The URL can be used to link to this page

20170821 Council Packet Monday, August 21, 2017 Closed Session – 6:00 p.m. Regular Session – 7:00 p.m. Room 102 CALL TO ORDER CLOSED SESSION PROPERTY ACQUISITION COLLECTIVE BARGAINING REGULAR SESSION ROLL CALL PRAYER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PRESENTATION MAYOR’S CURB APPEAL CHALLENGE WINNERS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (matters not on the Agenda) CITY CLERK ANNOUNCEMENTS ALDERMEN ANNOUNCEMENTS | CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approve the Major Case Assistance Team (MCAT) Updated By-Laws and Intergovernmental Agreement 1a. RESOLUTION R-139-17: A Resolution Approving the Major Case Assistance Team Updated By-Laws and Intergovernmental Agreement 2. Reject All Bids for the 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining Project 2a. RESOLUTION R-140-17: A Resolution Rejecting All Bids for the 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining Project 3. Approve Task Order No. 4 – SCADA Communication and Integration Study with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., (formerly MWH Americas, Inc.) 350 North Orleans St., Chicago, IL in the Amount of $34,956. Budgeted Funds – Capital Improvement Program, Water/Sewer, Professional Services. 3a. RESOLUTION R-141-17: A Resolution Approving Task Order No. 4 with MWH Americas, Inc. for Professional Engineering Design Services 4. SECOND READING – ORDINANCE M-17-17: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of Title 1 of the Des Plaines City Code Regarding Position Reclassification in the Community & Economic Development Department 5. Minutes/Regular Meeting – August 7, 2017 END OF CONSENT AGENDA COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS/RE-APPOINTMENTS (Informational Only - No Action Required) APPOINTMENTS EXPIRATION BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE Thomas Green 04/30/2020 LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Umair Qadeer 06/30/2019 Nicholas Harkovich 06/30/2020 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Rebecca Fowler 04/30/2018 | REAPPOINTMENTS EXPIRATION LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES Bruce Lester 06/30/2020 Denise Hudec 06/30/2020 Vincent Rangel 06/30/2020 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD Joseph Catalano 04/30/2020 Steve Bader 04/30/2020 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 1. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION – Alderman Mike Charewicz, Chair a. Warrant Register in the Amount of $4,278,245.65 – RESOLUTION R-142-17 2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – Alderman Dick Sayad, Chair a. Consideration of Amendments to Chapter 13 of Title 2 of the Des Plaines City Code Regarding Powers and Duties of the Economic Development Commission – ORDINANCE M-18-17 b. Consideration of Park Land Dedication Credits or Fees In-Lieu-Of for 150 N. East River Road, Covington Place – RESOLUTION R-143-17 3. ENGINEERING – Alderman Mark Lysakowski, Chair a. Discussion of Sanitary Sewer Lateral Program 4. COMMUNITY SERVICES – Alderman Malcolm Chester, Chair a. Agreement with the Des Plaines Community Senior Center for the Provision of Funding for Health and Support Services – RESOLUTION R-144-17 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 1. ORDINANCE M-19-17: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title 6 of the City Code Regarding the Keeping of Chickens | NEW BUSINESS: IF REPORTED OUT BY COMMITTEE 1. a. RESOLUTION R-142-17: Warrant Register in the Amount of $4,278,245.65 2. a. ORDINANCE M-18-17: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 of Title 2 of the City of Des Plaines City Code b. RESOLUTION R-143-17: A Resolution Considering Park Land Dedication Credits or Fees In-Lieu- Of for 150 N. East River Road, Covington Place 3. a. n/a 4. a. RESOLUTION R-144-17: A Resolution Authorizing the Execution of an Agreement with the Des Plaines Community Senior Center for the Provision of Funding for Health and Support Services 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 req uire certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in the meeting(s) or have questions about the acc essibility of the meeting(s) or facilities, contact the ADA Coordinator at 391 -5486 to allow the City to make reasonable accommodations for these persons. OFFICE OF the MAYOR 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5301 desplaines.org Date: August 10, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager From: Matthew J. Bogusz, Mayor Subject: Presentation At the beginning of the August 21, 2017 City Council meeting, checks will be presented to the Mayor’s Curb Appeal Challenge winners. Most Improved Curb Appeal Category First Place – 340 Jon Court – 4th Ward Second Place – 591 Columbia Avenue –4th Ward Best Curb Appeal Category First Place – 615 Clayton Lane – 7th Ward Second Place – 143 Stratford Road – 7th Ward MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 1 Attachments Resolution R-139-17 Attachment 1 - MCAT By-Laws / Intergovernmental Agreement Page 1 of 18 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 139 - 17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MAJOR CASE ASSISTANCE TEAM BY-LAWS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution and the Illinois Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 5 ILCS 220/1, et seq., authorize and encourage intergovernmental cooperation; and WHEREAS, t h e C i t y o f D e s P l a i n e s ("City") is an Illinois home-rule municipal corporation pursuant to Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution; and WHEREAS, the Major Case Assistance Team (“MCAT”) is an intergovernmental entity that allows member law enforcement agencies to share manpower and technical expertise as needed pursuant to an Intergovernmental Major Case Assistance Team Agreement and MCAT by- laws; and WHEREAS, MCAT amended its by-laws (“MCAT By-Laws”) and intergovernmental agreement (“MCAT Agreement”) effective August 25, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the MCAT By-Laws and enter into the MCAT Agreement; and 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 MCAT BY-LAWS. The City Council hereby approves the MCAT By-Laws in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and in a final form approved by the General Counsel. SECTION 3: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby approves the MCAT Agreement in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B and in a final form approved by the General Counsel. SECTION 4: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE MCAT BY-LAWS AND MCAT 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 MCAT By-Laws and final MCAT Agreement. Page 2 of 18 2 SECTION 5: RECORDATION. T h e C i t y C l e r k i s h e r e b y d i r e c t e d t o r e c o r d t h e executed copy of the MCAT Agreement with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. SECTION 6: 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. A P P R O V E D this _____ day of _____________, 2017. V O T E : AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____ MAYOR A T T E S T : A p p r o v e d a s t o f o r m : C I T Y C L E R K P e t e r M . F r i e d m a n , G e n e r a l C o u n s e l DP-Resolution Approving the Updated MCAT By-Laws and Intergovernmental Agreement Page 3 of 18 Page 4 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 5 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 6 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 7 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 8 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 9 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 10 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 11 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 12 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 13 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit A Page 14 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit B Page 15 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit B Page 16 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit B Page 17 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit B Page 18 of 18Attachment 1 - Exhibit B PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1111 Joseph J. Schwab Road Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5464 desplaines.org Date: August 3, 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: Reject All Bids - 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining Issue: The 2017 budget included $350,000 in funding for Sewer Lining. Six bids were received and opened on August 1, 2017. Analysis: The Scope of work included installation of approximately 6,888 linear feet of cured in place pipe (CIPP) for various sewer main pipe segments along Des Plaines River Rd. and collecting lateral mains from Whitcomb Ave. to Rand Rd. The breakdown of sewer lining consisted of approximately 1,126 ft. of 8 inch, 583 ft. of 10 inch, 732 ft. of 12 inch, 1810 ft. of 15inch, 1143 ft. of 18 inch, 119 ft. of 20 inch and 1375 ft. of 24 inch diameter gravity sewer main of varying material type including vitrified clay, concrete and brick. The bids for the lining project ranged from $365,235 to $590,275. After reviewing the costs associated with bids received and current funding level, we propose to revise the specifications, reduce the scope of work, and rebid the 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining Project. Recommendation: We recommend the City Council reject the six bids received on August 1, 2017 for the 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining Project and rebid this item at a later date. Attachments: Resolution R-140-17 MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 3 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 140 - 17 A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR THE 2017 DES PLAINES SEWER LINING PROJECT. WHEREAS, on June 5, 2017, the City Council authorized advertisement for bids for the installation of approximately 6,888 linear feet of cured in place pipe for various sewer main pipe segments along River Road ("Services"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 10 of Title 1 of the City of Des Plaines City Code (“City Code”) and the City’s purchasing policy, the City invited bids for the Services; and WHEREAS, the City received six bids, which were opened on August 1, 2017; and WHEREAS, upon reviewing the bids and the costs associated with them, the City desires to revise the specifications and re-advertise for bids for the Services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to reject all bids; 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: REJECTION OF BIDS. Pursuant to Section 1-10-4.B of the City Code and the home rule powers of the City, the City Council rejects all bids for the Services and directs the City Manager, or his designee, to inform the bidders thereof. SECTION 3: 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 2 of 3 2 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 Rejecting Bids for 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1111 Joseph J. Schwab Road Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5464 desplaines.org Date: August 3, 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: Stantec (formerly MWH) Task Order #4 – SCADA Communication and Integration Study Issue: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems are used to monitor and record the City's water and sewer equipment and facilities to ensure adequate levels of service and compliance with state and national regulations and standards. The City currently uses several different systems with a wide variety of equipment to accomplish these tasks. These systems are outdated and costly to replace. In addition, in 2017 several components have failed and have become unreliable for communication and data transfer. Analysis: The purpose of Task Order #4 is to provide engineering design services required to assist the City with the evaluation of our existing SCADA and communication systems and to provide a phased approach to provide secure and standardized SCADA and communication systems. Task Order #4 scope of work consists of reviewing and documenting the existing SCADA and communication systems, providing an operational assessment of existing SCADA and communication systems, holding planning sessions with the City and providing recommendations, priorities, cost estimates and an implementation plan. This study will be the basis for SCADA consolidation and integration upgrades which will enhance the City's communication infrastructure and reduce communication costs. The cost for Task Order #4 is not to exceed $34,956 Recommendation: We recommend the City Council approve Stantec (formerly MWH) Task Order #4 – SCADA Communication and Integration Study with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., 350 N Orleans St, Ste 1301, Chicago, IL 60654, in the amount of $34,956. Funding for this project will be from Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Water/Sewer Professional services account (500-00-580-6000). Attachments: Resolution R-141-17 Exhibit A – Agreement MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 9 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 141 - 17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING TASK ORDER NO. 4 WITH MWH AMERICAS, INC., FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES. 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, on July 5, 2016, the City Council approved Resolution R-102-16, which authorized the City to enter into a master contract ("Master Contract") with MWH Americas, Inc. ("Consultant"), for the performance of certain engineering services for the City as such services are needed over time; and WHEREAS, the City desires to procure engineering design services to assist the City with the evaluation of their Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition ("SCADA") system and communication systems (“Services”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 10 of Title 1 of the City Code of the City of Des Plaines and the City’s purchasing policy, the City Council has determined that procurement of the Services does not require competitive bidding because the Services require a high degree of professional skill where the ability or fitness of the individual plays an important part; and WHEREAS, the City has a positive existing relationship with the Consultant, the Consultant having satisfactorily performed engineering services for the City in the past; and WHEREAS, Consultant submitted a proposal in the not-to-exceed amount of $34,956 to perform the Services; and WHEREAS, the City has sufficient funds in the Capital Improvement Program ("CIP") for the procurement of the Services from Consultant; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into Task Order No. 4 for the procurement of the Services from Consultant in the not-to-exceed amount of $34,956 ("Task Order No. 4"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into Task Order No. 4 with Consultant; 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. Page 2 of 9 2 SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF TASK ORDER NO. 4. The City Council hereby approves Task Order No. 4 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 TASK ORDER NO. 4. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute and seal, on behalf of the City, final Task Order No. 4 only after receipt by the City Clerk of at least one executed copy of Task Order No. 4 from Consultant; provided, however, that if the City Clerk does not receive one executed copy of Task Order No. 4 from Consultant within 60 days after the date of adoption of this Resolution, then this authority to execute and seal Task Order No. 4 will, at the option of the City Council, be null and void. 