4711 Stivers Staffing 5402697 PW Temp Services 07/31- 918.00 Contractual Services 08/04/2017 Services 128 6195 Miscellaneous 5399 Beary Landscape 63647 Time Controller for Irrigation 860.00 Contractual Management Sys 08/02/2017-Golf & Wolf Services Circle 129 6195 Miscellaneous 1178 Trugreen Limited 71524708 Fertilizer Application - Dog 2,160.00 Contractual Partnership Park - 08/21/2017 Services 130 6195 Miscellaneous 1029 Cintas Corporation 769266662 Mat Service - 08/16/2017 - PW 275.68 Contractual Services 131 6195 Miscellaneous 1029 Cintas Corporation 769266663 Mat Service - 08/16/2017 - 465.45 Contractual City Hall Services

Page 10 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 132 6195 Miscellaneous 1029 Cintas Corporation 769266664 9 Soaps & 2 Urinal Mats - 88.23 Contractual 08/16/2017 - PW Services 133 6195 Miscellaneous 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274045 Mat Service - 08/30/2017 - 137.84 Contractual Police & PW Services 134 6195 Miscellaneous 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274045 Mat Service - 08/30/2017 - 137.84 Contractual Police & PW Services 135 6195 Miscellaneous 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274046 Mat Service - 08/30/2017 - 415.24 Contractual City Hall & Metra Station Services 136 6195 Miscellaneous 6420 International 8376 Pest Control Service- 125.50 Contractual Exterminator Company Inc 07/12/2017 - Fire, Police, Food Services Pantry 137 6195 Miscellaneous 6420 International 8376 Pest Control Service- 86.00 Contractual Exterminator Company Inc 07/12/2017 - Fire, Police, Food Services Pantry 138 6195 Miscellaneous 6420 International 8376 Pest Control Service- 86.00 Contractual Exterminator Company Inc 07/12/2017 - Fire, Police, Food Services Pantry 139 6195 Miscellaneous 6420 International 8377 Pest Control - 07/25/2017 - 118.00 Contractual Exterminator Company Inc PW Services 140 6195 Miscellaneous 6420 International 8437 Pest Control & Fly Sticks - 53.70 Contractual Exterminator Company Inc 8/10/2017 - City Hall Services 141 6195 Miscellaneous 5214 State Industrial 900130779 Drain Maintenance - 100.00 Contractual Products 08/24/2017 - City Hall Services 142 6315 R&M Buildings & 1025 Bedco Inc 094357 Cooling System Repair - City 268.15 Structures Hall - 08/17/2017, R-170-16

143 6315 R&M Buildings & 5162 Allied Central Security 23368 Install Wiring for Door Lock 2,280.00 Structures & Alarm Inc Sys 8/22/17-2nd Flr Remodel- Police 144 7025 Supplies - 1220 Runco Office Supply 693203-0 24 AAA Batteries, Carton (8) 24.96 Custodial Dishwashing Soap for Lunchroom 145 7025 Supplies - 1029 Cintas Corporation 769270357 10 Soaps, 2 Urinal Mats, 5 Air 274.62 Custodial Fresheners & Paper Towels - PW 146 7025 Supplies - 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274047 8 Soaps, 2 Urinal Mats, 4 Air 88.23 Custodial Fresheners - PW 147 7045 Supplies - 5699 March Industries Inc 182945 Floor Box - PW Improvement 279.00 Building R&M

Page 11 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 148 7045 Supplies - 1699 Metal Supermarkets 1001111 6 Pieces Steel - PW Repair 216.94 Building R&M Villa Park Entry Door 149 7045 Supplies - 3378 Michael Wagner & 1415476 Pro Press 12 Couplings & 3 99.00 Building R&M Sons Inc Balls - Police 150 7045 Supplies - 5699 March Industries Inc 182512 Power Data Center for 254.50 Building R&M Conference Table - PW 151 7045 Supplies - 5699 March Industries Inc 182946 Floor Box Cover & MAAP 379.65 Building R&M Device Plate - PW Buildout 152 7045 Supplies - 1047 Home Depot Credit 2023667 Mortar, Bondo & 2 Elastomer 31.84 Building R&M Svcs Gaskets - PW 153 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 266 3 Conduit Extensions & 3 10.17 Building R&M Mudrings - Police Kitchen 154 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 294 Phasing Tape for Automatic 15.92 Building R&M Transfer Switch - City Hall 155 7045 Supplies - 1047 Home Depot Credit 4010258 500' Red & White Wire and 131.45 Building R&M Svcs Misc Electrical Parts - Police Remodel 156 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 456 2 Bags Patch, 2 Bags Tile 55.42 Building R&M Spacers, Knife & Trowel - PW Imp 157 7045 Supplies - 1047 Home Depot Credit 5061545 Two 1x8 & Four 1x6 Pcs of 42.70 Building R&M Svcs Wood - PW Improvements 158 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 532 Diamond Blade - PW 19.99 Building R&M Improvement 159 7045 Supplies - 1047 Home Depot Credit 5583499 500' Copper Wiring & 204.08 Building R&M Svcs Plumbing Parts - PW 160 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 639 5 Washers, 2 Drills & 13 222.93 Building R&M Sheets Drywall-Police 2nd Floor Remodel 161 7045 Supplies - 1047 Home Depot Credit 7064228 Plumbing Parts - Police 187.59 Building R&M Svcs Kitchen Remodel 162 7045 Supplies - 1047 Home Depot Credit 8020778 Paint - Police 2nd Floor Door 87.96 Building R&M Svcs Remodel 163 7045 Supplies - 5698 Doors Done Right Inc 8432 8890 Installed New Frame and 935.00 Building R&M Sound Proofing - 08/21/2017 - Police 164 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 863 Misc Plumbing Parts - Police 116.79 Building R&M 2nd Floor Remodel 165 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 864 Clamp & Screw Organizer - 54.97 Building R&M Police Kitchen 166 7045 Supplies - 1047 Home Depot Credit 9043075 Plumbing Parts - PW 42.70 Building R&M Svcs 167 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 98258 Returned Two 2-Packs of Bulbs (29.96) Building R&M - City Hall 168 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 98716 Galvanized & All Purpose 32.32 Building R&M Screws for PW

Page 12 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 169 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 99923 Laminate Trimmer Bit & 16.98 Building R&M Silicone Clear Caulk - PW Buildout 170 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 99949 Primer, Cement - 2 Couplings - 21.14 Building R&M Police 2nd Floor Renovations

171 7045 Supplies - 5969 Security Equipment A80241 Electronic Strike - 08/18/2017 - 479.70 Building R&M Supply Inc (SES) Police 2nd Floor

172 7045 Supplies - 5969 Security Equipment A82559 Electronic Strike - 08/18/2017 - 319.80 Building R&M Supply Inc (SES) Police 2nd Floor

173 7045 Supplies - 5969 Security Equipment A83317 Security Equipment - 1,735.52 Building R&M Supply Inc (SES) 8/18/2017 - Police 2nd Floor

174 7045 Supplies - 2313 City Electric Supply DEP/036462 Wire, Connector & Plug - Fire 65.81 Building R&M Company (CES) #61 175 7045 Supplies - 1208 Steiner Electric S005805863.001 3 LED Tape Lights & 2 536.44 Building R&M Company Dimmers - Police Kitchen 176 7055 Supplies - Street 2438 Flag Lady Corp The 26382 2 City Flags - City Clerks Office 443.47 R&M 177 8010 Furniture & 1047 Home Depot Credit 0971779 Kitchen Cabinets - Police 1,823.43 Fixtures Svcs Second Floor Remodel Total 535 - Facilities & Grounds Maintenance 28,545.67

Division: 540 - Vehicle Maintenance 178 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 119.32 Services 08/13/2017 179 6135 Rentals 1029 Cintas Corporation 022509475 Mechanic's Uniform Rental - 142.66 08/14/2017 180 6135 Rentals 1029 Cintas Corporation 022512307 Mechanic's Uniform Rental - 142.66 08/21/2017 181 6195 Miscellaneous 1741 Praxair Distribution 78628537 Oxygen & Acetylene Rental - 465.09 Contractual Inc 08/22/2017 Services 182 6305 R&M Equipment 1203 Standard Industrial & WO-1207 Repair Drive on Lift - 245.00 Automotive Equipment Inc 06/30/2017 - PW LFT2

183 6310 R&M Vehicles 1278 Dave & Jim's Auto 17726 Front End Alignment - Police 60.00 Body Inc 6917 184 7020 Supplies - Safety 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/841460 6 First Aid Kits - Mechanics 81.00

185 7030 Supplies - Tools 2012 Gard Specialists Co Inc 105691 Grindcut Abrasive Wheel, 7 296.09 & Hardware Drill Bits & 30 Roldisks 186 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 5035 Northwest Trucks Inc 01P443068 4 Filters - PW Stock 43.28 R&M

Page 13 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 187 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 5035 Northwest Trucks Inc 01P443108 4 Filters & 4 Cartridge Kits - 582.88 R&M PW Stock 188 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 3518 O'Reilly Auto Parts 2479-319803 Gasket, Plugs, Radiator, Motor 399.86 R&M Mounts & Tensioner - CED 2023 189 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1673 Chicago Parts & Sound 30IC026792 8 Brake Rotors, 3 Brake Pads & 767.77 R&M LLC 19 Filters - Police Stock

190 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1092737 Exhaust Pipe, Muffler & Pipe 373.75 R&M Assembly - Engineering 2008

191 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1093163 2 Chrome Pipe Tips - (40.98) R&M Engineering 2008 192 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1093922 Air Tool Oil - PW 5090 14.98 R&M 193 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1094028 4 Wiper Blades - PW 7603 65.56 R&M 194 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1094152 High Tack Sealant - Fire 7603 7.49 R&M 195 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1094327 High Tack Sealant - Fire 7603 10.59 R&M 196 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095242 2 Air Filters - PW 5033 78.44 R&M 197 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095249 Oil Filter & 2 Air Filters - PW 161.41 R&M 5033 198 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095250 Air Filter - PW 5033 43.36 R&M 199 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095861 Brake Pads & Sway Bar - PW 47.58 R&M 5010 200 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1739 Morton Grove 57439 Alternator - PW 5057 & Starter 185.00 R&M Automotive Inc - PW 9001 201 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1053 Kimball Midwest 5809739 Hex Nuts, Bolts, Seal Plugs, 275.25 R&M Tubing, Washers, Brass Fittings 202 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 5731 Advance Auto Parts 6027723322042 Alternator - PW 9030 123.27 R&M 203 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 5731 Advance Auto Parts 6027723535936 Outlet With Bracket - CED 4.96 R&M 2024 204 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1526 Global Emergency AG58032 Sensors, Exhaust Gasket & U- 952.26 R&M Products Inc Clamp - Fire 7603 205 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1088 Atlas Bobcat LLC BD7015 2 Sprockets, Bearings & 1,793.71 R&M Washers, 36 Brushes, Chain Drive-PW 5B22 Total 540 - Vehicle Maintenance 7,442.24

Total 50 - Public Works & Engineering 74,712.10

Page 14 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Police Department Division: 100 - Administration 206 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 242.98 Services 08/13/2017 Total 100 - Administration 242.98

Division: 610 - Uniformed Patrol 207 5325 Training 1261 Northeast 223118 Police Urban Rifle Course 300.00 Multiregional Training 07/25-07/27/2017 - Officer 208 5325 Training 1261 Northeast 223389 Arrest, Search & Seizure for 50.00 Multiregional Training Sgts and Lts July 5-7, 2017 (Sgt) 209 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 2,042.46 Services 08/13/2017 210 6110 Printing Services 1233 Press Tech Inc 40962 One Box of Business Cards 20.00

211 7000 Office Supplies 1389 Garvey's Office PINV1389341 Highlighters (12), Staples (1 62.87 Products Inc Bx), Rubber bands (2 Pks), CDR's 212 7000 Office Supplies 1389 Garvey's Office PINV1392821 Date Book Refill (1), Clip 51.75 Products Inc Binders (1 Dz), White Out (17)

Total 610 - Uniformed Patrol 2,527.08

Division: 620 - Criminal Investigation 213 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 1,455.50 Services 08/13/2017 214 7320 Equipment < 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 37.49 $5,000 08/13/2017 Total 620 - Criminal Investigation 1,492.99

Division: 630 - Support Services 215 5310 Membership 1510 Northwest Police 08/25/2017 2017-2018 Dept Annual Dues 50.00 Dues Academy (Aug 2017-July 2018) 216 6015 Communication 1680 Pacific 934982 3 Public Pay Phones Monthly 228.00 Services Telemanagement Services Fee, September 2017

217 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 475.94 Services 08/13/2017 218 6185 Animal Control 2950 When Nature Calls 8149 Nuisance Animal Control July 1,950.00 2017 219 6195 Miscellaneous 1077 Shred-It USA LLC 8122912716 Shredding Service PD 7/10, 745.35 Contractual 7/14, 7/21, 7/28, 8/4/2017 Services 220 6305 R&M Equipment 1045 Havey 7678 Install Squad #69 Equipment 601.20 Communications (Opticon, Lights) 08/10/2017

Page 15 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 221 7000 Office Supplies 1389 Garvey's Office PINV1386778 Cleaners (Screen Wipes, Air 59.57 Products Inc Blower, Dry Erase) Markers (1 set) 222 7000 Office Supplies 1389 Garvey's Office PINV1391214 Gripper Fingers (1 Set), Ruler 10.23 Products Inc (1), Plasticware, Napkins

223 7000 Office Supplies 1389 Garvey's Office PINV1394461 Copy Paper (3 Cases), Badge 127.15 Products Inc Reels (1 Pk), Post-It Notes (1 PK) 224 7010 Supplies - 3356 Rand Red Hots LLC 0173 500 Hot Dogs For National 750.00 Community Night Out 08/01/2017 Relations 225 7010 Supplies - 1498 Indestructo Rental 23654 National Night Out Rental, 1,439.50 Community Company Inc Tents (4), Tables (35), Chairs Relations (56) 08/01/2017 226 7200 Other Supplies 1236 Proforma Creative 0718002602 Lifesaving Award Plaque 178.94 Impressions Inc (Citizen) 8/2/2017 227 7200 Other Supplies 1580 Mighty Mites 8240 Appreciation Plaque for Local 45.00 Business Natl Night Out Donations 08/01/2017 228 7200 Other Supplies 1389 Garvey's Office PINV1391214 Gripper Fingers (1 Set), Ruler 70.54 Products Inc (1), Plasticware, Napkins

Total 630 - Support Services 6,731.42

Total 60 - Police Department 10,994.47

Department: 65 - Emergency Management Agency 229 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 322.36 Services 08/13/2017 Total 65 - Emergency Management Agency 322.36

Fire Department Division: 100 - Administration 230 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 255.62 Services 08/13/2017 231 6195 Miscellaneous 1077 Shred-It USA LLC 8122936810 On-Site Shredding-Station 61 59.86 Contractual 08/04/2017 Services 232 7310 Publications 2864 JEMS-Journal of 68141-R5 Subscription Renewal 19.99 Emergency Medical Services 08/01/2017-07/31/2018-EMS Coordinator Total 100 - Administration 335.47

Division: 710 - Emergency Services 233 5325 Training 2034 Romeoville Fire 2017-419 Vehicle & Machinery Ops Class 550.00 Academy, Village of 08/18/2017-1 Paramedic

Page 16 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 234 5330 In-Service 1267 Northwest Community E170142 1st Qtr May to July 2017 3,338.00 Training Hospital Continued Education Classes & Fees 235 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 690.27 Services 08/13/2017 236 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 684.20 Services 08/13/2017 237 6140 Leases 1088 Atlas Bobcat LLC N23314 1 BobCat Rented During Flood 691.25 07/12-07/14/2017 238 6140 Leases 1088 Atlas Bobcat LLC N23315 1 BobCat Rented During Flood 2,141.25 07/12-07/28/2017 239 6305 R&M Equipment 2500 Bio-Tron Inc 37464 Valve/Pump Replacement on 575.00 Zoll Monitor AR14C007587 08/18/2017 240 6305 R&M Equipment 2440 DJS Scuba Locker Inc 51378 Dive Repairs-Work Orders 468.00 #14265, 14610 & 14772 Dec 2016-June 2017 241 7035 Supplies - Equip 1147 Zoll Medical Corp 2562402 3 Sensors & 3 Patient Cables 1,504.50 R&M for Monitors 242 7120 Gasoline 6939 Fire Guys Enterprises 1026 4-Cycle Fuel for Dive Boat 137.00 Inc 243 7200 Other Supplies 1057 Menard Inc 00073 Training Supplies-Re-Bar & 79.86 Earplugs 244 7200 Other Supplies 1057 Menard Inc 00679 Picture Project-Station 61 13.94 Basement 245 7200 Other Supplies 4298 Armstrong Medical 1784556 Two 5-Packs Medical Tape 253.36 Industries Inc 246 7200 Other Supplies 1057 Menard Incorporated 490 Lock for Training Purposes 11.87

247 7200 Other Supplies 3297 Bound Tree Medical 82594891 8 Cs Powder-Free Gloves & 1 1,335.15 LLC Cs Bariatric Transfer Shts 248 7200 Other Supplies 1076 Sam's Club Direct 9835 18 Cases Bottled Water- 53.82 Station 63 249 7300 Uniforms 1148 WS Darley & Co 17296641 1 TurnOut Coat & 1 Pair of 1,897.38 Pants for New Recruit 250 7300 Uniforms 3212 On Time Embroidery 43318 2 T-Shirts, Twill Cap, 2 S/S 137.00 Inc Polos-1 Lieutenant 251 7300 Uniforms 3212 On Time Embroidery 43651 6 T-Shirts, 2 Cargo Pocket 266.00 Inc Pants, 2 Polos-1 Engineer 252 7300 Uniforms 3212 On Time Embroidery 43728 3 T-Shirts, 2 Shorts, 3 Pants, 2 333.00 Inc Polos-1 Paramedic 253 7300 Uniforms 3212 On Time Embroidery 44066 14 Dress Items for Newly 610.00 Inc Appointed Division Chief 254 8010 Furniture & 1066 Office Depot 954746118001 1 Chairmat for Lieutenant's 99.99 Fixtures Office-Station 61 Total 710 - Emergency Services 15,870.84

Page 17 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Division: 720 - Fire Prevention 255 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 157.41 Services 08/13/2017 Total 720 - Fire Prevention 157.41

Total 70 - Fire Department 16,363.72

Department: 75 - Fire & Police Commission 256 5340 Pre-Employment 1427 I/O - Industrial C40175A Police Dept Entry Level Testing 3,096.00 Exams Organizational Solutions Inc Process 07/15/2017

Total 75 - Fire & Police Commission 3,096.00

Department: 90 - Overhead 257 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 1,350.00 Services 08/13/2017 Total 90 - Overhead 1,350.00

Total 100 - General Fund 203,287.78

Fund: 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund 258 6000 Professional 1332 Kane McKenna & 14829 TIF Document Preparation and 618.75 Services Associates Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 259 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542664 7-17 Non-Retainer Property 888.00 Enforcement Matters

260 6145 Custodial 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75311 Custodial Services - Library 400.00 Services Parking Deck - Aug 2017, R- 169-16 261 6145 Custodial 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75312 Custodial Services-Metro Sq 400.00 Services Parking Deck Aug 2017, R-106- 16 262 6145 Custodial 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75314 Custodial Services - Metra 1,000.00 Services Station - Aug 2017, R-169-16

263 6195 Miscellaneous 1029 Cintas Corporation 769270356 Mat Service - 08/23/2017 - 66.79 Contractual Metra Station Services 264 6195 Miscellaneous 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274046 Mat Service - 08/30/2017 - 50.21 Contractual City Hall & Metra Station Services 265 6601 Incentive - 6971 Muddy Mutts BAP 08/24/2017 Business Assistance Facade 4,051.50 Business Makeover Inc Program R-117-17 Assistance

Page 18 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 266 6601 Incentive - 6971 Muddy Mutts BAP 8/24/2017 Business Assistance Interior 15,000.00 Business Makeover Inc Build-Out R-117-17 Assistance 267 6601 Incentive - 6987 WC Metropolitan BAP 8/29/2017 Business Assistance Interior 7,432.50 Business Square LLC Build-Out 8/29/2017 Assistance 268 6601 Incentive - 6647 RC Wahl Jewelers BAP 8/29/2017 Business Assistance Interior 15,000.00 Business Build-Out R-75-17 Assistance 08/29/2017 269 7045 Supplies - 2480 Just Faucets 176176 2 Sloan Optima Boxes - Train 520.00 Building R&M Depot 270 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 8 Grab Bar - Train Station 46.98 Building R&M 271 7050 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 395 Pump Aeration - Metro Square 1.16 Streetscape Total 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund 45,475.89

Fund: 203 - TIF #3 Wille Road Fund 272 6000 Professional 1332 Kane McKenna & 14829 TIF Document Preparation and 618.75 Services Associates Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 Total 203 - TIF #3 Wille Road Fund 618.75

Fund: 205 - TIF #5 Perry/Lee Fund 273 6000 Professional 1332 Kane McKenna & 14829 TIF Document Preparation and 618.75 Services Associates Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 Total 205 - TIF #5 Perry/Lee Fund 618.75

Fund: 206 - TIF #6 Mannheim/Higgins Fund 274 6000 Professional 1332 Kane McKenna & 14829 TIF Document Preparation and 618.75 Services Associates Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 Total 206 - TIF #6 Mannheim/Higgins Fund 618.75

Fund: 207 - TIF #7 Mannheim/Higgins South 275 6000 Professional 1332 Kane McKenna & 14829 TIF Document Preparation and 618.75 Services Associates Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017

276 6000 Professional 6535 Gandhi & Associates 17-807 Consultant-Mannheim Rd 4,861.21 Services Inc Relocation of Light Poles 01/01-08/16/17 277 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542662 7-17 Non-Retainer TIF #7 676.00 Matters Total 207 - TIF #7 Mannheim/Higgins South 6,155.96

Page 19 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Fund: 230 - Motor Fuel Tax Fund 278 6155 Sidewalk 6770 Sumit Construction Co 2017-0-P3 R-90-17 Contractor-2017 CIP 62,969.85 Improvements Inc Concrete & Alley Imp 07/29- 08/25/17 279 6330 R&M Traffic 2032 Mount Prospect, 2017-00550003 Feehanville/Dursey Traffic 115.73 Signals Village of Signal Maint 04/01- 06/30/2017

280 7160 Ice Control 6461 Compass Minerals 69696 4 Loads Rock Salt Delivered 3,919.91 America Inc 08/14/2017 281 7160 Ice Control 6461 Compass Minerals 74140 12 Loads Bulk Road Salt - 11,251.90 America Inc Delivered 08/11/2017

282 8100 Improvements 6770 Sumit Construction Co 2017-0-P3 R-90-17 Contractor-2017 CIP 12,925.02 Inc Concrete & Alley Imp 07/29- 08/25/17 Total 230 - Motor Fuel Tax Fund 91,182.41

Fund: 250 - Grant Projects Fund Program: 2520 - Capital Grants 283 6000 Professional 3338 Gabriel Environmental 0817A0048 Asbestos Inspections & 1,325.00 Services Services Testing Services-1949 Big Bend 08/01/2017 284 6000 Professional 3338 Gabriel Environmental 0817A0049 Asbestos Inspections & 1,190.00 Services Services Testing Services-1911 Big Bend 08/01/2017 285 6000 Professional 3338 Gabriel Environmental 0817A0051 Asbestos Home Inspections- 1,190.00 Services Services 1958 Big Bend Dr 08/01/2017

286 6000 Professional 3338 Gabriel Environmental 0817A0052 Asbestos Home Inspections- 1,190.00 Services Services 1998 Big Bend Dr 08/01/2017 287 6000 Professional 3338 Gabriel Environmental 0817A0056 Asbestos Inspections & 1,010.00 Services Services Testing Services-320 Hawthorne 08/03/2017 288 6000 Professional 3338 Gabriel Environmental 0817A0057 Asbestos Inspections & 1,145.00 Services Services Testing Services-1917 Big Bend 08/04/2017 289 6000 Professional 3338 Gabriel Environmental 0817A0073 Asbestos Inspections & 2,000.00 Services Services Testing Services-368 Hawthorne 08/03/2017 290 6000 Professional 1394 Gewalt Hamilton 4816.200-17 Engr Svcs-Lee @ Forest Traffic 2,940.29 Services Associates Inc Signalization 06/19- 07/23/2017 Total 2520 - Capital Grants 11,990.29

Total 250 - Grant Projects Fund 11,990.29

Page 20 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Fund: 260 - Asset Seizure Fund Program: 2610 - Customs 291 6305 R&M Equipment 5461 L3 Communications 0266807-IN 1 Yr Warranty Renew on 1,280.00 Mobile-Vision Inc Software for Patrol Scout 8/20/17-8/19/18 292 6305 R&M Equipment 5461 L3 Communications 0266808-IN Extended Maint. Agreement 1,913.00 Mobile-Vision Inc for DVD Burner/Camera 8/20/17-8/19/18

293 8010 Furniture & 1604 BOS Business Office 62362 New Bureau Furniture 2017, 2,166.00 Fixtures Systems Inc File Cabinets, Tops, Panels

294 8010 Furniture & 1604 BOS Business Office 62368 New Bureau Furniture 2017, 320.00 Fixtures Systems Inc Storage Cabinet Total 2610 - Customs 5,679.00

Program: 2640 - Forfeit 295 5325 Training 1320 IL State Police 09/04-11/10/17 Full-Service Police Canine 1,918.30 Training for Jager 09/04- 11/10/2017 296 6115 Licensing/Titles 1744 IL Secretary of State S605962-2018 License Plate Renewal 2018 101.00 Squad #18 Total 2640 - Forfeit 2,019.30

Total 260 - Asset Seizure Fund 7,698.30

Fund: 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Department: 00 - Non Departmental 297 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542667 7-17 Non-Retainer ETSB 1,820.00 Restructuring Total 00 - Non Departmental 1,820.00

Department: 60 - Police Department 298 6305 R&M Equipment 2933 SMS Systems 90078404 Computer Hardware 200.00 Maintenance Services Inc Maintenance-911 Backup Center Aug. 2017 Total 60 - Police Department 200.00

Total 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund 2,020.00

Fund: 400 - Capital Projects Fund 299 6000 Professional 1647 RJN Group Inc 30300202 TO #2 - General Sewer 882.50 Services Services Through 08/18/2017

300 6000 Professional 1394 Gewalt Hamilton 4816.200-17 Engr Svcs-Lee @ Forest Traffic 2,940.29 Services Associates Inc Signalization 06/19- 07/23/2017

Page 21 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 301 6000 Professional 3807 Chastain & Associates 6635.00-1 Const Engr-2017 CIP Street & 20,467.80 Services LLC Utility Cont B 05/01- 07/29/2017 R-84-17 302 6000 Professional 5659 V3 Companies of 717251 Engineering Services - CAV 291.06 Services Illinois Ltd Assistance 06/25-07/29/2017

303 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 397.23 Services 08/13/2017 304 6025 Administrative 1172 Third Millennium 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 248.23 Services Associates Inc 08/16/2017 305 7065 Supplies - Capital 1067 Orange Crush 36732 1.11 Tons Asphalt -Sewer 17.34 Maintenance Repair Restoration- 08/18/2017, R 56-17 306 7065 Supplies - Capital 1067 Orange Crush 37282 0.52 Tons Asphalt for Potholes 8.12 Maintenance - R-56-17

307 7065 Supplies - Capital 1067 Orange Crush 37453 0.96 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 14.99 Maintenance 08/24/2017, R-56-17

308 7065 Supplies - Capital 1067 Orange Crush 37588 13.68 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 213.64 Maintenance 08/18/2017, R-56-17

309 7500 Postage & Parcel 1566 UPS Store The 08/08/17 Eng UPS Shipping Service 56.70 01/19/2017 for Radar Recording Kit 310 7500 Postage & Parcel 1172 Third Millennium 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 10.53 Associates Inc 08/16/2017 311 8100 Improvements 6770 Sumit Construction Co 2017-0-P3 R-90-17 Contractor-2017 CIP 164,061.15 Inc Concrete & Alley Imp 07/29- 08/25/17 312 8100 Improvements 1364 Martam Construction 2017-A-P R-91-17 - 2017 CIP Cont A 296,325.01 Street & Utility 08/01- 08/29/2017 313 8100 Improvements 1067 Orange Crush 2017-C-P4 R-92-17 2017 CIP Street 128,922.71 Resurfacing 07/29-08/25/2017

Total 400 - Capital Projects Fund 614,857.30

Fund: 410 - Equipment Replacement Fund Department: 70 - Fire Department 314 8015 Equipment 3014 Motorola Solutions Inc 13174396 2 Dual Control Head APX6500 7,386.00 Mobiles for New Ambs

Total 70 - Fire Department 7,386.00

Total 410 - Equipment Replacement Fund 7,386.00

Page 22 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Fund: 420 - IT Replacement Fund 315 8000 Computer 6935 Malwarebytes INV00069315 Malwarebytes Anti-Virus 15,000.00 Software Subscription 08/29/2017 - 08/28/2020 316 8005 Computer 6625 Telquest International 766422 15 Cisco 7975G IP Desk 3,975.00 Hardware Inc Phones Total 420 - IT Replacement Fund 18,975.00

Fund: 500 - Water/Sewer Fund Non Departmental Division: 000 - Non Divisional 317 4601 New 6982 Boldt Company, The Refund 08/25/17 Hydrant Usage Refund (161.60) Construction - 08/25/2017 Sale of Water 318 4601 New 6983 MTJ Sports Refund 08/25/17 Hydrant Usage Refund (20.31) Construction - 08/25/2017 Sale of Water Total 000 - Non Divisional (181.91)

Division: 510 - Engineering 319 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 93.14 Services 08/13/2017 320 7035 Supplies - 1018 Anderson Lock 0950863 3 Keys - Library Deck 11.85 Equipment R&M Company LTD

Total 510 - Engineering 104.99

Division: 550 - Water Systems 321 5325 Training 1576 Illinois Section 200030878 SCADA Training - Utilities 92.00 American Water Works Superintendent & IT - Association 09/14/2017 322 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 895.30 Services 08/13/2017 323 6190 Tow/Storage/Ab 1567 Schimka Auto 08/16/2017 Towed Truck to PW on 160.00 andoned Fees Wreckers, Inc 08/16/2017 - PW 9034 324 6195 Miscellaneous 1467 HBK Water Meter 170551 60 Water Meter Bench Tests - 1,274.00 Contractual Service Inc 08/10/2017 Services 325 6195 Miscellaneous 1467 HBK Water Meter 170563 39 Water Meter Bench Tests - 826.00 Contractual Service Inc 08/21/2017 Services 326 6195 Miscellaneous 4321 Luppino Plumbing & 5559 Replacement of 3/4 & 1/2 160.00 Contractual Sewer Co Elbow 08/08/2017 Services 327 6195 Miscellaneous 4321 Luppino Plumbing & 5569 Replace Tailpieces on Water 252.00 Contractual Sewer Co Lines 08/22/2017 Services Page 23 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 328 6195 Miscellaneous 1303 HD Supply H665358 Install 6 Meters - 07/03- 8,990.00 Contractual Waterworks LTD 08/06/2017, R-11-17 Services 329 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 954849847001 1 Case of Paper, 1 Dz Pens &1 50.11 Pack of Staples 330 7020 Supplies - Safety 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/841050 24 Cans Blue Spray Paint & 1 83.95 Pair of Boots 331 7030 Supplies - Tools 1057 Menard Incorporated 99653 One 20" Professional Toolbox 22.88 & Hardware & One Double Sided Stowaway 332 7035 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 97544 Batteries for Locator 20.65 Equipment R&M

333 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1677 Wholesale Direct Inc 000228988 LED Flashlight - PW 9026 172.70 R&M 334 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095799 Dielectic Grease - PW 9025 8.29 R&M 335 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1739 Morton Grove 57439 Alternator - PW 5057 & Starter 165.00 R&M Automotive Inc - PW 9001 336 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1053 Kimball Midwest 5809739 Hex Nuts, Bolts, Seal Plugs, 220.20 R&M Tubing, Washers, Brass Fittings 337 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 5731 Advance Auto Parts 6027722835335 Brake Pads & Caliper - PW 85.84 R&M 9016 338 7045 Supplies - 1057 Menard Incorporated 870 Cement Patch & Drill Bit - 26.46 Building R&M Oakton Tower 339 7045 Supplies - 2313 City Electric Supply DEP/001183 Returned 4 Female Adapters - (8.57) Building R&M Company (CES) Oakton Tower 340 7045 Supplies - 2313 City Electric Supply DEP/036589 Mogul Conduit Body, 4 275.85 Building R&M Company (CES) Adapters & PVC Pipes - Oakton Tower 341 7045 Supplies - 2313 City Electric Supply DEP/036590 4 Terminal Adapters & 4 17.53 Building R&M Company (CES) Couplings - Oakton Tower 342 7050 Supplies - 1757 JCK Contractors Inc 20622 20-22 Yds Topsoil-Delivered - 330.00 Streetscape Parkway Repairs

343 7050 Supplies - 1347 Lurvey Landscape T1-10217828 2 Yds Topsoil - Mainbreak 53.80 Streetscape Supply Repairs 344 7050 Supplies - 1347 Lurvey Landscape T1-10218919 40 Rolls Sod - Main Break 115.60 Streetscape Supply Repairs & Pallet Deposit 345 7070 Supplies - Water 2028 Northwest Electrical 17335588 300 Ground Straps for Meter 756.00 System Supply Installations Maintenance 346 7070 Supplies - Water 1709 Ziebell Water Service 238402-000 2 Flare Couplings 223.30 System Products Inc Maintenance

Page 24 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 347 7070 Supplies - Water 1709 Ziebell Water Service 238403-000 3-1/2" B-Box Tap 97.72 System Products Inc Maintenance 348 7070 Supplies - Water 1303 HD Supply H503984 40 iPerls, 5 Omnis & 108 Smart 17,616.00 System Waterworks LTD Points, R-128-17 Maintenance 349 7070 Supplies - Water 1303 HD Supply H504022 108 Touchpads, 100 Bolts, 804.00 System Waterworks LTD Nuts & Washers Maintenance 350 7070 Supplies - Water 1303 HD Supply H523498 12 Buffalo Boxes 612.00 System Waterworks LTD Maintenance 351 7070 Supplies - Water 1303 HD Supply H617107 11 Repair Clamps & 12 1,934.00 System Waterworks LTD Couplings Maintenance 352 7070 Supplies - Water 1303 HD Supply H656662 80 iPerls & 108 Smart Points, 19,956.00 System Waterworks LTD R-128-17 Maintenance 353 7070 Supplies - Water 1303 HD Supply H656705 108 Touchpads 648.00 System Waterworks LTD Maintenance 354 7070 Supplies - Water 1303 HD Supply H676190 41 - 1/2" Meter Couplings 410.00 System Waterworks LTD Maintenance 355 7500 Postage & Parcel 1566 UPS Store The 08/08/17 PW UPS Shipping Service 267.32 04/12/2017 for Leak Detection Eqpt Repair 356 7500 Postage & Parcel 1041 Federal Express 5-907-30955 Delivery Services 07/25- 83.50 08/14/2017 Total 550 - Water Systems 57,697.43

Division: 560 - Sewer Systems 357 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 289.41 Services 08/13/2017 358 6340 R&M Sewer 6714 Waukegan Roofing 17219-CO Repair & Replace Levee 50 2,450.00 System Co., Inc Roof Insulation - 05/05/2017

359 6505 Subsidy - Sewer 6973 Kurcz, Mateusz SLP17-021 Sewer Rebate 08/28/2017 100.00 Lateral Program 360 6505 Subsidy - Sewer 6974 Peischl, Ernst SLP17-022 Sewer Rebate 08/28/2017 19.50 Lateral Program 361 6505 Subsidy - Sewer 6871 Vance, Bradley SLP17-023 Sewer Rebate 08/28/2017 855.00 Lateral Program 362 7000 Office Supplies 1066 Office Depot 949743389001 Tape Dispenser, Desk Pad 74.16 Cover & Wrist Pad & Palm Support

Page 25 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 363 7020 Supplies - Safety 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/841260 84 Pr Gloves, 12 Safety Glasses 606.00 & Case Spray Paint 364 7030 Supplies - Tools 1057 Menard Incorporated 265 5 Gal Wet/Dry Vac, 4 Glass & 60.33 & Hardware Surface Cleaners 365 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1471 Sewer Equipment 0000159574 Jet Truck Controller 1,005.60 R&M Company of America 366 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1071 Pomp's Tire Service 410495757 4 Tires - PW 8022 586.52 R&M Inc 367 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1520 Russo Power 4369622 V-Belt - PW Stock 45.60 R&M Equipment 368 7040 Supplies - Vehicle 1053 Kimball Midwest 5809739 Hex Nuts, Bolts, Seal Plugs, 55.05 R&M Tubing, Washers, Brass Fittings 369 7075 Supplies - Sewer 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/841260 84 Pr Gloves, 12 Safety Glasses 30.60 System & Case Spray Paint Maintenance 370 7075 Supplies - Sewer 1355 MQ Construction 7/18-7 457.13 Tons Sand - High 7,496.93 System Company Standing Water Maintenance 371 7075 Supplies - Sewer 1043 WW Grainger Inc 9528413264 2 Storm Sewer Plugs - Dye 99.37 System Water Flooding Maintenance 372 7075 Supplies - Sewer 1043 WW Grainger Inc 9529586266 2 Storm Sewer Plugs - Dye 75.02 System Water Flooding Maintenance Total 560 - Sewer Systems 13,849.09

Division: 580 - CIP - Water/Sewer 373 6000 Professional 6941 Stantec Consulting 1233915 TO #3 Central Warranty 1,959.06 Services Services Inc Inspection 07/05/2017 R-102- 16 374 6000 Professional 6941 Stantec Consulting 1744475 TO #2 SCADA System Support - 1,907.05 Services Services Inc 02/04-03/03/2017, R-102-16

375 8100 Improvements 1364 Martam Construction 2017-A-P R-91-17 - 2017 CIP Cont A 425,811.12 Street & Utility 08/01- 08/29/2017 Total 580 - CIP - Water/Sewer 429,677.23

Total 00 - Non Departmental 501,146.83

Department: 30 - Finance 376 6015 Communication 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 55.13 Services 08/13/2017 377 6025 Administrative 1172 Third Millennium 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 1,164.77 Services Associates Inc 08/16/2017

Page 26 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 378 7500 Postage & Parcel 1172 Third Millennium 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 49.38 Associates Inc 08/16/2017 Total 30 - Finance 1,269.28

Total 500 - Water/Sewer Fund 502,416.11

Fund: 510 - City Owned Parking Fund 379 6305 R&M Equipment 1728 Total Parking Solutions 103924 Repair to Fare Boxes - 738.00 Inc 08/03/2017 380 7035 Supplies - 1527 Sherwin Williams 4119-9 Paint for Graffiti - Top Deck 4.39 Equipment R&M Library Guardrail

Total 510 - City Owned Parking Fund 742.39

Fund: 600 - Risk Management Fund 381 6005 Legal Fees 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542677 7-17 Non-Retainer PSEBA 1,323.00 Proceedings Total 600 - Risk Management Fund 1,323.00

Fund: 700 - Escrow Fund 382 2464 Hydrant Deposits 6982 Boldt Company, The Refund 08/25/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 1,100.00 08/25/2017 383 2464 Hydrant Deposits 6983 MTJ Sports Refund 08/25/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 1,100.00 08/25/2017 384 2486 Additional 6770 Sumit Construction Co 2017-0-P3 R-90-17 Contractor-2017 CIP 226.76 Contracts - Inc Concrete & Alley Imp 07/29- Engineering 08/25/17 385 2493 Escrow Projects 1050 Journal & Topics 174263 1/4 Page 4-Color Ad for Friday 305.00 Nights Live 08/16/2017

386 2493 Escrow Projects 1050 Journal & Topics 174297 1/4 Page 4-Color Ad for Friday 305.00 Nights Live 08/23/2017

387 2493 Escrow Projects 1498 Indestructo Rental 23679 Tents, Tables, Chairs, 1,774.00 Company Inc Umbrellas - Friday Nights Live 08/11/2017 388 2493 Escrow Projects 1498 Indestructo Rental 23693 Tents, Tables, Chairs, 1,774.00 Company Inc Umbrellas - Friday Nights Live 08/18/2017 389 2493 Escrow Projects 6364 Citywide Security 3324 Security Service for Friday 704.00 Group Inc Nights Live 07/07/2017 390 2493 Escrow Projects 6364 Citywide Security 3325 Security Service for Friday 704.00 Group Inc Nights Live 07/14/2017 391 2493 Escrow Projects 6364 Citywide Security 3326 Security Service for Friday 704.00 Group Inc Nights Live 07/21/2017 392 2493 Escrow Projects 6364 Citywide Security 3327 Security Service for Friday 704.00 Group Inc Nights Live 07/28/2017 Page 27 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 393 2493 Escrow Projects 6364 Citywide Security 3334 Security Service for Friday 704.00 Group Inc Nights Live 08/04/2017 394 2493 Escrow Projects 6364 Citywide Security 3335 Security Service for Friday 704.00 Group Inc Nights Live 08/11/2017 395 2493 Escrow Projects 6364 Citywide Security 3336 Security Service for Friday 704.00 Group Inc Nights Live 08/18/2017 396 2493 Escrow Projects 6364 Citywide Security 3337 Security Service for Friday 704.00 Group Inc Nights Live 08/25/2017 397 2493 Escrow Projects 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542655 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 572.00

398 2493 Escrow Projects 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5548863 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 295.00

399 2493 Escrow Projects 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5548951 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 3,002.00

400 2493 Escrow Projects 1498 Indestructo Rental 82517 Tents, Tables, Chairs, 1,774.00 Company Inc Umbrellas - Friday Nights Live 08/25/2017 Total 700 - Escrow Fund 17,859.76

Grand Total 1,533,226.42

Page 28 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Manual Checks Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Fund: 100 - General Fund City Administration Division: 230 - Information Technology 401 6015 Communication 1032 Comcast Cable 08/11/2017 Internet/Cable Service 08/18- 235.69 Services x1141 09/17/2017 402 6015 Communication 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 Internet/Cable Service Misc 19.05 Services 7 08/21-09/20/2017 403 6015 Communication 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 Internet/Cable Service x6044 146.96 Services 7A 08/21-09/20/2017 404 6015 Communication 1201 Sprint 655730511-186 Communication Service 07/02- 197.95 Services 08/01/2017 Total 230 - Information Technology 599.65

Total 20 - City Administration 599.65

Department: 30 - Finance 405 6125 Bank & CC Fees 5596 Cash N125648 Property Tax Payment Fee 25.00 128166 406 6125 Bank & CC Fees 5596 Cash N125650 Property Tax Payment Fee 25.00 128163 407 6125 Bank & CC Fees 5596 Cash N125651 Property Tax Payment Fee 25.00 128164 408 6125 Bank & CC Fees 5596 Cash N125658 Property Tax Payment Fee 25.00 128169 409 6125 Bank & CC Fees 5596 Cash N125761 Property Tax Payment Fee 25.00 128170 410 6125 Bank & CC Fees 5596 Cash N125762 Property Tax Payment Fee 25.00 128165 411 6125 Bank & CC Fees 5596 Cash N125766 Property Tax Payment Fee 25.00 128171 Total 30 - Finance 175.00

Public Works & Engineering Division: 530 - Street Maintenance 412 6015 Communication 1201 Sprint 655730511-186 Communication Service 07/02- 40.24 Services 08/01/2017 Total 530 - Street Maintenance 40.24

Total 50 - Public Works & Engineering 40.24

Police Department Division: 610 - Uniformed Patrol 413 6015 Communication 1032 Comcast Cable 08/18/2017 Internet/Cable Service for Sept 16.74 Services x6724 2017 Total 610 - Uniformed Patrol 16.74

Page 29 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Manual Checks Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Division: 620 - Criminal Investigation 414 6015 Communication 1201 Sprint 655730511-186 Communication Service 07/02- 37.99 Services 08/01/2017 Total 620 - Criminal Investigation 37.99

Total 60 - Police Department 54.73

Department: 65 - Emergency Management Agency 415 6015 Communication 1032 Comcast Cable 08/22/2017 Internet/Cable Service for Sept 14.65 Services x6716 2017 Total 65 - Emergency Management Agency 14.65

Department: 90 - Overhead 416 6015 Communication 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 Internet/Cable Service Misc (25.33) Services 7 08/21-09/20/2017 417 6015 Communication 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 Internet/Cable Service x1245 1,918.59 Services 7B 08/21-09/20/2017 418 6015 Communication 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 Internet/Cable Service x1246 1,003.53 Services 7C 08/21-09/20/2017 419 6015 Communication 1201 Sprint CR 655730511- Communication Service 07/02- (314.17) Services 186 08/01/2017 Total 90 - Overhead 2,582.62

Total 100 - General Fund 3,466.89

Fund: 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund 420 7110 Natural Gas 1064 Nicor 08/14/17 Natural Gas Service 07/14- 25.06 x550488 08/12/2017 421 7110 Natural Gas 1064 Nicor 08/14/17 Natural Gas Service 07/14- 25.06 x603131 08/14/2017 Total 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund 50.12

Fund: 250 - Grant Projects Fund Program: 2520 - Capital Grants 422 6195 Miscellaneous 6984 Sauerberg, Marilyn Refund 08/25/17 FEMA Flood Insurance 5,996.40 Contractual Reimbursement - 1935 Grant Services 423 6195 Miscellaneous 6985 Spranze, Joseph & Refund 08/25/17 FEMA Flood Insurance 11,417.20 Contractual Arlene Reimbursement - 1935 Grant Services 424 6195 Miscellaneous 6986 Stanley Lubash & Refund 08/25/17 FEMA Flood Insurance 11,537.05 Contractual Cynthia Michul Reimbursement - 4116 Grant Services Total 2520 - Capital Grants 28,950.65

Total 250 - Grant Projects Fund 28,950.65

Page 30 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Manual Checks Line # Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Fund: 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Department: 60 - Police Department 425 6015 Communication 1009 AT&T 708R06860008- Communication Service 07/16- 472.54 Services 17 08/15/2017 Total 60 - Police Department 472.54

Total 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund 472.54

Fund: 500 - Water/Sewer Fund Division: 550 - Water Systems 426 6015 Communication 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 Internet/Cable Service x0573 420.00 Services 7D 08/21-09/20/2017 427 6015 Communication 1201 Sprint 655730511-186 Communication Service 07/02- 37.99 Services 08/01/2017 428 7110 Natural Gas 1064 Nicor 08/15/17 Natural Gas Service 07/18- 85.20 x400005 08/15/2017 429 7110 Natural Gas 1064 Nicor 08/16/17 Natural Gas Service 07/18- 85.32 x054542 08/16/2017 430 7110 Natural Gas 1064 Nicor 08/17/17 Natural Gas Service 07/19- 128.83 x500005 08/17/2017 431 7110 Natural Gas 1064 Nicor 08/17/17 Natural Gas Service 07/19- 25.05 x500009 08/17/2017 Total 550 - Water Systems 782.39

Total 500 - Water/Sewer Fund 782.39

Grand Total 33,722.59

Page 31 of 32 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Summary

Amount Transfer Date Automated Accounts Payable $ 1,533,226.42 ** 9/18/2017 Manual Checks $ 33,722.59 ** 8/30/2017 Payroll $ 1,240,129.36 9/1/2017 RHS Payout $ - Electronic Transfer Activity: Bank of America Credit Card $ - Chicago Water Bill ACH $ - Postage Meter Direct Debits $ - Utility Billing Refunds $ 2,889.47 8/29/2017 First Merit Bank Fees $ - IMRF Payments $ 154,032.28 9/7/2017 FEMA Buyouts $ 605,000.00 9/5/2017 Employee Medical Trust

Total Cash Disbursements: $ 3,569,000.12

* Multiple transfers processed on and/or before date shown ** See attached report Adopted by the City Council of Des Plaines This Eighteenth Day of September 2017 Ayes ______Nays ______Absent ______

Jennifer Tsalapatanis, City Clerk

Matthew J. Bogusz, Mayor

Page 32 of 32

1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org

Date: September 7, 2017

To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager

From: Dorothy Wisniewski, Asst. City Manager/Director of Finance

Subject: Redemption of Outstanding Bonds Series 2007A and 2007B

Issue: For the City Council to authorize the redemption (early pay-off) of Series 2007A and 2007B Bonds.

Analysis: Over the past several years, the City Council has taken a proactive approach in paying off debt early in order to take advantage of the interest savings generated from such action. On December 1, 2017 Bond Series 2007A and 2007B become callable to the City, and therefore are candidates for an early pay-off opportunity. During the 2017 Budget process, the City Council authorized proceeding with an early pay-off on both of these series.

Table 1 below summarizes the outstanding balances after December 1, 2017 payments as well as the funding sources and maturity dates. The last column in the table provides the recommended course of action.

Table 1 Principal Bond Funding Amount Maturity Interest Proposed Issue Source Purpose Outstanding Date Savings Action

2007A CIP - Capital Street Portion 1,380,000 12/1/2021 133,570 Early Pay-Off Fire Station Land 2007B P-tax Levy (Lee & Prospect) 390,000 12/1/2021 38,000 Early Pay-Off Total 1,770,000 171,570

Redemption (Early Pay-off): The callable $1.77M G.O. Bonds, Series 2007A and 2007B were issued to refund 2001 bonds issued to finance street projects and purchase of the Lee and Prospect land for a potential fire station with the maturity date of December 1, 2021. By calling these bonds early and paying them off, the City will save approximately $172K in interest payments.

The total amount needed to pay off this debt on November 1, 2017 is estimated at $1,770,000 plus the December principal and interest payment of $342,110 for Series 2007A and $94,025 for Series 2007B, a total of $2,206,135. The early bond pay-off will be funded by the Capital Projects fund as well as the debt service fund. Paying this debt early will alleviate approximately $400K in expenditures within the Capital Projects

Page 1 of 4 fund that can be reallocated to future capital improvements on an annual basis. Additionally, the 2007B series will alleviate the property tax levy by approximately $100K.

Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council approve the attached Resolution providing for the redemption of outstanding G.O. Bonds, Series 2007A and 2007B.

Attachments: Attachment 1 – Resolution R-158-17

Page 2 of 4 CITY OF DES PLAINES

RESOLUTION R - 158 - 17

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CALLING AND PAYMENT OF ALL OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO SERIES 2007A AND SERIES 2007B GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS.______

WHEREAS, this resolution is authorized pursuant to the City’s powers under Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois; and

WHEREAS, on October 3, 2007, the City Council approved Ordinance M-60-07 which authorized the issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds in the maximum amount of $8,000,000 for the purpose of refunding previously borrowed funds associated with street projects along with the purchase of real property at the intersection of Lee Road and Prospect Avenue; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by Ordinance M-60-07, the City issued two series of bonds: (i) the Series 2007A Bonds which have a current principal amount outstanding of $1,380,000 (“Series 2007A Bonds”); and (ii) the Series 2007B Bonds which have a current principal amount outstanding of $390,000 (“Series 2007B Bonds”); and

WHEREAS, both the Series 2007A Bonds and Series 2007B Bonds shall become callable and eligible for early payoff as of December 1, 2017; and

WHEREAS, the City has sufficient funds available in the debt service and capital projects funds to pay the current principal amount outstanding as well as $436,135 in principal and interest due on the bonds through December 1, 2017; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute and attest such documents and the City Manager to make such payments as are necessary to call and pay all obligations related to the Series 2007A Bonds and the Series 2007B Bonds;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, County of Cook, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are incorporated here by reference.

SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF CALL. The City Council hereby approves the calling of the Series 2007A Bonds and Series 2007B Bonds as of December 1, 2017.

SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute and attest such documents as are necessary to call the Series

Attachment 1 Page 3 of 4 2007A Bonds and the Series 2007B Bonds and authorizes the City Manager to make such payments necessary to satisfy all obligations related to said bond series.

SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law.

PASSED this ____ day of ______, 2017.

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____

MAYOR

ATTEST: Approved as to form:

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org

MEMORANDUM

Date: September 6, 2017

To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED AP, City Manager

From: Michael McMahon, Community and Economic Development Director Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner

Subject: Consideration of Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Avenue, Case #17- 055-SUB (5th Ward)

Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

Analysis: Address: 619 Howard Avenue

Owner: Coleman McDonagh, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631

Petitioner: Kyle Kulala, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631

Case Number: 17-055-SUB

Real Estate Index Number: 09-30-401-006-0000

Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman

Existing Zoning R-1, Single-Family Residential District

Existing Land Use Formerly a single-family home that was recently demolished; lot currently vacant

Surrounding Zoning North: R-1, Single-Family Residential District South: R-1, Single-Family Residential District East: R-1, Single-Family Residential District West: R-1, Single-Family Residential District

Page 1 of 18 Surrounding Land Use North: Maine West High School; Single-family residential South: Single-family residential East: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential

Street Classification The Comprehensive Plan designates Howard Avenue as a collector street

Comprehensive Plan Residential – Traditional Single Family is the recommended use of the property

Project Description The applicant, Kyle Kulala, proposes to subdivide an existing 19,550 square- foot lot at 619 Howard Avenue into two lots. Lot 1 will have a width of a 60 feet and an area of 9,770 square feet. Lot 2 will have a width of 60 feet and an area of 9,780 square feet. Both proposed lots meet the required area and width for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

A single-family home and detached garage on the original lot were recently demolished. The site is currently vacant. Once subdivided, the applicant proposes to build a single-family residence on each of the two lots.

Final Plat Report

Name of Subdivision: McDonagh’s Subdivision

Address: 619 Howard Avenue

Request: Approval of Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision

Total Acreage of Subdivision: 0.449 acres

Lot Descriptions and Construction Plans: The petitioner’s Final Plat of Subdivision shows the existing 19,550 square-foot lot being subdivided into two lots with areas of 9,770 square feet (Lot 1) and 9,780 square feet (Lot 2). The Final Plat of Subdivision shows a 10-foot public utility and drainage easement in the rear of the property and a 35-foot building line in the front of the property.

The proposed lots meet the minimum lot area and width required for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District and are consistent with the surrounding residential community.

Planning and Zoning Board Review: The Planning and Zoning Board met on August 22, 2017, to consider a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots at 619 Howard Avenue in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. The petitioner presented the proposed Plat of Subdivision for McDonagh’s Subdivision. The petitioner stated that they recently demolished the single-family home on the property and that he plans to construct two new single- family homes, one on each of the new lots. No members of the public spoke on behalf of the proposal, either for or against.

The Planning and Zoning Board, after having heard and fully considering the evidence, recommended (6-0)

Page 2 of 18 that the City Council approve the Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, subject to the six conditions listed below and in the staff report.

Conditions: 1. Submit a Grading and Drainage plan with NAVD 88 vertical datum, and an AutoCAD disk with Illinois State Plane coordinates. Please refer to www.desplaines.org for further guidelines for development; 2. A sidewalk escrow for the entire frontage length of the subdivision is required; 3. Connect water service to the 12” water main on the north side of Howard Avenue via the directional bore method. Do not connect to the 16” or 24” water mains which are closer since they are transmission mains; 4. Rear yard catch basins and storm sewer are required; 5. Remove and replace the fences along west and east sides of the subdivision; 6. Remove the remaining tree and stump from the northwest corner of the subdivision. 7. 5’ side yard easements for drainage and utilities are required for both lots.

Recommendations: I recommend approval of Resolution R - 157 - 17 approving the Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, subject to the conditions listed above per the Public Works and Engineering Department.

Pursuant to Section 13-2-8 of the Municipal Code, the City Council has the authority to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application.

It is requested that this item be placed on the Committee of the Whole agenda at the September 18, 2017 City Council meeting.

JB/jb

Attachments: Attachment 1: Subdivision Application Attachment 2: Location Map Attachment 3: Site and Context Photos Attachment 4: Plat of Survey Attachment 5: Letter from Planning & Zoning Board to the Mayor Attachment 6: Minutes of the August 22, 2017 Planning & Zoning Board hearing

Exhibits: Resolution R - 157 - 17 Approving Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Avenue. Exhibit A: Final Plat of Subdivision, prepared by Gremley & Biederman, and last revised on August 9, 2017.

Page 3 of 18 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 18 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 18 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 18

Attachment 3

619 Howard Avenue – View Looking Southwest 619 Howard Avenue – Public Notice

Page 7 of 18

619 Howard Avenue – View Looking East 619 Howard Avenue – View Looking North from Rear of Yard

Attachment 4 Page 8 of 18 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org

August 23, 2017

Mayor Bogusz and Des Plaines City Council CITY OF DES PLAINES

Subject: Planning and Zoning Board, 619 Howard Avenue, 17-055-SUB, 5th Ward RE: Consideration of a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision at 619 Howard Avenue

Honorable Mayor and Members of the Des Plaines City Council:

The Planning and Zoning Board met on August 22, 2017, to consider a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots at 619 Howard Avenue in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

1. The Petitioner presented the proposed Plat of Subdivision for McDonagh’s Subdivision, which is comprised of two 60-foot wide lots. 2. The Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of the requested Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision. They stated that the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area and width requirements for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District and are consistent with the surrounding residential community.

3. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended (6-0) that the City Council approve the Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, subject to the six conditions listed in the staff report.

Respectfully submitted,

James Szabo, Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board, Chairman

Cc: City Officials Aldermen

Attachment 5 Page 9 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 1

DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING

August 22, 2017 MINUTES

The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.

ZONING BOARD

PRESENT: Bader, Catalano, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo

ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development Lauren Pruss, AICP, Coordinator/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary

Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Roll call was conducted.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to approve the minutes of August 8, 2017 as submitted.

AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Bader, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo

NAYES: None

***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***

PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments.

PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS

1. Address: 77 Rand Road Case 17-064-SUB

The petitioner is requesting a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two lots in the C-3 General Commercial District.

PIN: 09-07-100-035-0000

Petitioner: Bradley Mayer, 3075 Highland Parkway, Suite 600, Downers Grove, IL 60515

Attachment 6 Page 10 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 4

Conditions of Approval: 1. Submit a Grading and Drainage plan with NAVD 88 vertical datum, and an AutoCAD disk with Illinois State Plane coordinates. Please refer to www.desplaines.org for further guidelines for development; 2. A public sidewalk shall be constructed across the entire frontage; 3. An easement for a future side path in the right-of-way is required; 4. IDOT may require a right turn lane to be constructed off of Rand Road; 5. Need NPDES, MWRD WMO, and IDOT permits; 6. Lighting will have to be designed with adjacent single-family residences in mind; 7. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer shall be connected to existing on-site utilities; 8. A new water service shall be constructed in the Rand Road right-of-way; 9. Need to verify with MWRD that volume control and detention for Lot 1 are already included; 10. Verify ingress/egress language.

Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Final Plat of Subdivision.

Chairman Szabo asked if a stand-alone restaurant is allowable. Coordinator Pruss stated if it is built to code.

Board Member Hofherr asked: • on the new lots, if left and right turns are allowed on Rand Road. Petitioner advised – yes • if Petitioner is aware of the 10 Conditions. Senior Planner Bye advised these Conditions are recommended by the City Engineer. Petitioner inquired about grading. Senior Planner Bye stated a meeting could be arranged with the City Engineer. A right turn is not required onto Rand Road; the new buyer could manage that. Petitioner addressed other conditions. New owner would remove inoperable lighting and replace same.

Chairman Szabo asked if there are further questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded.

A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Schell, to recommend approval to City Council with the 10 Conditions being further reviewed before submission to City Council.

AYES: Hofherr, Schell, Bader, Catalano, Saletnik, Szabo

NAYES: None

***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***

Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council.

2. Address: 619 Howard Avenue Case 17-055-SUB

PIN: 09-30-401-006-0000

Attachment 6 Page 11 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 5

Petitioner: Kyle Kulala, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631

Owner: Coleman McDonagh, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631

Chairman Szabo swore in Coleman McDonagh, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL who advised the request is to subdivide the lot. A family home was there and demolished. Two residential homes are slated.

Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions.

Board Member Hofherr stated/asked: • since the photos were taken, shrubs were removed • if Petitioner has talked with the neighbors. Petitioner advised – yes, on both side, and they are excited; could increase their values. Fence lines will be corrected. • if neighbors are concerned about size. Petitioner advised – no • Petitioner if the Alderman spoke with him. Petitioner advised – no

Chairman Szabo asked: • if Petitioner is the builder. Petitioner advised – yes • if there is a rendering. Petitioner advised – no, and stated he wishes to obtain approval for subdivision before producing a rendering. The homes will be all brick, 2,500-3,000 sq. ft., with custom cabinetry, hand railings, two-car garages. Chairman Szabo commented he regrets the City has done away with the ARC (Architectural Review Commission) as it is important.

Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. There were none. He asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did:

Analysis:

Owner: Coleman McDonagh, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631

Petitioner: Kyle Kulala, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631

Case Number: 17-055-SUB

Real Estate Index Number: 09-30-401-006-0000

Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman

Existing Zoning R-1, Single-Family Residential District

Existing Land Use Formerly a single-family home that was recently demolished; lot currently vacant

Surrounding Zoning North: R-1, Single-Family Residential District South: R-1, Single-Family Residential District East: R-1, Single-Family Residential District

Attachment 6 Page 12 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 6

West: R-1, Single-Family Residential District

Surrounding Land Use North: Maine West High School; Single-family residential South: Single-family residential East: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential

Street Classification The Comprehensive Plan designates Howard Avenue as a collector street

Comprehensive Plan Residential – Traditional Single Family is the recommended use of the property

Project Description The applicant, Kyle Kulala, proposes to subdivide an existing 19,550 square-foot lot at 619 Howard Avenue into two lots. Lot 1 will have a width of a 60 feet and an area of 9,770 square feet. Lot 2 will have a width of 60 feet and an area of 9,780 square feet. Both proposed lots meet the required area and width for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.

Final Plat of Subdivision Report

Name of Subdivision: McDonagh’s Subdivision

Address: 619 Howard Avenue

Request: Approval of Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision

Total Acreage of Subdivision: 0.449 acres

Final Comments

Staff Recommendation: I recommend approval of the Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, subject to the conditions listed below per the Public Works and Engineering Department. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot area and width required for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District and are consistent with the surrounding residential community.

Attachment 6 Page 13 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 7

Conditions of Approval: 1. Submit a Grading and Drainage plan with NAVD 88 vertical datum, and an AutoCAD disk with Illinois State Plane coordinates. Please refer to www.desplaines.org for further guidelines for development; 2. A sidewalk escrow for the entire frontage length of the subdivision is required; 3. Connect water service to the 12” water main on the north side of Howard Avenue via the directional bore method. Do not connect to the 16” or 24” water mains which are closer since they are transmission mains; 4. Rear yard catch basins and storm sewer are required; 5. Remove and replace the fences along west and east sides of the subdivision; 6. Remove the remaining tree and stump from the northwest corner of the subdivision.

Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioner is aware of all Conditions. Chair provided a handout to Petitioner. After reviewing, Petitioner advised he has no issues.

Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded.

A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to recommend approval with 6 Conditions.

AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Bader, Hofherr, Schell, Szabo

NAYES: None

***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***

Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council.

3. Address: Citywide Case 17-055-SUB

City-initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines’ Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels.

Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Coordinator Pruss shared that a vendor requested this proposed change. After consulting with the City Attorney, minimal changes were made (H1 was added). This Amendment does not allow new billboards, just existing converting billboards. Sections H-2 and 12-11-6 were referenced and explained.

Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions.

Board Member Schell asked how one provides information that it is legal. Coordinator Pruss stated if a permit is valid (plat of survey, images, setback could be submitted) etc.

Chairman Szabo asked Mr. Lupo with Lamar Advertising if there is a sign in question. He swore in Mr.

Attachment 6 Page 14 of 18 CITY OF DES PLAINES

RESOLUTION R - 157 - 17

A RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE AND FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION FOR 619 HOWARD AVENUE, DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS (CASE# 17-055-SUB).

WHEREAS, Kyle Kulala ("Applicant"), is the owner of the property commonly known as 619 Howard Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois ("Subject Property"); and

WHEREAS, the Subject Property is a single lot of record consisting of approximately 19,550 square feet (.449 acres); and

WHEREAS, Applicant desires to subdivide the Subject Property into two lots of record consisting of approximately 9,770 square feet ("Lot 1") and 9,780 square feet ("Lot 2"); and

WHEREAS, Applicant submitted an application for subdivision of the Subject Property; and

WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017 the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Des Plaines ("PZB") held a public hearing to consider approval of the tentative and final plat of the Subject Property ("Final Plat"), and, after considering the facts and reviewing the Final Plat, the PZB voted, by a vote of 6-0, to recommend approval of the Final Plat subject to a condition that the Applicant agree to construct certain improvements prior to developing the Subject Property; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13-2-8.A of the City Code of the City of Des Plaines, the City Council has the power to approve, by resolution duly adopted, the Final Plat, with all improvements, conditions, variations, public ways and recorded easements and documents pertaining to the subdivision platted thereon; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is in the best interest of the City to approve the Final Plat;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des

Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows;

SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as the findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. The Subject

Property is legally described as follows:

Page 15 of 18 LOT 6 (EXCEPT THE NORTH 5 FEET OF SAID LOT) IN BLOCK 2 IN DOUGLAS MANOR, A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINICPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.

PIN: 09-30-401-006-0000

Commonly known as 619 Howard Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois.

SECTION 3: APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT. The City Council hereby approves the

Final Plat for the Subject Property, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as

Exhibit A, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, and the City Clerk to attest and seal, with the corporate seal of the City of Des Plaines, the original Final Plat, prepared by Gremley &

Biederman, consisting of two sheets, and with a latest revision date of August 9, 2017.

SECTION 4: RECORDATION OF FINAL PLAT. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Clerk to cause the executed and sealed Final Plat to be recorded with the office of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds.

SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

Page 16 of 18

PASSED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____

MAYOR

ATTEST: Approved as to form:

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

DP-Resolution Approving Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Ave

Page 17 of 18 Page 18 of 18 Exhibit A COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 29, 2017

To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED AP, City Manager

From: Michael McMahon, Community and Economic Development Director Lauren Pruss, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator

Subject: Consideration of a Text Amendment to Sections 12-11-5 and 12-11-6 of the Zoning Code and Section 10-13-2, Case #17-057-TA (Citywide)

Issue: City initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Title 12 Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels.

Analysis: Zoning Code Text Amendment Report

PIN: Citywide

Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Project Description: An Amendment is requested to Sections 12-11-5 and 12-11-6 of the Zoning Code to allow billboard signs to have digital LED panels. The proposed text would only permit LED panels for those billboards that 1) currently meet all provisions of the sign ordinance, 2) were lawfully erected, and 3) are located within 660 feet of either I-90 or I-294. Existing nonconforming billboard signs may be permitted to convert to LED panels subject to conditional use approval. Limitations are included on the size, frequency/duration of the message, and level of luminescence. Additionally, all billboard signs with LED panels will be required to display City sponsored messages to include without limitation Amber Alerts, FBI wanted messages, weather alerts, and messages promoting City sponsored events.

Section 10-13-2: Fees for Permits is requested to be amended to include a $250 fee for any permit issued in compliance with this code and a separate fee for electrical and/or structural permits of 1.5% of the value of the alteration or $500.00, whichever is greater. The code enforcement officer may, at his discretion, require a

Page 1 of 21 third-party inspection of the billboard or electronic message board billboard. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of any third-party inspection.

Standards for Zoning Code Text Amendment: To analyze this text amendment request, the standards for amendments contained in Section 12-3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance are used. Following is a discussion of those standards.

1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council;

2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development;

The City currently has a significant number of billboards both along the tollway corridors and away from the tollway corridors. The amendment does not allow additional billboards to be built, but will allow those billboard signs that are conforming to be modernized to reflect the most current technology and advertising methods. Since the proposed amendment should only affect existing billboards, it would not significantly alter the overall character of development.

3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property;

The proposed amendment will not detrimentally affect the adequacy of public facilities and available services. In fact, the amendment would improve the ability for the City to disseminate critical public safety announcements.

4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and

The proposed amendment will have a positive effect on the value of the billboard property. The amendment should not pose a detrimental effect to any residential areas due to the existing setback requirements for billboards within the sign code.

5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. (Ord. Z-8-98, 9-21-1998)

The proposed amendment is narrowly tailored to apply only to those billboards that were lawfully erected and are located within the tollway corridors, and as such represents a reasonable and responsible standard for the modernization of billboard signs.

Planning and Zoning Board: On July 25, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing regarding the draft text amendment. At the hearing, a representative of Lamar, a billboard company, inquired whether the ordinance would allow for the conversion of an existing non-conforming billboard to LED panels. After reviewing the text of the code, staff recommended a continuance to the August 22, 2017 meeting to give staff the ability to further review and revise the ordinance if necessary. After consulting with the City Attorney, minor changes were

Page 2 of 21 made to the draft ordinance to clarify under what conditions a non-conforming sign may convert to LED.

At its August 22, 2016 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board heard the case again unanimously recommended approval of the proposed text amendment.

Recommendation: I recommend approval of Ordinance Z - 21 - 17 amending Sections 12-11-5 and 12-11-6 of the Zoning Code and Section 10-13-2 of the Municipal Code.

Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D of the Zoning Code, the City Council has the authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned zoning request.

It is requested that this item be placed on the Committee of the Whole agenda at the September 18, 2017 City Council meeting.

Attachments: Attachment 1: Letter from Planning & Zoning Board to the Mayor Attachment 2: Draft Minutes excerpt of the July 25, 2017 and August 22, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Attachment 3: Ordinance Z - 21 - 17

Page 3 of 21 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org

November 4, 2016

Mayor Bogusz and Des Plaines City Council CITY OF DES PLAINES

Subject: Consideration of Text Amendment to Section 12-3-5.B and 12-11-6.B of the Zoning Code, Case #16-071-TA

Honorable Mayor and Members of the Des Plaines City Council:

The Planning and Zoning Board met on October 25, 2016 to consider a text amendment to Section 12-3-5.B and 12-11-6.B of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to eliminate the minimum required Planned Unit Development (PUD) standard for lot area per dwelling unit for residential developments.

1. The Community and Economic Development Department presented the text amendment information. 2. The Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of the requested text amendment.

3. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended (5-0) that the City Council approve the text amendment to Section 12-3-5.B and 12-11-6.B of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to permit residential planned unit developments in the R-1 zone and to modify the requirements for electronic message boards.

Respectfully submitted,

James Szabo, Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board, Chairman

Cc: City Officials Aldermen

Attachment 1 Page 4 of 21 Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 1

DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING

JULY 25, 2017 MINUTES

The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.

ZONING BOARD

PRESENT: Bader, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo

ABSENT: Catalano, Green

ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development Lauren Pruss, AICP, Coordinator/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary

Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and read this evening’s case. Roll call was conducted.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to approve the minutes of July 11, 2017 as submitted.

AYES: Hofherr, Saletnik, Bader, Szabo

ABSTAIN: Schell

NAYES: None

***MOTION CARRIED 4-0***

PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments.

CONTINUED FROM JULY 11, 2017

1. Address: 1692 Whitcomb Avenue Case 17-045-APL

The petitioner is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a Minor Variation under Sections 12-9-6 and 12-7-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow an 11’-wide parking pad in a front yard and a 3’6”-wide sidewalk, instead of not more than 3’, in the R-1 Single Family Residential District.

PIN: 09-21-303-027-0000

Petitioner: Shafee Baig, 1692 Whitcomb Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018

Attachment 2 Page 5 of 21 Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 6

A motion was made by Board Member Schell to proceed with an alteration plan, meet with Staff, and pay the $750 fine.

Discussion on options took place. Board Member Schell withdrew the motion and restated the following:

A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to deny this petition.

AYES: Schell, Hofherr, Bader, Saletnik, Szabo

NAYES: None

***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***

Chairman Szabo stated Mr. Baig may not wish to use the former concrete contractor.

PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS

2. Address: Citywide Case 17-057-TA

City-initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines’ Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels.

Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Coordinator Pruss offered the Staff Report:

Issue: City initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels.

Analysis:

Zoning Code Text Amendment Report

PIN: Citywide

Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Project Description:

An Amendment is requested to the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance to change the Text to allow billboard signs to have digital LED panels. The proposed text would only permit LED panels for those billboards that 1) currently meet all provisions of the sign ordinance, 2) were lawfully erected, and 3) are located within 660 feet of either I-90 or I-294. Existing nonconforming billboard signs may be permitted to convert to LED panels subject to conditional use approval. Limitations are included on the size, frequency/duration of the message, and level of luminescence. Additionally, all billboard signs with LED panels will be required to display City sponsored messages to include without limitation Amber Alerts, FBI wanted messages, weather alerts, and messages promoting City sponsored events.

Attachment 2 Page 6 of 21 Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 7

Standards for Zoning Code Text Amendment:

To analyze this text amendment request, the standards for amendments contained in Section 12-3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance are used. Following is a discussion of those standards.

1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council;

2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development;

3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property;

4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and

5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. (Ord. Z-8-98, 9-21-1998)

Recommendation:

The Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended.

Attachment 2 Page 7 of 21 Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 8

Planning & Zoning Board Procedure:

Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D.3 of the Zoning Code, the Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Text Amendment.

Board Member Schell asked Staff to add flood language; Coordinator Pruss concurred.

Board Member Hofherr asked Staff when signs are approved for conversions, if fees will be levied. Coordinator Pruss advised – they would be $250.00 though licensing fees will not be applied. This will be regulated through the Sign Ordinance.

Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. There were none. He asked if anyone is in favor or objects to this proposal. An audience member came forward noting he has questions. Chairman Szabo swore in:  Chris Lupo, Lamar Advertising, 500 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL

Mr. Lupo asked if there is a possibility, rather than go through the process for when a sign was initially erected illegally, if the face that does not affect the residential area could be converted to digital with a reduction on sign size. He asked if the Text Amendment could be tweaked to allow a sign that is reduced in size. Mr. Lupo asked, regarding a sign conversion, if the head must be removed and another face applied.

Coordinator Pruss stated panels could be removed or panels would have to be repaired. She will discuss the recommendation with the City of Des Plaines’ Legal Department.

Board Member Saletnik asked if LED lighting is that heavy. Mr. Lupo advised it is heavier.

Board Member Schell stated it is important not to favor or burden an entity.

Chairman Szabo asked if Mr. Lupo saw the Draft Amendment. Mr. Lupo advised he did.

A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Schell, to continue this matter to the August 22, 2017, PZB meeting so that revisions may be discussed with the Legal Department.

AYES: Hofherr, Schell, Bader, Saletnik, Szabo

NAYES: None

***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***

ADJOURNMENT On a voice vote, Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m.

Sincerely,

Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners

Attachment 2 Page 8 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 1

DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING

August 22, 2017 MINUTES

The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.