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 MWH Task Order #4 for Professional Engineering Services Page 3 of 9 Task Order No. 4 Page 1 of 6 Task Order No. _4_ City of Des Plaines, Illinois And Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. TASK ORDER NO. 4 – SCADA and Communication Systems Integration Plan In accordance with Section 1.2 of the Master Contract dated July 5, 2016 between the City of Des Plaines (the “CLIENT”) and MWH Americas, Inc., (the “CONSULTANT”) and subsequently assigned to Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., the Parties agree to proceed with the execution of the following Task Number 4: SCADA and Communications Integration Plan. PURPOSE The purpose of this Task Order is to: Provide engineering design services required to assist the City with the evaluation of their existing SCADA and Communication systems and to provide a phased approach to provide secure and standardized systems. SERVICES BY CONSULTANT The CONSULTANT’s efforts under this task order will consist of the following tasks: • Task 1 – Review and Document the Existing SCADA and Communication Systems • Task 2 – Operational Assessment of Existing SCADA and Communication Systems and Planning Session • Task 3 – Recommendations, Priorities, Cost Estimates and Implementation Key elements of each task are outlined below. Task 1 - Review and Document the Existing SCADA and Communication Systems CONSULTANT will review and document the existing SCADA and Communication systems based on documents currently in CONSULTANT’s files as a result of previous work, and new materials provided by the CLIENT. CONSULTANT will request that the CLIENT provide electronic copies of all existing and relevant documentation associated with the existing SCADA and communication systems. The documentation may include the following as appropriate: Exhibit A Page 4 of 9 Task Order No. 4 Page 2 of 6 • Software (application vendor, product name, version, number of users, etc.) • Hardware (network diagram showing PLCs, servers, switches, radios, etc. with brand names, models, age, etc.) • Standards for programming, database architecture, and management (conceptual data model showing key indices, applications, interfaces and attributes) • Naming convention, security protocols, wiring, power, and LANs as well as the organizational structure around each system including. Additional documentation that may be requested from the CLIENT: • O&M manuals • I&C Standards • I&C Record Drawings • Process I/O Lists • Process control narratives • PLC Lists • Instrument Lists It is assumed that the CLIENT will field verify the type, manufacturer, and model of installed equipment where required and that no field visits by the CONSULTANT specifically for equipment verification will be required. Datasheets will be prepared during the review to document the age, condition and type of equipment and the requirements of the SCADA system. This data will be incorporated into the Assessment and Gap Analysis Memorandum prepared as part of Task 2. Meetings • None Deliverables • Data Sheets Task 2 – Operational Assessment of Existing SCADA and Communication Systems and Planning Session CONSULTANT, with input from the CLIENT, will review and document the existing SCADA and Communication systems and identify the operational and functional requirements. This will be accomplished through a meeting with the City’s staff. The second part of this meeting will focus on the definition of the CLIENT’s objectives and goals for the future systems. This meeting will provide information to the CONSULTANT’s team members regarding SCADA/Communication system options and integration opportunities and the desired direction/outcome the CLIENT would like with both systems. Based on the discussions, CONSULTANT will identify each area that needs improvement to close the gap between the current situation and the desired outcome. CONSULTANT will prepare a Gap Analysis document and develop a strategy for a Public Works SCADA and C ommunication systems solution. The Gap Analysis will identify the differences between the current situation and the desired situation. The following subtasks are anticipated in this scope: Exhibit A Page 5 of 9 Task Order No. 4 Page 3 of 6 1. Conduct meeting with CLIENT’s staff to discuss current operations and desired outcomes for the future systems: A meeting will be conducted to document the utilization of the existing SCADA and Communication systems by CLIENT staff. The second portion of this meeting will focus on the desired outcomes and key factors to be used for analyzing the various options for accomplishing the desired outcome. It is assumed that this meeting will be no longer than one day. 2. Prepare Assessment and Gap Analysis Memorandum: Information gathered during the meeting described above along with the data collected in Task 1 will be compiled into a technical memorandum. Some of the key items to be included in the memorandum will include the following: • Existing Process Control Narratives (PCNs), HMI graphics, I/O list and P&IDs • How alarms are managed and prioritized by the SCADA system and how those alarms are communicated to City staff • How and what reports are being generated • What SCADA System data is automatically generated and what data is manually entered • Existing data/information being produced by the SCADA Systems, who consumes it and how they consume the data • If any data being produced is being used for example to build flow models/pressure zones and/or asset management systems and/or GIS systems. • Communication needs from the various points within the system and which portions of the existing system the CLIENT wishes to retain. • Ranking criteria to be used in alternative evaluation (to be used for Task 3). Meetings • Operational Assessment and Planning Session Deliverables • Assessment and Gap Analysis Memorandum Task 3 – Recommendations, Priorities, Cost Estimates and Implementation CONSULTANT will prepare specific recommendations for addressing each item identified in the final Assessment and Gap Analysis to craft a plan with near term and long range objectives. The proposed cost and recommended phasing priority will be identified. The following proposed subtasks are anticipated as part of this work: 1. Develop Recommended System Standards: Standards for hardware, software and system architecture will be developed for review. Protocols for cyber and communication security will be identified. Exhibit A Page 6 of 9 Task Order No. 4 Page 4 of 6 2. Develop Planning Level Costs: The costs for addressing each of the required scope items necessary for implementation will be developed into a cost estimate. The costs will be tied to specific improvements recommended to implement the program and fulfill the vision will be included. The costs will be broken down into individual projects as appropriate and where feasible, the opportunity for phasing the costs over time will be considered. 3. Prepare SCADA and Communication Systems Integration Memorandum: We will recommend technology improvements for the SCADA and Communication systems based on their ability to support the CLIENT’s objectives. The document will include: • A statement of each action item’s purpose • Task descriptions to accomplish the action item • Dependencies on other actions • Budgetary cost estimates • Durations for implementation 4. Conduct a Review Meeting: A review meeting will be conducted with the CLIENT to discuss the recommendations contained within the draft document and gather CLIENT comments. CLIENT comments will be received and used as the basis for preparation of a final version of the SCADA and Communication Systems Integration Memorandum. Meetings • Review Meeting Deliverables • SCADA and Communication Systems Integration Memorandum PERIOD OF SERVICE The CONSULTANT’s services will begin upon approval and execution of this Task Order by both parties and shall be completed within 9 weeks after the Notice to Proceed (NTP). Key Milestone Dates are as follows: Receive Electronic Information for Existing SCADA/Communications Systems 1 weeks from NTP Submittal of Data Sheets 3 weeks from NTP Operational and Planning Session 3 weeks from NTP Submittal Assessment and Gap Analysis Memorandum 5 weeks from NTP City Review of Assessment and Gap Analysis Memorandum 6 weeks from NTP Submittal of SCADA and Communication Systems Integration Memorandum 7 weeks from NTP City Review of SCADA and Communication Systems Exhibit A Page 7 of 9 Task Order No. 4 Page 5 of 6 Integration Memorandum 8 weeks from NTP Submit Final SCADA and Communication Systems Integration Memorandum 9 weeks from NTP PROJECT SPECIFIC PRICING: CLIENT shall pay the CONSULTANT on an hourly basis in accordance with the fee schedule below. Reimbursable direct expenses (materials, travel, lodging, communications, etc.) will be billed and paid for at cost with no mark-up. CONSULTANT’s total compensation for services requested in this Task Order shall not exceed the amount of $35,956 without prior written approval from the CLIENT. This cost is broken down at the task level as indicated in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF TASKS AND COSTS Task Labor Hours Labor Costs Direct Costs & Subs Estimated Cost/Task Task 1 – Review and Document the Existing SCADA and Communication Systems 41 $7,288 $0 $7,288 Task 2 – Operational Assessment of Existing SCADA and Communication Systems and Planning Session 48 $9,091 $950 $10,041 Task 3 – Recommendations, Priorities, Cost Estimates and Implementation 69 $18,552 $75 $18,627 TOTAL 158 $34,931 $1,025 $35,956 MWH Hourly Billing Rates – 2017 Company Officer $263.00/hour Principal Engineer/Scientist $220.00/hour Project Manager/Lead Engineer $182.00/hour Senior Engineer/Scientist $154.00/hour Professional Engineer/Scientist $130.00/hour Associate Engineer/Scientist $109.00/hour Admin/Financial Support $105.00/hour Exhibit A Page 8 of 9 Task Order No. 4 Page 6 of 6 EFFECTIVE DATE This Task Order is effective as of the ___ day of ____________, 2017. [signature page follows] CITY CONSULTANT _______________________________ __________________________________ Signature Signature Director of Public Works __________________________________ And Engineering Name (Printed or Typed) ____________________, 20____ ____________________, 20____ Date Date If greater than, $2,500, the City Manager’s signature is required. ______________________________________ Signature City Manager ____________________, 20____ Date If compensation greater than $10,000, then the City Council must approve the Task Order in advance and the City Manager or Mayor’s signature is required. _______________________________________ Signature City Manager ____________________, 20____ Date Exhibit A Page 9 of 9 Human Resources 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5486 desplaines.org Date: July 27, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager From: John Light, Director of Human Resources Re: Classification Amendment _____________________________________________________________________________ Issue: For City Council to consider amending Chapter 8 of Title 1 of the City Code. Background/Analysis: We are in the process of recruiting for the position that was left vacant because of the retirement of Butch Ehrke. Mr. Ehrke held the position of Assistant Director of Community Development (Grade 9). Our recruitment will be for the position of Building Official (Grade 8). This action will reduce the expense of this position generating an estimated savings of $15,000 annually. This savings would be used to help offset the cost to hire an experienced part-time Building Inspector. This position would be used to perform needed inspections and resolve issues in the field. Staff has prepared a job description for the position of Building Official, which is attached. The salary grade for this new position would be Grade 8 ($83,325 - $112,489). Adding this new position will NOT add any new employees. Recommendation: I recommend Council adopt the amendment to Title 1, Chapter 8, and Section 4 of the City Code. Attachments: Ordinance – An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 of Title 1 of the City of Des Plaines City Code Attachment 1 – Draft Job Description for Building Official MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 7 CITY OF DES PLAINES ORDINANCE M - 17 - 17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 1 OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES CITY CODE. WHEREAS, Section 4 of Chapter 8 of Title 1 of the City of Des Plaines City Code, as amended ("City Code"), sets forth a classification plan and compensation schedules for all full-time, nonunion employment positions of the City ("Classification and Compensation Schedules"); and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Classification and Compensation Schedules to add one new position ("Amendment"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the adoption of the Amendment set forth in this Ordinance is in the best interest of the City. 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. COMPENSATION PLAN. Section 4, titled "Compensation Plan," of Chapter 8, titled "Position Grade and Compensation Plan," of Title 1, titled "Administrative," of the City Code is hereby amended further to read as follows: "1-8-4: COMPENSATION PLAN: A. Classified Positions: The compensation plan with annual rates for all nonunion classified positions is hereby adopted according to the following schedules: SCHEDULE A MANAGEMENT PERSONNEL NONUNION Effective Position Title Pay Ranges Longevity Pay Grade Hours Per Week Min. Max. After 10 Years After 15 Years After 20 Years City Manager 15 37.5 171,780 231,903 1,000 1,500 2,000 Assistant City Manager/Director of Finance 14 37.5 132,961 179,498 1,000 1,500 2,000 Ordinance - Ordinance M-17-17, Amending Chapter 8 of Title 1 of the City of Des Plaines City Code Page 2 of 7 Director of Public Works & Engineering 13 37.5 123,112 166,202 1,000 1,500 2,000 Fire Chief 13 40.0 123,112 166,202 1,000 1,500 2,000 Police Chief 13 40.0 123,112 166,202 1,000 1,500 2,000 Director of Community & Economic Development 13 37.5 123,112 166,202 1,000 1,500 2,000 Deputy Police Chief 12 40.0 113,993 153,890 1,000 1,500 2,000 Deputy Fire Chief 12 40.0 113,993 153,890 1,000 1,500 2,000 Director of Information Technology 12 37.5 113,993 153,890 1,000 1,500 2,000 Director of Human Resources 11 37.5 105,549 142,491 1,000 1,500 2,000 Assistant Director of Public Works & Engineering 11 37.5 105,549 142,491 1,000 1,500 2,000 Battalion Chief (Fire) 10 49.5 97,731 131,936 1,000 1,500 2,000 Division Chief (Fire) 10 40.0 97,731 131,936 1,000 1,500 2,000 Assistant Director of Finance 10 37.5 97,731 131,936 1,000 1,500 2,000 Commander (Police) 10 40.0 97,731 131,936 1,000 1,500 2,000 Superintendent (Public Works) 9 40.0 90,491 122,163 1,000 1,500 2,000 Assistant Director of Community Development 9 37.5 90,491 122,163 1,000 1,500 2,000 Building Official 8 37.5 83,325 112,489 1,000 1,500 2.000 Director of Media Services 8 37.5 83,325 112,489 1,000 1,500 2,000 Foreman 8 40.0 83,325 112,489 1,000 1,500 2,000 Senior Network Engineer 8 37.5 83,325 112,489 1,000 1,500 2,000 Ordinance - Ordinance M-17-17, Amending Chapter 8 of Title 1 of the City of Des Plaines City Code Page 3 of 7 Support Services Manager 8 40.0 83,325 112,489 1,000 1,500 2,000 * * *” SECTION 3. 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. 