ZONING BOARD

PRESENT: Bader, Catalano, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo

ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development Lauren Pruss, AICP, Coordinator/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary

Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Roll call was conducted.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to approve the minutes of August 8, 2017 as submitted.

AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Bader, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo

NAYES: None

***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***

PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments.

PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS

1. Address: 77 Rand Road Case 17-064-SUB

PIN: 09-07-100-035-0000

Petitioner: Bradley Mayer, 3075 Highland Parkway, Suite 600, Downers Grove, IL 60515

Attachment 2 Page 9 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 7

Conditions of Approval: 1. Submit a Grading and Drainage plan with NAVD 88 vertical datum, and an AutoCAD disk with Illinois State Plane coordinates. Please refer to www.desplaines.org for further guidelines for development; 2. A sidewalk escrow for the entire frontage length of the subdivision is required; 3. Connect water service to the 12” water main on the north side of Howard Avenue via the directional bore method. Do not connect to the 16” or 24” water mains which are closer since they are transmission mains; 4. Rear yard catch basins and storm sewer are required; 5. Remove and replace the fences along west and east sides of the subdivision; 6. Remove the remaining tree and stump from the northwest corner of the subdivision.

Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioner is aware of all Conditions. Chair provided a handout to Petitioner. After reviewing, Petitioner advised he has no issues.

Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded.

A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to recommend approval with 6 Conditions.

AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Bader, Hofherr, Schell, Szabo

NAYES: None

***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***

Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council.

3. Address: Citywide Case 17-057-TA

City-initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines’ Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels.

Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions.

Board Member Schell asked how one provides information that it is legal. Coordinator Pruss stated if a permit is valid (plat of survey, images, setback could be submitted) etc.

Chairman Szabo asked Mr. Lupo with Lamar Advertising if there is a sign in question. He swore in Mr.

Attachment 2 Page 10 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 8

Lupo who identified his 5 signs. He noted one legal, non-conforming sign does not have today’s setback requirement (under Code). Coordinator Pruss stated she is not aware of other non-conforming signs but is quite familiar with Mr. Lupo’s sign and explained the challenge and new amenable language to the code.

Chairman Szabo asked about the Board’s input on LED signs in the area, asked if there are objections, and noted it is common.

Mr. Lupo asked about Provision H. Coordinator Pruss responded accordingly.

Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Coordinator Pruss did:

Issue: City initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels.

Analysis:

Zoning Code Text Amendment Report

PIN: Citywide

Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016

Project Description:

The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing regarding the draft text amendment on July 25, 2017. At the hearing, a representative of Lamar, a billboard company, inquired whether the ordinance would allow for the conversion of an existing non-conforming billboard to LED panels. After reviewing the text of the code, staff recommended a continuance to the August 22, 2017 meeting to give staff the ability to further review and revise the ordinance if necessary. After consulting with the City Attorney, minor changes were made to the draft ordinance to clarify under what conditions a non-conforming sign may convert to LED.

Standards for Zoning Code Text Amendment:

To analyze this text amendment request, the standards for amendments contained in Section 12-3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance are used. Following is a discussion of those standards.

Attachment 2 Page 11 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 9

1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council;

The City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2007, does not specifically address billboards, and as such, the proposed change is not inconsistent with the goal and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development;

4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and

5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. (Ord. Z-8-98, 9-21-1998)

Recommendation:

The Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended.

Planning & Zoning Board Procedure:

Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D.3 of the Zoning Code, the Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority

Attachment 2 Page 12 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 10

over the Text Amendment.

Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded.

Mr. Lupo asked about Page 6 regarding regular rotation. Coordinator Pruss concurred there could be different terms prior to issuance of a permit. He asked if, when 8 spots on an electric message board are filled, the City advertising could be relocated. Coordinator Pruss stated this would be under the terms of the agreement.

A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to recommend approval to City Council.

AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Bader, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo

NAYES: None

***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***

Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council.

As Coordinator Pruss accepted a new position, Board Member Schell stated he would like to introduce a Resolution to Coordinator Pruss for all of her hard work while with the City of Des Plaines. Coordinator Pruss thanked everyone, and advised she will be going to the Village of Palos Park as Director of Community Development.

ADJOURNMENT On a voice vote, Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m.

Sincerely,

Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary

cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners

Attachment 2 Page 13 of 21 CITY OF DES PLAINES

ORDINANCE Z - 21 - 17

AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 12 AND CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 10 OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES CITY CODE (CASE# 17-057-TA).

WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipal corporation in accordance with Article VII, Section 6(a) of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 11 of Title 12 of the City of Des Plaines City Code, as amended ("City Code"), sets forth certain standards and regulations for signs based on the sign type, including electronic message boards and billboards; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 13 of Title 10 of the City Code sets forth certain permit fees for construction regulations, including signs; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the City Code to allow billboard signs to have digital LED panels and to add a permit fee for billboards signs with digital LED panels ("Text Amendments"); and

WHEREAS, a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board ("PZB") to consider the Text Amendments was duly advertised in the Journal on July 7, 2017, and held on August 22, 2017; and

WHEREAS, the PZB voted to recommend approval of the Text Amendments by a vote of 7-0, which recommendation the PZB forwarded in writing to the City Council on August 29, 2017; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the factors set forth in Section 12-3-7.E, titled "Standards for Amendments," of the Zoning Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the Text Amendments as set forth in this Ordinance;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Des

Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by

reference and made a part hereof.

Attachment 3 Page 14 of 21 SECTION 2. FINDING OF COMPLIANCE. The City Council finds that consideration of the Text Amendment has complied with the provisions of Section 12-3-7 of the Zoning

Ordinance.

SECTION 3. SIGNS.

A. Section 5, titled “Sign Standards by Sign Type,” of Chapter 11, titled "Signs," of

Title 12, titled “Zoning,” of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“12-11-5: SIGN STANDARDS BY SIGN TYPE:

* * *

G. Electronic Message Boards:

1. Electronic Message Board Requirements And Limitations: Electronic message boards shall be permitted only when incorporated within a new or existing pole sign or monument sign (this shall not include billboards except as permitted in accordance with subsection 12-11-5.H of this chapter). The overall sign must comply with all existing standards and regulations as set forth in this chapter regarding pole signs and monument signs. Electronic message boards incorporated into an approved sign shall be subject to the standards and regulations as set forth in section 12- 11-6 of this chapter.

* * *

H. Electronic Message Board Billboard: The static billboard panels of a qualified billboard may be converted to electronic message board panels only pursuant to an electronic message board billboard permit issued by the city, and subject to the standards and regulations for electronic message board billboards set forth in section 12-11-6 of this chapter. For the purposes of this subsection, a qualified billboard must meet the following criteria:

1. The billboard was erected prior to the effective date of this ordinance. If the billboard is relocated in accordance with section 12-11-10.C this chapter, the date the billboard was originally erected, prior to relocation, will be determinative.

2. The billboard must be a legally conforming billboard. For the purposes of this section only, an applicant for an electronic message board billboard permit may establish that the existing billboard is legally conforming by either:

a. providing proof that the existing billboard was erected pursuant to a valid permit issued by the city; or

Attachment 3 Page 15 of 21 b. providing documentation to show that the existing billboard conforms with all of the standards and regulations as set forth for billboards in section 12-11-6 of this chapter except for the permit requirement.

c. Notwithstanding section 12-11-10 of this chapter, if a billboard is not legally conforming in accordance with Subsections H.2.a or H.2.b of this section, the removal and replacement of the sign in the same location for the sole purpose of converting the static panels to electronic message board panels is permitted only as a conditional use pursuant to section 12-3-4 of this title, and subject to the standards and regulations for electronic message board billboards as set forth in section 12-11-6 of this chapter.

3. The billboard must have a valid IDOT sign permit;

4. The billboard must be located within 660 feet of I-90 or I-294.”

B. Section 6, titled “Regulation by District Classification,” of Chapter 11, titled

"Signs," of Title 12, titled “Zoning,” of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“12-11-6: REGULATION BY DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION

* * *

B. Commercial, Manufacturing And Institutional Districts: It shall be unlawful for any person to construct or maintain a sign in any commercial district, manufacturing district, or the I-1 institutional district, except as follows. For the purposes of providing sign uniformity, a property may incorporate both wall and monument signs or wall and pole signs; however, the use of monument signs in conjunction with pole signs is prohibited.

Monument or pole signs containing electronic message boards shall be subject to the same standards as set forth in this subsection, except that only one electronic message board will be permitted per lot. In the event that a single business exists on multiple lots or in the case of a business park or retail center, only one electronic message board will be permitted overall. (Ord. Z-32-14, 12-15-2014)

Sign Type Number, Area, Height, And Other Limitations * * * * * * Billboards Billboards shall be permitted only within the C-1, C-2, C-3, M-1, M-2 and I-1 districts and located within 660 feet of I-90 and I-294 toll roads.

Structure must be in compliance with the Illinois department of transportation regulations and a valid current IDOT permit 3

Attachment 3 Page 16 of 21 must be presented with the application for city permits.

The city shall cause to be permitted no more than 12 permits for outdoor advertising structures (billboards) under subsection 12-11- 3C3, "Billboard Permits", of this chapter. As of amendatory ordinance Z-24-05, all 12 permits have been allocated to permittees.

Total surface area of the signs shall not exceed 1,200 square feet per face and 2,400 total square feet for a double faced sign.

Height of the sign shall not exceed 99 feet from the base of the pole to the top of the structure or 65 feet from the surface of the pavement of the lane closest to the structure, except as otherwise provided by a limited variation ordinance adopted by council.

All billboards must meet the spacing requirements as required by the Illinois advertising control act.

No portion of a billboard shall be allowed within 300 feet of a residential property line. This distance shall be measured at ground level from a line perpendicular to the closest part of the billboard to the residential property line.

A billboard for which a permit record does not exist but otherwise meets all of development standards for billboards as set forth in this 12-11-6.B is a legally conforming billboard for the purposes of this chapter.

* * * * * * Electronic message board billboards The electronic message board panel must not exceed the square footage of the static panel replaced by the electronic message board panel or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less.

The electronic message board panel must face away from and may not direct light 4

Attachment 3 Page 17 of 21 onto any residentially zoned lot or lot improved with residential structure.

The electronic message board must be adequately screened from any residential zoning district.

The electronic message board panel may only face the I-90 or I-294 rights of way.

The applicant must submit an affidavit stating that all required permits or approvals from IDOT, the FAA, or any other government or regulatory agency or body with proper jurisdiction, have been obtained for the proposed electronic message board billboard.

The images and text displayed on the electronic message board may be changed no more frequently than once every 10 seconds or as established by federal or state guidelines for digital signage along an interstate, whichever is greater. Each change must be completed in one second or less.

Sounds, animation, moving video, flashing, blinking, spinning, or any other appearance of movement are prohibited.

The sign must possess an ambient light sensor and utilize automatic dimming capabilities so that the maximum luminescence level is not more than 0.3 foot candles over ambient light levels measured as close to perpendicular to the sign face as possible and measured from the appropriate distance as set forth in the table below:

Sign Face Size Distance from which to Measure Under 300 square 150 feet feet 300-385 square feet 200 feet 386-680 square feet 250 feet 5

Attachment 3 Page 18 of 21 681-1200 square 350 feet feet

The applicant, with written permission from the landowner, must apply for and obtain the following permits from the city prior to performing any alterations to the existing billboard: (a) a building permit for the electronic message board panels and support structure; and (b) an electronic message board billboard sign permit. Plans prepared by a licensed structural engineer are must be submitted with the permit application.

City sponsored messages must be made available for display on the electronic message board on a regular rotation, as determined by agreement between the City and the applicant. City sponsored messages include without limitation Amber Alerts, FBI wanted messages, weather alerts, and messages promoting City sponsored events. The City sponsored messages will be displayed at no cost to the City. * * * * * *”

C. Section 10, titled “Fees for Permits,” of Chapter 13, titled "Construction

Regulations Fee Schedule," of Title 10, titled “Construction Regulations,” of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“10-13-2 Fees for Permits:

For any permit issued in compliance with this code, a fee shall be paid in accordance with the following schedules:

PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE

* * * Signs * * * Billboard and Electronic Message Board $250.007 Billboard Signs * * * * * *

Attachment 3 Page 19 of 21 Notes: * * *

7. Additional fees for electrical and/or structural permits may apply. The fee for the structural permit shall be 1.5% of the value of the alteration or $500.00, whichever is greater. The code enforcement officer may, at his discretion, require a third-party inspection of the billboard or electronic message board billboard. The applicant is responsible for the cost of any third-party inspection.”

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any paragraph, section, clause or provision of this

Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect without affecting the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form according to law.

[SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW]

Attachment 3 Page 20 of 21

PASSED this day of , 2017

APPROVED this day of , 2017

VOTE: Ayes Nays Absent

MAYOR ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

Published in pamphlet form this Approved as to form: ____ day of ______, 2017

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

[NOTE: New Language is Bolded and Double Underlined.]

DP-Ordinance Amending Zoning Code re Billboard Signs and LED Panels Add Permit Fee

Attachment 3 Page 21 of 21 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org

MEMORANDUM

Date: May 30, 2017

To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager

From: Michael McMahon, Community and Economic Development Director Lauren Pruss, Economic Development Coordinator

Subject: Business Assistance Program Approval, Multi Unit Retail Grant Program 554 – 570 E. Algonquin Road (3rd Ward)

Issue: The Business Assistance Program requires City Council approval on all applications with a project award amount over $10,000.00.

Analysis: The new owner of the retail building at 554-570 East Algonquin Road has filed a business assistance application requesting approval for a multi-unit retail grant. The applicant intends to renovate the façade of the existing 8,400 square foot retail building. The façade improvements include a new dryvit parapet, lighting, and rubber roofing for the parapet. The total cost of work for grant eligible facade improvements is $42,275 according to quotes provided from the selected contractors for the project. The Multi-Unit Retail Grant Program is a sliding scale 50% matching grant for eligible expenses. Based upon the size of the building and cost of the project, the property qualifies for a grant in the amount of $20,000. If this request is approved, a negative balance of $7,090 will result in the City-Wide Business Assistance Incentive account.

The Program Guidelines require applicants to wait until the grant is approved to begin work. Although aware of this requirement, the applicant wishes to begin the renovation work without waiting for approval and is requesting a waiver of the timing requirements of the program.

Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution R-156-17 to approve the Business Assistance Program application.

Attachments: Attachment 1: Application Attachment 2: Contractor’s Quote and Plans Attachment 3: Resolution R-156-17

Page 1 of 9 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 9 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 9 Attachment 2 Page 4 of 9 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 9 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 9 Attachment 2 Page 7 of 9 CITY OF DES PLAINES

RESOLUTION R - 156 - 17

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT FOR FAÇADE IMPROVEMENTS AT 554- 570 E. ALGONQUIN ROAD, DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS.

WHEREAS, the City has appropriated funds for use by the Community and Economic Development Department during the 2017 fiscal year for the disbursement of grants through the Business Assistance Program ("Program"), which offers grants to reimburse property owners for 50 percent of the cost of rehabilitating eligible multi-tenant commercial shopping centers in the City, up to a maximum amount of $50,000, based on the size of the property ("Multi-Unit Retail Grant"); and

WHEREAS, Vitold Stawierej ("Applicant") owns the multi-tenant property commonly known as 554 – 570 East Algonquin Road in the City ("Subject Property"); and

WHEREAS, Applicant has applied for a Multi-Unit Retail Grant to renovate the façade of the existing 8,400 square foot retail building ("Improvements"); and

WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the Improvements is $42,275; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to approve and authorize the Multi-Unit Retail Grant to reimburse the Applicant for 50 percent of the cost of the Improvements at the Subject Property, in an amount not to exceed $20,000;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council.

SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF GRANT. The City Council hereby approves the Multi- Unit Retail Grant to reimburse the Applicant for the Improvements at the Subject Property in accordance with the Program guidelines and in an amount not to exceed $20,000.

SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO DISBURSE GRANTS. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager or his designee to take all necessary and appropriate action to reimburse the Applicant for 50 percent of the cost of the Improvements in an amount not to exceed $20,000.

SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

Attachment 3 Page 8 of 9 PASSED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

APPROVED this _____ day of ______, 2017.

VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____

MAYOR

ATTEST: Approved as to form:

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

DP-Resolution Approving the Business Assistance Program Application for 554 – 570 E Algonquin Rd

Attachment 3 Page 9 of 9 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org

MEMORANDUM

Date: August 10, 2017

To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager

From: Michael McMahon, Community and Economic Development Director

Subject: Text Amendment to Allow the Keeping of Chickens (Citywide)

Issue: The keeping of chickens as a household pet is currently prohibited by the municipal code. Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance to allow the keeping of chickens through a three-year pilot program.

Analysis: The municipal code regulates the keeping of animals and restricts the keeping of fowl throughout the City, except for educational purposes.

In recent years, there has been a growing trend in keeping chickens for personal production and consumption of eggs. Several area municipalities provide regulations for the keeping of chickens in residential neighborhoods (see attached survey).

On August 6, 2017, the City Council met and in the Building Code Committee discussed a request by a number of Des Plaines residents to allow the keeping of chickens. After a lengthy debate, the issue was deferred for future discussion.

Staff has since been directed to prepare an ordinance creating a pilot program to allow the keeping of chickens. Ordinance M-19-17 was prepared that amends Municipal Code 6-1-1 setting forth regulations for a three- year pilot program. In addition, staff recommends the Zoning Ordinance be amended in the near future to allow chicken coops and enclosures as accessory structures. The new ordinance states:

“6-1-1: ANIMALS RESTRICTED WITHIN CITY:

A. Fowl: Fowl: It shall be unlawful and it is hereby declared to be a nuisance to raise, maintain or have upon any property within the city any chickens, ducks, geese, guinea hens, pigeons or other similar fowl except as provided in section 6-1-1.D; provided, however, that it is not unlawful to keep, for educational purposes, up to six (6) chicken hens on any property located within the city that is greater than fifteen (15) acres and is listed on the national register of historic places

* * *

Page 1 of 56 D. Chickens: For a period of three years beginning [insert date], 2017, it shall be unlawful and is hereby declared to be a nuisance to raise, maintain, or have upon any property within the city any chickens except under the following conditions:

1. Permit Required. Residents must obtain a permit from the Department of Community and Economic Development, which will issue no more than 100 permits. 2. Permit Fee. Payment of a non-refundable $35.00 permit fee is required. 3. Permits will only be issued to single family residences located in the R-1 Zoning District. 4. No more than four (4) hens are permitted per zoning lot. 5. Roosters are prohibited. 6. Slaughtering of chickens is prohibited. 7. Chickens must be kept in an enclosure and provided a coop. (i) Size. Enclosures may not exceed 100 square feet and coops may not exceed 24 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. (ii) Location. Coops and enclosures must not be visible from the street, must be located in a fenced rear yard, and must comply with all applicable setback requirements set forth in section 12-8-1.C. 8. Sanitary Conditions. Coops and enclosures shall be maintained in clean and sanitary condition at all times. 10. Violations. If the permit holder is found to be in violation of this section 6-1-1.D three times, the City Manager may, as his discretion, revoke the permit.”

Recommendation: Consideration of the adoption of Ordinance M - 19 - 17 creating a three-year pilot program to allow the keeping of backyard chickens.

Attachments: Attachment 1: Area Chicken Regulations Attachment 2: Chicken Ordinance Report Attachment 3: Urban Myths about Chickens Attachment 4: Concerns about Raising Poultry Attachment 5: Illegal Fowl Study of Municipal Laws Attachment 6: Ordinance M - 19 - 17

Page 2 of 56 Oak Parki • Oak park residents can keep two chickens (roosters seem to be allowed) on their property • No permits are required and no other regulations are in place

Elginii • Once a license is allocated residents will work with community development staff to make sure your property meets the minimum requirements. You will also be required to submit plans for your coop, build and obtain a final coop inspection prior to being issued a chicken license. • There is a $65 permit application fee and a one-time $30 license fee, both paid at the time that the permit and license are issued. If electricity is to be used in the chicken coop for any reason an electrical permit and inspection are required. An electrical permit application fee is $65. • A valid chicken license must be issued prior to purchasing chicken • A building permit must be obtained prior to constructing a chicken coop or enclosure and final building inspection approval is required prior to obtaining a chicken license • Baby chicks can be kept indoors until they are fully-feathered (up to 8 weeks) • Maximum of four chickens • Roosters prohibited • Slaughtering of chickens prohibited • Chickens must always be contained within a coop or enclosure • Chicken tractors (screened mobile pens) are permitted • Chicken coops must be at least 25 feet from your neighbors and not visible from the street • Coops can be up to 50 square feet, chicken runs or enclosures can be up to 100 square feet • A very brief backyard chicken pilot program report is available here: http://cityofelgin.org/DocumentCenter/View/57045

West Dundeeiii • Coop and coop enclosures must be sized properly for the number of chickens to be maintained. Coop and coop enclosure areas must be a minimum of forty (40) square feet but shall not exceed a maximum of one hundred (100) square feet. • Coops must be set back a minimum of ten feet (10’) from the property line with a minimum of fifteen feet (15’) from the nearest adjacent neighboring habitable building • All licensed chickens must be maintained in the coop or the coop enclosures from sundown to sunup. During daytime hours animals may roam in fenced yard with owner supervision • All waste must be disposed of in a sanitary manner • For chickens and other similarly sized poultry less than fifteen (15) pounds in weight the maximum total number of animals permitted are four (4) per zoning lot. The annual license fee shall be twenty five dollars ($25) for up to four (4) animals. Chickens and similarly sized poultry are prohibited in R-5 medium density multiple-family districts. Roosters are prohibited in all districts.

Deerfieldiv • A maximum of four (4) fowl shall be permitted on any property. Roosters are prohibited • Fowl shall be confined at all times to a coop • Coops and enclosures shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary conditions at all times • Owners must keep IL Dept. of Agriculture Livestock Premises Registration on-site • Feed for fowl shall be kept in containers that are rodent-proof • Fowl shall be kept, housed and maintained so as not to cause a public or private nuisance

Attachment 1 Page 3 of 56 • Coops shall provide at least (6) six square feet of living space for each fowl • Fowl shall be kept in a safe and humane manner • The keeping of fowl is not permitted except on a zoning lot containing one single-family detached dwelling unit • No coop may exceed eight (8) feet in height, must only be located in rear yard as defined by the Village of Deerfield Zoning Ordinance, and must be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from all neighboring property lines • A non-refundable twenty-five ($25) dollar license fee is required to keep foul

Evanstonv • Deals with chicken coop odors and noises in regards to nuisances • Keeping chicken or hen coops, stables, privies in filthy condition: To keep, or suffer to be kept, in a foul, offensive, nauseous or filthy condition any chicken or hen coop, cow house, stable, cellar, vault, drain, pool, privy, sewer or sink, upon any premises belonging to or occupied by any person or any railroad car, building, yard, grounds or premises belonging to or occupied by said person.

Brookfieldvi • Code of Ordinances, Chapter 10 – Animals, Article III – Care and Control, Division 2 – Livestock and Other Farm Creatures • Section 10-78 o (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to keep, harbor, posses or maintain upon any lot within the village more than three female chickens (hens) o (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to compost chicken waste or bedding upon any lot within the village. o (c) It shall be unlawful for any person to use any accessory structure to harbor chickens which does not conform to the requirements of this Code, including, but not limited to, village building and zoning regulations. • Section 10-79 o It shall be unlawful for any person to permit any cattle, swine, sheep, goats, geese, ducks, turkeys, chickens or other fowl owned by him or in his custody or control to run at large within the village, and any so found shall be impounded by the police chief, and the owner or person having possession of such animal or fowl and allowing the same to run at large shall be guilty of a violation of this section.

Lombardvii • (A) Except as provided in § 90.06 of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to keep any dangerous or vicious animal, or animal listed in § 90.04(B), in any place other than a properly maintained zoological park, circus, scientific or educational institution, research laboratory or veterinary hospital, or as licensed to do so by the State or Federal government. • (B) Except as provided in § 90.07 of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any person to keep or allow to be kept within the Village any farm animals, including, but not limited to, sheep, cattle, goats, horses, ducks, geese, chickens, roosters or other fowl, pigeons (except for carrier/racing pigeons) swine (including pot-bellied pigs), or similar animals.

Western Springsviii • Pet and outdoor chicken shelters are permitted on residential lots

Attachment 1 Page 4 of 56 • No person shall harbor any rooster • No person shall keep or harbor more than four (4) chickens on any residential lot • Chickens must be kept in a shelter, are not permitted to run at large in the village, may be allowed outside in a fenced area in the presence of their owners, and no outdoor slaughtering of poultry in outdoor areas within residential lots • Chicken shelter only allowed in a rear lot, with ten feet side and five feet rear yard setbacks • Shelters shall be sanitary, weatherproofed, have adequate ventilation, with a maximum height of eight feet (8’) • In order to get a permit o Building application o Plat of survey marked with the location and dimensions o Must provide a predator protection system o Pay a permit fee, which is 1.75% of the cost of construction, with a minimum $50 permit fee

County Ordinances Regarding Backyard Chickens

Lake Countyix • Must meet the requirements of the county’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) • Permit for backyard chickens use is $25 • Maximum number of hens allowed o 6 with minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet o 8 with minimum lot sizes of 20,000 square feet o 10 with minimum lot sizes of 40,000 square feet o 12 with minimum lot sizes of 80,000 o No limit, if AG exempt with minimum lot sizes of 200,000 or more • Chicken coop has a maximum height of 8 feet, a minimum of 3 feet per hen • Chicken coops and yards may not be located between the dwelling and any improved road right of way or access easement • Minimum 30 feet setback to fixed structures • Roosters not allowed on properties less than 200,000 square feet

Will Countyx • Chickens (not roosters) allowed by right in the R-1, R-2, R-2A, R-3 and R-4 districts • The minimum lot area required for keeping of chickens is 12,500 square feet in all of the above districts • In the R-2A, R-3 and R-4 districts, the number of chickens is limited to 1 per 2,500 square feet of lot area • Special use permit is $650

i http://www.oak-park.us/our-community/new-resident-information ii http://www.cityofelgin.org/index.aspx?NID=1879 iii http://www.wdundee.org/apps/vwide/WDWeb.nsf/B6EFA36C580C7E5A86257BF3005C1390/$file/ORD13- 18_Beekeeping-Final.pdf iv http://www.deerfield.il.us/DocumentCenter/View/528 v http://www.cityofevanston.org/assets/23-O-10%20Hen%20ordinance%20w%20%20floor%20amendments.pdf

Attachment 1 Page 5 of 56 vi https://library.municode.com/il/brookfield/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH10AN_ARTIIADEN_S10- 23PE vii https://library.municode.com/il/lombard/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIXGERE_CH90AN_ARTIPR_S90.04 KECEANPR viii https://www.wsprings.com/DocumentCenter/View/1122 ix https://www.lakecountyil.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2716 x http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/willcounty_il/willcountyillinoiscodeofordinances?f=templates$f n=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:willcounty_il

Attachment 1 Page 6 of 56 Chicken Ordinance Survey Hugh Bartling - DePaul University - [email protected]

Introduction

In February 2010 students from Professor Hugh Bartling's class

on Green Urban Policy interviewed staff members from over 20

municipalities throughout the country which have recently

adopted ordinances allowing citizens to keep poultry in residential

districts.

Cities were chosen from internet searches for media reports on

chicken ordinances and lists compiled by the Evanston Backyard

Chicken Group. The list of cities surveyed can be found in the

appendix. Students were assigned specific cities to contact and

administer an eight-question, open-ended response survey.

Respondents were comprised mainly of city staff members,

although in a small number of isolated cases our respondents

were elected officials. The cities are located throughout the

country and have enacted poultry ordinances between 2005 and

2009.

The focus of the survey was on how the ordinances were

implemented. Respondents were asked about enforcement

issues, problems associated with violations and complaints,

support given by the city to chicken owners, and overall

assessment of the ordinance.

Attachment 2 Page 7 of 56 In general we found that most cities were satisfied with their

ordinances, major complaints and infractions were rare, and the

adoption of chicken ordinances have been looked upon positively.

Below we will detail the survey questions and summarize the

answers. Although we surveyed 23 municipalities, not all cities

chose to answer each question.

Q1 Have you seen problems with people abandoning

chickens or them getting loose?

Of the 20 cities responding to this question, 17 indicated that

chickens getting loose has not been a problem. The remaining

three reported isolated instances of chickens getting loose. One

city reported that the adoption of the ordinance actually reduced

complaints since their ordinance requires chickens to be confined

in coops.

Q2 How many violations of the ordinance has your

community detected?

Of the 18 responses to this question, 10 reported no violations.

Two cities reported one violation, two cities reported four

violations, one city reported four violations, and one city reported

twenty violations.

Attachment 2 Page 8 of 56 Two cities reported a range--between 12-15 in one case and

between 5-10 in another.

Q3 How many complaints about chickens has the city seen

since the ordinance was passed?

Of the 19 responses to this question, 13 reported 0-2 complaints.

One said complaints were "rare." Two respondents reported

between 5-10 complaints, and three single cities reported 12, 32,

and 115 complaints.

One respondent indicated that their city sees more complaints

about barking dogs than they do for chicken ordinance violations.

Attachment 2 Page 9 of 56 Q4 How is the ordinance enforced?

This question elicited many different answers, which is reflected

by the fact that there is no uniformity amongst the various

ordinances passed in each city.

Generally ordinance enforcement is complaint-driven with zoning

officers, health inspectors, or animal control officers responding

to citizen reports of potential violations. Of the 21 respondents

to this question, five indicated that they require chicken keepers

to apply for city-issued permits.

Likely due to the minimal number of complaints, enforcement has

not been a major problem in any of the cities we surveyed.

Q5 Do you have any literature or information that you give

to chicken owners about proper treatment of the birds?

Of the 21 respondents to this question, only three provided

chicken care and treatment information. It was more common

for cities to provide information on the specifics of their

ordinances which pertain to coop structures and siting of coops.

Two cities refer chicken owners to community groups and

internet sites for education material.

Attachment 2 Page 10 of 56 Q6. Since the ordinance was passed have there been any

amendments? What was the nature of any amendments?

Of the 23 respondents to this question, only four cities reported

amendments to their ordinances. In two of these cases, the

cities had originally restricted chicken keeping to single-family

homes and the revisions allowed the practice on lots that

contained up to four housing units. One municipality expanded

their ordinance to allow the raising of ducks and another simply

reported "minor" amendments.

Q7 In your estimation has the adoption of a chicken

ordinance been positive or negative for your city?

Of the 21 respondents to this question, fifteen reported that the

ordinance has been "positive." Six respondents reported that the

ordinance has been "neutral." No cities reported a "negative"

experience.

In the open-ended responses to this question, some of the

positive respondents reported that the ordinance helped promote

sustainability in the community. Respondents who said it was

"neutral" indicated that the ordinance brought many citizens into

compliance with the law and that the rules served to relieve

tension in the community.

Attachment 2 Page 11 of 56 Q8 Have there been any unanticipated issues that have

emerged as a result of allowing residents to keep

chickens?

This open-ended question elicited a variety of responses,

although the vast majority indicated that there have been no

unanticipated issues. One respondent indicated that many

people wondered before the ordinance was passed how chicken-

owners would deal with birds that no longer lay eggs. They

found that most chicken owners treat their birds as pets and

keep them as part of the family until their natural death.

Several respondents mentioned that the exclusion of roosters as

pets and having a limit on the number of birds each resident

could keep were important in insuring effective ordinances.

Attachment 2 Page 12 of 56 Appendix

Communities Surveyed

Ann Arbor, MI

Baraboo WI

Belmont, MA

Boise, ID

Bozeman, MT

Buffalo, NY

Duluth MN

Durham, NC

Eugene, OR

Fort Collins, CO

Gulfport, FL

Huntington, NY

Lawrence, KS

Madison, WI

Missoula, MT

Moab, UT

New Haven, CT

Portland, OR

South Portland, ME

St. Paul, MN

State College Borough,

Attachment 2 Page 13 of 56 Wake Forest, NC

Ypsilanti, MI

Attachment 2 Page 14 of 56 Shattering seven urban myths about raising chickens

by Patricia Foreman From the May 11, 2011 online edition of The Plymouth Review

The local foods movement is not only gaining compromised immune systems in the birds. Any sign ground, it is here to stay; and that includes family of disease, including a sneeze, could result in a huge flocks of chickens. Chickens are the mascots of local number of birds getting sick; and this puts at risk a foods because of the many talents and skill sets they large amount of profit. As many experts have stated innately bring to small-scale food production. These publicly, the solution to avian flu is in small-scale skill sets include being pesticiders (eating poultry. mosquitoes, ticks and fleas), herbiciders (by eating and clearing unwanted vegetation), and organic Myth 2. Chickens are too noisy. Fact: Laying fertilizer generators (that can help create and enhance hens—at their loudest—have about the same decibel garden soil). The trend for backyard flocks is so level as human conversation (60 to 70 decibels). strong, that in the past two years, over 500 towns and Hens are so quiet that there have been cases of cities have revised their laws to allow urban folks to family flocks being kept for years without the next keep their own chickens. door neighbors knowing it.

Along with the re-emergence of backyard chickens To some, noise is a concern with roosters and their across the country, have come great numbers of pre-dawn heralding of sunrises. Many urban codes misconceptions, false beliefs and downright ban roosters, or allow them to be kept only with prejudice surrounding the keeping of micro-flocks of special permits. The noise level of a rooster’s crow is chickens. As the co-host of the Chicken Whisperer about the same as a barking dog: 90 decibels. But Backyard Poultry and Sustainable Lifestyles Talk there are ways to keep roosters quiet throughout the Show, I have heard it all. night. Many folks regard crowing as a pleasant sound. There are seven main concerns that routinely surface when the topic of city chicks is discussed. These are: Myth 3. Chickens cause waste and odor. Fact: A 40- 1. disease, 2. noise, 3. waste, odor and flies, 4. pound dog generates more solid waste than 10 predators and rodents, 5. property values, 6. chickens. To be more specific, one 40-pound dog appearance, and 7. What will neighbors think? Let’s generates about .75 pounds of poop every day. Ten look at the facts behind each of these concerns. chickens generate about .66 pounds daily poop.

Myth 1. Chickens carry diseases communicable to The advantage to chicken poop is that it can be used humans. Fact: The truth is that small flocks have as valuable, high-nitrogen fertilizer. Unlike dog or literally no risk of avian flu transmission to humans. cat poop, chicken poop can be combined with yard The 2006 Grain Report states: “When it comes to and leaf waste to create compost. Just as valuable, bird flu, diverse small-scale poultry is the solution, about 40 percent of the chicken manure is organic not the problem.” matter necessary for building fertile, healthy topsoil.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states on their Chicken manure is so valuable that there is a product website: “There is no need at present to remove a called Cockadoodle Doo. What is Cockadoodle Doo (family) flock of chickens because of concerns made of? You guessed it; dried chicken manure. A regarding avian flu.” 20-pound bag sells for $15. That’s 76 cents a pound for chicken manure! Let’s take the stakes even Avian flu has been in the press as a concern to higher. Where does most commercial fertilizer come commercial poultry production where birds are from? Think oil. Can chickens’ services and products raised in monster-size flocks confined in over- help us decrease our dependence on oil? Yes, in crowded environments. This causes high stress and many ways and on many levels.

1 of 2

Attachment 3 Page 15 of 56 Myth 4. Chickens attract predators, pests and Once folks gain more experience with the advantages rodents. Fact: Predators and rodents are already and charms of chickens, most prejudice and fear living in urban areas. Wild bird feeders, pet food, evaporates; especially when you share some of those gardens, fish ponds, bird baths and trash waiting to fresh, heart-healthy, good-for-you eggs from your be collected all attract raccoons, foxes, rodents and family flock. flies. Modern micro-flock coops, such as chicken tractors, arks, and other pens are ways of keeping, There is one huge advantage to family flocks that is and managing, family flocks that eliminate concerns often overlooked during chicken debates. That is about predators, rodents and other pests. their role and value in solid waste management systems. Chickens, as clucking civic workers, are Indeed, chickens are part of the solution to pesky biomass recyclers and can divert tons of organic problems. Chickens are voracious carnivores and will matter from the trash collection and landfills. seek out and eat just about anything that moves including ticks (think Lyme disease), fleas, Chickens will eat just about all kitchen “waste.” mosquitoes, grasshoppers, stink bugs, slugs, and They love people food, even those “gone-by” even mice, baby rats and small snakes. leftovers that have seasoned in the refrigerator. Combine their manure with grass clippings, fallen Myth 5. Property values will decrease. Fact: There leaves and garden waste, and you create compost. is not one single documented case that we know of Composting with chicken helpers keeps tons of about a next door family flock that has decreased the biomass out of municipal trash collection systems. value of real estate. On the contrary, local foods and living green is so fashionable, that some realtors and All this can save big time taxpayer dollars, which is home sellers are offering a free chicken coop with especially valuable in these times of stressed every sale. An example of this can be found at municipal budgets. www.GreenWayNews.com. There is precedence for employing family flocks as Myth 6. Coops are ugly. Fact: Micro-flock coop part of trash management. It is being done very designs can be totally charming, upscale and even successfully in some European towns. One example whimsical. Some of them are architect designed and is the town of Deist in Flanders, Belgium. The city cost thousands of dollars. Common design features buys laying hens to give to residents who want them. include blending in with the local architectural style, The chickens’ job is to divert food waste from the matching the slope of the roof and complementing trash stream and eliminates having to be picked up color schemes. For examples go to by workers, transported, and then disposed. The www.MyPetChicken.com. savings are significant.

Myth 7. What will neighbors think? Fact: You can’t May the flock be with you…and to quote the control what anyone thinks, much less your neighbor. Chicken: “evermore.”

Patricia Foreman is the author of several books including City Chicks: Keeping Micro-flocks of Chickens as Garden Helpers, Compost Creators, Biomass Recyclers and Local Food Suppliers, and Chicken Tractor: The Permaculture Guide to Happy Hens and Healthy Soil, available from Backyard Poultry’s online bookstore at www.backyardpoultrymag.com .

Available at: http://www.plymouth-review.com/news/2011- 0510/Neighbors/Shattering_seven_urban_myths_about_raising_chicken.html

2 of 2

Attachment 3 Page 16 of 56 8/15/2017 Illinois Fact Sheet: Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry

Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry

An increasing number of citizens want to raise chickens in urban environments as a hobby or they may believe this method of raising birds for food may be safer or less expensive. Citizens should check to make sure that flocks are allowed in the area where they reside before purchasing poultry. This document examines the public health significance of some common concerns about urban poultry farming.

Bacterial diseases

Salmonella and Campylobacter are common public health hazards potentially associated with chicken contact. These bacteria are carried by healthy chickens and are communicable to people through direct contact, exposure to manure, or consumption of undercooked chicken and eggs. Infection is characterized by diarrhea, vomiting, fever, and/or abdominal cramps; small children, elderly persons, and those with weakened immune systems are more susceptible to severe illness. Young birds may be especially prone to shed these organisms in their droppings. This poses a hazard to anyone who comes into contact with the droppings. The public health hazards associated with Salmonella and Campylobacter are expected to be limited to those who are in contact with the chickens or their droppings or consume their meat or eggs without thorough cooking. There have been several multi-state outbreaks of human Salmonella infections from handling baby chicks. These hazards could be mitigated by avoiding contact with poultry feces, carefully washing hands with soap and water after handling the birds, avoiding hand-to- mouth contact while working with birds and education about food safety.

Histoplasmosis

Histoplasmosis can cause a respiratory disease with cough and shortness of breath. The fungal organism causing this disease is present throughout the Midwest but can be concentrated in areas with quantities of bird droppings. Persons acquire the disease by inhalation of the organism from the environment. Therefore, it is critical that flock owners have a method to maintain the property to minimize the accumulation of bird droppings. Animal waste should be disposed of in a safe manner.

Avian influenza (bird flu)

Avian influenza is a theoretical public health hazard potentially associated with urban chicken farming. Birds can shed the organism in the saliva, nasal secretions and feces. Avian influenza is a viral disease of birds that is communicable to people through exposure to respiratory or fecal secretions. The risk of human avian http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/poultry.htmAttachment 4 Page 17 of 56 1/4 8/15/2017 Illinois Fact Sheet: Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry influenza infections in the United States is extremely low and is expected to be limited to those who are in contact with infected chickens.

Exotic Newcastle disease

Exotic Newcastle disease, a viral disease that is not normally found in the United States, is not a significant public health hazard in this context. While exotic Newcastle disease can cause mild eye infections in people, the greater concern is that the introduction of exotic Newcastle disease in privately owned chicken flocks can cause major economic damage in communities where commercial chicken farming is an important industry.

Attraction of predators

The attraction of predators is a public health hazard potentially associated with urban chicken farming. The presence of chickens on a property might attract urban predators such as stray dogs, foxes and coyotes. This would increase the probability of conflict between humans and predators in the urban environment (e.g., animal bites). This hazard could be mitigated by requiring flock owners to provide sufficient structural protection to prevent predator access to their flocks.

Attraction of rodents

The attraction of rodents is a public health hazard potentially associated with urban chicken farming. Failure to maintain a clean environment for the chickens could attract mice or rats to a property. This hazard could be mitigated by educating flock owners on the proper care and maintenance of chicken flocks including the proper storage of bird feed.

Nuisance issues

The odor and noise that might be associated with urban chicken farming are not public health hazards. Poultry may escape into neighbors’ yards. Flies might be attracted to the area unless adequate fly control is practiced. Communities are advised to have a system in place for handling public complaints regarding these issues if they allow urban poultry flocks.

Management and handling of poultry in small backyard flocks

Keep baby chicks and adult poultry away from persons with weaker immune systems, including the elderly, pregnant women, diabetics, patients receiving chemotherapy and people infected with HIV.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that person not keep chickens if the household has children less than five years of age.

Make sure that people who handle the chickens or their droppings, wash hands properly with soap and water following contact.

Do not eat or drink around the poultry.

Keep poultry away from food preparation areas. http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/poultry.htmAttachment 4 Page 18 of 56 2/4 8/15/2017 Illinois Fact Sheet: Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry Do not wash items, such as water or food dishes, from chicken coops in the kitchen sink.

Do not allow poultry to roam in the house.

Maintain the area where the poultry are present in a sanitary manner.

See your physician if you experience fever and diarrhea.

Conclusion

The public health hazards potentially associated with urban chicken farming should be weighed against individual and community benefits. Public health infectious disease hazards can be mitigated by education and regulation and are expected to be limited to those who are in contact with the chickens or consuming their meat or eggs without thorough cooking.

Communities that permit urban chicken farming are advised to ensure that flock owners receive educational materials on infectious diseases, animal husbandry, food safety and biosecurity. These communities also should have a system in place for responding to community complaints.

References

CDC. Keeping Live Poultry. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/Features/SalmonellaPoultry.

CDC. Preliminary FoodNet Data on the Incidence of Infection with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly Through Food—10 States, 2009. MMWR 2010;59:418-422.

CDC. Multistate Outbreaks of Salmonella Infections Associated with Live Poultry --- United States, 2007. MMWR 2009; 58: 25-29.

CDC. Three Outbreaks of Salmonellosis Associated with Baby Poultry from Three Hatcheries --- United States, 2006. MMWR 2007;56:273-276.

CDC. Salmonella Serotype Montevideo Infections Associated with Chicks -- Idaho, Washington, and Oregon, Spring 1995 and 1996 . MMWR 1997;46:237-239.

National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians. Compendium of Measures to Prevent Disease Associated with Animals in Public Settings, 2009. MMWR 2009;58(RR-5):1-21.

Scallan E et al. Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens. Emerg Infect Dis. 2011 Jan; [Epub ahead of print].

Swayne DE and King DJ. Zoonosis Update: Avian influenza and Newcastle disease. Jour Amer Vet Med Assoc 2003;222:1534-1540.

United States Department of Agriculture. Biosecurity for Birds. Available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity.

Poultry Safe Handling Posters: English | En Español

March 2012 http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/poultry.htmAttachment 4 Page 19 of 56 3/4 8/15/2017 Illinois Fact Sheet: Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry

Illinois Department of Public Health 535 West Jefferson Street Springfield, Illinois 62761 Phone 217-782-4977 Fax 217-782-3987 TTY 800-547-0466 Questions or Comments

http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/poultry.htmAttachment 4 Page 20 of 56 4/4 Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.

So much depends Illegal Fowl: upon a red wheel A Survey of barrow glazed with rain Municipal Laws water beside the white chickens . Relating to William Carlos Williams, 1923 . The movement toward bringing agricultural practices into Backyard Poultry the city has continued to expand during the last decade 1. As we learn more about the problems with our modern commercial agricultural practices—like keeping large and a Model numbers of animals crowded in small indoor facilities with little or no access to fresh air or sunlight and growing vast amounts of corn and soy in a monoculture environment Ordinance for to feed those animals2—many city-dwellers are taking it into their own hands to provide solutions 3. Community Regulating City gardens are increasing in cities across the country 4. Mar- ket farms and even full-scale urban farms are popping up both in cities where the foreclosure epidemic has caused Chickens an abundance of abandoned properties and in cities where property has maintained or even increased in value 5. And, farmer’s markets have increased exponentially across the by Jaime Bouvier country—allowing smaller scale local farmers to directly link to consumers and sell their produce for far above the Jaime Bouvier is Visiting Legal Writing Professor, wholesale amounts they could get from selling through Cleveland-Marshall College of Law .

Summary Author’s Note: I would like to thank my research assistant Hannah As the movement toward keeping backyard chickens Markel. I would also like to thank Heidi Gorovitz Robertson and Carolyn Broering-Jacobs for their support and mentorship. continues to grow, many cities are facing the decision 1 . Kimberly Hodgson et al ., Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy Sustainable of whether to allow residents to keep chickens and, if Places, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report so, how to effectively regulate the practice . A survey No . 563 (Jan . 2011); Janine de la Salle & Mark Holland, Agricul- tural Urbanism, Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agri- of municipal ordinances in the top 100 most popu- cultural Systems in 21st Century Cities, 9-12 (2010) . lous cities in the United States that concern keeping 2 . E.g., Food, Inc . (Magnolia Pictures 2009); Michael Pollan, The Om- nivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (2006); Eric and raising chickens offers lessons that may be applied Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal (2002); Marion Nestle, Food Politics: How the Food Industry to designing a model ordinance . This survey reveals Influences Nutrition and Health (2002) . that chickens are, perhaps surprisingly, legal in the 3 . E.g., Lisa Taylor, Your Farm in the City: An Urban Dweller’s Guide to Growing Food and Raising Livestock (2011); Thomas J . Fox, Ur- vast majority of large cities . The urveys also identifies ban Farming: Sustainable City Living in Your Backyard, in Your regulatory norms and some effective and less effective Community, and in the World (2011); Kelly Coyne & Erik Knutzen, The Urban Homestead: Your Guide to Self-Sufficient Living in the ways to regulate the keeping of chickens . A proposed Heart of the City (2010); Kurt B . Reighley, The United States of model ordinance, based on the background informa- Americana: Backyard Chickens, Burlesque Beauties, and Homemade Bitters (2010) . tion and survey results, could be adopted by a city or 4 . Jane E . Schukoske, Community Development Through Gardening: State and easily modified to fit a city’s unique needs . Local Policies Transforming Urban Open Space, 3 N .Y .U . J . Legis . & Pub . Pol’y 315, 354 (1999-2000) . 5 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 3-4 .

42 ELR 10888 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 Attachment 5 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 Page 21 of 56 Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.

more established channels like supermarkets and conve- garden, urban farm, or just in their own backyard, cities nience stores 6. across the country are amending their ordinances to allow Part of the greater urban agriculture movement involves for and regulate backyard chickens 12. This Article will first urban animal husbandry—raising livestock in an urban provide a primer on what a city-dweller should know about setting 7. While many cities have allowed for bees, goats, chickens . This is especially targeted to city-dwellers who and other livestock in the city,8 this Article will focus on serve as councilpersons, mayors, or law directors and know how cities regulate chickens 9. Many people in urban envi- little or nothing about chickens . Because many municipal ronments are seeking to raise chickens to assert control over officials lack agricultural knowledge, they lack a basis for their food . This may be in reaction to increasing reports of understanding whether chickens can peacefully co-exist how large industrial farms raise chickens in abusive and with their constituents in a cosmopolitan area . And, even if unsanitary settings—settings that not only are unhealthy officials believe that residents should be able to keep chick- for the chickens but negatively affect the health of people ens, they may still feel unequipped to figure out how to who live near such farms, as well as anyone who eats the properly regulate chickens to head off practical concerns eggs or meat from those chickens 10. Many people view rais- with noise, odor, and nuisance . ing chickens and other urban agricultural practices as a Many people may be surprised to learn that even in way to combat a broken food system and a way to assert cities where raising chickens is illegal, many people are individual political power against the large corporations doing so anyway 13. For instance, in a suburb of Cleve- that control much of our food 11. land, Jennifer,14 a young mother of two boys, built a coop In response to a growing demand from city-dwellers to in her backyard and bought four chicks 15. These chicks raise their own chickens, either as part of a community grew up to be egg-laying hens and family pets before she learned that her city outlawed chickens . The city told her 6 . Patricia E . Salkin & Amy Lavine, Regional Foodsheds: Are Our Local Zoning that if she did not get rid of the chickens, she would be and Land Use Regulations Healthy?, 22 Fordham Envtl . L . Rev . 599, 617 subject to continuing expensive citations for violating (2011); Brandon Baird, The Pending Farmer’s Market Fiasco: Small-Time Farmers, Part-Time Shoppers, and a Big-Time Problem, 1 KYJEANRL 49, 49- the city’s ordinance . Because both she and her children 50 (2008-2009) . See also Kirk Johnson, Small Farmers Creating a New Busi- ness Model as Agriculture Goes Local, N .Y .Times, July 1, 2012, http://www . nytimes .com/2012/07/02/us/small-scale-farmers-creating-a-new-profit- 12 . Sarah Grieco, Backyard Bees, Chickens, and Goats Approved, NBCSanDi- model .html?_r=1&ref=agriculture . ego, Feb . 1, 2012 http://www .nbcsandiego .com/news/local/Backyard- 7 . Hogdson, supra note 1, at 17 . See, e.g ., Robert & Hannah Litt, A Chick- Bees-Chickens-Goats-Approved-138507104 .html; Michael Cass, Backyard en in Every Yard (2011); Harvey Ussery, The Small-Scale Poultry Chickens Make Gains in Nashville, The Tennessean, Jan . 5, 2012, http:// Flock: An All-Natural Approach to Raising Backyard and Urban www .healthynashville .org/modules .php?op=modload&name=News&file=a Chickens (2011); Andy Schneider, The Chicken Whisperer’s Guide rticle&sid=20163; Peter Applebome, Envisioning the End of “Don’t Cluck, to Keeping Chickens, Everything You Need to Know . . . and Didn’t Don’t Tell, N .Y . Times, Apr . 30, 2009, http://www .nytimes .com/2009/4/30/ Know You Needed to Know About Raising Chickens (2011); Tara nyregions/30town??; Jessica Bennet, The New Coop de Ville, the Craze for Layman Williams, The Complete Guide to Raising Chickens: Ev- Urban Poultry Farming, Newsweek, Nov . 16, 2008, http://www .thedaily- erything You Need to Know Explained Simply (2010); Jerome D . beast .com/newsweek/2008/11/16/the-new-coop-de-ville .img .jpg . And this Belanger, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Raising Chickens (2010); movement is not just in the United States; Australia, Canada, and Europe Carlee Madigan, The Backyard Homestead (2009); Kimberly Willis also are experiencing a surge in the number of people keeping backyard & Rob Ludlow, Raising Chickens for Dummies (2009) . hens . See, e.g ., Surge in Backyard Poultry Numbers, British Free Range 8 . E.g ., Heather Wooten & Amy Ackerman, Seeding the City: Land Use Poli- Egg Producers Association (Jan . 9, 2011), http://www .theranger .co .uk/ cies to Promote Urban Agricultural, National Policy & Legal Analysis news/Surge-in-backyard-poultry-numbers_21660 .html (last visited Feb . Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity, 34 (2011); Kailee Neuner et 24, 2012); Backyard Chickens in Toronto, Ontario, http://torontoch- al ., Planning to Eat: Innovative Local Government Plans and Policies to Build ickens .com/Toronto_Chickens/Blog/Blog .html (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) Healthy Food Systems in the United States, Food Systems Planning and (advocacy group seeking to legalize chickens in Toronto); Chris Mayberry Healthy Communities Lab, University of Buffalo, The State Univer- & Peter Thomson, Keeping Chickens in the Backyard, Department of Ag- sity of New York, 17 (2011) . riculture and Food, Government of Western Australia (Aug . 2004), 9 . See also Patricia Salkin, Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regu- http://www .agric .wa .gov .au/content/aap/pou/man/gn2004_022 .pdf (last lating Backyard Chickens, 34:3 Zoning & Plan . L . Rep . 1 (2011) (briefly visited Feb . 22, 2012); Andrea Gaynor, Harvest of the Suburbs: An surveying chicken laws); Mary Wood et al ., Promoting the Urban Homestead: Environmental History of Growing Food in Australian Cities Reform of Local Land Use Laws to Allow MicroLivestock on Residential Lots, 37 (2006); Catharine Higginson, Living in France-Keeping Chickens, Living Ecology L . Currents 68 (2010) . France, http://www .livingfrance .com/real-life-living-and-working-living- 10 . See, e.g., Nicholas D . Kristof, Is an Egg for Breakfast Worth This?, N .Y . Times, in-france-keeping-chickens–94936 (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) . Apr . 11, 2012, http://www .nytimes .com/2012/04/12/opinion/kristof-is- 13 . See, e.g., Where Chickens Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Chickens, an-egg-for-breakfast-worth-this .html; Nicholas D . Kristof, Arsenic in Our BackyardChickens .com, http://www .backyardchickens .com/t/616955/ Chicken, N .Y . Times, Apr . 4, 2012, http://www .nytimes .com/2012/04/05/ where-chickens-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-chickens-t-shirt (last opinion/kristof-arsenic-in-our-chicken .html . visited Feb . 15, 2012) (forum for people who own chickens illegally); 11 . Hugh Bartling, A Chicken Ain’t Nothing but a Bird: Local Food Produc- Heather Cann et al ., Urban Livestock: Barriers and Opportunities Faces by tion and the Politics of Land-Use Change, Local Environment 17(a) (Jan . Homesteaders in the City of Waterloo, Dec . 6, 2011, http://www .wrfoodsys- 2012) . For a different take on the political reasons behind backyard chick- tem .ca/studentresearch (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) (interviewing several ens, see Shannon Hayes, Radical Homemakers: Reclaiming Domesticity From people who own chickens illegally in the Waterloo region of Canada) . a Consumer Culture (2005) (asserting that urban farming can be a feminist 14 . Not her real name . response to modern urbanization) . 15 . Interview with Jennifer, July 18, 2011 (on file with author) .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10889 Attachment 5 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 Page 22 of 56 Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120.

42 ELR 10890 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 had grown close to the hens, they did not want to sim- More so than the war by far ”. 24 City leaders are understand- ply dispose of them or give them away . Instead, Jennifer ably concerned that chickens may cause nuisances .25 They moved to a neighboring city that had recently passed an have raised such concerns as decreasing property values26 ordinance legalizing backyard hens and started a chicken and increasing greenhouse emissions,27 as well as concerns cooperative 16. Now, a group of neighbors take turns car- about excessive clucking and overwhelming odors bother- ing for the chickens and share the eggs . Neither in the ing the neighbors .28 Some express the belief that chickens, suburb where she started raising the chicks nor in the city and other agricultural practices, simply do not belong in where she started the cooperative did neighbors complain cities .29 The controversy over backyard chicken regulation about odor, noise, or any other potential nuisance . And has been so contentious that at least one law review article the suburb, by prohibiting chickens, lost the opportunity uses it as a case study for the Coase theorem to illustrate Jennifer was willing to provide to build strong commu- how we unnecessarily inflate the costs of processes related nity ties with her neighbors 17. to legal change 30. Instead of moving away, others are seeking to change In Part I, this Article will discuss the benefits of back- the law to raise chickens in the city where they already yard chickens . Part II will investigate concerns that many live . For instance, Cherise Walker has been advocating people have with keeping chickens in the city . Part III will for a new ordinance in her community 18. Ms . Walker is provide some background about chickens and chicken a veteran of the Iraq war who became interested in hens behavior that municipalities should understand before when she read that keeping chickens can help relieve crafting any ordinance . Part IV will survey ordinances post-traumatic stress disorder 19. She subscribes to Back- related to keeping chickens in the 100 most populous cit- yard Poultry—a magazine dedicated to backyard chick- ies in the United States, identifying regulatory norms and ens20; she became certified in hen-keeping by the Ohio particularly effective and ineffective means of regulation . State University Extension; and, she began assembling Finally, Part V will put forward a model ordinance that the materials to build a coop in her yard . But, she soon regulates keeping chickens in an urban setting while pro- learned that her city outlaws hens as dangerous animals, viding sufficient regulation to abate nuisance concerns . placing them in the same category as lions, tigers, bears, and sharks .21 Unwilling to become an outlaw hen-keeper, she, like countless others across the country, is attempt- ing to lobby her mayor and city council-people to educate them about chickens and encourage them to adopt a more chicken-friendly ordinance .22 Because of the growing popularity of keeping backyard chickens, cities can benefit from well-thought-out ordinances that avert possible nuisance and make it easy and clear for would-be chicken owners to find out what they need to do to comply with the law . Changing these ordinances, however, is often a contentious issue .23 It has caused one mayor in Minnesota to say, “there is a lot of anger around this issue for some reason . 24 . Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 23, at 24 . 16 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §§205 .04, 347 .02 (2011) . 25 . P .J . Huffstutter,Backyard Chickens on the Rise, Despite the Neighbor’s Clucks, 17 . See infra Part I .E . (discussing how participating in urban agriculture can L .A . Times, June 15, 2009, http://articles .latimes .com/2009/jun/15/ increase social connections and civic responsibility) . nation/na-chicken-economy15 . 18 . Interview with Jennifer, July 18, 2011 (on file with author) . 26 . Tiara Hodges, Cary: No Chickens Yet, IndyWeek .com, Feb . 10, 2012, 19 . Megan Zotterelli, Veterans Farming, The Leaflet: Newsletter of the http://www .indyweek .com/BigBite/archives/2012/02/10/cary-no-chickens Central Coast Chapter of California Rare Fruit Growers (July/ yet (last visited Feb . 17, 2012); Backyard Chickens: Good or Bad Idea, KVAL . Aug . 2011), http://centralcoastfoodie .com/2011/08/veterans-farming/ com, Mar . 3, 2009, http://www .kval .com/news/40648802 .html (last vis- (noting that the Farmer Veterans Coalition that seeks to link veterans ited Feb . 17, 2012) . with farming has done so not only to provide veterans with economic 27 . Valerie Taylor, Chickens for Montgomery (2009), http://www .scribd .com/ opportunities, but because “the nurturing environment of a greenhouse doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws (last visited Feb . 17, or a hatchery has helped these veterans make impressive strides in their 2012) (addressing a concern that Montgomery council people voiced about recovery and transition”) . greenhouse gases) . 20 . Backyard Poultry Magazine has been published since 2006 by Countryside 28 . Josie Garthwaite, Urban Garden? Check. Now, Chickens, N .Y . Times, Feb . Publications, Inc . It currently has a circulation of approximately 75,000 7, 2012, http://green .blogs .nytimes .com/2012/02/07/urban-garden-check- readers . See Advertising Information for Backyard Poultry, http:// now-chickens/ . www .backyardpoultrymag .com/advertise .html (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) . 29 . Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 23, at 19 (citing one mayor from Frankling- 21 . Lakewood Mun . Ordinance §505 .18 . ton, Louisiana, as stating the “city has changed and grown so much since 22 . Interview with Cherise Walker, Mar . 18, 2012 (on file with author) . the original ordinance . We are trying to look to the future . You can’t raise 23 . Barak Y . Orbach & Frances R . Sjoberg, Debating Over Backyard Chickens, animals or livestock (in the city) ”);. Barry Y . Orbach & Frances R . Sjoberg, Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper No . 11-02 (Feb . 2012) (listing con- Excessive Speech, Civility Norms, and the Clucking Theorem, 44 Conn . L . flicts in dozens of cities where people were seeking to change ordinances to Rev . 1 (2011) (stating that an alderman in Chicago was seeking to ban either legalize or ban chickens); see also Salkin, supra note 9, at 1 (describing chickens in part because, “[a]ll things considered, I think chickens should be criticism of efforts to allow chickens in neighborhoods as including “worry raised on a farm”); Jerry Kaufman & Martin Bailkey, Farming Inside Cities, that property values will plummet, that chickens will create foul odors and 13 Landlines 1 (2001) . noise, and that they will attract coyotes, foxes, and other pests”) . 30 . See Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 29 .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10891

I. The Benefits of Backyard Chickens

In 1920, an elementary school textbook recommended that every family in America keep a small flock of backyard chickens 31. The textbook provided that “every family is better off for having a few chickens, provided they are kept out of the garden and at a suitable distance from any house ”. 32 It noted that of the millions of dollars worth of eggs that were sold each year at that time, comparatively little came from large poultry farms, but came instead “from the hundreds and thousands of farms and town lots where a few chickens and other fowls are kept in order that they may turn to profit food materials that otherwise would be wasted ”. 33 The textbook asserted that chickens were a good value because, as scavengers and omnivores, it was relatively cheap to feed them scraps and receive in return fresh eggs . Also, the textbook championed city flocks because chickens eat insects and thus prevent the increase of insect pests 34. The U .S . government was in agreement with the textbook’s advice . During World War I, the United States exhorted every person in America to raise chickens . The U .S . Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued posters with titles like “Uncle Sam Expects You to Keep Hens and Raise Chickens ”. 35 One such poster encourages chicken ownership by exhorting that “even the smallest backyard has room for a flock large enough to supply the house with eggs ”. 36 The poster goes on to say that because chickens eat table scraps and require little care, every household should contribute to a bumper crop of poultry and eggs in 1918 37. These recommendations are still valid today, as many are USDA Poster from Scott Doyon, Chickens: WWI Solution to Almost reevaluating the suburbanization of America that occurred Everything, Better Cities & Towns, Nov. 4, 2011, http://bettercities.net/ after World War II and reincorporating agricultural prac- news-opinion/blogs/scott-doyon/15562/backyard-chickens-wwi-era- tices into daily life 38. Keeping domesticated fowl has been solution-almost-everything (last visited Feb. 15, 2012). a part of human existence for millennia,39 and only in the last century has been seen as something that should be kept chickens have to offer . There continue to be many benefits separate from the family and the home 40. While humanity to raising hens . Some of the benefits are apparent—like has long understood the benefits of keeping domesticated getting fresh free eggs . Some are less apparent—like hen chickens, many city-dwellers have lost touch with what manure being a surprisingly pricey and effective fertilizer and research findings that urban agricultural practices in 31 . William Thompson Skilling, Nature-Study Agriculture (World Book general raise property values and strengthen the social fab- Co . 1920) . 32 . Id . at 296 . ric of a community . The benefits of keeping hens will be 33 . Id . discussed more thoroughly below . 34 . Id . 35 . Scott Doyon, Chickens: WWI Solution to Almost Everything, Better Cities & Towns, Nov . 4, 2011, http://bettercities .net/news-opinion/blogs/scott- A. Chickens Are a Source of Fresh Nutritious Eggs doyon/15562/backyard-chickens-wwi-era-solution-almost-everything (last visited Feb . 15, 2012) . The most obvious benefit of keeping chickens in the back- 36 . Id. 37 . Id . yard is the eggs . A hen will generally lay eggs for the first 38 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 11-12 . See, e.g ., Robert M . Fogelson, Bour- five to six years of her life, with peak production in the first geois Nightmares 168-81 (2005) (noting that backyard poultry-keeping two years 41. Hens lay more during the spring and summer went from being universal and encouraged to being banned as a nuisance when newly developed suburbs aimed toward attracting wealthy residents months when they are exposed to more light because of began instituting policies to ban all household pets in an effort to distin- the longer days 42. Hens also lay far more eggs when they guish themselves from both the urban and rural lower class) . are younger, starting off with between 150 to 300 eggs per 39 . Barbara West & Ben-Xiong Zhou, Did Chickens Go North? New Evidence for Domestication, 44 World’s Poultry Sci . J . 205-18 (1999) . Christine year depending on the breed and dwindling down by about Heinrichs, How to Raise Chickens: Everything You Need to Know 20% each year 43. Young hens or pullets often start out lay- (2007) . 40 . See, e.g., Andrea Gaynor, Harvest of the Suburbs 133 (2006); Janine De La Salle & Mark Holland, Agricultural Urbanism: Handbook 41 . Litt, supra note 7, at 168-69 . for Building Sustainable Food & Agriculture Systems in 21st Cen- 42 . Id . at 169 . tury Cities 23 (2010) . 43 . Id.

42 ELR 10892 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 ing abnormal-looking or even double-yolked eggs, but as they are kept in a more natural environment with exposure they mature begin laying more uniform eggs 44. Although to sun, weather, and adequate companionship 57. Scientific hens can live up to 15 or even 20 years, the average hen’s nutritional analyses have proven that eggs from hens that lifespan is between four to eight years, so most hens will lay are kept in small flocks and allowed to forage, when com- eggs during most of their life—but production will drop pared with store-bought eggs, have off considerably as they age 45. • 1/3 less cholesterol Although some have argued that raising backyard chickens will save money that would have been used to buy eggs • 1/4 less saturated fat over time, this claim is dubious 46. It would take many years • 2/3 more vitamin A to recoup the cost of the chickens, the chicken feed, and the coops 47. But cost is only part of the equation . • 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids Eggs from backyard hens have been scientifically shown • 3 times more vitamin E to taste better 48. First, they taste better because they are fresher 49. Most eggs bought in a grocery store are weeks • 7 times more beta-carotene 58. if not months old before they reach the point of sale 50. Thus, four to six hens can easily provide enough eggs for Recent studies in agriculture science, moreover, demon- a typical household and sometimes enough for the neigh- strate that if a chicken is allowed to forage for fresh clover bors as well . And, the eggs are more nutritious, fresher, and and grass, eat insects, and is fed oyster shells for calcium, tastier than those available in stores . her eggs will have a deeper colored yolk, ranging from rich gold to bright orange, and the taste of the egg will be B. Chickens Provide Companionship as Pets significantly fresher 51. Next, eggs from backyard hens are more nutritious 52. Many people who own a small flock of chickens consider Poultry scientists have long known that a hen’s diet will their chickens to be pets and a part of their family—just affect the nutrient value of her eggs 53. Thus, most commer- like a dog or a cat 59. Chickens have personalities, and many cial hens are subjected to a standardized diet that provides people and children bond with them just like any other essential nutrients; but even with this knowledge, large- pet 60. Several forums exist on the Internet where people scale operations cannot provide chickens with an optimal can trade stories about hen antics61 or debate what breed diet under optimal conditions 54. Tests have found that of chicken is best for children 62. Chicken owners tend to eggs from small-flock pasture-raised hens actually have a name their hens, and many can easily describe each hen’s remarkably different nutritional content than your typical temperament and personality 63. store-bought egg—even those certified organic 55. This is Perhaps recognizing this, many cities, as shown because backyard chickens can forage for fresh grass and below, actually regulate chickens as pets—and place no other greens and get access to insects and other more nat- further burden on chicken owners than it would on dog ural chicken food 56. The nutritional differences may also or cat owners .64 be attributed to the fact that hens are less stressed because C. Chicken Manure Is a Surprisingly Valuable 44 . Bernal R . Weimer, A Peculiar Egg Abnormality, 2-4:10 Poultry Sci . 78-79 Fertilizer (July 1918) . 45 . Litt, supra note 7, at 173 . 46 . Gail Damerow, Backyard Homestead Guide to Raising Chickens Chicken manure is an excellent and surprisingly valuable (2011) . fertilizer . Currently, 20-pound bags of organic chicken 47 . Litt, supra note 7, at 16 . William Neuman, Keeping Their Eggs in Their Backyard Nests, N .Y . Times, Aug . 3, 2009, http://www .nytimes . manure fertilizer can fetch a price of between $10 and com/2009/08/04/business/04chickens .html?pagewanted=all (acknowledg- ing that backyard chicken enthusiasts do not typically save money by not buying eggs) . 48 . Klaus Horsted et al ., Effect of Grass Clover Forage and Whole-Wheat Feeding on the Sensory Quality of Eggs, 90:2 J . Sci . Food & Agric . 343-48 (Jan . 57 . Id. 2010) . 58 . Litt, supra note 7, at 179 . 49 . Litt, supra note 7, at 17 . 59 . Id. at 4-10 . 50 . Id . 60 . See, e.g ., Carolyn Bush, A Chicken Christmas Tale, Backyard Poultry Mag ,. 51 . Horsted et al ., supra note 48 . Jan . 2010, http://www .backyardpoultrymag .com/issues/5/5-6/a_chicken_ 52 . Litt, supra note 7, at 179 (citing Cheryl Long & Tabitha Alterman, Meet christmas_tale .html (describing her pet chickens and mourning one of their Real Free-Range Eggs, Mother Earth News, Oct ./Nov . 2007, http://www . deaths); Chickenvideo .com, http://www .chickenvideo .com/outlawchick- motherearthnews com/R. eal-Food/2007-10-01/Tests-Reveal-Healthier-Eggs . ens .html (last visited July 2, 2012) (collecting stories from people who keep aspx; Artemis P . Simopoulos & Norman Salem Jr ., Egg Yolk: A Source of chickens as pets despite their illegality) . Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fats in Infant Feeding, 4 Am . J . Clinical Nu- 61 . Funny, Funny Chicken Antics, Backyardchickens .com, http://www .back- trition 411 (1992) (finding a significant increase in nutrition and signifi- yardchickens .com/forum/viewtopic .php?id=380593 (last visited July 2, cant decrease in harmful fats in small-flock free-range eggs) . 2012) . 53 . William J . Stadelman & Owen J . Cotterill, Egg Science & Technol- 62 . What Breeds Are Best for Children to Show in 4-H?, Backyardchickens .com, ogy 185 (1995) . http://www .backyardchickens .com/forum/viewtopic .php?pid=5726813 54 . Id . (last visited July 2, 2012) . 55 . Litt, supra note 7, at 17 . 63 . Litt, supra note 7, at 4 . 56 . Id .; Simopoulos & Salem Jr ., supra note 52 . 64 . See infra Part IV .C .1 .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10893

$20 65. Poultry waste has long been used as a fertilizer—it to a garden can eliminate a need to use chemicals or other provides necessary nutrients for plants and works well as insecticides and prevent insect infestations 75. an addition to compost 66. Large amounts of uncomposted chicken manure applied directly to a garden will over- E. Chickens Help Build Community whelm or burn the plants, because its nitrogen content is too high 67. But, the amount of manure that a backyard Several studies have found that urban agriculture can flock of four to six hens would produce is not enough to increase social connections and civic engagement in the harm the plants and can be beneficial to a home garden, community 76. Agricultural projects can provide a center- even without first being composted 68. piece around which communities can organize and, by A small flock of chickens, moreover, does not actually doing so, become more resilient 77. Building a sense of com- produce much manure . A fully grown four-pound laying munity is often especially valuable for more marginalized hen produces approximately a quarter-pound of manure groups—like recent immigrants and impoverished inner- per day 69. In comparison, an average dog produces three- city areas 78. quarters of a pound per day, or three times as much waste Keeping chickens easily fits into the community- as one hen 70. As cities have been able to deal with waste building benefit of urban agriculture . Because chickens from other pets like dogs and cats with proper regulation, lay more eggs in the spring and summer, an owner often even though there is no market for their waste, cities should has more eggs than he can use: neighbors, thus, become be confident that the city and chicken owners can properly the beneficiaries of the excess eggs . Because chickens manage chicken waste . are still seen as a novelty in many communities, many chicken owners help to educate their neighbors and their D. Chickens Eat Insects communities by inviting them over for a visit and let- ting neighbors see the coops and interact with the chick- Chickens, like other birds, eat insects such as ants, spiders, ens 79. Finally, like the example of Jennifer above, keeping ticks, fleas, slugs, roaches, and beetles 71. Chickens also chickens can become a community endeavor; many peo- occasionally eat worms, small snakes, and small mice 72. ple have formed chicken cooperatives where neighbors Insects provide protein that the chickens need to lay nutri- band together to share in the work of tending the hens tionally dense eggs 73. Small flocks of chickens are recom- and also share in the eggs .80 mended as a way to eliminate weeds, although a chicken does not discriminate between weeds and plants and, if left II. Cities’ Concerns With Backyard Hens in a garden for too long, will eat the garden plants as well 74. But, because chickens like to eat insects and other garden pests, allowing the chicken occasional and limited access Never mind what you think . The old man did not rush Recklessly into the coop at the last minute . The chickens hardly stirred For the easy way he sang to them . 65 . Black Gold Compost Chicken Fertilizer sold for $13 .43 for 20 pounds on Amazon . Amazon .com, http://www .amazon .com/Black-Compost-Chick- Bruce Weigl, Killing Chickens, 1999 . Manure-60217/dp/B00292YAQC (last visited July 2, 2012) . Chickety- doo-doo sold for $47 .75 for 40 pounds on EBay . Ebay, http://www .ebay . com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI .dll?ViewItem&item=260889160166&hlp=false (last visited Jan . 6, 2012) . 66 . Adam A . Hady & Ron Kean, Poultry for Small Farms and Backyard, UW Cooperative Extension, http://learning store .uwex .edu/assets/pdfs/ 75 . Tara Layman Williams, The Complete Guide to Raising Chickens: A3908-03 . Everything You Need to Know 95 (2011) . 67 . Litt, supra note 7, at 9 . 76 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 3 (citing Lorraine Johnson, City Farmer: 68 . Id . Adventures in Urban Food Growing (2010), and Patricia Hynes, A 69 . Ohio Livestock Manure Management Guide, Ohio State University Ex- Patch of Eden: America’s Inner City Gardeners (1996)) . tension, Bulletin 604-06, p . 3, T . 1 2006, http://ohioline .osu .edu/b604/ 77 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 94 . (providing that a four-pound laying hen produces 0 .26 of a pound per day 78 . Id . See also Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study, of manure) . Final Report, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa 70 . Leah Nemiroff & Judith Patterson, Design, Testing and Implementation of Study Group 148, Feb . 2002, http://www .ehsrc .uiowa .edu/cafo_air_qual- a Large-Scale Urban Dog Waste Composting Program, 15:4 Compost Sci . & ity_study .html (finding that in rural areas communities where farms were Utilization 237-42 (2007) (“On average, a dog produces 0 .34 [kilograms smaller, were owner-operated, and used the labor of the operating family, (kg)] (0 .75 lbs) of feces per day ”). . the community “had a richer civic and social fabric: residents of all social 71 . Simopoulos & Salem Jr ., supra note 52, at 412 . Schneider, supra note 8, classes were more involved in community affairs, more community organi- at 15 . zations served people of both middle and working class background, and 72 . Id . there were more local businesses and more retail activity”) . 73 . Id . 79 . Litt, supra note 7, at 12-13 . See, e.g ., Jeff S . Sharp & Molly B . Smith, Social 74 . John P . Bishop, Chickens: Improving Small-Scale Production, Echo technical Capital and Farming at the Rural-Urban Interface: The Importance of Non- note, echo .net, 1995, http://www .google .com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s farmer and Farmer Relations, 76 Agric . Sys . 913-27 (2003) (finding that &source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww . communities benefit and agricultural uses have more support when farmers echocommunity .org%2Fresource%2Fcollection%2FE66CDFDB-0A0D- develop social relationships with non-farmers) . 4DDE-8AB1-74D9D8C3EDD4%2FChickens .pdf&ei=39zxT41Sh7etAd 80 . E.g ., Abby Quillen, How to Share a Chicken or Two, Shareable: Cities SUmY8C&usg=AFQjCNHh0_bkG_5sVmlovgngOXD53AJagA&sig2=_ (Nov . 22, 2009), http://shareable .net/blog/how-to-share-a-chicken (last vis- cgyLnv7jDV7hGIVZty89g (last visited July 2, 2012) . ited Feb . 12, 2012) .