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 DP-Ordinance Amending Chapter 8 Title 1 Compensation Plan Add Building Official Ordinance - Ordinance M-17-17, Amending Chapter 8 of Title 1 of the City of Des Plaines City Code Page 4 of 7 Building Official Position Description Department: Community & Economic Development Employment Status: Full-Time FLSA Status: Exempt Group: Management Date Approved: August 7, 2017 This position is responsible for the efficient and effective management of the Building Division of the Community and Economic Department. This position is responsible for accomplishing the performance goals set for the Division. The Building Official ensures the Staff of the Building Division collaborate with the other Divisions of the Department on issues related to the overall operations of the Department along with appointed & elected officials. II.SUPERVISION RECEIVED/EXERCISED Works under the general supervision of the Director of Community & Economic Development and exercises supervision over the budget and staff assigned. III.ESSENTIAL DUTIES & RESPONSIBILITIES •Efficiently and effectively manages personnel, resources and projects assigned to the division. o Prepares the annual budget for the Division o Monitors the budget of the Division, staying within approved spending limits o Reviews and approves expenditures of the Division •Promotes and ensures compliance with all City and Departmental rules, regulations, policies and procedures. •Successfully collaborates with the Director in developing long range operational needs with respect to equipment, personnel and services and successfully implements plans to achieve the assigned goals of the Division. •Effectively manages the following functions of the Division: o Field Inspections during the progress of building construction or repair to ensure compliance with laws, regulations & codes. o Permit Application process to ensure buildings to be constructed, repaired, demolished are complaint with the applicable laws, regulations and codes. o Site Plan Reviews are conducted effectively conducted to comply with best practices, zoning regulations with safety to the residents in mind. •Reviews and approves building plans and drawings; conducts field inspections as necessary to resolve problems. Attachment 1 - Draft Job Description for Building Official Page 5 of 7 •Regularly meets with contractors, subcontractors, homeowners, builders, business owners and architects to gather input so he/she can recommend plan revisions in order to correct problems resulting from code violations, interpretations or an ambiguity in the approved plans. •Reviews existing codes and ordinances; drafts and recommends proposed code and ordinance changes. •Collaborates with the Purchasing Manager, Director and other applicable staff to prepare and/or review proposals, contracts and bids. •Directs of work of all employees assigned to the Building Division, evaluates the performance of employees and administers corrective action when necessary. •Responds to the public or other inquiries relative to building and code policies and procedures on specific projects and other information. •Performs other duties as assigned by supervisor. IV. MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Bachelor’s Degree or equivalent in civil or structural engineering, architecture, construction science, construction management, planning or a related field along with five to seven years of progressively responsible experience in a related field, at least three of which must have been in a supervisory capacity. An equivalent combination of education and experience may be substituted for any of the minimum qualifications. V. MINIMUM KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES •Considerable knowledge of building construction methods and materials; considerable knowledge of State, City and ICC Building Codes; working knowledge of nuisance code and ordinances as they apply to building; working knowledge of occupational hazards and safety precautions or the building trades. •Ability to communicate and work effectively with architects, contractors and construction personnel while resolving on-site issues; ability to understand and interpret architectural and structural engineering drawings; ability to interpret building codes and regulations; ability to communicate effective orally and in writing. •Ability to apply different dispute resolution techniques to bring parties together. •Ability to manage and effectively work with diverse groups of citizens, employees and business owners. VI.SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS/QUALFICATIONS Attachment 1 - Draft Job Description for Building Official Page 6 of 7 International Code Council (ICC) certification as a Certified Building Official or ability to obtain certification within one year of employment. State of Illinois Class “D” Driver’s License with a clean driving record. VII.EQUIPMENT USED Requires the frequent use of hand tools for construction inspections, electronic devices to communicate, computers, phones, automobile and various office equipment. VIII.PHYSICAL DEMANDS While performing the duties of this job, the employee is occasionally required to stand and walk; use hands to finger, handle, feel or operate objects, tools or controls; and reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to life and/or move up to 20 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, color vision peripheral vision, depth perception and the ability to adjust focus. IX. WORKING CONDITIONS Work is performance in either an office setting or outdoors in the inspection of various construction sites and other related developments. While outdoors, the employee occasionally works in inclement weather conditions, near moving mechanical parts, high/precarious places, wet and/or humid conditions, fumes or airborne particles, toxic or caustic chemicals, risk of electrical shock and vibrations. The noise level in the work environment is usually quiet in the office to moderate outside. X. APPROVALS Director of Community & Economic Development Date Director of Human Resources Date City Manager Date This job description should not be interpreted as all-inclusive or as an employment agreement between the employer and employee. It is intended to identify the essential functions and requirements of this job and is subject to change as the needs of the employer and requirements of the job change. Incumbents may be required to perform job-related responsibilities and tasks other than those stated in this specification. Any essential functions of this position will be evaluated as necessary should an incumbent/applicant be unable to perform the function or requirement due to a disability as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Reasonable accommodation for the specific disability will be made for the incumbent/applicant when possible. Attachment 1 - Draft Job Description for Building Official Page 7 of 7 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org Date: August 9, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager From: Dorothy Wisniewski, Assistant City Manager/Director of Finance Subject: Resolution R-142-17, August 21, 2017 Warrant Register Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council approve the August 21, 2017 Warrant Register Resolution R-142-17. Warrant Register……………………………$4,278,245.65 MEMORANDUM Estimated General Fund Balance Balance as of 06/30/2017: $20,984,716 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 29 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R-142-17 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. August 21, 2017 Page 2 of 29 Line # 1 4160 6927 Khouchaba, Nissan Refund 07/28/17 Real Estate Transfer Tax Refund 07/28/2017 360.00 2 4300 6387 Montes, Pablo Refund 07/21/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 07/21/2017 80.00 3 4300 6925 Pikula, Zbigniew J Refund 07/25/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 07/25/2017 25.00 4 4300 6926 Henmueller, Joseph Refund 07/25/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 07/25/2017 30.00 5 4300 3518 O'Reilly Auto Parts Refund 7/5/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 07/05/2017 40.00 6 4400 4803 Roto Rooter Services Company 2017-04000186 Sewer Permit Refund 04/17/2017 300.00 7 4400 6923 Luszowiak, John 2017-06000255 Sewer Permit Refund Originally Issued 6/23/2017 300.00 8 4400 6929 Northwest Ventilating Inc 2017-06000282 Cancelled HVAC Permit Originally Issued 6/26/2017 150.00 9 4470 6922 Fountains of Life Church 17-314 Cancelled Garage Sale Permit Refund Originally Issued 07/20/2017 5.00 1,290.00 10 5310 2980 Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning FY2018--056 FY2018 Local Contribution 2,207.01 11 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 648.28 2,855.29 12 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 62.68 13 6100 1050 Journal & Topics 174063 Legal Notice - Prevailing Wage 07/14/2017 65.88 128.56 2,983.85 14 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 62.68 62.68 City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Fund: 100 - General Fund Department: 00 - Non Departmental Real Estate Transfer Tax Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses Building Permits Building Permits Building Permits Occasional Sales Permits Total 00 - Non Departmental Elected Office Division: 110 - Legislative Membership Dues Communication Services Total 110 - Legislative Division: 120 - City Clerk Communication Services Publication of Notices Total 120 - City Clerk Total 10 - Elected Office City Administration Division: 210 - City Manager Communication Services Total 210 - City Manager Page 3 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 15 6009 1073 Bartel, Raymond 17-12 Legal Services 7/20-7/28/2017 970.00 16 6120 1139 Cook County of Illinois 2906302017M Recording Fees - Release, Agreement 06/14/2017 86.00 17 6120 1139 Cook County of Illinois 2906302017MI Recording Fees - Ordinances, License Agreement 06/22/2017 318.00 1,374.00 18 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 442.76 19 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 40867 1 Box of Business Cards 20.00 20 7005 1820 Datasource, Ink 16169 2 Toner Cartridges For Various City Printers 138.00 600.76 21 6000 6750 Stan Kotecki Photography, Inc. 17-107 Photography of Six Elected Officials/Staff 07/17/2017 400.00 22 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 62.68 23 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 40808 Additional Order for 500 2017 Des Plaines Curbside Calendar 1,075.00 1,537.68 24 5310 6522 Public Risk Management Association Due90Oct_Org8 PRIMA Membership 11/01/2017-10/31/2018 for HR Director 385.00 25 5340 4820 Aurico Reports LLC AUR1032755 New Hire Background Checks 06/30-07/31/2017 643.00 26 5530 4651 Perspectives 87241 2017 Employee Assistance Program 08/01-08/31/2017 542.50 27 6000 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402591 Staffing Services 07/02- 07/08/2017 258.19 28 6000 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402617 Staffing Services 06/25- 07/01/2017 258.19 29 6000 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402618 Staffing Services 07/09- 07/15/2017 263.93 Division: 220 - Legal Legal Fees - Admin Hearings/Prosecu tions Recording Fees Recording Fees Total 220 - Legal Division: 230 - Information Technology Communication Services Printing Services Printer Supplies Total 230 - Information Technology Division: 240 - Media Services Professional Services Communication Services Printing Services Total 240 - Media Services Division: 250 - Human Resources Membership Dues Pre-Employment Exams Employee Assistance Program Professional Services Professional Services Professional Services Page 4 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 30 6000 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402645 Staffing Services 07/16- 07/22/2017 258.19 31 6100 1319 IL Municipal League 0028248-IN Job Ads-Clerk/Cashier & Maint Opr/Fac & Grounds 07/25- 08/25/2017 70.00 32 6300 5952 Neogov INV20851 Insight Enterprise Software License 05/18/2017- 05/17/2018 6,500.00 33 7000 1220 Runco Office Supply 689638-0 3 Boxes of File Folders 83.25 34 7000 1220 Runco Office Supply 690207-0 5 Boxes of File Folders & 6 Air Dusters 172.37 35 7000 1220 Runco Office Supply 691525-0 4 Boxes of File Folders 123.83 9,558.45 36 6535 1076 Sam's Club Direct 0000 GMTKAY Youth Commission's Snacks for the DPPL Book Buddies 07/27/2017 20.96 37 6535 1076 Sam's Club Direct 000000 GMTUEF Youth Commission's Popsicles for Nation Night Out 08/01/2017 39.90 38 6550 4332 Horizon Dispatch Services Inc 1793 Subsidized Taxi Voucher Program Apr-July 2017 M-12- 11 36.00 96.86 13,230.43 39 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 163.37 40 6025 1172 Third Millennium Associates Inc 20959 2017 Annual Vehicle License Software & Services 12,736.90 41 7500 1172 Third Millennium Associates Inc 20959 2017 Annual Vehicle License Software & Services 7,673.96 42 7500 1041 Federal Express 5-877-58477 Delivery Services 06/29- 07/22/2017 145.58 20,719.81 43 6000 3309 Elevator Inspection Services Inc 70112 Elevator Plan Review 07/31/2017 40.00 44 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 657.69 Professional Services Publication of Notices R&M Software Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Total 250 - Human Resources Division: 260 - Health & Human Services Subsidy - Youth Commission Subsidy - Youth Commission Subsidy - Senior Citizen Cab Service Total 260 - Health & Human Services Total 20 - City Administration Department: 30 - Finance Communication Services Administrative Services Postage & Parcel Postage & Parcel Total 30 - Finance Community Development Division: 410 - Building & Code Enforcement Professional Services Communication Services Page 5 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 45 6115 6900 Franco, Alexander J Reimb 07/28/2017 ICC Exam Reimbursement 7/28/2017 199.00 46 7000 1066 Office Depot 944827241001 2 Ctns of Copy Paper and 1 Stapler 96.74 47 7500 1041 Federal Express 5-877-58477 Delivery Services 06/29- 07/22/2017 71.71 48 7500 1041 Federal Express 5-877-61474 Delivery Services on 07/21/2017 40.45 1,105.59 49 6100 1050 Journal & Topics 174064 Planning and Zoning Board Legal Notice 07/19/2017 110.67 50 7000 1066 Office Depot 946941386001 6 Flash Drives for JRB and Case of Paper 86.66 197.33 51 5335 3316 Kirincic, Davorka Reimb 7/27/2017 Parking Reimbursement for CDBG Seminar 07/27/2017 - Assoc Planner 38.00 52 6000 5215 CoStar Realty Information Inc 105082618 August 2017 Available Property Database 349.44 387.44 1,690.36 53 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 121.84 54 6040 1021 Republic Svc #551 0551-013690395 Residential Refuse/Recycling - July 2017, R-35-14 258,320.00 55 6040 6047 Vintage Tech LLC 17664 Electronics Recycling - 07/13/2017 761.20 56 6195 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402619 PW Temp Services - 06/25- 07/01/2017 550.80 57 6195 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402646 PW Temp Services - 07/16- 07/22/2017 918.00 58 6300 6055 Axiom Human Resource Solutions Inc 0000017883 Kronos User Fees - July 2017 209.00 260,880.84 Licensing/Titles Office Supplies Postage & Parcel Postage & Parcel Total 410 - Building & Code Enforcement Division: 420 - Planning & Zoning Publication of Notices Office Supplies Total 420 - Planning & Zoning Division: 430 - Economic Development Travel Expenses Professional Services Total 430 - Economic Development Total 40 - Community Development Public Works & Engineering Division: 100 - Administration Communication Services Waste Hauling & Debris Removal Waste Hauling & Debris Removal Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services R&M Software Total 100 - Administration Page 6 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 59 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 427.43 427.43 60 6195 1107 Ayres Associates 169811 2017 Aerial Photography 05/28-07/01/2017 6,495.40 61 6195 1060 Municipal GIS Partners Inc 3918 GIS Staffing and Services 07/01-07/31/2017 16,200.50 22,695.90 62 5335 2494 IL State Toll Highway Authority (IPASS) G123000001105 Toll Booth Fees - 04/01/2017 - 06/30/2017 23.63 63 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 479.12 64 6325 1044 H&H Electric Co 28857 4 Streetlights Repaired - 06/22/2017, R-56-16 880.35 65 6325 1044 H&H Electric Co 28858 2 Streetlights Repaired - 06/27/2017, R-56-16 413.75 66 6325 1044 H&H Electric Co 28859 Repair Ground Fault, River Rd by Casino - 06/28/2017, R-56- 16 2,042.20 67 6325 1044 H&H Electric Co 28862 Streetlight Repair Lee & Thacker - 06/20/2017, R-56-16 428.60 68 7000 1066 Office Depot 946572754001 1 Case of Copy Paper, 1 Portfolio & 2 Rolls of HD Tape 51.37 69 7030 1550 Addison Building Material Co 858355 2 Hex Head Key Handles 8.62 70 7050 6555 Landscape Concepts Management Inc 127530 Root Treatment on Chestnut Street - 07/18/2017 795.00 71 7050 2438 Flag Lady Corp The 26372 6 USA Flags 447.28 72 7050 1516 Arthur Clesen Inc 326850 (2) 50 Lb Bags Grass Seed - Parkway Restoration 150.00 73 7050 1347 Lurvey Landscape Supply T1-10215620 1 Cu Yd Top Soil - Fire Station #61 - Restoration 26.90 74 7055 5699 March Industries Inc 181108 2 Tarps for Covering Road Salt 1,930.00 Division: 510 - Engineering Communication Services Total 510 - Engineering Division: 520 - Geographic Information Systems Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Total 520 - Geographic Information Systems Division: 530 - Street Maintenance Travel Expenses Communication Services R&M Street Lights R&M Street Lights R&M Street Lights R&M Street Lights Office Supplies Supplies - Tools & Hardware Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Street R&M Page 7 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 75 7055 1067 Orange Crush 33439 0.67 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 07/21/2017, R-56-17 18.69 76 7055 1067 Orange Crush 33661 0.53 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 07/24/2017, R-56-17 14.78 77 7055 1067 Orange Crush 33835 70.72 Tons Asphalt - Spot Patching - 07/25/2017, R-56- 17 1,971.93 78 7055 1067 Orange Crush 33994 25.30 Tons Asphalt - Watermain Break Repair - 07/26/2017 705.45 79 7055 1067 Orange Crush 34733 112.16 Tons Asphalt for Street Repair - 08/01/2017, R-56-17 3,127.42 80 7055 1057 Menard Incorporated 96650 6 Hose Clamps - Metro Square Temporary Signs 11.88 81 7055 1057 Menard Incorporated 98306 18 Cans Wasp Spray 33.66 82 7055 1192 Sherwin Industries Inc SS071155 2 Containers Yellow Traffic Marking Paint 161.50 83 7320 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 384.48 14,106.61 84 5335 2494 IL State Toll Highway Authority (IPASS) G123000001105 Toll Booth Fees - 04/01/2017 - 06/30/2017 23.63 85 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 278.68 86 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 74970 Custodial Services - City Hall - July 2017, R-169-16 1,850.00 87 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 74973 Custodial Services - Police - July 2017, R-169-16 2,600.00 88 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 74975 Custodial Services - City Hall - July 2017, R-169-16 3,500.00 89 6195 6664 Diaz Group LLC 23831 Landscape Maintenance - July 2017, R-35-17 10,703.87 90 6195 6026 TNT Landscape Construction Inc 5079 Seeding & Topsoil - PW - 07/24/2017, R-42-17 3,906.00 91 6195 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402620 PW Temp Services - 07/09- 07/15/2017 918.00 Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Equipment < $5,000 Total 530 - Street Maintenance Division: 535 - Facilities & Grounds Maintenance Travel Expenses Communication Services Custodial Services Custodial Services Custodial Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Page 8 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 92 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8172455 Exterior Pest Control - August 2017 - City Hall, Police & Metra 40.00 93 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8172455 Exterior Pest Control - August 2017 - City Hall, Police & Metra 40.00 94 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8172456 Interior Pest Control - August 2017 - City Hall & Police 97.00 95 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8172456 Interior Pest Control - August 2017 - City Hall & Police 96.00 96 6315 1025 Bedco Inc 094293 Cleaned Cooling Tower Nozzles - 07/15/2017, R-170- 16 1,650.00 97 6315 1025 Bedco Inc 094296 Pipe Repair - City Hall Cooling Tower - 07/17/2017, R-170-16 880.00 98 6315 1025 Bedco Inc 094301 Cooling Tower Treatment - City Hall - 07/21/2017, R-170- 16 1,891.20 99 6315 1025 Bedco Inc 094302 Replace Filter - History Center - 0721/2017, R-170-16 22.50 100 6315 1025 Bedco Inc 094303 Replace Capacitor - History Center - 07/21/2017, R-170-16 193.15 101 6315 1025 Bedco Inc 094304 Air Filters - Food Pantry - 07/21/2017, R-170-16 52.10 102 6315 1025 Bedco Inc 094306 Additional 225 Lbs of Refrigerant, R-170-16 8,382.50 103 6315 6376 Facility Solutions Group Inc 1952611 Install Electrical Wiring & Lighting-Police Coffee Bar 05/24/17 1,576.60 104 6315 6729 Lupo Masonry Restoration Inc 2017003 Exterior Facade Repairs - City Hall First Floor - 07/24/2017 16,700.00 105 6315 6376 Facility Solutions Group Inc 2020752 Electrical Installation - Police 2nd Floor Rehab - 07/24/2017 1,589.30 106 6315 2350 Anderson Elevator Co 209186 Service Call - City Hall Elevator - 07/24/2017 573.00 107 6315 1311 Hill/Ahern Fire Protection LLC 210488 Replaced Fire Alarm Batteries @ PW Garage - 07/20/2017 175.00 108 6315 1311 Hill/Ahern Fire Protection LLC 210490 Replaced Fire Alarm Batteries @ Sta 63 - 07/27/2017 160.00 Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures Page 9 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 109 6315 1311 Hill/Ahern Fire Protection LLC 210491 Inspected Civic Deck Fire System - 07/20/2017 1,014.00 110 6315 5984 US Waterproofing 212873 Waterproofing - Historical Society - 07/17/2017- 07/19/2017 12,500.00 111 6315 5691 Corbrook Enterprises Inc 7271701 Stained Door-City Hall - 05/23/2017 & Fire Station - 06/15/2017 599.16 112 6315 5691 Corbrook Enterprises Inc 7271701 Stained Door-City Hall - 05/23/2017 & Fire Station - 06/15/2017 379.78 113 6315 5698 Doors Done Right Inc 84158859 2 SVR Devices & 2 Pcs Trim - Repair Library Door - 08/02/2017 2,260.00 114 6315 5698 Doors Done Right Inc 8817 Replace Door - Library Electric Room - 08/02/2017 2,080.00 115 6315 5698 Doors Done Right Inc 8818 Installed Door - PW - 07/27/2017 1,415.00 116 6315 5214 State Industrial Products 900088293 City Hall Drain Maintenance - 07/10/2017 100.00 117 6315 1525 Hastings Air-Energy Control Inc I67286 2017 Plymovent Upgrades for Station 61 07/07/2017 8,285.60 118 6315 1525 Hastings Air-Energy Control Inc I67287 2017 Plymovent Upgrades for Station 63 07/07/2017 8,796.95 119 6315 1525 Hastings Air-Energy Control Inc I67288 2017 Plymovent Upgrades for Station 62 07/07/2017 3,510.50 120 7020 5699 March Industries Inc 181718 3 Lockout Kits 747.00 121 7025 1028 Case Lots Inc 005538 Paper Towels, Toilet Tissue, Urinal Screens & Soap - City Hall 1,362.80 122 7025 5699 March Industries Inc 181711 16 Bottles of All Purpose Cleaner & 2 Cases of Bleach- City Hall 288.80 123 7025 1057 Menard Incorporated 98461 6 - 56 oz All Purpose Cleaner - Parking Decks 16.14 124 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 0022903 5 Grout Removal Bits, Collet Nuts & Twist Nozzle Cap - Police 74.94 125 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 0022904 2 Gypsum Boards, Ring Cover & Drywall Corner Bead - PW 48.88 126 7045 5917 Ferguson Enterprises Inc 0883254 AC Unit - Fire Station #62 615.00 127 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 1022772 15-1/4"X47" Insulation & 8 Couplings for PW Rehab 52.10 R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures Supplies - Safety Supplies - Custodial Supplies - Custodial Supplies - Custodial Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Page 10 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 128 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 3011130 300 Ft Hanger Wire & 2 100 Ft Hanger Wire for PW Rehab 21.06 129 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 3021410 (3) 2 Pk Light Bulbs & 2 Pk 15W Exit Bulb - Fire Station #61 13.91 130 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 4043615 Grout Removal Kit, Bit, Tape, 4 Brushes, 2 Rods & Shelf - Police 99.87 131 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 5022201 5 Couplings, 8 Fittings & Screwdriver Set - Metro 93.17 132 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 5084311 Pipe Fitting Repair - MetroSquare Parking 10.14 133 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 6030368 4 Coils Wire, Washer, 2 Bolts & Brush Plate - Police TV 48.94 134 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 6054661 2 Boxes Zinc Washers, 2 Lbs Screws & Mud Ring -PD Sound Proofing 39.08 135 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 7030679 4 Spools Insulation - Police 2nd Floor Remodel 95.40 136 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 7562870 (2) 25W T10 Light Bulbs - PW 7.94 137 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 97204 Returned Parts for Sink Repair - PW (43.94) 138 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 97803 Sand, Tinted Box, Seal Lid, 2 Tapes, Knife, Mud Pan & Pail @ PD 64.34 139 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 97804 18 Electric Boxes - PW Rehab 23.04 140 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98232 (2) 2 Pack Light Bulbs - Civic Center 29.96 141 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98379 20 AAA Batteries & 3 Air Cleaner Filters - PW 163.96 142 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98428 Tech Pouch, 2 Reciprocating Blade, 2 Bits & Sortmaster @ PW 66.93 143 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98604 4 Gals Primer, 6 Brushes, Tray Liner & Tray-Police 2nd Floor 57.67 144 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98605 Broom, Dust Pan & 6 Frosted Bulbs - PW 27.93 145 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98662 Polycarbonate Sheet & Sealant - PW Improvements 20.46 146 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98685 Green Wire for PW Electric 47.37 Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Page 11 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 147 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98742 2 Access Ports & 3 Elbows for Police 2nd Floor Remodel 24.46 148 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98804 Knife & Drywall Anchors - Police 2nd Floor Remodel 25.45 149 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98808 Float, Saw, Saw Blade, 6 Sponges & Accucolor Grout - PW 39.30 150 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98841A Grout Removal Tool - Police Shower 9.83 151 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 99018 Grout Removal Bit & Carbide Cutter - Police Shower 41.03 152 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 99042 10 Metal Tracks & 10 Metal Studs - PW Improvements 51.80 103,124.28 153 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 164.32 154 6135 1029 Cintas Corporation 022497930 Mechanics Uniform Rental - 07/17/2017 142.66 155 6135 1029 Cintas Corporation 022500793 Mechanics Uniforms - 07/24/2017 142.66 156 6310 3157 Nemeth Glass of Illinois Inc 133029 Replaced Windshield - 07/21/2017 - PW 5064 324.52 157 6310 1278 Dave & Jim's Auto Body Inc 17614 Front End Alignment - 07/20/2017 - PW 5062 60.00 158 6310 1643 Golf Mill Ford 722798 Replace Steering Shaft & Alignment - 07/19/2017 PD 6067 936.54 159 6310 4989 Illini Power Products SWO016250-1 Generator Repair - 07/10/2017 - PW 5088 549.82 160 7035 1018 Anderson Lock Company LTD 0948909 4 Padlocks - Generator 5088 42.00 161 7040 5638 Castle Chevrolet North 112024 Interior Door Handle & Cover - IT Van 2004 54.26 162 7040 1078 Acme Truck Brake & Supply Co 1272050003 2 Pintle Hooks - PW Stock 167.16 163 7040 1078 Acme Truck Brake & Supply Co 1272050131 2 Led Lamps - PD 6018 16.16 164 7040 1085 Alexander Equipment Company Inc 135560 Clutch, Bearing, Washer & Yoke - PW 5023 1,093.78 165 7040 1085 Alexander Equipment Company Inc 135598 Drive Ring, Fly Wheel & 12 Bolts - PW 5023 1,385.65 166 7040 1071 Pomp's Tire Service Inc 280072713 4 Tires - PW Stock 1,292.20 Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Total 535 - Facilities & Grounds Maintenance Division: 540 - Vehicle Maintenance Communication Services Rentals Rentals R&M Vehicles R&M Vehicles R&M Vehicles R&M Vehicles Supplies - Equipment R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Page 12 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 167 7040 1071 Pomp's Tire Service Inc 280072720 12 Tires - PW Stock 1,170.79 168 7040 1643 Golf Mill Ford 421609P 2 Bolts - PW 5060 8.12 169 7040 1053 Kimball Midwest 5745506 300 Cable Ties, 9 Plugs, Tape & Brass Fittings - PW Stock 105.48 170 7040 1053 Kimball Midwest 5746643 12 Cans Penetrating Oil - PW Stock 58.88 171 7040 5731 Advance Auto Parts 6027720533542 2 Fuel & 1 Lube Filters - PW 5025 40.70 172 7040 5731 Advance Auto Parts 6027720579184 2 Air Filters - PD 6907 14.26 173 7040 1526 Global Emergency Products Inc AG57540 2 Ladder Truck Control Joysticks - FD 7802 1,206.44 174 7040 1643 Golf Mill Ford CM418924P Hose Assembly - FD -Stock (40.02) 175 7120 5415 Gas Depot Inc 45670 6,002 Gals Unleaded Fuel - 07/25/2017, R-57-17 8,601.56 176 7130 5415 Gas Depot Inc 45671 2,002 Gals Diesel Fuel - 07/25/2017, R-57-17 3,079.45 177 7320 1078 Acme Truck Brake & Supply Co 1272020013 Two 22-Ton Jack Stands 406.16 21,023.55 422,258.61 178 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 258.08 258.08 179 5325 4435 Safariland LLC 08/01/2017 4 Day Less Lethal ICP Program 08/01-08/04/2017 - Evidence Tech 895.00 180 5325 1661 Northwestern University Center for Public Safety 8924 School of Police Staff & Command 09/28-12/08/2017 - Patrol Cmdr 3,600.00 181 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 2,070.70 182 7320 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 224.85 6,790.55 Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Gasoline Diesel Equipment < $5,000 Total 540 - Vehicle Maintenance Total 50 - Public Works & Engineering Police Department Division: 100 - Administration Communication Services Total 100 - Administration Division: 610 - Uniformed Patrol Training Training Communication Services Equipment < $5,000 Total 610 - Uniformed Patrol Page 13 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 183 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 1,511.50 184 6195 1517 Trans Union LLC 07754618 Investigations Database July 2017 80.00 185 7200 2016 Signarama 38561 30 Engraved Signs, Wall Signs, Cubicle Signs for New Det Bureau 723.82 186 7200 2016 Signarama 38631 Name Plate for Detective, Property Room 53.87 187 7320 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 37.49 2,406.68 188 5310 1724 IL Law Enforcement Alarm System DUES6850 Police Dept Membership Dues 09/01/2017-08/31/2018 360.00 189 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 626.80 190 6110 1142 Copyset Center 49759 1025 3-Part Tow Report for Tow Companies 166.00 191 6195 1077 Shred-It USA LLC 8122715566 Shredding Service PD 6/9, 6/16, 6/26, 6/30/2017 599.04 192 6195 1077 Shred-It USA LLC 9417074281 Credit for Service Date 6/30/2017 (149.76) 193 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1374554 Glue Sticks, Cups 21.19 194 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1375675 Ruled Paper Pads, Tape, Ruler, Colored Pencils 23.60 195 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1377368 Laminate Pouches (1 Box)28.74 196 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1377734 CDR's (1 Pack), USB Drive 16 GB (12), Perm Marker (12) 123.80 197 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1379998 Legal Pad (12)6.79 198 7010 1236 Proforma Creative Impressions Inc 0718002594 1500 Des Plaines PD Pencils for Give Aways 547.64 199 7010 1236 Proforma Creative Impressions Inc 0718002595 500 Des Plaines Frisbee's for 2017 National Night Out Giveaways 653.24 Division: 620 - Criminal Investigation Communication Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Other Supplies Other Supplies Equipment < $5,000 Total 620 - Criminal Investigation Division: 630 - Support Services Membership Dues Communication Services Printing Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Supplies - Community Relations Supplies - Community Relations Page 14 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 200 7010 1236 Proforma Creative Impressions Inc 0718002597 500 Des Plaines Color Changing Frost Cups 634.57 201 7010 1076 Sam's Club Direct 9905 8 Boxes of Chips for National Night Out 8/1/2017 114.74 202 7010 5730 Drop Zone Portable Services Inc A-64786 Rental Fee for 2 Port-A-Potties National Night Out 08/01/2017 325.00 203 7015 5197 Kieslers Police Supply Inc 0832301A Department Ammunition for 2017- Various Caliber 2,040.00 204 7200 1236 Proforma Creative Impressions Inc 0718002591 2 Plaques Citizens Awards 354.96 205 7200 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1374554 Glue Sticks, Cups 69.99 206 7320 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 237.48 6,783.82 16,239.13 207 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 358.00 208 7200 1076 Sam's Club Direct 1376 Water For Flood Operations 07/20/2017 139.60 497.60 209 6000 6893 Visual Image Photography Inc 5056 Dec 2016 Departmental Photography Service 780.00 210 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 270.72 211 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 40918 1 Box of Business Cards 20.00 212 6195 1077 Shred-It USA LLC 8122740341 On-Site Shredding-Sta 61 07/10/2017 59.86 1,130.58 213 5310 5049 Northwest Association of Provider EMS Coordinators 2017 Dues 2017 Annual Dues for EMS Coordinators 50.00 214 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 755.23 Supplies - Community Relations Supplies - Community Relations Supplies - Community Relations Supplies - Police Range Other Supplies Other Supplies Equipment < $5,000 Total 630 - Support Services Total 60 - Police Department Department: 65 - Emergency Management Agency Communication Services Other Supplies Total 65 - Emergency Management Agency Fire Department Division: 100 - Administration Professional Services Communication Services Printing Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Total 100 - Administration Division: 710 - Emergency Services Membership Dues Communication Services Page 15 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 215 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 696.49 216 6305 1018 Anderson Lock Company LTD 0948980 New Lock for Cabinet in BC Office 16.80 217 6305 3570 AEC Fire Safety & Security Inc 232818 Service of Holmatro Tools, Coupler & Dust Caps 07/26/2017 588.00 218 6305 1660 Safety-Kleen Systems Inc 74130453 Maintenance on Parts Cleaner- Sta 63 07/24/2017 159.00 219 6305 1660 Safety-Kleen Systems Inc 74130454 Maintenance on Parts Cleaner- Sta 61 07/24/2017 159.00 220 7000 1076 Sam's Club Direct 4388 10 Cases Copy Paper & AA, AAA & C Batteries 428.16 221 7025 1304 HP Products I3107589 1 Case Cleaner-Station 62 177.99 222 7025 1304 HP Products I3108489 Towels, Bowl Cleaner, Soaps, Cascade, Sponges, Mops-Sta 62 1,299.59 223 7035 1147 Zoll Medical Corp 2550215 5 Replacement Padz 654.50 224 7035 1147 Zoll Medical Corp 2550906 1 Replacement CPR Connector 225.25 225 7200 1148 WS Darley & Co 17292776 4 Hydrant Wrenches 111.30 226 7200 1148 WS Darley & Co 17294139 Dry Wall Hook for Tower 61 99.00 227 7200 1076 Sam's Club Direct 2541 8 Cases Water for Rigs-Sta 63 23.92 228 7200 1043 WW Grainger Inc 9503118896 Tool Rest 29.72 229 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 41819 2 4-Pocket Pants, 2 T-Shirts, S/S Polo, Twill Cap-1 Lieutenant 188.00 230 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 42972 3 T-Shirts, 3 S/S Polos - 1 Lieutenant 189.00 231 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 43194 3 T-Shirts, 2 4-Pocket Pants, 2 S/S Polos-1 Engineer 215.00 232 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 43197 3 T-Shirts, 3 S/S Polos, 2 Shorts- 1 Lieutenant 225.00 233 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 43209 1 Pair Oxfords, 1 Collar Insignia-Chief 92.00 234 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 43550 2 Cargo Pocket Pants, Tie, Steel Toe Boots, Belt, 2 Shirts- Div C 392.00 235 7320 1148 WS Darley & Co 17292214 23 Each-Ballistic Protection Helmets & Eyewear 7,967.70 236 7320 1670 Arlington Power Equipment Inc 734429 2 Generators for TRT Trailer 1,759.99 Communication Services R&M Equipment R&M Equipment R&M Equipment R&M Equipment Office Supplies Supplies - Custodial Supplies - Custodial Supplies - Equipment R&M Supplies - Equipment R&M Other Supplies Other Supplies Other Supplies Other Supplies Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Equipment < $5,000 Equipment < $5,000 Page 16 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 237 7320 1670 Arlington Power Equipment Inc 734823 Credit for Return/Exchange of 1 Generator for TRT Trailer (860.00) 238 7320 1670 Arlington Power Equipment Inc 734826 Exchange of 1 Generator for TRT Trailer 954.00 16,596.64 239 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 163.83 240 7320 1080 Air One Equipment Inc 124541 10 Pairs Vented Goggles 35.78 199.61 17,926.83 496,836.62 241 6000 4210 Lakota Group, The 17017-01 Engr Svcs-Wayfinding Signage Program 04/01-06/30/2017 2,048.10 242 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 74974 Custodial Services - Train Station - July 2017, R-169-16 1,000.00 243 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 74971 Custodial Services - Library Deck - July 2017, R-169-16 400.00 244 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 74972 Custodial Services - Metro Square - July 2017, R-169-16 400.00 245 6150 5399 Beary Landscape Management 59703 Maintenance, Summer Plants & Watering - June 2017, R-36- 17 23,650.50 246 6195 1025 Bedco Inc 094312 Louver Replacement - Train Station - 07/26/2017 1,220.00 247 6195 1666 Des Plaines Glass Company 10528 Installed Window Film - 1486 &1486 1/2 Miner St - 07/20/2017 2,450.00 248 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8172455 Exterior Pest Control - August 2017 - City Hall, Police & Metra 40.00 249 6195 4583 Argon Electric Company, Inc 8975 Installed Electric - Metra Station Pace Bus Sign - 07/31/2017 4,970.00 250 6325 1044 H&H Electric Co 28856 Streetlight Repair Metro Square - 06/21/2017, R-56-16 831.80 37,010.40 Equipment < $5,000 Equipment < $5,000 Total 710 - Emergency Services Division: 720 - Fire Prevention Communication Services Equipment < $5,000 Total 720 - Fire Prevention Total 70 - Fire Department Total 100 - General Fund Fund: 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund Professional Services Custodial Services Custodial Services Custodial Services City Maintenance Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services R&M Street Lights Total 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund Page 17 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 251 6155 1402 DiNatale Construction Inc 2016-0-P7 FINAL R-74-16 2016 CIP Concrete Impr 10/22-11/01/2016 Pymt 7 Final 25,000.00 252 6155 6770 Sumit Construction Co Inc 2017-0-P2 R-90-17 2017 CIP Concrete & Alley 06/23-07/28/2017 Pymt 2 230,227.67 253 6330 1139 Cook County of Illinois 2017-2 County Traffic Signal Maint- Dempster & Potter 04/01- 06/30/2017 1,041.75 254 6330 1206 Illinois, State of 51642 State Traffic Signal Maintenance 04/01- 06/30/2017 9,231.30 255 8100 1402 DiNatale Construction Inc 2016-0-P7 FINAL R-74-16 2016 CIP Concrete Impr 10/22-11/01/2016 Pymt 7 Final 24,714.54 256 8100 6770 Sumit Construction Co Inc 2017-0-P2 R-90-17 2017 CIP Concrete & Alley 06/23-07/28/2017 Pymt 2 28,264.02 318,479.28 257 8100 6770 Sumit Construction Co Inc 2017-0-P2 R-90-17 2017 CIP Concrete & Alley 06/23-07/28/2017 Pymt 2 89,215.80 89,215.80 258 6000 1079 AECOM Technical Services Inc 37946820 Construction Engr-River Rd Recon Ph 2 05/27-06/30/2017 3,022.67 259 6000 1394 Gewalt Hamilton Associates Inc 4816.200-16 Engr-Lee @ Forest Traffic Signalization Ph 2 05/22- 06/18/2017 4,237.29 7,259.96 7,259.96 260 6305 6851 Axon Enterprise Inc SI1492810 Taser Assurance CEW Plan (4 Tasers) Sept. 2017-2018 820.00 820.00 Fund: 230 - Motor Fuel Tax Fund Sidewalk Improvements Sidewalk Improvements R&M Traffic Signals R&M Traffic Signals Improvements Improvements Total 230 - Motor Fuel Tax Fund Fund: 240 - CDBG Fund Improvements Total 240 - CDBG Fund Fund: 250 - Grant Projects Fund Program: 2520 - Capital Grants Professional Services Professional Services Total 2520 - Capital Grants Total 250 - Grant Projects Fund Fund: 260 - Asset Seizure Fund Program: 2610 - Customs R&M Equipment Total 2610 - Customs Page 18 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 261 6195 5168 Golf Rose Animal Hospital 200408A Canine Jager Exam & Vaccination 06/29/2017 516.55 262 6195 5168 Golf Rose Animal Hospital 200726 Canine Jager Exam 07/03/2017 273.67 263 6195 5168 Golf Rose Animal Hospital 201653 Canine Jager Exam & Vaccination 07/14/2017 157.00 264 6195 6150 Partners & Paws Veterinary Services LLC 45356 Police Canine Bane Exam & Medications 06/12/2017 157.69 265 7320 4915 American Aluminum Accessories, Inc 84037 Platform, Liner, Door Opening Sys, Etc. for New 2nd K-9 Squad 3,412.00 4,516.91 5,336.91 266 6305 2933 SMS Systems Maintenance Services Inc 90075156 Computer Hardware Maintenance-911 Backup Center July 2017 200.00 200.00 200.00 267 6000 6463 Manhard Consulting Ltd 25173 Task Order 1-Storm Water Mgmt Ordinance 4/29- 05/26/2017 4,960.00 268 6000 6463 Manhard Consulting Ltd 26491-1 Task Order 1-Storm Water Mgmt Ordinance 05/27- 06/30/2017 1,705.00 269 6000 1394 Gewalt Hamilton Associates Inc 4816.200-16 Engr-Lee @ Forest Traffic Signalization Ph 2 05/22- 06/18/2017 4,237.29 270 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 226.05 271 6155 1402 DiNatale Construction Inc 2016-0-P7 FINAL R-74-16 2016 CIP Concrete Impr 10/22-11/01/2016 Pymt 7 Final 7,101.15 272 7065 1067 Orange Crush 33439 0.67 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 07/21/2017, R-56-17 10.46 Program: 2640 - Forfeit Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Equipment < $5,000 Total 2640 - Forfeit Total 260 - Asset Seizure Fund Fund: 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Department: 60 - Police Department R&M Equipment Total 60 - Police Department Total 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Fund: 400 - Capital Projects Fund Professional Services Professional Services Professional Services Communication Services Sidewalk Improvements Supplies - Capital Maintenance Page 19 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 273 7065 1067 Orange Crush 33661 0.53 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 07/24/2017, R-56-17 8.28 274 7065 1067 Orange Crush 33835 70.72 Tons Asphalt - Spot Patching - 07/25/2017, R-56- 17 1,104.40 275 7065 1067 Orange Crush 33994 25.30 Tons Asphalt - Watermain Break Repair - 07/26/2017 395.10 276 7065 1067 Orange Crush 34733 112.16 Tons Asphalt for Street Repair - 08/01/2017, R-56-17 1,751.55 277 8100 1402 DiNatale Construction Inc 2016-0-P7 FINAL R-74-16 2016 CIP Concrete Impr 10/22-11/01/2016 Pymt 7 Final 16,200.70 278 8100 6770 Sumit Construction Co Inc 2017-0-P2 R-90-17 2017 CIP Concrete & Alley 06/23-07/28/2017 Pymt 2 18,113.14 279 8100 1364 Martam Construction 2017-A-P1 R-91-17 2017 CIP Cont A Street & Util 06/26- 07/31/2017 Pymt 1 91,527.44 280 8100 1067 Orange Crush 2017-C-P3 R-92-17 2017 CIP Cont C Street Resurfacing 06/23-07/28/17 Pymt 3 193,334.67 340,675.23 281 8005 4715 SHI International Corporation B06864783 2 eSuite and Domain Controller Servers 7,906.00 282 8005 6894 Bomgar Corporation INV0035969 Remote Desktop/Laptop Device & Maint 07/01/2017- 07/31/2018 13,923.00 283 8005 1026 CDW LLC JNT8209 APC Battery Backup For Oakton Water Tower 734.35 22,563.35 284 4601 6373 Pirtano Construction Refund 07/28/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 07/28/2017 (13.63) 285 4601 6494 American Underground Incorporated Refund 07/28/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 07/28/2017 (24.74) (38.37) Supplies - Capital Maintenance Supplies - Capital Maintenance Supplies - Capital Maintenance Supplies - Capital Maintenance Improvements Improvements Improvements Improvements Total 400 - Capital Projects Fund Fund: 420 - IT Replacement Fund Computer Hardware Computer Hardware Computer Hardware Total 420 - IT Replacement Fund Fund: 500 - Water/Sewer Fund Non Departmental Division: 000 - Non Divisional New Construction - Sale of Water New Construction - Sale of Water Total 000 - Non Divisional Page 20 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 286 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 100.69 100.69 287 5310 1563 American Water Works Assoc (AWWA) 7001404184 Membership Dues Water Plant Operator - 10/01/2017 - 09/30/2018 83.00 288 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 830.87 289 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 40860 1,000 Regular & 1,000 Window Envelopes for Meter Program 338.00 290 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 40878 1 Box of Business Cards 20.00 291 6180 1642 Suburban Laboratories, Inc 146995 Coliform 6/27-7/27 Lead/Copper 6/27 & Disinfectant Tests 7/11/17 2,131.00 292 6195 1467 HBK Water Meter Service Inc 170465 3 Water Meter Bench Tests - 07/10 & 0711/2017 79.00 293 6195 1467 HBK Water Meter Service Inc 170487 8 Water Meter Bench Tests - 7/21/2017 200.00 294 6195 1467 HBK Water Meter Service Inc 170494 4 Water Meter Bench Tests - 07/24/2017 420.00 295 6195 4321 Luppino Plumbing & Sewer Co 5544 Install New Shut Off Before Meter - 7/24/2017 150.00 296 6195 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H480041 4 Meters & Installations - 06/24/2017, R-11-17 5,147.00 297 6195 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H480622 6 Meters & Installations - 06/29/2017, R-11-17 9,727.00 298 6310 1488 RA Adams Enterprises Inc 803924 Replace Lift Gate - 06/28/2017 - PW 9029 2,850.00 299 7020 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/840440 Rainsuit, Arctic Boot & Leather Gloves 85.70 300 7035 1520 Russo Power Equipment 4296144 Adjusting Lever - Chain Saw 17.26 301 7040 1071 Pomp's Tire Service Inc 280072720 12 Tires - PW Stock 390.26 302 7040 1053 Kimball Midwest 5745506 300 Cable Ties, 9 Plugs, Tape & Brass Fittings - PW Stock 79.11 Division: 510 - Engineering Communication Services Total 510 - Engineering Division: 550 - Water Systems Membership Dues Communication Services Printing Services Printing Services Water Sample Testing Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services R&M Vehicles Supplies - Safety Supplies - Equipment R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Page 21 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 303 7040 1053 Kimball Midwest 5746643 12 Cans Penetrating Oil - PW Stock 35.33 304 7040 5731 Advance Auto Parts 6027720033239 Brake Pad - PW 9015 47.00 305 7040 1741 Praxair Distribution Inc 78193568 Propane Tank Exchange - PW 9040 238.92 306 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98241 Aluminum for Exterior Repair - Oakton Water Tower 52.35 307 7050 1347 Lurvey Landscape Supply T1-10215376 2 Cu Yds Top Soil for Mainbreak Repairs 53.80 308 7050 1347 Lurvey Landscape Supply T1-10215445 2 Cu Yds Top Soil for Mainbreak Repairs 53.80 309 7050 1347 Lurvey Landscape Supply T1-10216009 1 Cu Yd Top Soil - Mainbreak Repairs 26.90 310 7070 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/840330 48 Cans Blue Spray Paint & 48 Cans Green Spray Paint - JULIE's 244.80 311 7070 1709 Ziebell Water Service Products Inc 238054-000 Mueller Hydrant & Valve Box Extension 552.01 312 7070 1072 Prairie Material Sales Inc 888106658 1.50 Cu Yds Concrete - Watermain Break - 07/18/2017 216.00 313 7070 1072 Prairie Material Sales Inc 888110047 6.0 Cu Yds Concrete - Water Repair 957.00 314 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H461037 40 5/8", 40 3/4", 24 iPerl Meters & 54 Smartpoints, R- 11-17 18,394.00 315 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H461044 54 Touchpads, 1,000 Ft Wire & 600 Meter Washers, R-11-17 552.00 316 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H485459 2 Mueller Hydrant Repair Kits 370.00 317 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H543174 38 5/8" & 40 3/4" IPERL Meters & 108 Smart Points, R- 11-17 19,996.00 318 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H543192 108 Touchpads & 1000' 3- Strand Wire, R-11-17 828.00 319 7105 2901 Northwest Water Commission 08042017 July 2017 Water Usage, R-183- 14 274,224.86 320 7120 5415 Gas Depot Inc 45670 6,002 Gals Unleaded Fuel - 07/25/2017, R-57-17 1,636.88 Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Wholesale Water - NWWC Gasoline Page 22 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 321 7130 5415 Gas Depot Inc 45671 2,002 Gals Diesel Fuel - 07/25/2017, R-57-17 233.59 341,261.44 322 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 410.99 323 6195 6463 Manhard Consulting Ltd 26492-1 Annual Water Quality Testing 04/30-06/30/2017 2,550.00 324 6340 5790 Ewing Doherty Mechanical Inc 18916 Algonquin Lift Station Guide Rail Replacement - 07/24/2017 3,280.00 325 7020 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/840410 1 Pair of Insulated Hip Boots 152.50 326 7030 6679 Olson's Ace Hardware 001821/3 25 3/4" Bolts & Washers 52.20 327 7030 4093 HDS White Cap Construction Supply 10007373642 2 Wheelbarrows, 2 Brooms & 2 Shovels 530.94 328 7030 1705 Sears Commercial One T128021 Socket Set, Air Tool Kit & Air Chisel Set 157.97 329 7040 1071 Pomp's Tire Service Inc 280072660 6 Tires - Sewer 8021 1,909.84 330 7040 1071 Pomp's Tire Service Inc 280072720 12 Tires - PW Stock 390.26 331 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1088934 3 Spark Plugs - PW 8003 5.97 332 7040 1053 Kimball Midwest 5745506 300 Cable Ties, 9 Plugs, Tape & Brass Fittings - PW Stock 79.11 333 7040 1053 Kimball Midwest 5746643 12 Cans Penetrating Oil - PW Stock 23.55 334 7040 2476 Sauber Manufacturing Co PSI179214 LED Arrow Stick - PW 8029 860.00 335 7075 1274 O'Leary's Contractors Equipment & Supply Inc 218578 6 - 4"x50' PVC Hose for Flood 630.00 336 7075 3214 Kieft Brothers Inc 225129 128 Sewer Blocks & 720 Cement Bricks 1,216.80 337 7075 3008 Norlab Inc 78476 32 Bottles Tracing Dye 446.00 338 7075 1072 Prairie Material Sales Inc 888095767 1.50 Cu Yds Concrete - Sewer Repair - 07/18/2017 228.00 Diesel Total 550 - Water Systems Division: 560 - Sewer Systems Communication Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services R&M Sewer System Supplies - Safety Supplies - Tools & Hardware Supplies - Tools & Hardware Supplies - Tools & Hardware Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Sewer System Maintenance Supplies - Sewer System Maintenance Supplies - Sewer System Maintenance Supplies - Sewer System Maintenance Page 23 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 339 7120 5415 Gas Depot Inc 45670 6,002 Gals Unleaded Fuel - 07/25/2017, R-57-17 710.59 340 7130 5415 Gas Depot Inc 45671 2,002 Gals Diesel Fuel - 07/25/2017, R-57-17 377.14 341 7200 1043 WW Grainger Inc 9508064152 4 Boxes Stretch Wrap - Pallets 53.80 14,065.66 342 8100 1364 Martam Construction 2017-A-P1 R-91-17 2017 CIP Cont A Street & Util 06/26- 07/31/2017 Pymt 1 303,611.56 303,611.56 659,000.98 343 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9789217553 Communication Service 06/14- 07/13/2017 62.68 344 7000 4239 Anderson Safford 9767 1 Self-Inking Date Stamp 47.69 110.37 659,111.35 345 6320 1311 Hill/Ahern Fire Protection LLC 210492 Fire Control Panel Battery Change - Library Deck - 07/20/2017 160.00 346 7060 1728 Total Parking Solutions Inc 103915 16 Rolls of Receipt Paper for Parking Terminals 675.00 347 7060 1527 Sherwin Williams 3111-7 Gallon of Paint - Graffiti - Library Deck 34.65 348 7060 5698 Doors Done Right Inc 8843 Window Replacement Kit - Library Parking Deck 125.00 349 7060 1043 WW Grainger Inc 9508360774 12 Quartz Metal Halide Light Bulbs - MetroSq 176.28 350 7060 1057 Menard Incorporated 98621 2 Saw Blades - Window Install - Library Deck 8.00 1,178.93 351 5545 1061 Municipal Insurance Cooperative Agency 1992149 050470 MICA Claim Deductible 03/10/2017 L001992149 801.95 352 5545 1061 Municipal Insurance Cooperative Agency 2005886 050423 MICA Claim Deductible 05/01/2017 L002005886 122.08 924.03 Gasoline Diesel Other Supplies Total 560 - Sewer Systems Division: 580 - CIP - Water/Sewer Improvements Total 580 - CIP - Water/Sewer Total 00 - Non Departmental Department: 30 - Finance Communication Services Office Supplies Total 30 - Finance Total 500 - Water/Sewer Fund Fund: 510 - City Owned Parking Fund R&M Parking Lots Supplies - Parking Lots Supplies - Parking Lots Supplies - Parking Lots Supplies - Parking Lots Supplies - Parking Lots Total 510 - City Owned Parking Fund Fund: 600 - Risk Management Fund MICA Deductible MICA Deductible Total 600 - Risk Management Fund Page 24 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 353 2221 1532 Des Plaines Chamber of Commerce & Industry 14881A Reimb: Sponsorship of Wine Sales -Taste of DP 06/16- 06/17/2017 1,500.00 354 2221 6918 Plainfield School Parent Teacher Student Org 2017 Taste of DP Donation for 17 Service Hours at 2017 Taste of DP 06/16- 06/17/2017 85.00 355 2221 6898 South School Parent Teacher Organization July 20, 2017 Donation for 59 Service Hours at 2017 Taste of DP 06/16- 06/17/2017 295.00 356 2221 5149 Communications Direct Inc RN142631 Portable Radios, Charger, Batteries 2017 Taste of DP 06/15-06/19/2017 530.00 357 2226 2016 Signarama 38565 4th of July Parade Signs - Qty 14 936.00 358 2464 6373 Pirtano Construction Refund 07/28/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 07/28/2017 1,100.00 359 2464 6494 American Underground Inc Refund 07/28/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 07/28/2017 1,100.00 360 2486 1402 DiNatale Construction Inc 2016-0-P7 FINAL R-74-16 2016 CIP Concrete Impr 10/22-11/01/2016 Pymt 7 Final 275.34 361 2486 6770 Sumit Construction Co Inc 2017-0-P2 R-90-17 2017 CIP Concrete & Alley 06/23-07/28/2017 Pymt 2 292.13 362 2493 1050 Journal & Topics 173945 1/2 Page 4-Color Ad for Friday Nights Live 07/12/2017 785.00 363 2493 1050 Journal & Topics 174059 1/2 Page 4-Color Ad for Friday Lights Live 07/19/2017 785.00 364 2493 1050 Journal & Topics 174108 1/4 Page 4-Color Ad for Friday Nights Live 07/26/2017 305.00 365 2493 1498 Indestructo Rental Company Inc 23606 Tent, Tables, Chairs, Umbrellas - Friday Nights Live 07/14/2017 1,774.00 366 2493 1498 Indestructo Rental Company Inc 23622 Tent, Tables, Chairs, Umbrellas - Friday Nights Live 07/21/2017 1,774.00 367 2493 1041 Federal Express 5-877-58477 Delivery Services 06/29- 07/22/2017 17.77 368 2493 6077 Chicago Event Graphics Inc 8962 Two 31" x 12" Corex Signs for New Friday Nights Live! Sponsors 30.00 11,584.24 1,990,376.06 Fund: 700 - Escrow Fund Taste of Des Plaines Taste of Des Plaines Taste of Des Plaines Taste of Des Plaines Special Events - July 4th Hydrant Deposits Hydrant Deposits Additional Contracts - Engineering Additional Contracts - Engineering Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Total 700 - Escrow Fund Grand Total Page 25 of 29 Line # 369 2471 4297 Des Plaines Photo Enforcement Program 17056004358990 27 Red Light Cash Payment 08/01/2017 100.00 370 2471 4297 Des Plaines Photo Enforcement Program 17056004416265 42 Red Light Cash Payment 07/28/2017 100.00 200.00 371 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Jul2017 A Internet/Cable Service x6044 07/21-08/20/2017 95.00 95.00 95.00 372 6115 1744 IL Secretary of State 2017 MT7-1082 2017 Municipal Title for Trackless VII Diesel Tractor 95.00 373 6115 1744 IL Secretary of State 2017 VINx1001014 2017 Municipal Plates & Title for Felling Trailer 105.00 374 6115 1744 IL Secretary of State 2017 VINx1001332 2017 Municipal Title for Wanco Solar Trailer 95.00 375 6115 1744 IL Secretary of State 2017 VINx1001333 2017 Municipal Title for Wanco Solar Trailer 95.00 390.00 390.00 376 6015 1032 Comcast Cable 07/18/2017 x6724 Internet/Cable Service for Aug 2017 16.74 16.74 16.74 377 6015 1032 Comcast Cable 07/22/2017 x6716 Internet/Cable Service for Aug 2017 14.65 14.65 378 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Jul2017 B Internet/Cable Service x1245 07/21-08/20/2017 1,890.10 Department: 90 - Overhead Communication Services Total 60 - Police Department Department: 65 - Emergency Management Agency Communication Services Total 65 - Emergency Management Agency Total 50 - Public Works & Engineering Police Department Division: 610 - Uniformed Patrol Communication Services Total 610 - Uniformed Patrol Licensing/Titles Licensing/Titles Licensing/Titles Licensing/Titles Total 540 - Vehicle Maintenance Total 230 - Information Technology Total 20 - City Administration Public Works & Engineering Division: 540 - Vehicle Maintenance Fund: 100 - General Fund Red Light Payable Red Light Payable City Administration Division: 230 - Information Technology Communication Services Total 00 - Non Departmental City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Manual Checks Page 26 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Manual Checks 379 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Jul2017 C Internet/Cable Service x1246 07/21-08/20/2017 1,644.15 3,534.25 4,250.64 380 7110 1064 Nicor 07/14/17 x550488 Natural Gas Service 06/14- 07/14/2017 25.05 381 7110 1064 Nicor 07/14/17 x603131 Natural Gas Service 06/14- 07/14/2017 25.05 50.10 382 8100 1281 Des Plaines Park District Reimb Seminole Pk Public Facility Imp - Seminole Park Revitalization 102,149.22 102,149.22 383 6195 6919 Schwarz, Beverly & Dietrich Refund 07/26/17 FEMA Flood Ins Reimbursement-FEMA 1935 Grant 6,593.95 384 6195 6920 Becker, Fred & Beverly Refund 07/26/17 FEMA Flood Ins Reimbursement-FEMA 1935 Grant 7,331.25 385 6195 6921 Cynthia J Henderson & Philip M Festoso Refund 07/26/17 FEMA Flood Ins Reimbursement-FEMA 1935 Grant 11,094.20 25,019.40 25,019.40 386 6015 1009 AT&T 708R06860007- 17 Communication Service 06/16- 07/15/2017 470.60 470.60 470.60 387 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Jul2017 D Internet/Cable Service x0573 07/21-08/20/2017 420.00 Fund: 500 - Water/Sewer Fund Division: 550 - Water Systems Communication Services Total 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Total 250 - Grant Projects Fund Fund: 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Department: 60 - Police Department Communication Services Total 60 - Police Department Program: 2520 - Capital Grants Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Total 2520 - Capital Grants Fund: 240 - CDBG Fund Improvements Total 240 - CDBG Fund Fund: 250 - Grant Projects Fund Total 100 - General Fund Fund: 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund Natural Gas Natural Gas Total 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund Communication Services Total 90 - Overhead Page 27 of 29 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Manual Checks 388 7110 1064 Nicor 07/18/17 x054542 Natural Gas Service 06/16- 07/18/2017 85.33 389 7110 1064 Nicor 07/18/17 x400005 Natural Gas Service 06/15- 07/18/2017 85.21 390 7110 1064 Nicor 07/19/17 x500005 Natural Gas Service 06/19- 07/19/2017 127.65 391 7110 1064 Nicor 07/19/17 x500009 Natural Gas Service 06/19- 07/19/2017 25.06 743.25 743.25 392 2493 6897 Sorensen, Holly Richards 1 Music Performance for Friday Night Live! 08/04/2017 150.00 393 2493 6230 Galeno, James 1028 Educational Reptile Show- Friday Night Live! 08/04/2017 250.00 394 2493 6045 Double D Booking 31263 Booking of June/July Talent for 2017 Friday Nights Live 4,305.00 395 2493 6045 Double D Booking 31264 Booking of August Talent for 2017 Friday Nights Live 2,950.00 7,655.00 140,338.21Grand Total Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Total 700 - Escrow Fund Total 550 - Water Systems Total 500 - Water/Sewer Fund Fund: 700 - Escrow Fund Escrow Projects Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Page 28 of 29 Amount Transfer Date Automated Accounts Payable 1,990,376.06$ **8/21/2017 Manual Checks 140,338.21$ **8/4/2017 Payroll 1,274,375.71$ 8/4/2017 -$ Electronic Transfer Activity: Bank of America Credit Card -$ Chicago Water Bill ACH -$ Postage Meter Direct Debits -$ Utility Billing Refunds 1,935.22$ 8/2/2017 First Merit Bank Fees -$ IMRF Payments 159,395.71$ 8/7/2017 FEMA Buyouts 664,000.00$ *8/19/2017 FEMA Property Taxes 47,824.74$ 8/2/2017 Debt Service -$ Employee Medical Trust -$ Total Cash Disbursements:4,278,245.65$ * Multiple transfers processed on and/or before date shown ** See attached report Adopted by the City Council of Des Plaines This Twenty-First Day of August 2017 Ayes ______ Nays _______ Absent _______ Jennifer Tsalapatanis, City Clerk Matthew J. Bogusz, Mayor City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 08/21/2017 Summary RHS Payout Page 29 of 29 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org Date: August 10, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager From: Michael McMahon, Community and Economic Development Director Lauren Pruss, Economic Development Coordinator Subject: Municipal Code Amendment Regarding the Powers and Duties of the Economic Development Commission Issue: Section 2-13 of the Municipal Code regulates the creation, powers and duties of the Economic Development Commission (EDC). The EDC has been inactive for a number of years as its duties were no longer in-line with the City’s economic development strategies. Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance that reorganizes the EDC to better fit the current needs of the City. Analysis: The current municipal code section regulating the duties and powers of the EDC was adopted in 1995. At that time, it was the intent of the City to have the Commission operate like an independent economic development organization that would assemble, purchase and redevelop property within the City as part of a revitalization program. The intended goals for the Commission have since changed. Although on hold for some time due to staffing changes in Community and Economic Development Department, staff has been working to reactivate the Commission to function as a business outreach team that works to facilitate City communication and outreach with the business community. The attached ordinance repeals and replaces Municipal Code Section 2-13. The new ordinance reorganizes the Commission in the following manner: • Reduced members from fourteen (14) to nine (9). • Members must be a resident of the City for a minimum of two (2) years or own a Des Plaines business and/or be in senior management of a company conducting business within the City for a minimum of two (2) years. • Powers of the Commission change to more of an advisory role and assisting the City with outreach to new and existing business and industry. • The Director of Community and Economic Development, or his/her designee, will be the staff liaison to the Commission. Recommendation: I recommend adoption of Ordinance M-18-17. Attachments: Attachment 1: Ordinance M-18-17 Exhibits: Exhibit A: Chapter 13 Economic Development Commission MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 6 CITY OF DES PLAINES ORDINANCE M - 18 - 17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 2 OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES CITY CODE. 