42 ELR 10894 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012

A. Noise C. Diseases

The most frequently expressed concern is that hens will be Two diseases are frequently raised in discussions of back- noisy . This may come from associating roosters with hens . yard hens: avian flu and salmonella . For different reasons, Roosters are noisy .81 Hens are not particularly noisy . While neither justifies a ban on backyard hens 91. they will cluck, the clucking is neither loud nor frequent .82 First, with the attention that avian flu has received in the The clucking of hens is commonly compared to human past few years, some have expressed a concern that allow- conversation—both register around 65 decibels .83 By con- ing backyard chickens could provide a transition point for trast, the barking of a single dog can reach levels well over an avian virus to infect humans 92. While no one can pre- 100 decibels .84 dict whether this virus will cross over to cause widespread It should also be noted that chickens have a homing illness or how it might do so, it is important to note that instinct to roost and sleep at night . A hen will return to avian flu, right now, would have to mutate for it to become her coop at night and generally fall asleep before or at sun- an illness that can spread from person to person 93. Even down .85 Thus, there should be little concern with clucking the H5N1 strain of the virus, a highly pathogenic form hens disturbing a neighborhood at night . that garnered news in the early 2000s because it infected humans, is very difficult for humans to catch and has not B. Odor been shown to spread from person to person 94. And that strain of the virus does not exist in the United States—it Many people are concerned that chicken droppings will has not been found in birds, wild or domestic, in North or cause odors that reach neighbors and perhaps even affect South America 95. the neighborhood . These concerns may stem from pub- Encouraging a return to more small-scale agriculture, licized reports of odors from large poultry operations .86 moreover, may prevent such a mutation from occurring . While it is no doubt true that the odors coming from these Many world and national governmental health organi- intensive commercial-scale chicken farms is overwhelming zations that are concerned with the possible mutation of and harmful,87 these operations often have hundreds of avian flu link the increased risks of disease to the intensi- thousands of chickens in very small spaces .88 fication of the processes for raising animals for food—in Most of the odor that people may associate with poul- other words, large-scale factory farms 96. For instance, the try is actually ammonia . Ammonia, however, is a product Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) blamed of a poorly ventilated and moist coop .89 Coop designs for “the intensification of food-animal production” in part backyard hens should take this into account and allow for on the increasing threat 97. The Council for Agricultural proper ventilation . And, if coops are regularly cleaned, Science and Technology, an industry-funded group, cre- there should be little to no odor associated with the hens 90. ated a task force including experts from the World Health Organization, the World Organization for Animal Health, and the USDA, and issued a report in 2006 finding that 81 . Management of Noise on Poultry Farms, Poultry Fact Sheet, British Colum- bia, Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Aug . 1999), http://www .agf . modern intensive animal farming techniques increase the 98 gov .bc .ca/poultry/publications/documents/noise .pdf . risk of new virulent diseases . The report stated “a major 82 . Id . impact of modern intensive production systems is that 83 . Protecting Against Noise, National Ag Safety Database, The Ohio State University Extension, http://nasdonline .org/document/1744/d001721/ they allow the rapid selection and amplification of patho- protecting-against-noise .html (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) (explaining that a gens that arise from a virulent ancestor (frequently by chicken coop and human conversation are both about 65 decibels) . 84 . Crista L . Coppola et al ., Noise in the Animal Shelter Environment: Building Design and the Effects of Daily Noise Exposure, 9(l) J . applied Animal Wel- 91 . Sue L . Pollock et al ., Raising Chickens in City Backyards: The Public Health fare Sci . 1-7 (2006) . Role, J . Community Health, DOI: 10 .1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011) 85 . Williams, supra note 75, at 92 . Robert Plamondon, Range Poultry Housing, (finding that public health concerns about infectious diseases and other nui- ATTRA 11 (June 2003) . sances that might be caused by keeping hens in an urban setting cannot be 86 . E.g., William Neuman, Clean Living in the Henhouse, N .Y . Times, Oct . supported by literature specific to the urban agriculture context and recom- 6, 2010, http://www .nytimes .com/2010/10/07/business/07eggfarm .html? mending that public health practitioners approach this issue in a manner scp=2&sq=large%20chicken%20farms%20and%20odor&st=cse . analogous to concerns over keeping domestic pets) . 87 . Doug Gurian Sherman, CAFOS Uncovered, The Untold Costs of Animal 92 . E.g., Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 23, at 29 . Feeding Operations, Union of Concerned Scientists, Apr . 2008, http:// 93 . Avian Influenza, USDA, http://www .ars .usda .gov/News/docs .htm?docid= www .ucsusa .org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/cafos-uncovered . 11244 (last visited July 2, 2012) . pdf; Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Air Quality Study, 94 . Avian Influenza, Questions & Answers, Food and Agric . Org . of the Final Report, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa United Nations, http://www .fao .org/avianflu/en/qanda .html (last visited Study Group (Feb . 2002) (finding extensive literature documenting acute July 26, 2012) . and chronic respiratory diseases and dysfunction among poultry work- 95 . Id . ers exposed to complex mixtures of particulates, gases, and vapors within 96 . Michael Greger, Bird Flu, A Virus of Our Own Hatching, BirdFluBook . CAFO units) . Com (2006-2008), http://birdflubook .com/a .php?id=50 (last visited Feb . 88 . Id . 21, 2012) (finding that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit- 89 . Id . ed Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Organization 90 . Gail Damerow, The Backyard Homestead Guide to Raising Farm An- for Animal Health attribute risk factors for the emergence of new diseases imals 35 (2011) (“A chicken coop that smells like manure or has the pun- from animals to the increasing demand for animal protein) . gent odor of ammonia is mismanaged . These problems are easily avoided 97 . Id . by keeping litter dry, adding fresh litter as needed to absorb droppings, and 98 . Id . (citing Global Risks of Infectious Animal Diseases, Council for Agric . Sci . periodically removing the old litter and replacing it with a fresh batch ”). . and Tech ., Issue Paper No . 28, 2005) .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10895

subtle mutation), thus, there is increasing risk for disease D. Property Values entrance and/or dissemination ”. 99 The report concludes by stating, “because of the Livestock Revolution, global Another common concern is that keeping backyard chick- risks of disease are increasing ”. 100 It is for this reason that ens will reduce surrounding property values 108. Several many believe that the movement toward backyard chick- studies, however, have found that agricultural uses within ens and diverse small-scale poultry farming, rather than the city actually increase property values 109. Community being a problem, is a solution to concerns about mutating gardens increase neighboring property values by as much as avian viruses 101. 9 4%. when the garden is first implemented 110. The property Another theory for how an avian flu mutation may value continues to increase as the gardens become more occur is that it will first occur in wild birds that could integrated into the neighborhood 111. The poorest neighbor- pass it on to domesticated birds 102. In this case, backyard hoods, moreover, showed the greatest increase in property hens could provide a transition point . For this reason the values 112. Studies have also found that rent increased and USDA, rather than advocating a ban on backyard hens, the rates of home ownership increased in areas surround- has instead offered some simple-to-follow precautionary ing a newly opened community garden 113. procedures for small flock owners: the USDA counsels Studies concerning pets, moreover, find that apart- backyard bird enthusiasts to separate domesticated birds ment owners can charge higher rent for concessions such from other birds by enclosing coops and runs, to clean the as allowing pets 114. Thus, accommodating pets has been coops regularly, and to wash their hands before and after shown to raise property values . touching the birds 103. As of yet, no studies have been done on how backyard Another illness that causes concern because it can be chickens in particular affect property values, but given that transferred to humans is salmonella 104. Chickens, like communities express little concern that other pets, such other common household pets—including dogs, turtles, as dogs or cats, reduce property values, and given research and caged birds—can carry salmonella 105. For this reason, showing that pets and urban agricultural practices can the CDC counsels that people should wash their hands increase them, there is little reason to believe that allowing after touching poultry, should supervise young children backyard chickens will negatively affect them 115. around poultry, and make sure that young children wash their hands after touching chicks or other live poultry 106. E. Slaughter Chickens, like other pets, can get sick and carry disease . But public health scholars have found that there is Some people are concerned that chicken owners will kill no evidence that the incidence of disease in small flocks of chickens in the backyard 116. People are concerned that backyard hens merits banning hens in the city and counsel it may be harmful to children in the neighborhood to city officials to regulate backyard hens like they would any watch a chicken being killed and prepared for a meal 117. other pet 107. Others are concerned that backyard slaughtering may be unsanitary 118. First, many who raise chickens keep the hens only for the eggs 119. Most egg-laying breeds do not make for tasty meat 120. Many people become attached to their 99 . Id . chickens, as they would a cat or a dog, and treat a death 100 . Id . 101 . Ben Block, U.S. City Dwellers Flock to Raising Chickens, WorldWatch Insti- tute, http://www .worldwatch .org/node/5900 (last visited Feb . 22, 2012); Fowl Play, the Poultry Industry’s Central Role in the Bird Flu Crisis, GRAIN, http://www .grain .org/article/entries/22-fowl-play-the-poultry-industry-s- 108 . Salkin, supra note 9, at 1 . central-role-in-the-bird-flu-crisis (last visited Feb . 22, 2012); Putting Meat 109 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 21 . on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America, A Report of 110 . Id . the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (2006), 111 . Id . http://www .ncifap .org/ (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 112 . Id . 102 . Rachel Dennis, CAFOs and Public Health: Risks Associated With Welfare 113 . Id . Friendly Farming, Purdue Univ . Extension, Aug . 2007, https://mdc .itap . 114 . G . Stacy Sirmans & C .F . Sirmans, Rental Concessions and Property Values, purdue .edu/item .asp?itemID=18335# .T_Hjd3CZOOU . 5:1 J . Real Estate Res . 141-51(1990); C .A . Smith, Apartment Rents—Is 103 . Backyard Biosecurity, 6 Ways to Prevent Poultry Disease, USDA, May 2004, There a “Complex” Effect, 66:3 Appraisal J . (1998) (finding that average http://www .aphis .usda .gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity/biosecurity/ba- apartment unit commands $50 more rent per unit by allowing pets) . sicspoultry .htm (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 115 . Michael Broadway, Growing Urban Agriculture in North American Cities: 104 . Keeping Live Poultry, CDC, http://www .cdc .gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- The Example of Milwaukee, 52:3-4 Focus on Geography 23-30 (Dec . try/ (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 2009) . 105 . See Shaohua Zhao, Characterization of Salmonella Enterica Serotype Newport 116 . Neighbors Opposed to Backyard Slaughter, http://noslaughter .org Isolated From Humans and Food Animals, 41 J . Clinical Microbiology, (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) . No . 12, 5367 (2003) (stating that dogs and pigeons, as well as chickens, can 117 . Id . carry salmonella); J . Hidalgo-Villa, Salmonella in Free Living Terrestrial and 118 . Id . Aquatic Turtles, 119:2-4 Veterinary Microbiology 311-15 (Jan . 2007) . 119 . Litt, supra note 7, at 3 (stating that “the vast majority of backyard chicken 106 . Keeping Live Poultry, CDC, http://www .cdc .gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- keepers regard their chickens as pets and find it unsettling—if not outright try/ (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . upsetting—to consider eating them”) . 107 . Sue L . Pollock et al ., Raising Chickens in City Backyards: The Public Health 120 . Jay Rossier, Living With Chickens: Everything You Need to Know Role, J . Community Health, DOI: 10 .1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011) . to Raise Your Own Backyard Flock 4 (2002) .

42 ELR 10896 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 similarly 121. Veterinarians, moreover, have avenues for increase in methane production caused by urban chickens disposing of dead animals that are generally accepted in is not only negligible, but also likely offset by a decrease in most communities 122. rural chickens 131. But, if a person did want to use her chickens for meat, there are other methods for butchering a chicken rather G. Winter Weather than doing so in the backyard . As part of the local food movement, small-scale butchers have made a comeback in Northern cities may be concerned that their climate the last few years, and many are particularly interested in is not suitable for chickens . Chickens, however, were locally raised animals 123. Thus, legalizing backyard chick- bred to thrive in certain climates . There are breeds of ens does not necessarily mean that a city must also legalize chicken that are more suited to warm or even hot cli- backyard chicken slaughtering 124. mates . And, there are chickens that were bred specifically to thrive in colder weather, such as Rhode Island F. Greenhouse Gases Reds or Plymouth Rocks 132. While even cold-hardy breeds can be susceptible to Although worries that chickens will increase greenhouse frostbite in extreme winter weather, a sturdy coop with gases appears to be a bit over the top, at least one city raised some extra insulation and perhaps a hot water bottle on this as a concern when contemplating allowing chickens . frigid nights can protect the birds from harm 133. In Montgomery, Ohio, at least one city council member was fearful that allowing chickens to be raised in the city H. Running Wild might contribute to global warming 125. While chickens do produce methane as a natural Of all of the chicken ordinances that this Article will later byproduct of digestion just like any other animal (includ- discuss, it appears that one of the most popular regula- ing humans), the amount they produce is negligible in tions is to prohibit chickens running wild in the streets 134. comparison to other livestock . Methane production is Chickens, like dogs and cats, sometimes escape their enclo- a concern largely confined to ruminant animals, such as sures . While it would be irresponsible to presume that no cows, goats, and buffaloes 126. These animals produce a large chicken will ever escape its enclosure, city officials can rest amount of methane every year because of the way in which assured that chicken keepers do not want to see their hens they digest carbohydrates 127. Cows produce an average of escape any more than city officials want to see hens run- 55 kilograms (kg) per year per cow 128. A goat will produce ning loose on the streets . 5 kg per year, a pig 1 5,. and a human 0 05. 129. Chickens, For this reason, and also to protect against predators, because they are nonruminant animals, and because they cities should ensure that chickens are kept in an enclosure are much smaller than humans, produce less than 0 05. kg at all times . per year per chicken 130. Finally, there is no reason to believe that an urban III. Some Necessary Background on Hens chicken would cause a net increase in the production of for Developing Urban Hen-Keeping methane . A person who gets her eggs from her pet hen will Ordinances likely be buying fewer eggs from the supermarket . Thus, there is unlikely to be a net increase in egg consumption, so there is unlikely to be a net increase in chickens . Thus, any His comb was finest coral red and tall, And battlemented like a castle wall . His bill was black and like the jet it glowed, 121 . Jose Linares, Urban Chickens, Am . Veterinary Med . Ass’n Welfare Fo- cus, Apr . 2011, http://www .avma .org/issues/animal_welfare/AWFocus/ His legs and toes like azure when he strode . 110404/urban_chickens .asp . His nails were whiter than the lilies bloom, 122 . Id . Like burnished gold the color of his plume . 123 . Elizabeth Keyser, The Butcher’s Back, Conn . Mag ., Apr . 2011, http:// www connecticutmag. com/C. onnecticut-Magazine/April-2011/The-Butcher- Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, 039s-Back/ . 135 124 . But see Simon v . Cleveland Heights, 188 N .E . 308, 310 (Ohio Ct . App . The Nun’s Priest’s Tale 1933) (holding that a ban on poultry slaughtering applied to a small business butcher violated the Ohio Constitution because it prohibited the conduct of a lawful business) . 125 . Valerie Taylor, Chickens for Montgomery (June 2009) http://www . scribd .com/doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws (last visited July 2, 2012) (responding to city’s concerns about increase in greenhouse gases) . 126 . See Methane, Sources, and Emissions, U .S . EPA, http://www .epa .gov/methane/sources .html (last visited July 2, 2012) . 131 . Letter from Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner Department of Natu- 127 . Id . ral Resources, to Cameron Gloss (June 12, 2008), http://www .scribd .com/ 128 . Paul J . Crutzen et al ., Methane Production by Domestic Animals, Wild Rumi- doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws . nants, Other Herbivorous Fauna and Humans, 38B Tellus B . 271-74 (July- 132 . Litt, supra note 7, at 119 . Sept . 1986) . 133 . Id . 129 . Id . 134 . See infra Part IV .C .5 .a . 130 . Id . 135 . Ronald Ecker trans ., Hodge & Braddock Publishers 1993 .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10897

A. Hens Are Social Animals archy is established, the aggressive behavior will lessen or even abate until new birds are added to the flock or until a Chickens are social animals and do better if they are kept hen mounts a challenge to someone above her in the peck- in flocks 136. Chickens can recognize one another and can ing order 148. remember up to 50 or 60 other chickens 137. Because of this, Studies have shown, however, that incidence of pecking large flocks of chickens, like those found in most inten- is greatly reduced when hens are kept in lower densities 149. sive farming operations, are socially unstable and can cause (Feather pecking is often a problem in large-scale chicken aggressive behavior 138. In the wild, most flocks form sub- farms ). 150 When densities were approximately six or fewer groups of between four to six chickens 139. birds per 10 square feet, pecking behaviors abated or were Chickens show affiliative behavior, eating together, significantly reduced 151. preening together, gathering together in small groups if Because a new introduction into the flock will upset the they are given space to do so, and sleeping at the same pecking order, some farmers advocate for introducing at time 140. Chickens also learn behaviors from one another— least two chicks at a time 152. This will help spread out the for instance, chickens that watch another trained chicken abuse that could be laid on a solitary young hen . It will peck a key to obtain food will learn this task more quickly also more fully upset the pecking order, so that the birds than other chickens that are not exposed to the behavior 141. are forced to find a new hierarchy that will include the new Because chickens are flock animals, a chicken left alone birds instead of leaving one isolated hen at the bottom of generally will not thrive 142. An isolated hen will often the flock 153. exhibit disturbed and self-destructive behaviors, like chas- For these reasons, chicken owners should always be ing its own tail and exhibiting excessive aggression 143. allowed to keep, at a minimum, four chickens . Thisensures Because eating is social behavior, there are some reports that city regulations do not stand in the way of good flock that single chickens stop eating or eat less 144. While scien- management: if any hens are lost through injury, illness, or tific studies have yet to prove that a hen feels loneliness,145 old age, the chicken owner can ensure that the flock never backyard hen enthusiasts are well aware that an isolated goes below two hens before seeking to add new hens . This hen will often appear depressed or ill 146. will also allow the owner to introduce new hens into the flock two at a time . B. The Pecking Order C. Chickens and Predators We often use the term pecking order to describe a hierarchy in a community . The ermt comes from the tendency Backyard hens in a metropolitan area may, in some ways, for chickens to peck at one another and display aggressive be better protected from predators than their rural coun- behavior until a hierarchy is established 147. Once the hier- terparts, because there are fewer predators in the city . The more prevalent chicken predators in the United States— 136 . Michael C . Appleby et al ., Poultry Behavior and Welfare 35, 77-82 foxes, coyotes, and bobcats—are found less often in the (2004); Heinrichs, supra note 39, at 11 (2007) . 154 137 . Nicolas Lampkin, Organic Poultry Production, Welsh Inst . of Rural Studies city than they are in more rural areas . Other predators, 20 (Mar . 1997), available at http://orgprints .org/9975/1/Organic_Poulty_ however, such as hawks and raccoons, are frequently found Production .pdf . in the city 155. 138 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136 (noting that chickens have increased aggression and increased growth of adrenal glands when they come in contact These predators are one reason why chickens must have with other chickens they do not know and also noting that chickens are sturdy coops that are designed to protect hens from assault . stressed by being kept in large flocks because it is unlikely that birds in large Chickens have an instinct to return to their coop each flocks can form a hierarchy: they are instead “in a constant state of trying to 156 establish a hierarchy but never achieving it”) . night . And most predators are more active at night when 139 . Id . at 71; Lampkin, supra note 137, at 20 . 140 . Appleby et al ,. supra note 136, at 77-79 . 141 . Id . at 79 . Social Life of Birds, 56 The Auk 263 (July 1939) . 142 . Ian J .H . Duncan & Penny Hawkins, The Welfare of Domestic Fowl & 148 . Litt, supra note 7, at 122 . Alphaeus M . Guhl et al ., Mating Behavior and Other Captive Birds 68-69 (2010) . the Social Hierarchy in Small Flocks of White Leghorns, 18 Physiological 143 . D .G .M . Wood-Gush, The Behavior of the Domestic Fowl 124 Zoology 365-68 (Oct . 1945) . (1971) . 149 . B . Huber-Eicher & L . Audigé, Analysis of Risk Factors for the Occurrence of 144 . D .W . Rajecki et al ., Social Factors in the Facilitation of Feeding in Chick- Feather Pecking Among Laying Hen Growers, 40 British Poultry Sci . 599- ens: Effects of Imitation, Arousal, or Disinhibition?, 32 J . Personality & 604 (1999) (demonstrating through a study of commercial hen farms in Soc . Psychol . 510-18 (Sept . 1975) . Martine Adret-Hausberger & Robin Switzerland that hens were far less likely to feather peck if they were kept in B . Cumming, Social Experience and Selection of Diet in Domestic Chickens, low-density environments and if they had access to elevated perches) . 7 Bird Behavior 37-43 (1987) (finding that isolated young broilers had 150 . Id . lower growth rates than those placed with other birds) . 151 . Id . 145 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136, at 142 (suggesting that poultry may suf- 152 . Litt, supra note 7, at 122-23 . fer from loneliness and boredom and that “[c]onsidering the barrenness of 153 . Id . many husbandry systems, boredom would seem to be a good candidate for 154 . See, e.g., Stanley D . Gehrt et al ., Home Range and Landscape Use of Coyotes in further studies”) a Metropolitan Landscape: Conflict or Coexistence, J . Mammalogy, 1053-55 146 . See, e.g., Do Chickens Get Lonely, Backyard Poultry Forum (Friday, (2009); Seth P .D . Riley, Spatial Ecology of Bobcats and Gray Foxes in Urban Feb . 13, 2009), http://forum .backyardpoultry .com/viewtopic .php?f=5&t= and Rural Zones of a National Park, 70(5) J . Wildlife Mgmt . 1425-35 7970419&start=0 (last visited Mar . 4, 2012) . (2006) . 147 . Alphaeus M . Guhl, Social Behavior of the Domestic Fowl, 71 Transactions 155 . Williams, supra note 75, at 88-89 . Kan . Acad . Sci . (1968) . Gladwyn K . Noble, The Role of Dominance in the 156 . Litt, supra note 7, at 71 .

42 ELR 10898 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 the chickens are sleeping in their coops 157. While there is ship, New Jersey, allows roosters that are certified disease- no guarantee that predators will not find a way to prey on free to visit a hen flock for 10 days out of every year 167. chickens, ensuring that coops are sturdily built with the Although news about the township’s policy garnered intention to keep out predators can help ameliorate con- national attention for its quirkiness, it may work as a solu- cerns with predators 158. tion for hen owners seeking to add to their flock without having to buy new chicks 168. D. Roosters Like to Crow IV. The Current State of Municipal Even city-dwellers who have never met a rooster know that Ordinances Governing Backyard roosters crow . But the popular belief, passed on in chil- Chickens dren’s cartoons, that roosters crow in the morning like an alarm clock to welcome the rising sun is largely a myth . Roosters may crow in the morning, but they also crow Such a fine pullet ought to go in the afternoon or evening or, basically, whenever they All coiffured to a winter show, feel like it 159. While the frequency of crowing depends on And be exhibited, and win . the breed and the individual rooster, many roosters crow The answer is this one has been— 160 a lot . In fact, because domestic roosters crow so much And come with all her honors home . more frequently than their wild kin, one theory postulates Her golden leg, her coral comb, that they were bred over many centuries for loud, long, and Her fluff of plumage, white as chalk, frequent crowing because such crowing played an impor- Her style, were all the fancy’s talk tant role in Zoroastrian religious ceremonies 161. Because roosters are noisy and frequently so, cities that Robert Frost, A Blue Ribbon at Amesbury (1916) . have more dense urban environments should consider banning them—at least on smaller lot sizes . Some cities have A. Introduction allowed an exception for “decrowed” roosters162: some veterinarians used to offer a “decrowing” procedure that To determine the current state of chicken legislation in the would remove the rooster’s voicebox . Because of its high United States, the laws of the top 100 cities by population, mortality rate—over 50%—veterinarians no longer offer according to the 2000 census are surveyed in this Article 169. this procedure 163. Because this procedure is dangerous Currently, 94% of these cities allow for chickens in some and cruel to the rooster, cities that have such an exception manner 170. While many cities impose various restrictions should consider amending it so as not to encourage mis- treatment of roosters . 167 . NJ Town Limits Conjugal Visits Between Roosters & Hens, Huffington Post, Apr .27, 2011, http://www huffing. tonpost com/2. 011/04/28/nj-limits-chicken- E. Hens Don’t Need Roosters to Lay Eggs mating_n_854404 .html . 168 . Because chick hatcheries have been a source of salmonella, some backyard hen keepers may prefer to propagate their own flock . See, e.g., Serena Gordon, A common myth is that hens will not lay eggs without a They’re Cute, But Baby Chicks Can Harbor Salmonella, U .S . News & World Re- rooster around . This is simply not true; hens do not need port, May 30, 2012, http://health .usnews .com/health-news/news/articles/ 164 2012/05/30/theyre-cute-but-baby-chicks-can-harbor-salmonella . roosters to lay eggs . In fact, it is likely that every egg 169 . Cities With 100,000 or More Population in 2000 Ranked by Population, 2000 you have ever eaten was produced by a hen that never met in Rank Order, U .S . Census, http://www .census .gov/statab/ccdb/cit1020r . a rooster 165. txt (last visited Jan . 26, 2012) . 170 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Albuquerque, The only reason that hens require roosters is to fertil- N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . 166 ize the eggs, so that the eggs will hatch chicks . Because Code §18 .38 .030 (2011); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances this can be an easier way to propagate a flock, rather than tit . 17, 21 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Augus- sending away for mail-order chicks, some chicken own- ta-Richmond, Ga ., Code of Ordinances tit . 4, art . 2 (2007); Aurora, ers would like to keep a rooster around or at least allow Colo ., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordi- it to visit . To address this concern, at least one city that nances tit . III, ch . 3 .1 .1 (2011); Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .08 .10 (2011); Baton Rouge, bans roosters allows “conjugal visits ”. Hopewell Town- La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224 (2011); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., 157 . Gehrt, supra note 154, at 1053 . Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordi- 158 . Williams, supra note 75, at 88-89 . nances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances 159 . Heinrichs, supra note 39, at 16 . §17-12-300 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701 160 . Id . (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205 .04, 347 .02 161 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136, at 36-37 . (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Co- 162 . See, e.g ., Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(c) (2011) . lumbus, Ohio, City Code tit . III, ch . 221 (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex ., 163 . Small and Backyard Flocks, Ky . U . Ext ,. http://www .ca .uky .edu/smallflocks/ Code of Ordinances §§6-153, 6-154 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of faq .html#Q31 (last visited Feb . 17, 2012) . Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011); 164 . Small and Backyard Flocks, Ky . U . Ext ,. http://www .ca .uky .edu/smallflocks/ Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); El Paso, Tex ., faq .html#Q11 (last visited Feb . 17, 2012) . Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 165 . Id . §11A-22 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Fresno, 166 . Id . Cal ., Mun . Code §§10 .201-10 .205 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10899 on keeping chickens through zoning, setbacks, and per- agriculturally zoned land 173. Because such restrictions will mitting requirements, only three of the top 100 cities have exclude most people within the city from being able to ordinances that clearly ban the keeping of chickens within keep hens, if such restrictions are interpreted to be a ban city limits: Detroit, Aurora, and Yonkers 171. Three others on chickens, then 84% of cities can be considered to allow have unclear ordinances that city officials have interpreted for chickens . as banning backyard chickens: Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, Within that 84%, there is a wide range of how cities reg- and Lubbock 172. An additional 10 cities, while allowing for ulate chickens—ranging from no regulation174 to a great chickens, restrict them to either very large lots or only to deal of very specific ordinances governing where chickens can be located,175 how coops must be built,176 and how often chickens must be fed and coops must be cleaned 177. Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . Some of these cities also have restrictive setbacks or other II, art . 5 (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011); Greens- regulations that will prohibit some residents from owning boro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Hialeah, Fla ., chickens—especially residents in multi-family dwellings Code of Ordinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Or- 178 dinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . or who live on small lots in a dense area of the city . As 6, art . II (2010); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code tit . III, ch . 531 (2011); described more fully below, there is no uniformity in the Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011) (not regulating chickens at ways that cities regulate chickens; each city’s ordinance is all); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Kan- unique . Regulations are placed in different areas of a city’s sas City, Mont ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., codified ordinances . Some regulations are spread through- Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011); Lexington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Or- out the code, making it difficult for a chicken owner to dinances §4-10 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .020 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . determine how to comply with the city’s ordinances . Some Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code ch . 91 cities regulate through zoning, others through animal (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. regulations, and others through the health code 179. Some §7 .29; id. §9 .52; Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-21 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordi- cities simply define chickens as pets and provide no regula- 180 nances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78- tions at all . Each of these methods of regulation will be 6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); explored in more detail below . Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Nashville- Although other surveys of urban chicken laws have been Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §§8-12-020, 17-16-330 (2011); New Or- done, no basis was given for the choice of the cities sur- leans, La ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, ch . 18, art . VI (2011); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2- 30 (2010); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §§4-05, 6 .1-7 (2011); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code tit . 8, 59 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Or- dinances §6-266 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §§8-7, 8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordi- 173 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (restricting chick- nances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ens to land zoned for agricultural use); Chesapeake, Va ,. Code of Ordi- §4-184 (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015 (2011); Raleigh, nances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3 (restricting to low-density zones N .C ., Code of Ordinances §§12-3001, 12-3004 (2011); Richmond, and restricting to properties of one acre or more); Hialeah, Fla ., Code Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of of Ordinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011); id. tit . 17; Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordi- for agricultural use); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . nances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Sacremento, Cal ., City Code 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011) (restricting chickens to agricultural or low- §9-44-340 (2011); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015 density residential zones); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . (2010); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code 4 art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII (restricting chickens to agricultural or of Ordinances §4-31 (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances low-density residential zones); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, app . §5-109 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); San A, art . II, §4-0 .5 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties of five acres or Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of more); Oklahoma City,Okla ., Mun . Code tit . 8, 59 (2011) (restricting Ordinances tit . 7 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 chickens to properties with one acre or more); Phila ., Pa ,. Code of Ordi- (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Seattle, nances §10-112 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with three acres Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052 (2011); Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordi- or more); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (restrict- nances ch . 106 (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .010 (no ing chickens to properties with one acre or more); Virginia Beach, Va ., date listed); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011); City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011); Tampa, Fla ., Code of agricultural use) . Ordinances §19 .76 (2008); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances ch . 174 . E.g., N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990) (only regulating chickens if 4, art . VI (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §§505 .07(a)(4), 1705 .07 they are kept for sale: “A person who holds a permit to keep for sale or sell (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d)(e) (2011); Wash ., live rabbits or poultry shall keep them in coops and runwasy and prevent D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .1 (no date listed); them from being at large ”);. Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) . (2011) (“No person shall own keep, or otherwise possess, or slaughter any 171 . Aurora, Colo ., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Detroit, Mich ., . . . poultry, rabbit, dog, cat, or any other animal intending to use such ani- City Code §6-1-3 (2010); Yonkers, N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990) . mal for food purposes ”). Chicago’s ordinance has been interpreted to allow 172 . Fort Wayne, Ind ,. Code of Ordinances §157 .104 (2011) (banning live- keeping chickens for eggs . Kara Spak, Raising Chickens Legal in Chicago, and stock within the city, even though chickens are not listed in the definition of People Are Crowing About It, Chi . Sun Times, Aug . 13, 2011, http://www . livestock, the animal control department says that the city interprets chicken suntimes .com/news/metro/6942644-418/city-of-chicken-coops .html; Ir- as livestock); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010) ving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011) (not regulating chickens) . (“No farm animal shall be kept or allowed to be kept within any dwelling 175 . See infra V .C .2 or dwelling unit or within one hundred (100) feet of any dwelling, dwell- 176 . See infra V .C .5 .c . ing unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch or drain ”);. Lubbock, Tex ., 177 . See infra V .C .5 .b . City Ordinance §4 .07 .001 (2011) (permitting chickens “in those areas 178 . See infra V .C .4 . appropriately permitted by the zoning ordinances of the city” when zoning 179 . See infra V .B . ordinances are silent) . 180 . See infra V .A .