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 13 of Title 2 of the City of Des Plaines City Code, as amended ("City Code"), sets forth the powers and duties of the Economic Development Commission (“Commission”); and WHEREAS, the goals for the Commission have evolved since the Commission’s creation in 1995, and the City now desires to reactivate the Commission to act as an outreach team to facilitate communication between the City and the business community (“Commission Goals”); and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend Chapter 13 of Title 2 of the City Code to (i) the powers and duties of the Commission reflect the Commission Goals; (ii) reduce the number of members from 14 to 9; and (iii) institute membership eligibility criteria (collectively, the “Amendments”); 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: REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF CHAPTER 13. Chapter 13, titled, “Economic Development Commission,” of Title 2, titled “Boards and Commissions,” is hereby repealed and replaced in its entirety with a new Chapter 13, as set forth in Exhibit A attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance. 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 1 Page 2 of 6 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 DP-Ordinance Amending Chapter 13 of Title 2 of the City Code Regarding the Powers and Duties of the EDC Attachment 1 Page 3 of 6 EXHIBIT A Chapter 13 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 2-13-1 CREATION OF COMMISSION: There is hereby created a body politic and corporate to be known as the Economic Development Commission (Commission). 2-13-2: INTENT AND PURPOSE: To provide for the purpose of encouraging industrial development, commercial business, retail and other supporting services which will provide job opportunities, broaden the tax base, and improve the quality of living in the City. 2-13-3: COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP: A. The Commission shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the Mayor with the approval of the City Council. B. Members must be a resident of the City for a minimum of two (2) years or own a Des Plaines business and/or be in senior management of a company conducting business within the City for a minimum of two (2) years. C. Terms of incumbent membership shall commence on the date of appointment as follows: Four (4) members, each to serve a two (2) year term; and Three (3) members, each to serve a four (4) year term. Thereafter, new appointments made upon the expiration of the term of any member, shall be made for a term of four (4) years. Any appointment to fill a vacancy shall be for the remaining portion of such member's term. D. Members of the Commission shall hold office until their successors are appointed and may serve more than one successive term. E. Whenever a vacancy on the Commission shall occur as a result of resignation, death or any other reason other than expiration of the term of a member, the Mayor shall appoint a member to complete the term of vacancy. F. Members of the Commission shall receive no compensation for their services. G. Removal from the Commission by the Mayor shall be for cause. Exhibit A Page 4 of 6 H. The Commission shall elect one member to serve as Chair and one member to serve as Vice Chair. I. The Director of Community and Economic Development, or his/her designee, will be the staff liaison to the Commission. 2-13-4: MEETINGS, QUORUM, VOTING: Regular meetings of the Commission shall be scheduled on a quarterly basis at a date and time to be determined by the Commission and announced in the City calendar and other appropriate media. Special meetings may be called by the Mayor, City Council, or Chair of the Commission or a quorum of the Commission. Four (4) members shall constitute a quorum. The Chairman shall vote with other members of the Commission. 2-13-5: RECORDS AND REPORTS: The Commission shall keep written records of its proceedings, which records shall be open at all times to public inspection. An annual report shall be made to the City Council to include activities and matters before the Commission. 2-13-6: POWERS OF THE COMMISSION: The Commission may exercise the following powers under this chapter; provided, however, that in no event shall the Commission encumber City funds or incur City debt: A. Advising the City on the development and implementation of business retention/expansion programs; B. Advising the City on the implementation of a marketing program to attract new business and industry; C. To propose and to assist in the preparation of, designation of, or plans for, economic development projects and to assist in the undertaking and carrying out of projects for economic development; D. Monitoring business activity and trends on the local, state, and national level; E. Establishing a focal point for businesses to approach and discuss issues that affect them; and F. Engage representatives from community and regional entities such as the Des Plaines Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Greater O’Hare Airport Regional Business Association, Main Township School District 207; Oakton Community College, the Des Plaines Public Library District, the Des Plaines Special Events Commission, and other entities as appropriate on matters for economic development; 2-13-7: PECUNIARY INTEREST OF MEMBERS COMMISSION: Exhibit A Page 5 of 6 A. Any member of the Commission who owns or controls any interest direct or indirect in any property included in any project before the City Council or Commission shall disclose the same in writing to the Commission and such disclosure shall be entered upon the minute book of the Commission. B. No member of the Commission shall vote or act on any project in which said member holds an interest. Exhibit A Page 6 of 6 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org Date: August 1, 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 Park Land Dedication Credits or Fee-In-Lieu 150 N. East River Road, Covington Place Issue: On May 1, 2017, the City granted Final Planned Unit Development approval for the Covington Place multi-family development. It deferred the decision on whether to grant credits for private on-site reservation for required park land dedications. Analysis: In April of this year, the City Council approved both final PUD approval for the Covington Place development, as well as park land dedication requirements for new residential developments. Accordingly, this development is subject to either an on-site land dedication or fee-in-lieu, or a combination of both. The total park land dedication generated by the proposed development is 2.42 acres. Staff has calculated the total non-adjusted impact fee-in-lieu of dedication at $484,972.40 based upon the final approved architectural plans. The provisions of the land dedication ordinance grant authority to the Council to approve a fee-in-lieu of on- site dedication in the event that the proposed development is small, or in the event that the land available for dedication is inappropriate or insufficient for park or recreational purposes. Additionally, the Council can approve credits from the fee-in-lieu when on-site private improvements are provided in place of a land dedication. While this development has sufficient land area for a partial on-site dedication, full dedication on-site is not practical as it would result in nearly 35% of the site being dedicated to the Park District. As such, a partial improvement or dedication would be appropriate, and the remaining fee-in-lieu could be utilized by the Park District to acquire nearby land, or improve park facilities. As approved, the development includes a 0.13 acre (5,465 square feet) private on-site tot lot, a 0.14 acre (6,016 square feet) on-site pool, and 773 linear feet of on-site and off-site regional bike path that will connect the site to the nearby Cook County Forest Preserve. Covington is also requesting credit for two on-site dog parks, one measuring 0.07 acres (3,157 square feet) and another measuring 0.08 acre (3,552 square feet). Staff has calculated the value of the proposed on-site and off-site park improvements as follows: MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 6 Total Required Fee In-Lieu: $ 484,972.40 Credit for Tot Lot: $ 26,000.00 Credit for Pool: $ 28,000.00 Credit for Bike Path: $ 57,975.00 Total $ 111,975.00 Fee in Lieu after Credits: $ 372,997.40 Credit for Small Dog Park: $ 14,000.00 Credit for Large Dog Park: $ 16,000.00 Total Request Credits: $ 141,975.00 Fee in Lieu after Credits: $342,997.40 Staff has consulted with the Des Plaines Park District regarding the proposed park land credits. The Park District has indicated that they support the requested credits for the tot lot, pool and bike path as they will reduce the burden on the existing and future park facilities. However, it is staff’s opinion that the proposed dog parks do not provide the same relief on the park system. As such, staff is recommending approval of credits in the amount of $111,975 for the tot lot, pool and bike path only. Recommendation: I recommend the adoption of Resolution R- 143 -17 approving Park Land Dedication Credits in the amount of $111,975.00 resulting in a Fee-In-Lieu of $372,997.40. Attachments: Attachment 1: Park Area Exhibit Attachment 2: Resolution R - 143 - 17 Page 2 of 6 Po o l D e c k A r e a W i t h i n Fe n c e = 5 , 1 6 5 s f P o o l A r e a = 8 5 1 s f To t a l A r e a W i t h i n Fe n c e = 6 , 0 1 6 s f = 0 . 1 4 a c To t L o t C o u r t y a r d A r e a = 5 , 4 6 5 s f = 0 . 1 3 a c On - S i t e M u l t i - U s e P a t h C e n t e r l i n e Le n g t h = 2 9 4 L F ( N o r t h o f E n t r a n c e ) On - S i t e M u l t i - U s e P a t h C e n t e r l i n e Le n g t h = 1 8 9 L F ( S o u t h o f E n t r a n c e ) Of f - S i t e M u l t i - U s e P a t h C e n t e r l i n e Le n g t h = 2 9 0 L F ( S o u t h o f E n t r a n c e ) La r g e D o g P a r k . A r e a W i t h i n Fe n c e = 3 , 5 5 2 s f = 0 . 0 8 A c . Sm a l l D o g P a r k . A r e a W i t h i n Fe n c e = 3 , 1 5 7 s f = 0 . 0 7 A c . Off-Site Multi-Use Path Centerline Length = 290 LF (South of Entrance)Scale:NORTH 0 1" = 15'30'30' P: \ 2 0 1 6 \ 1 6 0 1 9 \ D r a w i n g s \ E x h i b i t s \ 1 6 0 1 9 - P a r k A r e a E x h i b i t . d w g Revision Date No. Fi l e N a m e : A u g 0 3 , 2 0 1 7 - 1 2 : 1 1 p m jo s h - t Pl o t D a t e : P l o t t e d B y : Project Manager:Engineer:SheetDate:C 2017 Haeger Engineering, LLC Project No.consulting engineers HAEGER ENGINEERINGland surveyors PARK AREA EXHIBIT COVINGTON LEXINGTON WOODS DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS J D T D J V 2017-08-03 16 - 019 1 1 MA T C H L I N E MATCH LINE At t a c h m e n t 1 Page 3 of 6 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 143 - 17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING LAND DEDICATION CREDIT AND THE FEE IN LIEU FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACES AND RECREATION AREAS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 150 N. EAST RIVER ROAD_______________________________ WHEREAS, the City of Des Plaines ("City") is an Illinois home-rule municipal corporation pursuant to Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution; and WHEREAS, Paul Langdon, doing business as Vanguard Des Plaines Apartments, L.P., (“Developer”) applied for final approval of a plat of planned unit development and plat of subdivision for the construction of a residential apartment building (“Proposed Development”) on the property commonly known as 150 N. East River Road in Des Plaines (“Property”); and WHEREAS, on May 1, 2017 the City Council approved Ordinance number Z- 11 -17 (“Special Use Ordinance”) which approved a special use permit for a planned development and a final plat of subdivision for the construction of the Proposed Development; and WHEREAS, Chapter 4 of Title 13 of the City Code of the City of Des Plaines, as amended (“City Code”) imposes land dedication requirements upon new residential developments in order to satisfy the increased demands placed upon park and recreational facilities attributable to the new residential developments ("Land Dedication Regulations"); and WHEREAS, Section 13-4-2.A of the Land Dedication Regulations sets forth the basis for calculating the amount of land required for dedication, pursuant to which the Proposed Development is required to dedicate 2.42 acres of land (“Land Dedication Requirement”); and WHEREAS, Staff has determined that providing the full Land Dedication Requirement on-site would be impractical because the Land Dedication Requirement amounts to approximately 35-percent of the Property; and WHEREAS, Section 13-4-3.A of the Land Dedication Regulations provides that when the land available for dedication is inappropriate or insufficient for park or recreational purposes, City Council may instead allow the developer to pay a cash contribution of or in combination with the required land dedication (“Fee In Lieu”); and WHEREAS, Section 13-4-3.B of the Land Dedication Regulations sets forth the manner in which the Fee In Lieu is calculated, pursuant to which the Fee In Lieu for the Proposed Development is $484,972.40; and WHEREAS, Section 13-4-2.E of the Land Dedication Regulations provides that developers may provide on-site private open space for park or recreation facilities (“On-Site Attachment 2 Page 4 of 6 2 Facilities”), which On-Site Facilities may be used to satisfy all or part of the Land Dedication Requirement or Fee In Lieu; and WHEREAS, Staff has determined that the Proposed Development, as required by the Special Use Ordinance, will include the following On-Site Facilities: (i) a 0.13 acre tot lot; (ii) a 0.14 acre pool; and (iii) 773 linear feet of on-site and off-site regional bike path that connects the Property to an existing forest preserve, the calculated value of which is $111,975.00 (“Credit”); and WHEREAS, the Cash Contribution of $484,972.40 less the Credit of $111,975.00 amounts to $372,997.40 (“Adjusted Fee In Lieu”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that is in the best interest of the City to approve the Credit and allow the Developer to pay the Adjusted Fee In Lieu of the Land Dedication Requirement in the amount of $372,997.40; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL 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 CREDIT. Subject to, and contingent upon, the conditions set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution, the City Council hereby approves the Credit in the amount of $111,975.00. SECTION 3: APPROVAL OF ADJUSTED FEE IN LIEU. Subject to, and contingent upon, the conditions set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution, the City Council finds that the land available for dedication is inappropriate for park or recreational purposes and hereby approves the payment by the Developer of the Adjusted Fee in Lieu in the amount of $372,997.40. SECTION 4: CONDITIONS. The approvals granted in Sections 3 and 4 of this Resolution are subject to and contingent upon compliance with each of the following conditions: A. Construction of the On-Site Facilities. The construction of the On-Site Facilities in accordance with Special Use Ordinance and the plans approved by the City. B. Payment of the Adjusted Fee In Lieu at the time building permits are issued, in accordance with Section 13-4-5 of the City Code. SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. Attachment 2 Page 5 of 6 3 [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] 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 BAP Application for 1514 Miner Street Attachment 2 Page 6 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5390 desplaines.org Date: July 26, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager From: Timothy P. Oakley, P.E., CFM, Director of Public Works and Engineering Subject: Sanitary Sewer Lateral Program Discussion Issue: Alderman Brookman has asked for discussion