42 ELR 10900 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 veyed181 and the survey sizes were far smaller 182. By choos- that quite a few cities do expressly allow roosters 190. Exam- ing the largest cities in the United States by population, ining each aspect of the ordinance piecemeal is designed this survey is meant to give a snapshot of what kind of to provide a thorough overview of ordinances regulating laws govern the most densely populated urban areas . An backyard chickens and classification of common concerns . understanding of how large cosmopolitan areas approach Through this review, regulatory norms will be identified backyard chickens can help smaller cities determine the and especially effective, novel, or eccentric regulations will best way to fashion an ordinance 183. be noted . Several aspects of these ordinances will be examined . Norms and effective regulations will be taken into First, the area within the codified ordinances that the city account in constructing a model ordinance . The ost m chooses to regulate chickens will be discussed 184. Next, thoughtful, effective, and popular regulations from each regulations based on space requirements, zoning require- of these ordinances will be incorporated into these recom- ments, and setbacks will be examined 185. After that, the mendations . Also, data discussed in the first part of this different sorts of sanitation requirements that cities impose Article about chickens, chicken behavior, and chicken- will be examined, including looking at how specific or gen- keeping will inform the model ordinance . eral those requirements are 186. Then, the coop construction But, before delving into each of these aspects of the requirements, including how much space a city requires ordinances, some more general impressions from this anal- per chicken, will be examined 187. Next, cities’ use of per- ysis will be discussed . These more general impressions will mits to regulate chickens will be evaluated 188. The Article include identifying some themes in these regulations based will then discuss anti-slaughter laws 189. Finally, the preva- on population size and region . lence of banning roosters will be discussed, while noting 1. The More Populous the City, the More Likely 181 . See Orbach & Sjoberg, Debating Backyard Chickens; Sarah Schindler, Of Backyard Chickens and Front Yard Garden: The Conflict Between Local Gov- It Is to Allow for Backyard Chickens ernment and Locavores, 87 Tul . L . Rev . (forthcoming Nov . 2, 2012); Patricia Salkin, Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard When reviewing the overall results of the survey concern- Chickens, 34:3 Zoning & Plan . L . Rep . 1 (Mar . 2011); Kieran Miller, Backyard Chicken Policy: Lessons From Vancouver, Seattle, and Niagara Falls, ing whether a city allows chickens or bans them, a pat- QSPACE at Queens U . (2011), http://qspace .library .queensu .ca/han- tern emerges based on population size . At least among dle/1974/6521; Katherine T . Labadie, Residential Urban Keeping: An Exam- the top 100 cities by population, the smaller the city, the ination of 25 Cities, U .N .M . Research Paper (2008) http://www .google . com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE0QFjAA greater the chance that the city will ban chickens . Of the &url=http%3A%2F%2F66 .147 .242 .185%2F~urbanch5%2Fwp-content top 10 cities by population, all of them allow for chickens %2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FOrdinance-research-paper .pdf&ei=f_ in some way 191. Of those top 10 cities, however, Philadel- T5T8jOLcrjqgGP5NGKCQ&usg=AFQjCNE-ArE_uYe4XcKDfhMrwS a4mOLfQw&sig2=UcWfdU1smpoifnqTiE_wvA; Jennifer Blecha, Urban phia has fairly strict zoning restrictions that only allows 192 Life With Livestock: Performing Alternative Imaginaries Through Small Stock chickens in lots of three acres or larger . And, of the Urban Livestock Agriculture in the United States, Proquest Information top 50 cities by population, only one city bans chickens and Learning Company (2007) . See also Chicken L.O.R.E Project: Chicken 193 Laws and Ordinances and Your Rights and Entitlements, Backyard Chick- outright: Detroit . ens .com, http://www .backyardchickens .com/t/310268/chicken-lore- But in the last 20 of the top 100 cities, four of them project-find-submit-local-chicken-laws-ordinances (last visited Feb . 20, ban chickens: Yonkers, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and 2012) (providing an extensive community-created database of municipal 194 chicken laws) . Lubbock . So, within that subset, only 80% of the cit- 182 . Poultry 2010, Reference of the Health and Management of Chicken Stocks in Urban Settings in Four U.S. Cities, USDA, May 2011 (studying the urban 190 . Infra V .C .8 . chicken population in Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City) . 191 . The top 10 cities by population from most populous to least populous: 183 . Also, this survey is necessarily frozen in time for publicly accessible ordi- N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, nances as of December of 2011 . This is because at least two cities have 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Chi ., ill ., Code already changed their ordinances to allow for more comprehensive and of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7, permissive livestock regulations—Pittsburgh and San Diego . Diana Nel- 8-10 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); Dallas, son-Jones, Pittsburgh Urban Chicken Coop Tour to Be Held on Sunday, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www .post-gazette .com/ Ordinances §5-109 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . pg/11160/1152234-34 .stm (stating that Pittsburgh had amended its ordi- 6, art . II (2010) . nances to allow for 3 chickens for every 2,000 square feet of property); 192 . Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011) . Adrian Florino, San Diego City Council Approves Backyard Chickens, Goats, 193 . Detroit, Mich ., City Code §6-1-3 (2010) . and Bees, KPBS, Feb . 1, 2012, http://www .kpbs .org/news/2012/feb/01/ 194 . The last 20 of the top 100 cities from most populous to least populous: san-diego-city-council-approves-backyard-chickens-/ . These ordinances, Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010); Akron, however, have not yet been codified within the cities code and, thus, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of are not yet publicly accessible . Although this Article intends to use the Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . most recent ordinances, because of the size of the sample, and because of 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52; Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Or- the scattered news coverage and the significant lag time in updating city dinances §157 .104 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); codes, the author cannot be sure that other cities have not amended their Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Montgom- ordinances . Thus, this study can do no more than provide a snapshot in ery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; time for these ordinances . Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011); Lubbock, Tex ., 184 . Infra V .B . City Code §4 .07 .001 (2011); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances 185 . Infra V .C .1-4 . ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances 186 . Infra V .C .5 §7-102 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); 187 . Infra V .C .5 Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010); Richmond, 188 . Infra V .C .6 . Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Yonkers, N .Y ,. §65-23 (1990); 189 . Infra V .C .7 . Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 (no date listed); Augusta-

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10901 ies allow for chickens . Thismay go against popular belief ordinances, however . Columbus requires a permit to keep that chickens would be more prevalent in bucolic sub- chickens and allows its Health Commissioner discretion urbs and less popular in densely populated cosmopoli- over granting and revoking that permit .201 Akron requires tan areas . Because this survey only includes large urban chickens to be kept at least 100 feet from any dwelling, areas, the percentage of smaller cities, suburbs, and which will restrict owners of small parcels in densely popu- exurbs that allow for chickens is not known . But, based lated areas from raising chickens .202 on this limited survey, it appears that more populous In 2009, Cleveland passed a comprehensive ordinance cities have largely accepted chickens, and the pursuit of legalizing chickens and bees .203 Cleveland allows for one more chicken-friendly legislation has moved to smaller chicken per 800 square feet, which would allow up to six cities and the suburbs . chickens on a standard residential lot .204 Cleveland also has minimal setbacks and detailed coop requirements .205 2. Some Regional Observations And Cincinnati and Toledo have even more liberal ordinances, allowing for chickens as long as they do not create Although it is difficult to draw regional distinctions from a nuisance .206 a limited set of data, it does appear that the states in Virginia also stands out for restricting chickens . All what is colloquially called the Rustbelt are more likely four of Virginia’s cities within the top 100 cities by to ban chickens . In Michigan, both cities within the top population—Chesapeake, Norfolk, Richmond, and Vir- 100, Detroit and Grand Rapids, ban chickens 195. And in ginia Beach—restrict chickens to large lots or to lands Pennsylvania, similarly, both of its most populated cit- zoned agricultural .207 ies, for the most part, ban chickens 196. Philadelphia only allows chickens on lots of three acres or more—far more B. Where Regulations Concerning Chickens Are than the average lot size in Philadelphia 197. Pittsburgh, Placed Within a City’s Codified Ordinances although it recently amended its ordinances,198 used to allow chickens only on parcels of five acres or more 199. In The survey reveals that there is little consistency in where either event, in both cities, keeping chickens is limited to cities choose to locate chicken regulations within their cod- property sizes that are far larger than the average for an ified ordinances . Most cities regulate chickens in sections urban area . devoted to animals, zoning, health, or nuisances . Each Within the Rustbelt states, Ohio stands out for legaliz- method of regulation will be examined for how often it is ing chickens . All five of its major cities currently allow for used and how effective it is . chickens: Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo .200 Columbus and Akron have far more restrictive

Richmond, Ga ., Code of Ordinances tit . 4, art . 2 (2007); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, ch . 6 (2011) . 195 . Detroit, Mich ., City Code §6-1-3 (2010) (prohibits owning farm ani- 201 . Columbus §221 .05: mals and defines chickens as farm animals); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code The Health Commissioner may grant permission only after itis of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010) (prohibiting farm animals within 100 ft . determined that the keeping of such animals: (1) creates no adverse of any dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch, or drain . City environmental or health effects; (2) is in compliance with all other officials have interpreted this to ban chickens .); but see Ann Arbor, Mich ., sections of this chapter; and (3) in the judgment of the Health Code of Ordinances tit . IX, ch . 107, §9:42 (allowing up to four chickens Commissioner, after consultation with the staff of the Health De- in single-family or two-family dwellings if a permit is secured and regula- partment and with the surrounding occupants of the place of keep- tions are followed) . ing such animals, and considering the nature of the community 196 . Phila . §10-112; Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §§635 .02, (i .e ., residential or commercial single or multiple dwellings, etc . ), is 911 .04 .A .2 (2011) . reasonably inoffensive . The health commissioner may revoke such 197 . Susan Wachter, The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformations in permission at any time for violation of this chapter or nay other Philadelphia Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study, just cause . Spring 2005, The Wharton School, http://www .google .com/url?sa=t 202 . Akron §92-18 . &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http 203 . Cleveland §§347 .02 & 205 .04 . %3A%2F%2Fkabaffiliates .org%2FuploadedFiles%2FKAB_Affiliates .org 204 . Id . %2FWharton%2520Study%2520NK%2520final .pdf&ei=X40hT56_ 205 . Id . OOjCsQLogpyhCQ&usg=AFQjCNH-DYO3ImfVNsESWy6QZ9-79aW 206 . Cincinnati §701-17; id. §00053-11 (“No live geese, hens, chickens, pi- 87A&sig2=C2IvyXmR7twhy4K5RZYk-A (last visited Jan . 26, 2012) (find- geons, ducks, hogs, goats, cows, mules, horses, dogs, cats, other fowl or ing that the average lot size within the New Kensington area of Philadelphia any other domestic or non-domestic animals shall be kept in the city so as was just over 1,000 square feet) . to create a nuisance, foul odors, or be a menace to the health of occupants 198 . Diana Nelson-Jones, Pittsburgh Urban Chicken Coop Tour to Be Held on or neighboring individuals ”);. Toledo §§1705 .05 & 505 .07 (“No person Sunday, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www .post- shall keep or harbor any animal or fowl in the City so as to create noxious or gazette .com/pg/11160/1152234-34 .stm (stating that Pittsburgh had offensive odors or unsanitary conditions which are a menace to the health, amended its ordinances to allow for three chickens for every 2,000 square comfort or safety of the public ”). . feet of property) . 207 . Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3 199 . Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §911 .04(A)(2) (2011) . (restricting to low-density zones and restricting to properties of one acre or 200 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, more); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, app . A, art . II §4-0 .5 (2011) Code of Ordinances ch . 701 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Or- (restricting chickens to properties of five acres or more); Richmond, Va ., dinances §§205 .04, 347 .02 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code tit . Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties III, ch . 221 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §§505 .07(a)(4), 1705 .07 with one acre or more); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) . (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use) .

42 ELR 10902 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012

1. Animal Control Regulations 2. Zoning Regulations

Seventy-one of the cities regulate chickens under their ani- Fourteen cities regulate chickens primarily under their mal control ordinances .208 This makes sense, because chick- zoning laws .209 These cities are much more likely to sub- ens are animals and this is the natural place for would-be stantially restrict raising hens .210 It also makes it much chicken owners to look to make sure that they won’t get more difficult for a resident to determine whether he into legal trouble . Regulating chickens under animal con- can legally raise chickens . Such a resident must not only trol also leads to fairly easy-to-follow ordinances . Chickens determine in what zone chickens may be raised, but he are either allowed, or they are not . And, if there are further must also determine whether his property falls within that regulations concerning lot size, setbacks, or coop require- zone . These laws also tend to sow unnecessary confusion . ments, they are usually all in one place . For instance, Lubbock Texas’ law on paper would seem to allow for hens, but the city has exploited its vagaries to ban backyard chickens . Lubbock creates a loop within its ordinances by providing within the animal section of its code that chickens are allowed if the zoning ordinance permits it,211 and then providing in its zoning ordinance 208 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Anchorage, 212 Alaska, Code of Ordinances tit . 17, 21 (2011); Augusta-Richmond, that chickens are allowed if the animal code permits it . Ga ., Code of Ordinances tit . 4, art . 2 (2007); Aurora, Colo ., Code of The Lubbock city clerk resolved the loop by stating that Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances tit . III, the city interprets these provisions to entirely ban chickens ch . 3 .1 .1 (2011); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Ba- 213 kersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .08 .10 (2011); Baltimore, Md ., Health within the city . Code §10-312 (2011); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224 Finally, cities that regulate chickens primarily through (2011); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cincin- zoning laws do so, presumptively, because they want to nati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701 (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code restrict raising chickens to certain zones . This, however, of Ordinances §§6-153, 6-154 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordi- can cause unnecessary complications . Raising chickens is nances §7-1 .1 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011); Des not only for residential backyards . Because of declining Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Detroit, Mich ., City Code §6-1-3 (2010); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011); population and urban renewal projects in many cities, Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of urban farms, market gardens, and community gardens Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances are located in other zones, including business, commer- pt . II, art . 5 (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 (2011); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010); Hialeah, Fla ., cial, and even industrial zones . Each time these farms Code of Ordinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Or- or gardens would like to add a few chickens, they would dinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . have to petition the city for a zoning variance or seek a 6, art . II (2010); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code tit . III, ch . 531 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code change in the law . This is not an efficient use of a city’s 214 of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances limited resources . §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011); Lex- In addition, other regulations pertaining to chickens, ington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Ordinances §4-10 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code such as setbacks, coop construction, or sanitary require- §6 .20 .020 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code ch . 91 (2011); Mem- ments, can get lost among the many building regulations phis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Miami, Fla ., Code within the zoning code . Zoning codes are generally written of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 for an expert audience of businesses, builders, and devel- (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Mont- opers, and not for the lay audience that would comprise gomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Newark, N .J ., Gen . Ordinances §6:2-29 (2010); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, ch . 18, art . VI (2011); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §§4-05, 6 .1-7 209 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011); Birmingham, Ala ., (2011); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011); Okla- Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Or- homa City, Okla ., Mun . Code tit . 8, 59 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of dinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Fresno, Cal ,. Mun . Code Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, §§12-205 .1-12-207 .5 (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 (2011); Ariz ., City Code §§8-7, 8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordi- Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Jackson- nances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011); §4-184 (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015 (2011); Raleigh, L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Lubbock, Tex ., N .C ., Code of Ordinances §§12-3001, 12-3004 (2011); Richmond, City Code §4 .07 .001 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Or- 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052; dinances §30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Sacremento, Cal ., City Code Wash ., Mun . Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011); id. tit . 17; id. §9 .52; §9-44-340 (2011); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015 Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011); Spokane, Wash ., (2010); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011); St . Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 . Paul, Minn ,. §198 .02 (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 210 . Anaheim, Birmingham, Jacksonville, and Lubbock either ban hens alto- §5-109 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances tit . 7 (2007); Santa gether or restrict hens to certain zones . See Anaheim §18 .38 .030; Birming- Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code ham §2 .4 .1; Jacksonville tit . XVIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656; Lubbock of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, §4 .07 .001 . 16 .80 .060 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §505 .07(a)(4); Tucson, 211 . Lubbock §4 .07 .001 . Ariz ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . VI (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of 212 . Id . §40 .03 .3103 . Ordinances §200(d)(e) (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, 213 . See Interview with Lubbock city clerk (on file with author) . app . A (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control 214 . E.g ., Schindler, supra note 181, 68-71 (arguing that the movement toward §902 .1 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 urban agriculture should cause cities to reconsider Euclidean zoning because (2011); Yonkers, N .Y ., §65-23 (1990) . such zoning no longer serves the needs of the cities and its residents) .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10903

chicken owners .215 If cities are concerned about raising under the property maintenance area of the code .221 This chickens too near businesses or neighbors, other regula- is not an ideal place to locate such an ordinance, because tions like setbacks from the street and neighboring proper- potential chicken owners are unlikely to look for chicken ties can ameliorate this concern without having to include regulations there . the regulation in the zoning code . Finally, one city—Arlington, Texas—places its chicken Regulations placed within the animal code, as described regulations in a section of the code entitled sale and breed- above, are generally in one place and often within a single ing of animals .222 Because backyard chicken owners gener- ordinance . This leads to a better understanding of the law ally do not raise their chickens for sale, and also likely do for chicken owners and, thus, easier enforcement for city not consider themselves to be breeders, this area of the code officials . Unless the zoning regulations have a subsection is not well-suited to this regulation . devoted specifically to animals, like the ones in Spokane216 or Greensboro,217 the most sensible place for regulating C. How Cities Regulate Chickens chickens is within the animal code . 1. Chickens Are Defined as Pets or Domestic 3. Health Code Animals

Another popular place within a municipality’s code to Seven cities—Dallas, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, New regulate chickens is within the health code . Seven cit- Orleans, Plano, Raleigh, and Spokane—define chickens ies regulate chickens primarily within the health code .218 as domestic animals or pets, and thus subject them to the Many of these, however, have a separate section concern- same enclosure and nuisance regulations as other domes- ing animals or animal-related businesses within the health tic animals like cats and dogs .223 These cities’ ordinances code .219 Again, unless the code has such a separate section appear to be long-standing and were not recently modified concerning animals, the better place to regulate is within in response to the backyard chicken movement .224 While the animal code . many cities may want to more explicitly regulate chickens, this is a workable approach . General nuisance laws already 4. Other regulate things like odor and noise .225 While many regulations particular to chickens duplicate nuisance ordinances, Of the remaining cities, there is very little uniformity . Two, it is unclear whether such duplication actually reduces nui- Boston and Columbus, regulate through permit sections sances . More precise requirements on sanitation, coop stan- within their codified ordinances .220 Because these cities dards, setbacks, and permits may signal to chicken owners require permits to keep chickens and give a great deal of that the city is serious about regulating chickens, protect- discretion to city officials to grant or deny permits on a ing neighbors, and protecting the health and well-being case-by-case basis, locating a chicken regulation within the of chickens . But, as chickens regain prevalence in urban permit section of the codified ordinance makes sense for areas, cities that regulate chickens as pets or domestic ani- those cities . But, as argued later, allowing such discretion is mals may find that—through inertia—they have taken the neither a good use of city resources nor a fair and consistent most efficient approach, both in terms of preserving city way to regulate chickens . resources and curbing potential nuisances . The only other pattern within these ordinances is that two other cities—Buffalo and Tampa—regulate chickens 2. Space Requirements

Of the 94 cities that allow for raising chickens, 31 of them impose restrictions based upon how big the property is, 215 . See Lea S . VanderVelde, Local Knowledge, Legal Knowledge, and Zoning Law, Iowa L . Rev ., May 1990, at 1057 (describing zoning law as “arcane”) . Also, either explicitly through lot size requirements, or implicitly the sheer number of law treatises for zoning laws demonstrates that zoning through zoning requirements .226 Of those, 16 cities restrict laws require expertise to navigate . E.g., Patricia Salkin, American Law of Zoning (5th ed . 2012); Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer & Thomas E . Roberts, Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law (2d 221 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009); Tampa, Fla ,. Code of Ordi- ed . 2003); Edward H . Ziegler Jr ., Rathkopf’s the Law of Zoning and nances §19 .76 (2008) . Planning (4th ed . 2012) . 222 . Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010) . 216 . Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code tit . 17C Land Use Standards, ch . 17C .310 223 . Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); Indianapolis, Ind ., Animal Keeping (no date listed) . Rev . Code tit . III, ch . 531 .101 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance 217 . Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) . Code §656 .1601 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18- 218 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Cleve- 2 .1 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §12-3001 (2011); Pla- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §§205 .04, 347 .02 (2011); Co- no, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . lumbus, Ohio, City Code tit . III, ch . 221 (2011); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §17C .310 .100 (no date listed) . Code §8-6-21 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); 224 . Supra note 223. San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . 225 . Every city surveyed had general nuisance provisions in its code regulating Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) . odor and noise . 219 . E.g., San Diego §42 .0709; Cleveland §§204 .04, 347 .02; Tacoma 226 . Cities that impose lot size requirements: Anaheim, Cleveland, Fort Wayne, §5 .3 .010 . Fremont, Garland, Greensboro, Nashville, Norfolk, Oklahoma, Philadel- 220 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Columbus tit . III, phia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Rochester, Stockton, and Tampa . ch, 221 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio,

42 ELR 10904 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 based on lot size and 17 restrict based on zoning . Thisadds Norfolk appears to allow for an exception to the five-acre up to 33, rather than 31, because two cities restrict based minimum232 by allowing a would-be chicken owner to on both lot size and zoning .227 These restrictions range procure a permit to keep hens,233 but in practice, the city from draconian, practically banning chickens in most of will not issue this permit to chicken hobbyists .234 But, as the city by restricting chickens to extremely large lots,228 discussed below, Nashville and Pittsburgh have interpreted to extremely liberal, allowing up to 30 chickens per 240 their restrictive ordinances to allow for chickens on much square feet—or 30 chickens in an area approximately the smaller parcels of property . size of a large bedroom .229 As discussed below, an addi- In Nashville, the zoning code conflicts with the health tional 10 cities should be considered unfriendly to keep- code, and the health code apparently won out . The zoning ing hens because, while they do allow chickens under some ordinance limits “common domestic farm animals” to a lot circumstances, those circumstances are restricted to very size of five acres or more, but the ordinance does not define large lots or agriculturally zoned land .230 what qualifies as a common domestic farm animal .235 Nash- ville’s health code, by contrast, specifically allows for chick- a. Lot Size Requirements ens, as long as they do not create a nuisance .236 Nashville issued a memorandum in 2009 providing that the Board of Of the 15 cities that restrict based on lot size only, six Zoning Appeals held that the health code takes precedence of them restrict chickens to property that is one acre or over the zoning code .237 In so holding, the Board allowed a more: Nashville, Norfolk, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, property owner to keep her chickens, because their owner Pittsburgh, and Richmond .231 Nashville, Norfolk, and considered them to be pets and the chickens did not create Pittsburgh appear to limit chickens to property of more a nuisance .238 than five acres, which in any urban area is a practical ban . In Pittsburgh, while agricultural uses were limited to property of five acres or more, like Nashville, the code Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of did not specifically define whether raising chickens was 239 Ordinances §157 .104 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 considered an agricultural use . Pittsburgh, thus, would (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Greens- allow chicken keepers to seek a variance for raising chick- boro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Nashville-Da- 240 vidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §17-16-330 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code ens on property of less than five acres . Apparently, of Ordinances §§4-05, 6 .1-7 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . though it is not yet codified, Pittsburgh recently made it Code §59-9350(c) (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, much easier to raise chickens, and also bees, by allowing Ariz ., City Code §8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances up to three hens and two beehives on property of 2,000 241 §10-88 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12, 30-19 (no square feet or more . date listed); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §16 .80 .060 (2011); Tampa, So, both Nashville and Pittsburgh, while appearing to Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) . Cities that impose zoning restrictions: Bakersfield, Birmingham, Chesapeake, Dallas, Fresno, Glendale, ban chickens, have become chicken-friendly . Arizona, Greensboro, Hialeah, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Madison, Mem- The next most restrictive ordinance is in Philadelphia . phis, Montgomery, San Diego, Shreveport, Stockton, and Virginia Beach . Philadelphia restricts chickens to property of three acres Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code tit . 17 (2011); Birmingham, Ala ., Zon- ing Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances or more . Philadelphia, however, apparently means it . In Zoning art . 3 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); Philadelphia, the code specifically defines poultry as a Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code ch . 12 (2011); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Or- farm animal,242 and only allows farm animals on a parcel dinances §§5 .132 & 5 .212 (2011); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordi- 243 nances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances ch . 98 of property of three acres or more . (2011); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code ch . 656 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Or- 232 . Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, Zoning Ordinance, app . A, §4-05 dinances ch . 28 (no date listed); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances (2011) (“Except as otherwise noted, there shall be no raising or keeping of tit . 16 (2009); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances, app . C, art . . . . poultry, fowl, . . . on less than five acres ”). . VII (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); Shreveport, 233 . Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011) (allowing for a person La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code wishing to raise poultry to procure a permit issued by the department of §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, public health) . app . A (2011) . 234 . Amelia Baker, Backyard Chickens: Now You’re Clucking, AltDaily, June 227 . Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Stock- 2, 2010, http://www .altdaily .com/features/food/backyard-chickens-now- ton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420 & 16 .80 .060 (2011) . youre-clucking .html (providing that the city will only issue permits for 228 . E.g., Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §§8-12-020, 17-16-330 sentinel chickens that the city has on surveillance to check for mosquito- (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011) . borne diseases) . 229 . See Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed) . 235 . Nashville-Davidson §17 .16 .330(b) . 230 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Chesapeake, 236 . Id. §8 .12 .020 . Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Or- 237 . Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Office, to All dinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author) . §656 .331(2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . 238 . Id . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, app . 239 . Pittsburgh §911 .04 . A, art . II §4-0 .5 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350 240 . Diana Nelson Jones, Ordinance Changes Bother Keepers of Bees and Chickens, (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Or- Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Feb . 8, 2010, http://www .post-gazette .com/ dinances §10-88 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . pg/10039/1034293-53 .stm . A (2011) . 241 . Diana Nelson Jones, Pittsburgh Urban Coop Tour to Be Held Sunday, 231 . Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §17-16-330(b) (2011); Pitts- Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www .post-gazette .com/ burgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Phila ., pg/11160/1152234-34 .stm . Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59- 242 . Phila . §10-100 . 9350 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) . 243 . Id. §10-112 .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10905

Oklahoma City and Richmond both require at least requirements if chickens are being raised for commercial one acre . Oklahoma City restricts raising chickens to prop- purposes .252 Memphis merely applies different building erty that is at least one acre, but apparently if the property restrictions for coops depending on the zone .253 And two owner has one acre, there is no restriction on how many cities employ zoning laws to augment the area where chick- chickens can be kept on that acre .244 Richmond requires ens are allowed: Cleveland and Stockton specifically allow 50,000 square feet, or slightly more square footage than raising chickens in industrially zoned areas .254 the 43,560 square feet in an acre .245 After these, the lot sizes are far more lenient . Two c. Multi-Family Units cities, Garland and Stockton, require at least ½ acre .246 Three cities, Fremont, Greensboro, and Phoenix, require Two cities, Minneapolis and Newark, specifically regulate between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet, or between a little multi-family dwellings such as apartments . Both of these less than 1/8 to a little less than 1/4 acre .247 And four cit- cities require permits, but will not grant one to certain ies, Anaheim, Cleveland, Rochester, and Tampa, require multi-family dwellings . Minneapolis will not grant a per- between 240 to 1,800 square feet, or from not much mit to someone who lives in a multi-family home with four larger than a shed to about the size of a modern master or more dwelling units .255 Newark will not grant one to bedroom .248 So, out of the 15 cities that restrict based on anyone living in any multi-family home .256 lot size, the majority of them allow most residents to raise backyard chickens . d. Using Lot Size to Determine the Number of Chickens b. Zoning Requirements Many other cities do not restrict chickens to certain lot Seventeen cities restrict chickens to certain zones . Of these, sizes, but use lot size to determine how many chickens a three of the cities restrict chickens only to land zoned for property can have . There is no uniformity to these ordi- agricultural use: Birmingham, Hialeah, and Virginia 249 nances . Some ordinances set a maximum number of Beach . Three more cities restrict chickens to agricultural chickens for property of a certain size and under, and then or very low-density residential zones: Chesapeake, Jackson- 250 allow for more chickens as the property size increases . For ville, and Montgomery . Thus, six of the 17 cities confine instance, Seattle allows up to eight chickens for lots under chickens to so few zones that it excludes the possibility of 10,000 square, and one more chicken for each additional raising chickens for most families . 1,000 square feet .257 Fremont has an intricate step system, The remaining eleven cities, however, while still restrict- with four chickens for at least 6,000 square feet, six for at ing chickens to certain zones, allow chickens in many 251 least 8,000 square feet, 10 for at least 10,000, 20 for at least or most residential zones . Dallas only applies zoning ½ acre, and 25 for more than one acre .258 Riverside allows for up to four chickens on property between 7,200 and 244 . Oklahoma City §59-8150 (definitions); id. §59-9350 (confining to 40,000 square feet and up to 12 on property 40,000 square one acre) . feet or more in residentially zoned areas .259 245 . Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88(b) (2011) . 246 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Some cities decide the number of chickens based on Mun . Code §16 .80 .060 (2011) . zoning . El Paso allows for up to six chickens on land not 247 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) (6,000 sq . ft .); Greensboro, zoned agricultural .260 Tulsa allows up to six adults and 14 N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (7,000 sq . ft .); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(b) (2011) (10,000 sq . ft .) . chicks under eight weeks of age on land not zoned agricul- 248 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011) (1,800 sq . ft); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011) (800 sq . ft . for residential, and 400 for commercial); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances residential districts including districts zoned A1, A2, RA, RE, RS R1, and §30-12, 30-19 (no date listed) (240 sq . ft .); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordi- RMP); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); nances §19 .76 (2008) (1,000 sq . ft .) . id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52 (allowing chickens in both residential and commer- 249 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Hialeah, Fla ., cial districts); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances tit . 16, app . A Code of Ordinances §§10 .1 & 10 .2 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City (2009) (applying complex zoning requirements for outbuildings to chicken Code §5-545 app . A (2011) . coops); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011) (using zoning to 250 . Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . define different kinds of setbacks, but allowing chickens in most zones); 3; Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011) (allowing poultry 656 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances app . C, art . VII raising in residential and agricultural districts by right, and in most other (2011) . zones through a special exception from the zoning board) Stockton, Cal ., 251 . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §§17 .12 .010-RS & 17 .32 .020 (2011) Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011) (allowing chickens in residen- (permitting chickens in agriculture and residential suburban areas); Dal- tial and industrially zoned areas) . las, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011) (requiring chickens that 252 . Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011) . are raised for commercial purposes to be on agriculturally zoned land, 253 . Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances tit . 16 (2009) . otherwise chickens are regulated as pets); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code 254 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011); Stockton, §§12-204 .11-12-207 .5 (2011) (providing different setbacks depending Cal ., Mun . Code §16 .80 .060 (2011) . on zone); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §§5 .132 & 5 .212 255 . Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10(c) (2011) . (2011) (restricting poultry to rural residential and suburban residential 256 . Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-33 (2010) . zones); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) 257 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(C) (2011) . (allowing chickens as an accessory on single-family detached dwellings on 258 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) . R-3, E-5, R-7, RM-9, RM-12, and RM-18 districts); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . 259 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §17 .24 (2011) . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011) (allowing chickens in agricultural and 260 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B) (2011) .

42 ELR 10906 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 tural .261 Neither city restricts the amount of chickens on animal .272 Tampa provides five per 5,000 square feet . And, agriculturally zoned land .262 Cleveland allows for one chicken for each 800 square feet Instead of using square footage or zoning, many cities if residential and each 400 square feet if commercial or divide by acre . These ordinances range between four to industrial .273 Cleveland, at least, has stated in its ordinance 12 chickens for property under ½ acre . For instance, Fort that these square feet requirements are meant to allow six Worth allows for no more than 12 chickens on lots under chickens on an average-sized Cleveland lot . While many ½ acre, no more than 20 on lots between ½ and one acre, of these cities provide a small enough chicken to square and no more than 50 on lots of one acre or more .263 Mesa foot ratio that the average single-family home should be City allows for 10 rodents or fowl on ½ acre or less, and able to accommodate four or more chickens, this method an additional 10 for each ½ acre, but no longer limits the still leaves open the possibility that a chicken owner would number of chickens after 2 ½ acres .264 Louisville allows be restricted to one or two chickens . An ordinance that for five chickens on property of less than ½ acre, and no allows only one chicken per a certain area does not take limit above that .265 Arlington provides for four on less than into account that chickens are flock animals that do not ½ acre, 10 for lots between ½ and one acre, and 25 for thrive when left alone . lots over one acre .266 And, Charlotte requires a permit and restricts chickens to 20 per acre .267 3. Limit Number of Chickens Des Moines’ ordinance employs a similar step system but provides for a mix of other livestock . It allows for no Many other cities limit the number of chickens any house- more than 30 of any two species for property less than one hold can keep, no matter the size of the property . Thirty acre . For property greater than one acre, one can have a cities place a simple limit on the number of chickens .274 total of 50 animals divided among up to six species .268 Of those cities that simply limit the number of chickens, Lincoln, Nebraska, has one of the more unique chicken the average number they allow is 12, the median number ordinances when it comes to limiting the number, in that it is nine, and the most popular number is a tie between four not only provides for a maximum number of chickens, but and 25 .275 The lowest number is Garland and Honolulu also a minimum . It also specifies the weight of the chick- with two .276 Somewhat surprisingly, the highest number ens . So, for property under one acre, with a permit, a person comes from Jersey City—with 50 .277 Jersey City collapses can have seven to 30 chickens under three pounds, three ducks and pigeons within the restriction of 50 fowl .278 Jer- to 20 chickens between three and five pounds, and two sey City also requires a permit to keep chickens .279 to five chickens between five and 20 pounds .269 It allows At least four cities set a maximum number of chickens chicken owners to double the number for each additional that can be owned before it is necessary to procure a per- acre . Lincoln’s ordinance should be applauded for recognizing that chickens are flock animals and thus require, at least, a minimum of two . It should also be applauded 272 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .050 (2011) . for not penalizing an owner for keeping less than two and 273 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(2) (2011) . 274 . From lowest to highest: Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) only making it unlawful to keep numbers greater than the (1990) (two); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) 270 maximum . After all, if it penalized keeping less than a (two); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(b) & (e) (2011) (three); minimum number of chickens, Lincoln might be unique Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(A)(1) (2011) (three); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) (three); San Francisco, among cities for making it unlawful not to keep chickens . Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011) (four); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordi- More problematic are cities that do not allow owners to nances §78-6 .5(3) (2011) (four); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances own a minimum number of four chickens . Several cities §10 .20 .015 (2010) (four); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011) (four); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date allow one chicken per a certain square footage area . Greens- listed); id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52 (four); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 boro provides for one chicken for every 3,000 square feet, (2009) (five); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .815 (2007) as long as the area is greater than 7,000 square feet .271 Ana- (six); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011) (six); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (six); Houston, Tex ., Code heim allows one chicken for each 1,800 square feet, but it of Ordinances ch . 6, art . II (2010) (seven); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordi- does provide that if the calculation results in more than nances tit . III, ch . 3 .1 .1 (2011) (nine); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City half an animal, the owner can round up to the next whole Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) (10); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4- 184 (2011) (10); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011) (12); Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011) (15); Kan- 261 . Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(E) (2011) . sas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) (15); Miami, Fla ., 262 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordi- Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) (15); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . nances §200(A) . Code §6 .20 .020 (2011) (20); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4- 263 . Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c), (d), (e) (2011) . 56 (2011) (24); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) (25); San 264 . Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-21(A) (2011) . Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0708 (2011) (25); Bos ., Mass ., Code of 265 . Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Code §91 .011 Restraint (8) Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010) (25); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordi- (2011) . nance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (25); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 266 . Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010) . (2011) (25); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) (50) . 267 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(1), (g) (2010) . 275 . Supra note 274 and accompanying text . 268 . Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011) . Des Moines also 276 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) (two); Honolulu, allows up to two fowl to be kept as pets . Id. §18-136 . Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (two) . 269 . Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code tbl . 6 .04 .040 (2011) . 277 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) . 270 . Id. §6 .04 .040(b)(1) . 278 . Id . 271 . Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3(B) (2011) . 279 . Id .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10907 mit .280 Wichita allows three chickens, Santa Ana allows pertaining to said person’s health ”. 293 This ordinance was four, and San Jose and El Paso both allow up to six .281 This passed in 2010,294 presumably because Houstonites were appears to be the most workable system, because it takes able to show that fresh eggs help alleviate certain medi- into account that there are different levels of chicken-keep- cal ailments . ing in an urban agriculture context . It provides a bright- line rule for people who want small backyard flocks, while 4. Setbacks still allowing owners of market gardens, urban farms, or chicken cooperatives the opportunity to expand their Setbacks are, by far, the most popular way to regulate operations without seeking to change the ordinance . It chickens . Sixty-three cities have some sort of setback also conserves city resources by not forcing every would-be requirement in their ordinances . The ostm popular setback chicken owner to procure a permit . Finally, because there is is a setback from a neighboring dwelling: 56 cities require no permit, it saves the city from any obligations to monitor that chickens and chickens coops be kept a certain distance the backyard operation . If any problem arises with a small from other residences .295 The next most popular is a setback backyard flock, the city can rely on its nuisance laws, or other setback or coop requirements within the statute to 293 . Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-38 (2010) . resolve the problem . 294 . Id. 295 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011) (100 ft .); Anaheim, Some cities always require a permit, but set a relatively Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) (50 ft .); Anchorage, Alaska, high number of chickens allowed . As noted earlier, with Code of Ordinances §§21 .40 .060 & 21 .40 .080 (2011) (25-100 ft); a permit, Jersey City allows up to 50,282 and Boston and Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010) (50 283 ft .); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011) (50 ft .); Aus- Mobile allow up to 25 . According to several Bostonians tin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3 .2 .16 (2011) (50 ft .); Bakersfield, who want chickens, however, Boston does not easily grant Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010 R-S (2011) (50 ft .); Baton Rouge, La ., this permit .284 Miami allows up to 15 hens with a permit .285 Code of Ordinances §14-224 (c)(1)(b) (2011) (50 ft .); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (300 ft . from residence or 100 Some cities take a belt-and-suspenders approach and ft . from any residential structure); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances require both a permit and restrict hens to a small number . §16-1 .8A, Zoning, art . 8, No . 75 (2010) (100 ft .); Buffalo, N .Y ., City With a permit, Milwaukee only allows four,286 and Sacra- Code §341-11 .3 (2009) (20 ft . from door or window); Corpus Christi, 287 Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (100 ft . if not enclosed); Des mento, three . Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011) (25 ft .); El Paso, Several other cities, perhaps understanding that the Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .030 (2011) (30 ft .); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of hens may occasionally be used to produce more chickens, Ordinances §11A-22(b) & (f) (2011) (50 ft .); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §12 .207 .5 (2011) (40 ft .); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 allow considerably more chicks than full-grown chickens . (2011) (30 ft .); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .030 (2011) (50 ft . Both Miami and Kansas City allow only 15 grown hens, from dwelling or 100 ft . from school or hospital); Glendale, Ariz ., Code but Miami allows 30 chicks,288 and Kansas City allows of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010) (100 ft .); Grand Rapids, Mich ., 289 290 Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010) (100 ft . from any dwelling unit, 50 . Tulsa allows seven adults and 14 chicks . Colo- well, spring, stream, drainage ditch, or drain); Greensboro, N .C ., Code rado Springs allows 10 hens and an unlimited number of of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3(B) (2011) (50 ft .); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of chicks .291 And Garland, even though it allows only two Ordinances §10 .4 (2011) (100 ft .); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (300 ft .); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-31 hens, does not limit the number of chicks less than one- (2010) (100 ft .); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) 292 month old . (25 ft .); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011) (100 And for pure eccentricity, Houston has the most inter- ft .); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011) (50 ft .); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .030 (2011) (50 ft .); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code esting restriction on the number of chickens . Houston §§53 .58 & 53 .59 (2011) (Department of Animal Services promulgated allows up to seven hens if a person can present a written regulations that require chicken coops to be 35 ft . from neighbor’s dwelling certification from a licensed physician that the person and 20 ft . from owner’s dwelling); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed) (25 ft .); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-21(g) & (h) needs “fresh unfertilized chicken eggs for serious reasons (2011) (40 ft .); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) (100 ft .); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(g)-(j) (2011) (25 ft .); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §§7-88 & 7-103 (2011) (150 ft . if not grandfathered in); Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code 280 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157(a) (2011); Santa Ana, §17-16-330(B) (2011) (250 ft .); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §161 .09 (1990) (25 Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordi- ft .); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010) (20 ft .); Oak- nances tit . 7 (2007); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011) . land, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011) (20 ft .); Oklahoma 281 . See supra note 280 . City, Okla ., Mun . Code 59-9350 (2011) (200 ft .); Phoenix, Ariz ., City 282 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011) . Code §8-7 (2011) (80 ft .); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 283 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning art . 8 No . 75 (2011) (500 ft .); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011); (2010); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011) . id. tit . 17 (50 ft .); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19(H) (no 284 . See, e.g., Legalize Chickens in Boston, http://legalizechickensinboston . date listed) (25 ft .); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) (20 org/ (last visited July 5, 2012) (stating that the city of Boston denies chicken ft .); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011) (100 ft . permits and seeking a more reasonable legislative solution to regulate chick- or 50 ft . with permit); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011) (50 ens in Boston) . ft .); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(b) (2011) (20 ft . from door 285 . Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) . or window); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .815 (2007) (20 286 . Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011) . ft . but more if have more chickens); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinanc- 287 . Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(a)(1) (2011) . es §5-18 (2011) (100 ft .); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) 288 . Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) . (2011) (10 ft .); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011) 289 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) . (100 ft . unless have permission from neighbors); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . 290 . Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011) (50 ft .); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code 291 . Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) . §5 .30 .010 (2011) (50 ft . unless have permission from neighbors); Tampa, 292 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) . Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft .); Tucson, Ariz ., Code

42 ELR 10908 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 from the property line: 20 cities require chickens to be kept back, comprises 17 cities 306. After that, the most popular away from the neighbor’s property, even if the neighbor’s setbacks are the following: actual house is much further away .296 Three cities require a • Fifteen cities have setbacks of less than 30 feet, with setback from the street .297 Six cities ban chickens from the two at 30 feet,307 seven at 25 feet,308 six at 20 feet,309 front yard .298 This adds up to more than 63, because sev- and one at 10 feet 310. eral cities employ more than one kind of setback . Finally, several cities have unique setback requirements that will be • Thirteen cities have setbacks of 100 feet 311. Of those, discussed later . three of them allow for smaller setback under certain conditions: St . Petersburg will allow for a smaller set- a. Setbacks From Neighboring Buildings back if the owner seeks permission from neighboring property owners; San Antonio will allow for a smaller Of the 56 cities that require that chickens be kept a cer- setback with a permit; and Corpus Christi will allow tain distance away from neighboring residences,299 the set- for a smaller setback if the coop is enclosed 312. 300 301 backs range from 10 to 500 feet . The average of all of 313 302 • Seven cities have setbacks of more than 100 feet . Of the setbacks is 80 feet, although only one city, Phoenix, those, Mobile, Alabama, has a 150-foot setback, but actually has a setback of 80 feet 303. The median and the 304 allows chicken coops that were built before the ordi- mode are both 50 feet . The average is higher than both nance passed to be grandfathered in 314. Oklahoma the median and the mode, because several cities that also City has a 200-foot setback and, puzzlingly, will require large lots, or agriculturally zoned land, also have 305 waive these setbacks from horses, mules, donkeys, very large setbacks . The mode, the most common set- and pigs, but not for chickens 315. Oklahoma City also has an additional 400-foot setback for roosters 316.

of Ordinances §4-57 (2011) (50 ft .); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations Several cities will shrink their setbacks under certain for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (50 ft .) . conditions . In what appears to be a thoughtful approach 296 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) (20 ft . from property to requiring a neighbor’s consent, four cities provide a line); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14-224(c)(1)(b) (2011) (10 ft . from property line); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 standard setback, but provide relief from the setback if (2007) (100 ft . from property line); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 the owner gets permission from his neighbors to keep (2009) (18 inches from rear lot); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances chickens .317 And one city, San Antonio, as mentioned §3-102(c) (2010) (25 ft . from property line); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011) (5 ft . from side yard and 306 . Anaheim; Arlington; Austin; Bakersfield; Baton Rouge; Fort Worth; 18 inches from rear yard); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §12-206 .1 (2011) Glendale, California; Greensboro; Lincoln; Long Beach (but 20 if just (100 ft . from property line); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances had one chicken); Portland; Riverside; San Diego; Stockton; Tacoma; §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordi- Tucson; Washington . nance Code §656 .401 (2011) (50 ft . from property line); Kansas City, 307 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .030 (2011) (30 ft ., but only 20 ft . if Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) (25 ft . from property line); separated by a fence that is at least six ft .); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordi- Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. app . C, nances §22 .14(A) (2011) . art . VII (200 ft . from property line); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 308 . Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §§21 .40 .060 & 21 .40 .080 §3-204 (2011) (5 ft . from property line); Portland, Or ., City Code (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h)(1) (2011); §13 .05 .015(b) & (e) (2011) (50 ft . from residence or business where food is Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Madison, Wis ., prepared); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011) (20 ft . Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of from property line); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §161 .09 (1990) (for (10 ft . from property line); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 poultry market coops only—poultry not intended for sale is not regulated); (2008) (200 ft . from property line); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19(H) (no date listed) . §200(d) & (e) (2011) (50 ft ., but 100 ft . if zoned agricultural); Wash ., 309 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Newark, N .J ., General D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6- listed) (250 ft . unless have neighbor’s consent) . 04-320 (2011); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011); San 297 . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010-RS (2011) (100 ft .); Bir- Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of mingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (300 ft .); Bos ., Ordinances §7 .60 .815 (2007) (applying setback to all small animals, not Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning, art . 8, No . 75 (2010) just chickens) . (100 ft .) . 310 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(C) (2011) . 298 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- 311 . Akron, Atlanta, Boston, Corpus Christi, Glendale, Grand Rapids, Hialeah, fied Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code Houston, Kansas City, Miami, San Antonio, Santa Ana, St . Petersburg . of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances 312 . St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011) (100 ft . un- §78-6 .5(3)(g)-(j) (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7 (2011); Sacra- less have permission from neighbors); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordi- mento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) . nances §5-109(c) (2011) (100 ft . or 50 ft . with permit); Corpus Christi, 299 . See supra note 295 . Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (100 ft . if not enclosed) . 300 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) . 313 . Mobile, Oklahoma, Tampa, Nashville, Birmingham, Honolulu, Richmond . 301 . Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) . Since Richmond 314 . Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-88(d) (2011) (150 ft . if not also requires an acre of land to even own chickens, this setback doesn’t ex- grandfathered in), but see id. §7-103(d) (allowing for 20 ft . from the prop- clude any additional would-be chicken owners . erty line in a residential area) . 302 . See supra note 295 . 315 . Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350(F) & (I) (2011) . 303 . Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-10 (2011) (80 ft . unless have permission 316 . Id. §59-9350(H) . from neighbor) . 317 . Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011) (300 ft . without per- 304 . See supra note 295 . mission); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-10 (2011) (80 ft . without per- 305 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (300 ft .); Hono- mission); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(d) (2011) lulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (300 ft .); and Richmond, (100 ft . without permission); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §§5 .30 .010 & Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (500 ft .) . 5 .30 .030 (2011) (50 ft . without permission) .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10909 above, will shrink its 100-foot setback to 50 feet if a per- back is 25 feet 327. And the mode, or most popular, setback mit is secured 318. is tied at either 20328 or 25 feet 329. Two cities do not frame the setback as from a neighbor- Washington, D C. ,. which has the largest setback at 250 ing residence or building, but more specifically to a door feet, allows relief from this setback if the owner has his or a window of the building . Both Buffalo and San Fran- neighbor’s consent to keep chickens 330. cisco have a 20-foot setback from any door or window of a building 319. c. Setbacks From the Street Several cities define the setback more broadly than a neighboring dwelling, and include schools, hospitals, and Three cities require chickens to be kept away from the other businesses within the setback 320. Grand Rapids, street: Bakersfield, Birmingham, and Boston 331. All of Michigan, however, goes further; it has a 100-foot setback these setbacks are relatively large, ranging from 100 to 300 from any “dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage feet . Presumably, this is to stop chickens from being kept in ditch or drain ”. 321 This, in effect, bans all chickens within the front yard or on a corner lot from a vantage point where the city . passersby can easily see the coop . Bakersfield, provides a specific setback for corner lots, requiring that chicken b. Setbacks From Property Line coops be kept at least 10 feet away from the street side of a corner lot 332. Another way that cities do this, perhaps more Twenty cities mandate setbacks from the property line;322 effectively, is by simply barring chickens from front yards, those setbacks range from 18 inches323 to 250 feet 324. The as six cities do 333. average setback is 59 feet, but no city actually has such a setback . The closest are Jacksonville and Tulsa, which both d. Other Kinds of Setbacks have a setback of 50 feet 325. Again, a few cities with very large setbacks are raising the average 326. The median set- While many ordinances exclude the owner’s house from the definition of a dwelling,334 two cities provide a separate setback requirement for an owner’s own dwelling . Atlanta requires chickens to be kept at least five feet away from an owner’s own house,335 and Los Angeles requires 318 . San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011) . that the chickens be kept at least 20 feet away from the 319 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009); San Francisco, Cal ., owner’s house 336. Health Code §37 (2011) . Three cities do not provide for explicit setbacks, but 320 . E.g., Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22 (2011); Glen- dale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011) . leave each setback up to some city official’s discretion . In 321 . Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582(2) (2010) . Wichita, the chief of police can examine the property and 322 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) (20 ft . from property determine the setback 337. In St . Paul, it is up to the Health line); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14-224(c)(1)(b) (2011) 338 (10 ft . from property line); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 Inspector’s discretion . And, in Fremont, it is the Animal (2007) (100 ft . from property line); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 Services Supervisor who has discretion 339. (2009) (18 inches from rear lot); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) (25 ft . from property line); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011) (5 ft . from side yard and 327 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(1), (f) (2010); 18 inches from rear yard); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §12-206 .1 (2011) Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Kansas (100 ft . from property line); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011) . §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordi- 328 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011); Chesapeake, Va ., nance Code §656 .401 (2011) (50 ft . from property line); Kansas City, Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordi- Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) (25 ft . from property line); nances §6 .04 .20 & tit . 17(2011) . Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. at app . 329 . See supra note 327 . C, art . VII (200 ft . from property line); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinanc- 330 . Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(b) (no es §3-204 (2011) (5 ft . from property line); Portland, Or ., City Code date listed) . §13 .05 .015(b) & (e) (2011) (50 ft . from residence or business where food is 331 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning, art . 8, No . 75 prepared); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011) (20 ft . (2010); Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010-RS (2011); Birming- from property line); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) ham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) . (10 ft . from property line); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 332 . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010-RS (2011) . (2008) (200 ft . from property line); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances 333 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- §200(d) & (e) (2011) (50 ft ., but 100 ft . if zoned agricultural); Wash ., fied Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78- listed) (250 ft . unless have neighbor’s consent) . 6 .5(3)(i) (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7 (2011); Sacramento, 323 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011); Buffalo, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) . N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009) . 334 . E.g., Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3 .2 .16 (2011) (50 ft); Ana- 324 . Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7 (no date heim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) . listed) (250 ft . setback without consent of neighbors) . 335 . Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011) . 325 . Jacksonville, Fla ,. Ordinance Code §656 .401 (2011) (50 ft . from prop- 336 . L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§53 .58 & 53 .59 (2011) (Department of Ani- erty line); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) . mal Services promulgated regulations requiring coops to be 20 ft . from 326 . Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) (200 ft .); Tam- owner’s dwelling) . pa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft .); Wash ., D .C ., 337 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .173(c) (2011) . Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date 338 . St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .05 (2011) . listed) (250 ft .) . 339 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) .

42 ELR 10910 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012

Finally, St . Louis wins for the most eccentric setback . It not allowed to escape .343 And two cities, Richmond and doesn’t have any setbacks for neighboring buildings, or the Stockton, frame it in terms of trespass and do not allow property line, but it does require that chickens be kept out chicken trespassers .344 In any event, all of these statutes of the milking barn 340. imply that a coop, minimally, must be constructed so that the birds cannot escape . 5. Coop Requirements b. Coops Must Be Clean and Sanitary Many cities regulate how the chicken coop should be built and maintained . There is a broad range in these reg- Forty-six cities impose some sort of cleaning requirements ulations, and no two ordinances are alike . Some simply on chicken owners 345. While many cities have cleaning decree that it is unlawful for chickens to run at large, and requirements that apply to any animal,346 these cities ordi- thus implicitly mandate that the coop be constructed in nances are, for the most part, specific to chickens . a secure enough way so that chickens can’t easily escape . Nearly all of these ordinances mandate that the chicken Some appear to look out for animal welfare by decreeing coop be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and free that chickens should be provided adequate food, water, from offensive odors . The egreed to which each city reg- and shelter in sanitary conditions . And, some appear to try ulates this, however, varies . Most cities have a variation to proactively head off any potential problems by regulat- on a general requirement that the coop be clean or sani- ing the dimensions of the coop, how it must be built, and exactly how often it must be cleaned . First, some of the more common elements in these statutes will be explored . 343 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- Then, more unique elements will be discussed . fied Ordinances §603 .01 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Or- dinances §11A-22(c)(3) (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .205 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 Nuisance (2011) . a. No Running at Large 344 . Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (providing that fowl may not trespass); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011) (fowl [shall not] to run or go upon the public or private premises of any First, 33 cities prohibit chickens particularly or animals other person, firm, or corporation; or upon any park or public street or 341 in general from running at large . Most of those cit- highway within the city) . ies simply prohibit chickens from running at large, but 345 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Baton Rouge, La ., Code some provide for a little more nuance . For instance, of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(c) & (d) (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code Cincinnati does not allow chickens to run at large “so §341-11 .3(C) (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 as to do damage to gardens, lawns, shrubbery or other (2010); Chicago, Ill ., Code of Ordinances §7-12-290(b) (2011); Cin- 342 cinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701-35 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., private property ”. So, presumably, a chicken could run Code of Ordinances §7-3 .2 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-92 free, as long as it didn’t damage anything . Five cities, (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h) (2011); El instead of making it unlawful to run at large, provide Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .030 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances §91 .017 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances that the chicken must be kept enclosed in the coop and §11A-22(h) (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .203 (2011); Gar- land, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .17 (2011); Glendale, Ariz . Mun . Code §25-24 (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .020 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Irving, Tex ., Code 340 . St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §11 .46 .410 (2010) . of Ordinances §6-6 (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances 341 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92 .01 (2011); Albuquerque, §90-8 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §§14-18 & N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3(D) (2011); Arlington, Tex ., 14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Lin- Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02(e) (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City coln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701- Code §6 .20 .070 (2011); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 33 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §603 .01 (2011); (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-22 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c)(3) (2011); Fresno, Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78- Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .205 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 6 .5 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011); New §22 .03 (2011); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code §531 .102 (2011); Irving, Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Newark, N .J ., Gen- Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-2 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code eral Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §7 .36 .030 (2011); Lexington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Ordinances §4- §6-261 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(d) (2011); Richmond, 10 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .080 (2011); Louis- Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88(d) (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code ville, Ky ., Metro Code ch . 91 .001 Nuisance (2011); Memphis, Tenn ., of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 Code of Ordinances §8-8-2 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6- (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .755 (2007); Santa 21(I) (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-2 (2011); Newark, Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-34 (2010); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Code of Ordinances §4-18 (2011); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .04-05 Ordinances §6-04-200 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(c) (2011); To- §6 .1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-263 (2011); ledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §1705 .07 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Or- Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §635 .02 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., dinances §4-58 (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §§200(d), Code of Ordinances §12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Or- (e) & 406 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Con- dinances §10-88 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances trol §902 .10-13 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(b) (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .750 (2007); §6 .04 .174 (2011) . Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §10 .24 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal ., 346 . E.g ., Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .10 .030 (2011); At- Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .020 lanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-8 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §505 .10 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code §3-5600 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-3 Code of Ordinances §4-55 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordi- (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 Adequate Shelter nances §6 .04 .173 (2011) . (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-51 (2011); Tampa, Fla ., 342 . Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-33 (2011) . Code of Ordinances §19 .77 (2008) .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10911 tary 347. Most cities also expressly prohibit odors or offen- within their ordinances are congregated mostly in the sive odors 348. South or the Southwest 358. Several mandate that chicken Some cities are a little more explicit and require that feed or chicken waste be kept in fly-tight containers 359. the coop be cleaned regularly or routinely 349. Some cities Miami requires that a chicken’s droppings be treated to go further and require the coop to be clean at all times 350. destroy fly maggots before it can be used as fertilizer 360. And some cities regulate precisely how often the coop must Mesa has four cleaning requirements all designed to keep be cleaned . Houston is the most fastidious . In Houston, flies away: (1) droppings must be removed twice weekly; the coop must be cleaned once per day, limed once every (2) “fowl excreta” must be stored in fly-tight containers; other day, and all containers containing chicken manure (3) water and feed troughs must be kept sanitary; and must be properly disposed of once per week 351. Milwaukee (4) food and food waste must be kept in a fly-proof con- also requires coops to be cleaned daily and additionally “as tainer—all explicitly “to prevent the breeding of flies ”. 361 is necessary ”. 352 The next two most fastidious cities, Des Kansas City’s concern with flies will stand in the way of Moines and Santa Ana, require that the coop be cleaned at keeping hens for eggs that would meet organic standards; it least every other day 353. Seven cities require that the coop mandates the use of insecticide by providing that “all struc- be cleaned at least twice a week 354. And another four cities tures, pens or coops wherein fowl are kept or permitted to require that the coop be cleaned at least once a week 355. be shall be sprayed with such substances as will eliminate And, splitting the difference, Jersey City requires the coop such insects ”. 362 Because chickens eat insects, and because to be cleaned once a week from November to May, and the protein they gain from eating those insects has a ben- twice a week from May to November 356. eficial effect on the nutritional value of their eggs, this Many cities also have a particular concern with either regulation stands at odds with a reason many people are flies or rodents . Fourteen cities specify that attracting flies interested in keeping backyard hens . will be a nuisance 357. Cities that specifically mention flies Glendale, California, appears to be the most concerned about flies, going so far as to mandate that the owner adhere 347 . E.g ., Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., to impossible building requirements . Glendale requires Mun . Code §10 .203 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .070 chickens to be kept in a fly-proof enclosure; it defines fly- (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011); San Anto- nio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code proof quite specifically as “a structure or cage of a design of Ordinances §7 .60 .755 (2007); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §1706 .07 which prevents the entry therein or the escape therefrom of (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .174 (2011) . any bee, moth or fly ”. 363 Because a chicken must enter into 348 . E.g., Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-35 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of and exit from its enclosure, and because one would want Ordinances §7-3 .2 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances the chicken to have access to fresh air and sunlight, such §91 .017 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .203 (2011); Garland, a structure presents itself as an architectural impossibility . Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .17 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code 364 of Ordinances §§14-18 & 14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code Ten cities are particularly concerned with rats . Of §7 .36 .050 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Miami, these cities, several are concerned about both flies and Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of rats 365. Most of these cities simply mandate that the coop Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6- 366 261 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(c) (2011); be free of rats, but three cities require that food be kept Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §1705 .07 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .174 (2011) . Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §§4-17 & 4-18 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . 349 . E.g., Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(c) & (d) Regulations for Animal Control §902 .11-13 (no date listed) . (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Tulsa, 358 . See supra note 357 . Okla ., Code of Ordinances §§200(d), (e) & 406 (2011) . 359 . Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Mesa, Ariz ., City 350 . E.g., Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code §8-6-23 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) . (2011) . 351 . Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010) . 360 . Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011) . 352 . Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011) . 361 . Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23 (2011) . 353 . Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-137 (2011); Santa Ana, 362 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(d) (2011) . Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011) . 363 . Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011) . 354 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .17 (2011); Glendale, Ariz . 364 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .13(B)(8) (2009); Cincinnati, Ohio, Mun . Code §25-24(h) (2010); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-6 Code of Ordinances §§604 .17 & 00053-11 (2011); Denver, Colo ., (2011); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-22 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Mun . Code §8-92 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(d) (2011); §11A-22(h) (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-18 (2011) . (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., 355 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2(B)(1) (2011); Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Or- Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General dinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Wash ., (2011) . D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §§902 .12 & 902 .13 (no 356 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8(C) (2011) . date listed) . 357 . Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., 365 . E.g., Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §§604 .17 & 00053-11 Code of Ordinances §11A-22(h) (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Or- (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Ve- dinances §22 .17 (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); gas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordi- Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Kansas City, Mo ., nances §7-102 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §§4-17 Code of Ordinances §14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code & 4-18 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §7 .36 .050 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Mesa, §902 .12 (no date listed) . Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances 366 . Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §00053-11 (2011); Fort §6-1 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .755 (2007); Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(d) (2011); Kansas City, Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011); Scottsdale, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code

42 ELR 10912 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 within a rat-proof container 367. Denver appears to have be secure 371. Some further require that the enclosure keep the same antipathy toward rats as Glendale does toward animals protected from inclement weather 372. Outside of flies . Denver requires that chickens be kept in a rat-proof this, however, there is no consistency to these statutes . building . A rat-proof building is one that is made with no Of the cities that have promulgated shelter require- “potential openings that rats could exploit and built with ments specific to chickens, nine of them mandate that “material impervious to rat-gnawing ”. 368 While an open- each chicken be given a specific amount of space 373. Of ing for a rat would necessarily be bigger than an opening these cities, the average amount of space per chicken is five for a fly, because chickens will still have to enter and exit square feet, although no city actually mandates that 374. The the structure, Denver appears to demand similarly impos- median amount of space per chicken is four square feet . sible architecture . The mode, or most popular amount, is also four square feet 375. The next most popular is between two and two- c. Coop Construction Requirements and-one-half square feet 376. Cleveland requires 10 square feet per chicken, but specifies that this is for the outdoor Thirty-seven cities regulate the construction of the run, not for the enclosed coop 377. Rochester also takes the chicken coop .369 Like the cleaning regulations, many of difference between a chicken coop and a chicken run into these cities’ ordinances are not particular to chickens, account and requires at least four square feet per chicken but cover any structure meant to house an animal .370 in both the coop and the run 378. Long Beach does not give But, as demonstrated below, most specifically regulate a particular square footage per chicken, but requires that chicken coops . each coop be at least twice as big as the bird 379. Most of these ordinances require that chickens be kept Instead of regulating coop size so specifically, some cit- within an enclosure, and many add that the enclosure must ies require that the coops not be cramped or overcrowd- ed 380. Others state that the coop should be big enough for 381 §7 .36 .050 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 the chicken to move about freely, or have space to stand, (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §§902 .12 & 902 .13 (no date listed) . 367 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Des Moines, Iowa, Code 371 . E.g., Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); An- of Ordinances §18-4(h) (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances chorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .05 .010 (2011); Arling- §10-88 (2011) . ton, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosures 368 . Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §§40 .41 & 40 .51 (2011) . (2010); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Austin, Tex ., 369 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Anchor- Code of Ordinances §3-2-11 (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341- age, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .05 .010 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., 11 .3 (2009); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011); Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosure (2010); At- Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of lanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances Ordinances §3-2-11 (2011); Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-409 §14-15 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 (2011); Madi- (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., son, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §28 .08 (no date listed); Montgomery, Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Or- Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Or- dinances §00053-11 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances dinances §6 .1-2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011); §347 .02(a)(1)(D) & (E) (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §17 .01 .010 (2011) . §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6- 372 . E.g., Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 (2011) (providing that a 154 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011); shelter must protect “each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .205 (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code sunlight”); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011) (providing §6 .04 .040 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); that fowl should be housed in a “structure that is capable of providing cover Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 Shelter (2011); Jersey City, and protection from the weather”); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of §406 (2011) (“Natural or artificial shelters appropriate to the local climactic Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 conditions for the particular species of animal or fowl shall be provided for (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011); Louisville, all animals or fowl kept outdoors ”). . Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 Restraint (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of 373 . Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7(1)(d) (2011) (2 sq . ft .); Buf- Ordinances §28 .08 (no date listed); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances falo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(3) (2009) (2 sq . ft .); Charlotte, §7-88 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) (4 sq . ft .); Cleveland, New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Norfolk, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011) (10 sq . Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . ft .); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) (4 sq . Code §8-96(c) & (e) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Se- ft .); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011) (twice the size of cure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances the fowl); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-88 (2011) (15 sq . ft .); §30-19 (no date listed); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-9 Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) (4 sq . ft .); (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §§7 .20 .020 & 7 .60 .760 Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b)(3) (2011) (2 .5 sq . ft .) . (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011); Seattle, 374 . See supra note 373 . Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . 375 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Colorado Code §17 .01 .010 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2) Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City (c) (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §406 (2011) . Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 370 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Anchor- 376 . Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7(1)(d) (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., age, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .05 .010 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(3) (2009); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordi- Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosures (2010); nances §5 .6(b)(3) (2011) . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-409 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code 377 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) & (E) of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7- (2011) . 15 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); 378 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., 379 . Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011) . Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 380 . E.g., Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-35 (2011) . §4-1 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2)(c) (2011) . 381 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) (2011) .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10913 turn around, and lie down 382. Des Moines is unique, in sun when the temperature is over 90 degrees and protec- that it looks to state or national standards for the coop size, tion from direct exposure to wind when the temperature is providing that “such enclosures shall be of sufficient size to below 50 degrees 394. Jersey City’s ordinance stands out for house the number of animals or fowl permitted by state or its thoughtfulness 395. It requires that the coop contain win- national standards ”. 383 dows if possible, that the coop be white-washed or painted, Some cities also mandate how large the coop can be . and that the coop contain removable perches and nests, so The coop sizes also lack uniformity—both Buffalo and that they can be cleaned on a regular basis 396. Rochester Cleveland provide that the coop can be no larger than 32 does not allow fowl to be kept in a cellar 397. And San Anto- square feet, but Cleveland will allow the coop to be up nio requires that the coop be built so that the chicken’s feet to 15 feet high, while Buffalo caps height at seven feet 384. do not fall through the floor 398. Seattle allows for up to 1,000 square feet and caps the height at 12 feet 385. Finally, Charlotte is the only city that d. Giving Authority Over Coop provides for a minimum height by requiring the coops to Requirements to a City Official be at least 18 inches high 386. Other requirements that turn up in more than one city 387 Instead of legislating coop requirements through City is that the coop’s floor be impervious, the coop be ade- Council, four cities delegate to some other city official . San quately ventilated,388and the coop be kept dry or allow for 389 Francisco requires the coop structure to be approved by drainage . Some cities mandate that the enclosure protect 399 390 the Department of Health ; Washington, D C. ,. assigns it the chickens from predators . And, Buffalo, Cleveland, to the Director of the Department of Human Services 400. and Colorado Springs require that the chickens have access 391 Columbus requires its Health Commissioner to approve to an outdoor run . the structure 401. St . Louis allows its Animal Health Com- Two cities stand at odds on the issue of keeping chickens missioner to set standards for coop construction 402. And within solid walls . Baltimore prohibits chickens from being 392 finally, Rochester mandates that the coop will, at all times, confined in a cage entirely of solid walls, while Corpus be subject to inspection and subject to the orders of its Christi, to avoid large setbacks, requires that chickens be Chief of Police 403. confined entirely within solid walls 393. And some cities have entirely unique ordinances . Irving e. Feed and Water Requirements is concerned with protecting chickens from inclement weather; it requires protection from the direct rays of the Eleven cities are concerned that chickens receive enough food and water 404. Most of these simply mandate that 382 . Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011) (providing that ani- chickens receive adequate or sanitary food and water, but mals must have enough space to stand in a naturally erect position); New three of the cities show special concern with the chicken’s Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(2) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Tuc- welfare . Long Beach and Los Angeles require chickens to 405 son, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2)(c) (2011) . be given water every 12 hours . Memphis and Omaha 383 . Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011) . require that the chickens not only be given sufficient food 384 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) (2011); 406 Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(7) (2009) . but also “wholesome” food and water . And Buffalo 385 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) . requires that chickens be fed only through an approved 386 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) . 387 . E.g., Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosure (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Lin- coln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011) (requiring that, if a coop is less 394 . Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 Shelter (2011) . than 7,500 square feet, that the flooring be made of hard surface material); 395 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011) . New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(1) (2011); Plano, 396 . Id. Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); 397 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b)(2) (2010) (providing that 398 . San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-9 (2011) . the “floors of every such building shall be smooth and tight”) . 399 . San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(b) (2011) . 388 . E.g., Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(7) (2009); Charlotte, 400 . Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(c) (no N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Jersey City, N .J ., Code date listed) . of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances 401 . Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221 .05(b) (2011) . §18-2 .1(a)(1) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure 402 . St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .016 (2010) . Enclosure & Shelter (2011) . 403 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 389 . E.g., Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); New Or- 404 . Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(d) (2011); Buf- leans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(1) (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., falo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(9) (2009); Chicago, Ill ., Code Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b)(2) (2011) . of Ordinances §7-12-290(b) (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Or- 390 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(3) & (4) (2009); Cleveland, dinances §701-35 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .090 Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) . See also Nashville-David- (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .46 (2011); Memphis, Tenn ., Code son, Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Office, to of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23(C) All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Mont- (providing that coops must be kept in a predator-proof enclosure) . gomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code 391 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(1) (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, of Ordinances §6-261 (2011) . Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011); Colorado 405 . Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .090 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) . Code §53 .46 (2011) . 392 . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-409 (2011) . 406 . Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Omaha, Neb ., 393 . Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) . Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011) .

42 ELR 10914 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 trough and prohibits feeding them through scattering food to place the chickens within the legislated setbacks 413. And on the ground 407. one city, Riverside, only requires a permit if one wants to keep roosters 414. 6. Permit Requirements The remaining 24 cities require a permit to keep chickens under all circumstances 415. Permit renewal periods and Thirty-eight cities require a permit to keep chickens under fees also differ substantially among cities . Of the cities that certain circumstances 408. Like all of the other regulations, require permits to keep chickens in all circumstances, there there is very little consistency . Eleven cities require permits is little agreement for how long these permits should last for more than a maximum number of chickens 409. The or how much they should cost . At least 10 of them require average number the city allows before requiring a permit is permit holders to renew annually 416. Two have an initial seven . The average is high because San Diego allows up to term of one year, but then either allow or require five-year 20 chickens before seeking a permit 410. The median is five permits after that 417. Cleveland has a biennial permit 418. and the mode, with three cities, Saint Louis, Santa Ana Mobile allows for the permit to remain valid until revoked and Spokane, is four . Two cities, El Paso and San Jose, by the health officer 419. And several simply don’t specify allow for six 411. And, two cities, Portland and Witchita how long the permit will last 420. allow for three 412. Two cities require a permit if one seeks There is also a lot of variety among cities in where to go to get the permit . Cleveland, Columbus, Omaha, and Norfolk grant the public health departments the authority to grant permits421; Newark gives it to the Director of the 407 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(9) (2009) . 422 408 . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Department of Child and Family Well-Being ; Sacra- 423 Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 mento to the Animal Care Services Operator ; Tacoma (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(i) & (j) (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221 .05 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(i), (j) (2011); El 413 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011) (requir- Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §§7 .24 .020 & 7 .24 .050 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., ing permit if want to be within setback); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6- §5 .30 .010 (2011) (requiring permission from city clerk to put coop with- 38 (2010); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011); Kan- in setback) . sas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., 414 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §17 .206 .020 (2011) . Mun . Code §6 .04 .070 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances 415 . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bos ., Mass ., Code of §9 .52 (no date listed); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cleve- Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(i) & (j) (2011); Columbus, Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2- Ohio, City Code §221 .05 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 30 (2010); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Omaha, (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(i), (j) (2011); Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Phila Plano, Tex ., Code Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of of Ordinances §4-81 (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015 Ordinances §6-38 (2010); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90- (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §17 .206 .020 (2011); 7 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12 & 30-15 (no date listed); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §§9 .44 .870 & 9 .44 .880 (2011); San An- Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of tonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 Mun . Code §42 .0713 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-30 (2010); Norfolk, §37(d) (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .700 (2007); Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Or- Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §§5 .6 & 23 .42 .051(B) (2011); dinances §6-266 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12 Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 (no date listed); St . Lou- & 30-15 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §§9 .44 .870 & is, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015(c) (2010); St . Paul, Minn ,. 9 .44 .880 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d) (2011); St . §198 .02 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011); Wash ., Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Ani- D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §§902 .1 & 902 .3-4 (no mal Control §§902 .1 & 902 .3-4 (no date listed) . date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) . 416 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code 409 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011) (requiring permit if more of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5906 than six); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011) (requiring permit (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011); Lincoln, if more than 5, if fowl weigh over five pounds and more than 20 for fowl Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .110 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordi- between three and five pounds);Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-81 nances §9 .52 (no date listed); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2- (2011) (requiring permit if more than 10); Portland, Or ., City Code 30 (2010); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-271 (2011); Roch- §13 .05 .015(E) (2011) (requiring permit if more than three); San Antonio, ester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-15 (no date listed); St . Paul, Minn ,. Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011) (requiring permit if more §198 .04 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control than five);San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0713 (2011) (requiring per- §902 .3 (no date listed) . mit if more than 25); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .700(A) 417 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011); Minneapo- (2007) (requiring permit if more than six); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of lis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011) (five-year period offered Ordinances §5 .6 (2011) (requiring permit if more than four); Spokane, as a choice) . Wash ., Mun . Code §§17C .310 .100 & 10 .20 .015(c) (no date listed) (re- 418 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205 .04 (2011) . quiring permit if more than four); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances 419 . Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011) . §10 .20 .015(c) (2010) (requiring permit if more than four ); Wichita, 420 . E.g., Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) (requiring permit if more Code of Ordinances §4-81 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordi- than three) . nances §5 .6 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) . 410 . San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0713 (2011) . 421 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205 .04 (2011); Columbus, 411 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ohio, City Code §221 .05 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances Ordinances §7 .60 .700(A) (2007) . §6-266 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011) . 412 . Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(E) (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code 422 . Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-30 (2010) . of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) . 423 . Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9-44-870 (2011) .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10915

to the City Clerk424; and Boston to the Inspectional Ser- pass 432. If the permit is granted, then the Animal Control vices Department 425. Most cities, however, do not state in Officer must inspect the coop before the licensee is actu- the ordinance by what means a person actually procures ally allowed to get chickens 433. Then, the licensee has to a permit 426. procure a separate license from the building department to Three cities use the permit process to make sure that build the chicken coop 434. would-be chicken owners have the consent of their neigh- And then Buffalo requires similar procedures for renew- bors . St . Paul, Minnesota, requires that an applicant show, ing the license each year . Each license automatically expires through written consent, that 75% of the owners or occu- on June 1 . From May 1 to June 1, the city opens up a com- pants of property within 150 feet have given permission ment period for anyone to complain about licensed chick- for the chickens 427. Las Vegas requires written consent ens . The City Council is to consider all of these comments of neighbors within 350 feet 428. Buffalo and Milwaukee and any rebuttals to them before deciding whether to renew also requires written consent from adjacent landowners to the license . The City Council can also revoke the license at secure a permit 429. Riverside, California, allows residents any time if it hears any complaints about the licensee 435. to keep hens without a permit, but requires a permit, with This licensing scheme appears designed to ameliorate written permission from the neighbors, to keep more than concerns that the city will be overwhelmed with com- six roosters 430. plaints . But the resources the city puts into this process Finally, some cities use the permitting schemes to ensure and the time it is requiring councilmembers and the mayor that chicken owners comply with a long list of regulations . to put into it if a single person registers a negative comment For instance, Buffalo has set forth a labyrinthine process must far outweigh any resources the city would be using to for securing a “chicken license ”. 431 It requires the license prosecute rogue chickens owners . seeker to provide his name, address, number of chickens Many cities also charge fees for these permits . Because sought, and the location of the coop . The city then notifies many cities do not list their fees on any publicly accessible neighboring landowners with property within 50 feet of website, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions on the the applicant’s property of the application and allows them norm for how much a city charges . But, 14 cities’ fees were to provide written comments . The tyci also notifies the identified 436. Three of the 14 charged an initial fee, Mil- mayor and City Council . If the city clerk does not receive waukee charged a $25 initial fee, Minneapolis $50, and any comments, the clerk can issue a license for up to five St . Paul $72 437. Thirteen cities, including Minneapolis hens . But if anyone lodges a negative comment, then the and St . Paul, charged annual fees 438. The fees ranged from permit goes to City Council and Council must determine, specifying that the permit would be free to $50 per year . after taking in the entire record before it, if the city will The average annual fee was $29, although no city charged grant the license . If the Council approves it, it goes to the that amount . The edianm fee and the mode are both $25 mayor, who has the power to veto it; if he does so—it would per year . Two cities legislated late charges into the statute, require a 2/3 majority at the following Council meeting to Lincoln has a $25 late fee,439 and Madison charges $5 if a permit is renewed late 440. Finally, Minneapolis gives a $50 424 . Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) . discount from the annual fee if a licensee renews for five 425 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010) . years, instead of paying $40 a year, one can pay $150 for a 426 . E.g., Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010) (provid- five-year period 441. ing that the “bureau” will issue the permit .); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011) (providing that the “licensing issuing authority” will grant the permit) . 432 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Charter §3-19 . 427 . St . Paul, Minn ,. §198 .04(b) (2011): 433 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009) . The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of sec- 434 . Id. tion 198 .02 shall provide with the application the written consent 435 . Id . of seventy-five (75) percent of the owners or occupants of privately 436 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .1(G) (2009) ($25 annual fee); Char- or publicly owned real estate within one hundred fifty (150) feet lotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010) ($50 annual fee); of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is be- Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011) ($50 annual fees as listed on ing requested or, in the alternative, proof that applicant’s property city website at http://www .denvergov .org/FrequentlyAskedQuestionsan- lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any structure . dRelatedLinks/tabid/434759/Default .aspx); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of However, where a street separates the premises for which the permit Ordinances §90-7 (2011) ($25 annual fee); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code is being requested from other neighboring property, no consent is §6 .04 .090 (2011) ($50 annual fee with a $25 late fee); Madison, Wis ., required from the owners or occupants of property located on the Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed) ($10 annual fee with a $5 opposite side of the street . Where a property within one hundred late fee); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §60-7 (2011) ($35 ini- fifty (150) feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need tial fee); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10(f) (2011) obtain only the written consent of the owner or manager, or other ($50 initial fee and $40 annual fee); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances person in charge of the building . §7-102 (2011) (specifies that permits are free); Newark, N .J ., General 428 . Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011) . Ordinances §6:2-31 (2010) ($10 annual fee); Rochester, N .Y ., City Or- 429 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .2 (2009) (“No chicken hens shall dinances §30-16 (no date listed) ($37 annual fee); St . Louis, Mo ., Code be allowed without the express written consent of all residents residing on of Ordinances §10 .20 .013(f) (2010) ($40 annual fee); St . Paul, Minn ,. property adjacent to that of the applicant ”);. Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of §198 .04(c) (2011) ($72 initial fee and $25 annual fee); Wichita, Kan ., Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011) (Before a permit is issued for the keeping of Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) ($25 annual fee) . chickens, the applicant shall obtain the written consent of the owner of 437 . Supra note 436 and accompanying text . the property where the chickens shall be kept and owners of all directly or 438 . Id. diagonally abutting properties, including those across an alley ”). 439 . Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .090 (2011) . 430 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .05 .020 (2011) . 440 . Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed) . 431 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009) . 441 . Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10(g) (2011) .

42 ELR 10916 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012

7. Slaughtering less of whether or not the flesh or blood of the animal is to be consumed ”. 451 Witchita, however, while banning Thirteen cities regulate slaughtering442; however, of those, the slaughter of chickens, states that the ordinance does only six ban slaughtering altogether 443. Three cities, Buffalo, not apply “to the slaughter of animals as part of religious Charlotte, and Pittsburgh, allow chickens to be slaugh- practices ”. 452 And, Los Angeles expressly allows slaughter tered, but require that it not occur outdoors or in a public both for food and religious purposes 453. place 444. Cleveland allows a chicken to be slaughtered on site, but only if it is meant to be consumed on the occu- 8. Roosters pant’s premises 445. San Francisco requires that any slaughter occur in an “entirely separate” room than the one that Many cities that allow for hens ban roosters . Twenty-six fowl occupy 446. Rochester requires a poulterer’s license to cities prohibit roosters 454. Of these cities, four have excep- both keep chickens and slaughter them 447. And, Glendale, tions: Phoenix will allow a rooster only if it is incapable of in keeping with its aversion to rats described above, only making vocal noises455; Rochester and San Jose will allow allows for slaughter if it occurs in a rat-proof structure 448. roosters under four months of age456; and Sacramento only Several other cities only ban slaughter if a person is kill- prohibits roosters on developed lots used exclusively for ing another’s chickens without permission 449. Chesapeake residential purposes 457. Fort Wayne does not say anything is particularly concerned with dogs killing chickens . Ches- about roosters, but its ordinance effectively bans them by apeake mandates compensation of no more than $10 per defining poultry only as “laying hens ”. 458 fowl, if a dog or hybrid dog kills a chicken 450. Many cities, instead of banning roosters altogether Finally, several cities stand directly opposed concern- impose very large setbacks for roosters, require a larger ing the killing of chickens for animal sacrifice . Chicago’s property size for roosters, or relegate roosters to agricul- ordinance banning the slaughter of chickens is directed turally zoned land . Four cities require relatively large set- toward chickens killed for animal sacrifice; it provides in backs for roosters: Cleveland requires 100-foot setbacks459; the ordinance that this “section is applicable to any cult Kansas City, 300 feet460; Oklahoma City, 400 feet461; and that kills (sacrifices) animals for any type of ritual, regard- Glendale, California, requires 500 feet 462. Wichita will also allow for roosters if they are more than 500 feet from 442 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(d) (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., any residentially zoned lot 463. Three cities require greater Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(4) (2010); Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordi- nances §17-12-300 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(h) (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §8 .48 .020 (2011); 451 . Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (but exempting Ko- Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §2809(9)(b)(6) (no date listed); sher slaughtering from this ordinance) . Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(b) (2011); Nashville- 452 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .175(p) (2011) . Davidson, Tenn . Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Coun- 453 . L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .67 (2011) . cil Office, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on 454 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .1(d) (2009); Colorado Springs, file with author); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §911 .04 .A .2 Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .110(A) (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-12 (no date listed); Ordinances ch . 157 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §§12-204 .11 Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., & 12-205 .1 & 12-206 .1 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances Health Code §37(d)(5) (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050(a)(2) (2011); §6 .04 .175(p) (2011) . Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .041 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . 443 . Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (“No person shall Code §6 .20 .050 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b)(2) own, keep or otherwise possess, or slaughter any sheep, goat, pig, cow or (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); the young of such species, poultry, rabbit, dog, cat, or any other animal, Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(a) (2011); N .Y .C ., intending to use such animal for food purposes ”);. Madison, Wis ., Code Health Code §§161 .19(a) & 161 .01(b)(11) (1990); Newark, N .J ., Gen- of Ordinances §2809(9)(b)(6) (no date listed) (“No person shall slaughter eral Ordinances §6:2-36 (2010); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances any chickens ”). ; Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(b) §6 .04 .320 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(c) (2011); Portland, (2011); (“No person shall slaughter any chickens ”);. Nashville-Davidson, Or ., City Code §13 .10 .010 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances Tenn . Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Office, §30-19 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(B) to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with (2011); St . Paul, Minn ,. §198 .03 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code author); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) (“No hen of Ordinances §4-31(e) (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances chickens shall be slaughtered on any developed lot used exclusively for resi- §7 .60 .820 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5-6 .5 (2011); dential purposes ”);. Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .175(p) Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(2) (2011); Stockton, Cal ., (2011) (prohibiting slaughtering “on residentially zoned lots or lots utilized Mun . Code §6 .04 .440 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4- for residential purposes”) . 59 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .171 (2011) . 444 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(d) (2009) (“There shall be no out- 455 . Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(c) (2011) . Removing a roosters vocal door slaughtering of chicken hens ”);. Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordi- chords was routinely done by vets many years ago . But because of the ex- nances §3-102(c)(4) (2010); (providing that any slaughter “shall be done tremely high mortality rate (over 50%) most vets will no longer perform this only in a humane and sanitary manner and shall not be done open to the procedure . See Small and Backyard Flocks, Ky . U . Ext ., http://www .ca .uky . view of any public area or adjacent property owned by another”); Pitts- edu/smallflocks/faq .html#Q31 (last visited July 8, 2012) . burgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §911 .04 .A .2 (2011) (“Killing or dress- 456 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); San Jose, ing of poultry raised on the premises shall be permitted if conducted entirely Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .820 (2007) . within an enclosed building ”). . 457 . Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(B) (2011) . 445 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(h) (2011) . 458 . Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances ch . 157 (2011) . 446 . San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d)(5) (2011) . 459 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(c) (2011) . 447 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-12 (no date listed) . 460 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) . 448 . Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §8 .48 .020 (2011) . 461 . Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350(c), (d) (2011) . 449 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92 .03 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code 462 . Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010) (multiple of Ordinances §3-2-61 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-3 (2011) . provisions in zoning code relating to roosters) . 450 . Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-19 (2011) . 463 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .171 (2011) .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10917

acreage for roosters: Cleveland requires at least one acre464; V. Model Ordinance Baton Rouge requires two acres465; and Fremont California allows one rooster for ½ acre, and two roosters for more A. Reasons Behind the Choices in the Model than one acre 466. Three cities, Anaheim, Arlington, and Ordinance Dallas, relegate roosters to agriculturally zoned land 467. Many cities do not ban roosters but have noise regula- Because many cities are recognizing that keeping chick- tions that would effectively cause any rooster to be a nui- ens in the city should be allowed, but would like to regu- 468 sance, at least a rooster that crows . late it properly so that the city can stop any nuisances 469 Finally, nine cities expressly allow for roosters . Most before they arise, a model ordinance is provided below . of these cities, however, limit the number of roosters Through surveying the ordinances of the most populous 470 allowed . Three cities allow for only one rooster . Two cit- American cities, many types of regulatory schemes have 471 ies allow for two roosters . El Paso allows for up to three already been identified and discussed . While different 472 roosters with a permit . And Riverside allows up to six regulatory schemes may work better for different kinds and only requires a permit to keep seven or more roost- of cities, depending on the density and variety of their 473 ers . San Diego and San Francisco allow for unlimited residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods, roosters; however, San Francisco animal control authorities the model ordinance provided should be easy to adapt to stated that they do not recommend that San Franciscans any city . First, each section of the model ordinance will keep roosters due to the number of complaints they have be described and the reasons for choosing the regulation 474 received concerning roosters . will be set out . Then, the model ordinance will be set out And, winning the award for most eccentric rooster ordi- in full . nance is the city that allows roosters conjugal visits . While this city is not within the top 100 surveyed, Hopewell 1. Chickens Should Be Regulated in a Unified Township, New Jersey, as discussed above, allows roosters Ordinance Within the Section Concerning that are certified disease-free to visit a hen flock for 10 days out of every year 475. Animals Most cities regulate chickens within the animal code . This 464 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(c) (2011) . 465 . Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14-224(b) (2011) . also appears to be the best option for where to place regula- 466 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) . tions affecting chickens within a city’s codified ordinances . 467 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .050 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., This is the natural place for a person to look to see if the Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02(f) (2010); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-7 .3 (2011) . city allows chickens . By placing the regulation within the 468 . E.g., Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .10 .015 (2011); Ba- animal code, it also allows for all of the regulations affect- kersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .230 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City ing chickens to be in one place . This will help a chicken Code §2327 .14(A) (2011) (“No person shall keep or harbor any animal owner to more easily find and follow the city’s law . which howls, barks, or emits audible sounds that are unreasonably loud If a city still wishes to incorporate zoning restrictions or disturbing and which are of such character, intensity and duration as to disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood or to be detrimental to life within a chicken ordinance, the city can easily do so within and health of any individual ”);. Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordi- the unified ordinance located within the animal section by nances §31-2 (2011); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8- restricting chickens to certain zones . And if a city wishes to 11 .3(B) (2011) (“No poultry animals that make sounds clearly audible off- require a permit to keep chickens, the permit requirement site are permitted ”);. Lexington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Ordinances §4- may also easily be placed in a unified ordinance . 12 (2011); Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §8 .12 .010 (2011) (“It is unlawful for any person to keep any animal, dog, bird or fowl which, by causing frequent or loud continued noise, disturbs the comfort or repose 2. Chickens Should Be Limited to a Small Flock of any person in the vicinity ”);. Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §12- 5007 (2011); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §15 .50 .040 (2010) . A chicken ordinance should allow for at least four chick- 469 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Birming- ham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code ens . Because chickens are flock animals, they do not thrive §7 .24 .020(B)(1) (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A- when left alone . And, because chickens enforce a domi- 22(c)(2) (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .71 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., nant social order by harassing new chicks, it is always best Metro Code §91 .001 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .05 .010 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0708 (2011); San to introduce at least two chicks to a new flock . By allow- Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011) . ing a minimum of four chickens, the city does not leave a 470 . Albuquerque, N M. ,. Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); L A. ,. Cal ,. chicken owner in a position of having to leave a hen in a Mun . Code §53 71. (2011); Louisville, Ky ,. Metro Code §91 001. (2011) . 471 . Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c)(2) (2011); Bir- solitary environment if another chicken dies . It also allows mingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) . the chicken owner to introduce at least two new chicks to 472 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B)(1) (2011) . an existing flock of two . 473 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §§6 .05 .010 & 6 .05 .020 (2011) . 474 . San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0708 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., The model ordinance sets out a maximum of six chick- Health Code §37 (2011); Interview with San Francisco animal control ens . This number is still below the average number of (on file with author) . chickens allowed in most cities, but is sufficient to keep a 475 . NJ Town Limits Conjugal Visits Between Roosters & Hens, Huffington Post, Apr . 27, 2011, http://www huffing. tonpost com/2. 011/04/28/nj-limits-chicken- balanced backyard flock . Six hens will allow plenty of eggs mating_n_854404 .html (last visited July 8, 2012) . for the hen-keepers, while still allowing an owner to keep

42 ELR 10918 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 hens that no longer produce many eggs but are still valued bor does not build a coop abutting his property that is also by the owner for their companionship . right next to a frequently used patio or deck, these sorts of Cities may want to consider allowing even more chick- setbacks may also overreach . For instance, these setbacks ens . Allowing more chickens will allow owners to keep may require a coop to be located far from a little-used or chickens that are no longer producing eggs . Chicken own- overgrown part of a neighbor’s property . It may also require ers who raise hens for eggs may feel pressured to rid them- the coop to be located far from an area of the neighbor’s selves of older hens when they are faced with limitations on property where a garage or shed already provides a bar- their flock 476. This has raised concerns in some areas that rier . For these reasons, setbacks from property lines should those chickens will burden animal shelters 477. Allowing a be employed with care . But, it is understandable that a slightly larger flock may help to alleviate any burden . neighbor would not want a coop built directly next to a frequently used area of the yard, nor does a neighbor want 3. Lot Size Should Not Be Restricted to be responsible for cleaning errant droppings . For this reason, the model ordinance proposes minimal setbacks The majority of cities do not require a specific lot size from property lines along the lines of the newly passed before a person can keep chickens . Lot size restrictions, ordinances in Cleveland and Buffalo, of five feet from the moreover, often do little more than prohibit the majority side yard and 18 inches from the rear yard line . of city residents from keeping hens . The concern that cities Finally, the model ordinance provides that chickens are mainly addressing through lot size, that of making sure may not be kept in the front yard . Because most cities that chickens are not located too close to neighbors, can are justifiably concerned that easily accessible chickens better be addressed through setbacks . will attract vandalism, theft, or pranks, or possibly cause For this reason, the model ordinance does not restrict neighborhood dogs to behave in a predatory manner, through lot size . If a city has a wide variety of lot sizes, instead of setting elaborate setbacks from the street, it however, a city may wish to allow more hens for larger lot is more efficient and more clear to simply ban chickens sizes . The city, for instance, can legislate a maximum num- from the front yard . ber of chickens for lot sizes of ½ acre or below, and then increase the number of chickens for larger lot sizes . 5. Sanitation Requirements

4. Setbacks The model ordinance requires that the coop and outdoor enclosure be kept in a sanitary condition and free from Because there is a universal concern with keeping chickens offensive odors . It also requires that the coop and out- too close to neighbors, a setback, rather than lot size, pro- door enclosure be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent the vides the best solution for this concern . A setback actually accumulation of animal waste . The odelm ordinance does ensures that the chickens will be kept at an appropriate not go into further detail because more stringent cleaning distance from neighbors without unduly restricting people requirements will be difficult to police and impossible to who own smaller properties from owning chickens . The enforce . A city inspector will be able to tell if a coop is model ordinance proposes a setback of 25 feet from the clean and odor-free when inspecting the coop . Unless the doors or windows of any dwelling or occupied structure city inspector monitors a coop closely with daily visits, the other than the owner’s dwelling . This setback is less than inspector will be unable to tell if an owner cleaned it daily, the median setback of 80 feet and the most popular setback or every other day, or weekly . It is unlikely that any city of 50 feet, but is in line with the setbacks of many cities inspector would want to devote that much time to surveil- that have recently amended their ordinances . A setback of lance of chicken coops . 25 feet is far enough that any noise or odor from the hens Also, because there are several different methods for should not cause nuisance to the neighbors, while allowing cleaning a coop, and there continue to be new innovations homeowners in smaller properties to keep hens . The addi- in chicken-keeping and maintenance (witness the evolu- tion of requiring the setback to be from doors or windows tion of cat litter over the past few decades), legislating one also allows more flexibility for where a coop can be placed, particular method of cleaning might foreclose more effi- while still ensuring that it will not annoy neighbors . cient, more sanitary, and more attractive cleaning options . Setbacks from a neighboring residence make sense The city’s concern is with sanitation and odor . Thus, the because it can be assumed that no one wants someone keep- city should address its regulations to these concerns, rather ing any pet, including chickens, very close to their house . than to more specific cleaning methods . A setback from the property line, however, may make less Concerns with flies will also be taken care of through sense depending on where on the property chickens are requiring clean and odor-free coops and enclosures . As kept . While a neighbor may be concerned that his neigh- flies are attracted to waste, any problem with flies should be eliminated through requiring a sanitary coop . Rats are attracted to easily procured food . If the city is particu- 476 . E.g., Kim Severson, When the Problems Come Home to Roost, N .Y . Times, Oct . 22, 2009, http://www .nytimes .com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine . larly concerned with rats, it may add that chicken feed be html . kept in a rat-proof container . But this regulation appears 477 . Id .

9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10919

unnecessary in light of the fact that many people keep 7. Slaughtering dog and cat food in bulk, as well as food for their own consumption, without regulations that the food be kept The model ordinance prohibits slaughtering chickens out- in a rat-proof container . There is no logical basis for the doors . Because many people are concerned that neighbors belief that rats will be more attracted to chicken feed than or neighbors’ children will accidentally witness a bird being other food . If a city is concerned that feed scattered on the killed and are also concerned with the lack of hygiene in ground will attract rats, instead of legislating a rat-proof backyard butchering, this regulation is included in the container for keeping the feed, a city may be better off ordinance . Also, because most backyard hen enthusiasts following Buffalo’s lead by prohibiting feed from being are raising hens for eggs and companionship, and not for scattered on the ground and requiring chickens to be fed meat, most will not object to this regulation . from a trough . 8. Roosters 6. Enclosures The model ordinance prohibits roosters . It does so because The model ordinance provides specific requirements for roosters are noisy and are much more likely to bother coops and outdoor runs . It also requires that hens should neighbors than hens . Because, as discussed above, most remain in the coop or outdoor run at all times, except backyard hen enthusiasts are interested in eggs, and roost- when an adult is directly supervising the hen . ers are not necessary to egg production, prohibiting roost- First, the model ordinance requires a covered, predator- ers will not likely meet with much objection . proof coop or cage that is well-ventilated and designed to Because bringing in a rooster on occasion can help to be easily accessed for cleaning . It also requires that the cheaply and easily propagate a flock, cities may explore coop provide at least two square feet per hen . Finally, it rooster “conjugal visits,” like Hopewell township has done . requires that the birds have access to an outdoor run that is While the township’s regulation attracted press because of adequately fenced to contain the birds on the property and its eccentricity, it was a thoughtful solution to the practical prevent predators from access to the birds . This ordinance effects of banning roosters . Most hen owners, however, are is designed to address the city’s concerns with odor, with willing to add to their flocks through other means where the chicken’s well-being, and with not attracting predators they can be better assured of procuring only female fowl . looking for an easy meal . The rdinanceo allows for only two square feet per hen to give each hen adequate space, 9. Permits but also to allow for a smaller coop size that can help to keep birds warm in the winter . The rdinanceo avoids giv- The model ordinance, following the ordinances of many ing too many instructions on building a coop that could other cities, does not require a permit, as long as the ordi- preclude future innovations in coop design 478. If the city, nance is followed . Because chickens are novel to many com- however, wants to prohibit coops over a specific dimension, munities, city officials naturally want to closely monitor or will waive a building permit for coops under a specific how well owners are maintaining their flocks . But, regulat- dimension that are not permanent structures, the city can ing through a permitting or licensing process, dedicating easily insert such a provision here . a city official to overseeing it, and maintaining the records The model ordinance also provides that chickens should that such a process will require appears to be an inefficient not be allowed out of their coops, except when supervised use of city resources . It is also expensive for owners to pay by an adult . This addresses a city’s concern with chickens permitting fees on an annual basis and is a barrier to entry running free on the streets while also recognizing that own- to keeping chickens to those with low or modest incomes . ers will need to remove hens from the coop and run occa- The fees that some cities charge, over $50 annually, effec- sionally to clean the areas, to inspect a bird more closely, tively prohibit poorer people from owning chickens . or to allow a chicken to briefly roam the yard or garden to The permitting process, moreover, does not necessarily forage for fresh greens . give the city more control . If the city prohibits hens unless its ordinance is followed, it can enforce its laws in the same way that it enforces its laws against errant dog, cat, or bird owners . Requiring a permit, thus, appears to provide an 478 . Many companies sell commercially made coops, runs, and chicken tractors unnecessary, inefficient, and expensive layer to the process (portable enclosed structures that allow the owner to move the chickens of legalizing hens . around the yard) with novel designs . See, e.g., Say Hello to the Brand New The model ordinance does require a permit, however, Eglu Go, Omlet, http://www .omlet .us/products_services/products_services . php?cat=Eglu+Go (last visted July 25, 2012) (offering a plastic portable chick- if the chicken owner puts forth a proposal for why she en coop and run designed for two chickens); Chicken Coops, Sheds Unlim should not have to comply with the city’s regulations—for ited, http://www .shedsunlimited net/portable. -chicken-runs-and-coops-for- instance if the owner wishes to keep more than the maxi- sale .html?gclid=CKXzvd2ruLECFeEDQAodcCIAkw (last visited July 25, 2012) (offering Amish-built chicken coops and runs); ChickenSaloon . mum amount of hens, wishes to keep hens in a multi-fam- com, http://chickensaloon com/?. gclid=COLs7qysuLECFYS6KgodGBAAsw ily dwelling, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that (last visited July 25, 2012); The Green Chicken Coop, http://www .gre- is unconnected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster . enchickencoop .com/ (last visited July 25, 2012) .

This permit is set up to allow people to keep chickens (b) Permit . A permit shall not be required if the above within setbacks, or to allow for more intensive chicken- regulations are followed . If a person wishes to keep keeping for urban agricultural uses, perhaps on an urban more than the maximum allowed number of hens, farm or market garden . As urban agriculture gains support wishes to keep hens within the setback required, and becomes more prevalent in the city, this will allow for wishes to keep hens in a multi-family dwelling, people who wish to keep more chickens, or keep a rooster, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that is uncon- as part of a market garden a set path for doing so with- nected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster, a out seeking to amend the ordinance . The permit process is permit will be required . An application for a permit designed to allow for more flexibility within the ordinance, must contain the following items: while still laying down firm standards that all chicken a. The name, phone number, and address of the owners must follow . applicant . b. The size and location of the subject property . B. Model Ordinance c. A proposal containing the following information . i. The number of hens the applicant seeks to Below is a model ordinance designed for a city to either keep on the property . adopt or use as a starting point when deciding whether to ii. A description of any coops or cages or out- allow hens in the city and how to regulate them: door enclosures providing precise dimen- (a) Purpose . The following regulations will govern the sions and the precise location of these keeping of chickens and are designed to prevent nui- enclosures in relation to property lines and sances and prevent conditions that are unsanitary or adjacent properties . unsafe . No person shall keep chickens unless the fol- iii. The number of roosters the applicant seeks to lowing regulations are followed: keep on the property . a. Number . No more than six (6) hens shall be d. If the applicant proposes to keep chickens in the allowed for each single-family dwelling . yard of a multi-family dwelling, the applicant b. Setbacks . Coops or cages housing chickens shall must present a signed statement from any and all be kept at least twenty-five (25) feet from the door owners or tenants of the multi-family dwelling or window of any dwelling or occupied structure consenting to the applicant’s proposal for keeping other than the owner’s dwelling . Coops and cages chickens on the premises . shall not be located within five (5) feet of a side- e. If the applicant proposes to keep more chickens yard lot line, nor within eighteen (18) inches of a than allowed in the above ordinance or wishes rear-yard lot line . Coops and cages shall not be to keep a rooster, the applicant must present a located in the front yard . signed statement from all residents of property c. Enclosure . Hens shall be provided with a cov- adjacent to or within 50 feet of the applicant’s ered, predator-proof coop or cage that is well- property consenting to the applicant’s proposal ventilated and designed to be easily accessed for for keeping chickens on the premises . If the cleaning . The coop shall allow at least two square applicant proposes to keep chickens within a feet per hen . Hens shall have access to an outdoor required setback, the applicant must present a enclosure that is adequately fenced to contain signed statement from all residents of the prop- the birds on the property and to prevent preda- erty affected by that setback . tors from access to the birds . Hens shall not be (c) Permit Renewal . Permits will be granted on an allowed out of these enclosures unless a respon- annual basis . If the city receives no complaints sible individual, over 18 years of age, is directly regarding the permit holder’s keeping of chickens, monitoring the hens and able to immediately the permit will be presumptively renewed and the return the hens to the cage or coop if necessary . applicant may continue to keep chickens under d. Sanitation . The coop and outdoor enclosure the terms and condition of the initial permit . The must be kept in a sanitary condition and free from city may revoke the permit at any time if the per- offensive odors . The coop and outdoor enclosure mittee does not follow the terms of the permit, if must be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent the the city receives complaints regarding the permit accumulation of waste . holder’s keeping of chickens, or the city finds that e. Slaughtering . There shall be no outdoor slaugh- the permit holder has not maintained the chickens, tering of chickens . coops, or outdoor enclosures in a clean and sani- f. Roosters . It is unlawful for any person to keep tary condition . roosters .

42 ELRAttachment 10920 5 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER Page 53 of 9-201256 CITY OF DES PLAINES

ORDINANCE M - 19 - 17

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 6 OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS______

WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipal corporation in accordance with Article VII, Section 6(a) of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and

WHEREAS, Section 6-1-1 of the City of Des Plaines City Code, as amended ("City Code"), restricts the types of animals that may be kept within the City including chickens, which are prohibited except for educational purposes on historic properties (“Animal Restriction Regulations”); and

WHEREAS, the City desires to amend Section 6-1-1 of the City Code to allow, for a period of three years, the keeping of chickens in the R-1 District subject to certain conditions (“Amendment”); and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the Amendments as set forth in this Ordinance;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows:

SECTION 1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof.

SECTION 2: ANIMALS RESTRICTED WITHIN THE CITY. Section 1, titled “Animals Restricted Within the City,” of Chapter 1, titled “Animal Control,” of Title 6, titled “Police Regulations” of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

“6-1-1: ANIMALS RESTRICTED WITHIN THE CITY

A. Fowl: It shall be unlawful and it is hereby declared to be a nuisance to raise, maintain or have upon any property within the city any chickens, ducks, geese, guinea hens, pigeons or other similar fowl except as provided in section 6-1-1.D; provided, however, that it is not unlawful to keep, for educational purposes, up to six (6) chicken hens on any property located within the city that is greater than fifteen (15) acres and is listed on the national register of historic places.

* * *

D. Chickens: For a period of three years beginning [insert date], 2017, it shall be unlawful and is hereby declared to be a nuisance to raise, maintain, or have

Attachment 6 Page 54 of 56 upon any property within the city any chickens except under the following conditions:

SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any paragraph, section, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect without affecting the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form according to law.

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]

Attachment 6 Page 55 of 56

PASSED this day of , 2017

APPROVED this day of , 2017

VOTE: Ayes Nays Absent

MAYOR ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

Published in pamphlet form this Approved as to form: ____ day of ______, 2017

CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel

Attachment 6 Page 56 of 56

1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5400 desplaines.org

Date: September 7, 2017

To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager

From: William R. Kushner, Chief of Police

Subject: Photo Red Light Enforcement Program

Issue: Based on a request of the City Council, the following memo provides information over the Red Light Running (RLR) Photo Enforcement System at the intersection on Golf and Rand.

Analysis: Staff was asked to prepare an overview of the City of Des Plaines’ photo traffic enforcement system. Included in this document are the average daily traffic counts and traffic crash statistics as gleaned from the Illinois Department of Transportation, statistics regarding percentages of violations issued to Des Plaines residents, as well as financial revenue information.

In looking through historical information, it appears that the review of a possible red light camera began in 2009. Originally, there were 20 locations identified as possible sites and crash data was obtained on each of the locations in an effort to narrow down to a final location. The following chart indicates the final 3 locations selected:

2008 Location 2005-2007 IDOT Crash Data Notes Crashes Rear End Angle Turning Total Injuries Mt. Prospect 1st choice/Elk Grove Village & Touhy 26 83 7 38 128 26 Jurisdiction Elmhurst & 1st choice/Mt prospect Oakton 18 44 8 34 86 34 Jurisdiction 1st Choice/May require letter Golf & Rand 16 54 4 22 80 35 from CC Forest Preserve

Red Light Running (RLR) Photo Enforcement System was installed at the intersection of IL Rte. 58 (Golf Rd.) at US Rte. 12 (Rand Rd.) on October 27, 2010 after finding limited success with other attempted measures to promote safer driving and improve compliance with traffic laws.

Red Light Camera Enforcement Process: In reviewing a photo traffic enforcement system, it is imperative that the entire process is understood. In the case of the system used by the City, two sensors per lane of traffic are implanted in the pavement; one triggers the system to be alert; the second, placed beyond the broad white painted stop line, triggers the camera to record for a violation. The camera stores the violations electronically, and each day, typically in the early morning hours, the data is uploaded to the vendors’ website. Prior to

Page 1 of 6 sending the violations to the City, an employee of the vendor reviews the images and discards those “violations” that are statutorily allowable: i.e., funeral procession, emergency vehicles, snow plows, etc. The remaining “violations” are forwarded electronically to the Des Plaines Police Department, where a sworn officer reviews each violation individually. The direction given to the officer and the criteria used by the officer in determining whether or not a violation occurred is quite simple: “If the officer had witnessed the violation first hand, would he have issued a citation?” If the officer affirms the violation, the affirmed file is sent back to the vendor for the issuance of a notice of violation. Once a violation is received by the registered owner of the offending vehicle, the registered owner can view the video of the alleged violation via the internet, and then exercise one of three options: 1. They may pay the fine specified on the notice of violation; 2. They may contest the violation by mail, or 3. They may contest in person.

Contesting by mail causes the video to be reviewed by the hearing officer in the local adjudication court, and then making a determination as to whether or not a violation occurred (finding of liability). Contesting in person means that the owner of the vehicle is requesting a court date with the local hearing officer.

Citations Analysis: Table 1 below shows the historical percentage of citations approved by the vendor versus those approved by the reviewing police officer.

Table 1 Total # Total Red Speed Total PD % PD Total PD Approved Invoice Month Captured Approved Approved Approved over Total # Captured November-10 10,951 1,578 854 54% 8% December-10 10,199 1,719 832 48% 8% January-11 11,406 1,486 778 52% 7% February-11 9,229 920 537 58% 6% March-11 11,216 1,650 1,027 62% 9% April-11 10,943 1,326 780 59% 7% May-11 11,707 969 654 67% 6% June-11 10,843 1,087 712 66% 7% July-11 10,373 1,049 594 57% 6% August-11 11,108 1,286 739 57% 7% September-11 10,553 1,155 656 57% 6% October-11 11,026 1,087 595 55% 5% November-11 10,892 1,513 809 53% 7% December-11 10,626 1,381 1,006 73% 9% January-12 10,643 1,357 935 69% 9% February-12 9,921 1,062 811 76% 8% March-12 10,047 1,102 671 61% 7% April-12 9,902 1,052 591 56% 6% May-12 9,276 884 367 42% 4% June-12 10,295 964 461 48% 4% July-12 8,956 951 424 45% 5% August-12 9,175 964 416 43% 5% September-12 7,251 872 301 35% 4% October-12 9,483 1,350 544 40% 6% November-12 10,217 1,297 553 43% 5%

Page 2 of 6 December-12 10,389 1,047 513 49% 5% January-13 9,701 1,461 667 46% 7% February-13 8,465 1,020 427 42% 5% March-13 10,691 1,069 391 37% 4% April-13 14,330 1,100 365 33% 3% May-13 15,478 1,586 758 48% 5% June-13 14,534 1,572 747 48% 5% July-13 15,140 1,772 1,193 67% 8% August-13 15,513 2,001 1,482 74% 10% September-13 13,889 1,598 1,282 80% 9% October-13 14,326 1,817 1,336 74% 9% November-13 12,792 1,578 1,094 69% 9% December-13 12,814 1,652 1,125 68% 9% January-14 10,878 1,309 881 67% 8% February-14 9,710 821 533 65% 5% March-14 13,138 1,352 828 61% 6% April-14 12,081 1,476 1,010 68% 8% May-14 11,106 1,460 949 65% 9% June-14 13,896 1,451 896 62% 6% July-14 10,948 1,289 719 56% 7% August-14 13,534 1,205 686 57% 5% September-14 11,857 1,173 614 52% 5% October-14 12,252 1,151 608 53% 5% November-14 11,556 1,129 545 48% 5% December-14 12,368 1,566 743 47% 6% January-15 11,959 1,217 747 61% 6% February-15 9,541 1,004 454 45% 5% March-15 8,555 1,372 696 51% 8% April-15 9,446 1,885 843 45% 9% May-15 8,382 1,606 833 52% 10% June-15 8,086 1,703 943 55% 12% July-15 10,429 2,239 1,108 49% 11% August-15 8,703 2,732 1,326 49% 15% September-15 8,241 1,859 909 49% 11% October-15 9,025 1,776 871 49% 10% November-15 7,948 1,526 646 42% 8% December-15 8,530 1,697 590 35% 7% January-16 6,254 1,298 519 40% 8% February-16 8,085 1,442 551 38% 7% March-16 9,239 1,763 797 45% 9% April-16 8,299 1,781 751 42% 9% May-16 8,815 1,564 744 48% 8% June-16 9,229 1,844 1,051 57% 11% July-16 8,782 1,647 966 59% 11% August-16 8,338 2,034 1,204 59% 14% September-16 8,422 1,531 1,102 72% 13%

Page 3 of 6 October-16 7,596 1,049 841 80% 11% November-16 7,490 1,434 964 67% 13% December-16 8,185 1,236 662 54% 8% January-17 8,260 1,358 789 58% 10% February-17 7,571 1,123 660 59% 9% March-17 8,146 1,260 618 49% 8% April-17 7,775 1,230 666 54% 9% May-17 8,306 1,339 800 60% 10% June-17 8,613 2,159 1,131 52% 13% July-17 8,577 1,609 1,036 64% 12% August-17 9,015 1,906 997 52% 11%

Average 2010 to 2017 10,262 1,414 779 55% 8%

As you will note in Table 1 above, approximately 55% of the citations forwarded to the City from the vendor are approved by the reviewing police officer. In terms of total violations approved from the overall number captured, approximately 8% are submitted as violations. Additionally, in reviewing the total number of citations issued to Des Plaines residents, the current percentage is 17%.

When comparing straight through violations vs. right turn violations, approximately 6% to 10% of the violations recorded and approved are straight through violations and the remainder are right turn violations.

Statistical Analysis: The following statistical analysis was performed through 2015. Calendar year 2016 was not included as the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has not yet completed collecting all data. The statistical analysis will be updated annually, as collected data becomes available from IDOT.

Average Daily Traffic: Data was obtained from the Illinois Department of Transportation’s website

IL Rte. 58 (Golf Rd.) at US Rte. 12 (Rand Rd.) (Northbound/Southbound)  24,500 (2005)  22,800 (2007)  23,600 (2009)  20,600 (2011)  19,000 (2013)

IL Rte. 58 (Golf Rd.) at US Rte. 12 (Rand Rd.) (Eastbound/Westbound)  28,700 (2005)  28,900 (2007)  28,300 (2009)  23,700 (2011)  26,000 (2013)

Crash History and Analysis: Table 2 below includes crash data obtained from the Illinois Department of Transportation, detailing angle, turning, rear-end, and other type crashes occurring at the intersection pre/post RLR Photo Enforcement System installation.

Page 4 of 6 ALL INTERSECTION APPROACHES

Table 2 Crashes Rear-End Angle Turning Other (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Total 2007 14 58.3% 1 4.2% 6 25.0% 3 12.5% 24 2008 15 75.0% 1 5.0% 4 20.0% 0 0.0% 20 2009 9 81.8% 0 0.0% 2 18.2% 0 0.0% 11 Total: 38 69.1% 2 3.6% 12 21.8% 3 5.5% 55 2007-2009 Average: 12.7 0.7 4.0 1.0 18.3

Table 2 (cont.) RLR Camera Installation 10/27/2010 Crashes Rear-End Angle Turning Other (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Total 2010 10 76.9% 0 0.0% 3 23.1% 0 0.0% 13 2011 7 50.0% 0 0.0% 7 50.0% 0 0.0% 14 2012 4 80.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 5 2013 12 60.0% 0 0.0% 8 40.0% 0 0.0% 20 2014 7 58.3% 1 8.3% 4 33.3% 0 0.0% 12 2015 6 42.9% 0 0.0% 6 42.9% 2 14.2% 14 Total: 36 55.4% 1 1.5% 26 40.0% 2 3.1% 65 2011-2015 Average: 7.2 0.2 5.2 0.4 13.0

Table 3 below includes crash data obtained from the Illinois Department of Transportation, detailing angle, turning, rear-end, and other-type crashes occurring at the intersection involving the eastbound and westbound approaches only, pre/post RLR Photo Enforcement System installation.

EASTBOUND/WESTBOUND APPROACHES ONLY (PHOTO ENFORCED APPROACHES)

Table 3 Crashes Rear-End Angle Turning Other (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Total 2007 7 58.3% 1 8.3% 4 33.3% 0 0.0% 12 2008 6 85.7% 0 0.0% 1 14.3% 0 0.0% 7 2009 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 8 Total: 19 70.4% 1 3.7% 7 25.9% 0 0.0% 27 2007-2009 Average: 6.3 0.3 2.3 0.0 9.0

RLR Camera Installation 10/27/2010 Crashes Rear-End Angle Turning Other (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) (% of Total) Total 2010 4 80.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 5 2011 5 83.3% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 6 2012 3 75.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 4

Page 5 of 6 2013 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 0 0.0% 8 2014 6 75.0% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 8 2015 3 33.3% 0 0.0% 4 44.4% 2 22.2% 9 Total: 22 62.8% 1 2.9% 10 28.6% 2 5.7% 35 2011-2015 Average: 4.4 0.2 2.0 0.4 7.0

Comparison of annual averages shows the total number of crashes decreasing by 29.0% at the intersection for all approaches and by 22.2% on the eastbound and westbound (photo enforced) approaches post-camera installation.

Financial Analysis: Table 4 below provides total revenue that has been received by the City from the fines generated by the Red Light Camera. The 2017 data is through August 2017.

Table 4 Year City Revenue 2010 28,546.50 2011 416,873.80 2012 372,755.01 2013 494,996.12 2014 613,432.80 2015 673,662.00 2016 695,409.35 2017 439,050.93 Total 3,734,726.51

Recommendation: This information is being provided for discussion purposes only.

Page 6 of 6