on the City of Des Plaines’ funding share of the Sanitary Sewer Lateral Program. Analysis: The current Sanitary Sewer Lateral Program, effective January 1, 2010, provides for the reimbursement to homeowners for 30% of the cost of repairing or replacing a sanitary sewer service lateral located within the public right-of-way due to a blockage. The maximum reimbursement allowed is $2,000. A brochure describing the program is attached as Attachment 1. The cost to repair or replace a sanitary sewer service lateral varies depending on the length of the defect and its location within the right-of-way, as well as the location of the sewer main within the right-of-way. Over the past five years, the range of repair costs reported was $2,675 to $15,830 per repair. Historical five year data of City funding of the Sanitary Sewer Lateral Program at 30% and not to exceed $2,000 per applicant is shown below: Year # of Reimbursements City Cost (30%, $2,000 max.) Total Repair Cost Average Repair Cost 2012 28 $53,839 $194,714 $6,954 2013 29 $46,708 $196,719 $6,783 2014 28 $61,254 $206,716 $7,383 2015 25 $57,346 $177,522 $7,101 2016 16 $30,235 $109,420 $6,839 In order to estimate different City funding scenarios if the program were to change, I have assumed 30 reimbursements per year at an average cost of $7,000 per repair for a total repair cost of $210,000 per year. The table below shows the City cost for various funding scenarios. MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 5 30% funding 40% funding 50% funding 60% funding $2,000 max. rebate *$60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $3,000 max. rebate $63,000 $84,000 $90,000 $90,000 $4,000 max. rebate $63,000 $84,000 $105,000 $120,000 $5,000 max. rebate $63,000 $84,000 $105,000 $126,000 * Indicates current program funding We requested a survey from the Northwest Municipal Conference regarding municipal cost participation for sanitary sewer lateral repairs or replacements. As shown on Attachment 2, of the 19 respondents, only the Village of Winnetka provides a reimbursement – 50% of the sanitary sewer service repair cost, but the service must be at least 12 feet deep to qualify. Two communities, Morton Grove and Palatine, offer loans to assist homeowners with the cost. Recommendation: The above information is provided for discussing the City’s funding share of the Sanitary Sewer Lateral Program. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Sanitary Sewer Lateral Program Brochure Attachment 2 – NWMC Survey Page 2 of 5 UNDERSTANDING YOUR HOME’S SANITARY SEWER The City of Des Plaines regularly receives calls from residents about sanitary sewer back-ups during dry weather. Most of the time, roots in the sewer service line are the cause of the back-ups. Roots from trees and large shrubs seek moisture wherever it is available. If the sewer service lines from your home are cracked or the joints are not tight, nutrient-rich vapor escapes and the roots follow this to find their way into the sewer lines. Sanitary sewer service lines from the home, up to and including the connection to the City’s sanitary or combined sewer, are the homeowner’s responsibility. Keep in mind that the city’s sanitary or combined sewer can actually be located in the street or even in the parkway across the street. The City of Des Plaines does not cut, clean, or televise residential service lines. Therefore, it is important to know what you can do to help prevent backups caused by roots, and if one does occur, what you could do about it. 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org Updated October 2015 SANITARY SEWER LATERAL PROGRAM P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org A t t a c h m e n t 1 P a g e 3 o f 5 The City of Des Plaines Sanitary Sewer Lateral Program aims to provide limited financial assistance to residents facing sanitary sewer blockage within qualifying areas. A sanitary sewer lateral is the section of the homeowner’s sewer line that runs from the house to the sewer main in the street, parkway, or easement area. If a homeowner experiences a sanitary sewer back-up, the following steps must be followed in order for any work to be eligible for financial assistance (maximum of 30% reimbursement) by the City. STEP 1 Call the Public Works & Engineering Department at 847.391.5464 to inspect the sewer main and confirm that the main is not blocked and causing the back-up. The resident does not need to be present for this inspection. Any blockages discovered in the main will be cleared by the City. Public Works does not inspect/televise homeowner’s lateral sewer lines. STEP 2 A. If the main is not causing the back-up, the homeowner will be directed to hire a sewer contractor/plumber to check their individual sewer line. A listing of reasonably-priced sewer contractors is available from the City, by request. If the sewer contractor/plumber discovers a blockage within the right-of-way, the Plumbing Inspector must be contacted at 847.391.5305 to verify this determination. If the blockage is not within the right-of- way/easement, the homeowner is responsible for all costs. The homeowner is also responsible for all routine maintenance costs for the section of the sewer lateral not within the City’s right of way/easement. Questions regarding the Sanitary Sewer Lateral Procedure should be directed to: Paul Berner, Plumbing Inspector, 847.391.5305 Public Sewer Main TYPICAL HOME SEWER LINE Cleanout Edge of pavement or sidewalk Street Private Sewer Lateral Floor Drain SANITARY SEWER LATERAL PROGRAM PROCEDURE B. C. If the blockage is within the City’s right-of- way or easement and can be cleared, the homeowner will be eligible for a reimbursement of 30% of reasonable rodding costs, up to $100. If the blockage cannot be cleared by rodding and the problem is within the right-of-way or easement, the Plumbing Inspector will make the determination to contact a City contractor or authorize the homeowner’s plumber to proceed with the repairs at the homeowner’s cost. Thirty percent (30%) of the total repair cost can be reimbursed to the homeowner, up to $2000. Please note: the City may issue a Form 1099- MISC to residents who have received rebate payments from the City. A t t a c h m e n t 1 P a g e 4 o f 5 Sanitary Sewer Survey July 2017 Municipality Does your community offer a program for sanitary sewer service replacement for their residents? If so, how much reimbursement is given? Barrington We do not. However we do offer a sanitary overhead sewer conversion program. Bartlett Overhead Sewer Program.50% Evanston No.N/A. Fox Lake No.N/A. Hanover Pak No. We do endorse Sewer Line Warranties of America. Lake Zurich No. Lincolnshire No. Lincolnwood No. Morton Grove Yes. $5,000. Mount Prospect No.N/A. Northfield Overhead sewer or flood control system.$5000 maximum or 50% of costs. Palatine Yes a low interest loan program. We also have a grant program for overhead sewer conversion. Loan Min - $1000 Max - $6000 Grant 50% up to $6000 for overhead program 50% up to $750 for a back check valve. Footing drains and sump pump disconnection from sanitary is mandatory for Grant program. Loan can also be used to supplement the remaining cost for overhead conversion. Park Ridge No.N/A. Rolling Meadows No. However, the city does accept repair and maintenance responsibility for sewer services within the right-of-way. Schaumburg No, there is no sanitary sewer service replacement program. We do offer a 50/50 cost share replacement program up to $5,000 to convert a non-overhead sewer to overhead. Streamwood No. Wheeling No.N/A. Wilmette No.N/A. Winnetka No, unless the service line is 12 feet deep or deeper at the main, in which the Village reimburses 50% of the cost. 50% for sewers deeper than 12 feet at the main, otherwise no reimbursement. Attachment 2 Page 5 of 5 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org Date: August 8, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager From: Dorothy Wisniewski, Assistant City Manager/Director of Finance Subject: Interlocal Agreement - Des Plaines Senior Center Issue: For the City Council to approve the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Des Plaines and the Des Plaines Community Senior Center (a.k.a. the Frisbie Senior Center), as well as authorize an annual subsidy funding in the amount of $40,000. Analysis: Senior centers serve as a gateway to the nation’s aging network by connecting older adults to community services that can help them stay healthy and independent. To maintain operations, senior centers must leverage resources from a variety of sources such as federal, state and local governments. Des Plaines is experiencing and will continue to experience through 2030 an increase in residents over age 55. This translates to the largest demographic shift over the shortest time period and triggers the need for increased senior specific services. The Des Plaines Community Senior Center serves Des Plaines seniors through intellectually enriching, socially engaging, and physically energizing programs and volunteer opportunities. They offer a wide variety of services, such as daily social and recreational activities, on-going educational programming, one on one counseling options focusing on health, legal, employment, as well as others. The Senior Center works closely with the Health and Human Services Division (HHS) of the City. Over the past several years the City of Des Plaines has partnered with the Senior Center on the meals on wheels program, which has been very successful for the City. Through these intergovernmental partnerships the City along with the Senior Center are able to provide efficient and effective services to our residents. Recently, with the retirement and departure of a respected long-term employee, the City began evaluating the job duties and responsibilities for the community health nurse. This position has been a vital part of the services offered to our seniors. In trying to achieve the service to a level that the residents are accustomed to and to offer the residents perhaps a one-stop shop experience, the City began to analyze the possibilities of offering the health nurse service at the Senior Center location which provides for a better parking arrangement, as well as more accessibility and the ability to become involved in other activities. In speaking with the Executive Director of the Senior Center, we have been able to arrive at a model that would offer expanded services with extended hours to the seniors. Page 1 of 7 Some of the health related services that would be offered are as follows:  Health Screenings o Blood pressure (2x per month) o Cholesterol (monthly) o Balance (monthly) o Flu shots (2x per year) o Hearing (TBD) o Podiatrist (TBD)  Health Presentations o “Lunch & Learn” Senior Health Talk (monthly) o “Ask the Pharmacist – Brown Bag” (quarterly) o Shingles (annually) o Dental health (bi-annually) o Take Charge of Your Health (TBD)  Support Groups o Parkinson’s Disease (monthly) o Caregivers Support Group (monthly) o Diabetes (TBD) o Various w/ mental health focus (TBD)  Referrals o Senior-related services  Housing  In -home support  Rehabilitation o Miscellaneous local resources and assistance programs  City Services o Benefits Access* o Access to Care* o Handicap Placards* o Subsidized Taxi Ride Program* o Emergency Assistance* *Frisbie Senior Center staff has a general understanding of processes/procedures as a result of a past internship in the City’s Health and Human Services Department. The cost of providing this service would be around $40,000 which the City would fund on an annual basis. Given that this agreement will take effect September 1, 2017, the 2017 funding level will be at $13,333 and the 2018 funding level will be $40,000. Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council approve the Interlocal Agreement between the Des Plaines Community Senior Center and the City, as well as authorize subsidy funding in the amount of $13,333 for the remaining four months of 2017 and $40,000 for the 2018 fiscal year. Attachments: Attachment 1: Resolution R-144-17 Exhibit A: Interlocal Agreement Page 2 of 7 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 144 - 17 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DES PLAINES COMMUNITY SENIOR CENTER FOR THE PROVISION OF FUNDING FOR HEALTH AND SUPPORT SERVICES ____________ WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the City of Des Plaines ("City") to contract with individuals, associations and corporations, in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 5 ILCS 220/1 et seq., encourages cooperation between governmental entities and agencies; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2017, the City Council approved Resolution R-28-2017 which authorized the execution of an agreement whereby the City and the Des Plaines Park District would provide funding to the Des Plaines Community Senior Center ("Senior Center") for the provision of services (“Services”) to senior citizens in the City (“Seniors”); and WHEREAS, the City previously employed a community health nurse (“Community Health Nurse”) who provided vital services to Seniors and who recently retired; and WHEREAS, in order to continue to provide services similar to those provided by the Community Health Nurse, the City desires to provide additional funding to the Senior Center to provide additional services to Seniors ("Additional Services"); and WHEREAS, the City appropriated the following amounts for use by the Senior Center to provide the Services: (i) $13,333.00 during the 2017 fiscal year; and (2) $40,000.00 during the 2018 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to authorize the City Manager to execute, and City Clerk to attest, an Interlocal Agreement between the City and the Senior Center ("Agreement"), under which Agreement the City will provide $13,333.00 in fiscal year 2017 and $40,000 in fiscal year 2018 to the Senior Center for the Additional Services; 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: Page 3 of 7 2 SECTION 1: RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are incorporated here by reference. 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. SECTION 4: PAYMENT AUTHORIZATION. The City Council hereby authorizes the Director of Finance to issue payment, after execution of the final Agreement by the Senior Center and the City, to the Des Plaines Community Senior Center, 52 East Northwest Highway, Des Plaines, Illinois 60016, in the amount of $13,333.00 for fiscal year 2017 and $40,000 for fiscal year 2018. SECTION 5: 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 _____ M A Y O R A T T E S T : A p p r o v e d a s t o f o r m : C I T Y C L E R K P e t e r M . F r i e d m a n , G e n e r a l C o u n s e l DP-Resolution Senior Center Agreement Funding 2015 #34485910_v2 Page 4 of 7 1 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DES PLAINES AND THE DES PLAINES COMMUNITY SENIOR CENTER FOR THE PROVISION AND FUNDING OF HEALTH AND SUPPORT SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, entered into between the City of Des Plaines (hereinafter “City”) and the Des Plaines Community Senior Center, also known as the Frisbie Senior Center (hereinafter “Senior Center”) (collectively, the City and the Senior Center are the "Parties"), provides as follows: WHEREAS, this Agreement is entered into pursuant to the Intergovernmental Cooperation provisions of Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, 5 ILCS 220/1, et seq.; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2017, the City, the City of Des Plaines Park District (“Park District”), and the Senior Center entered into an agreement for the provision of programs and services (“Services”) whereby the City and Park District provide funding for the Services; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide additional funding to the Senior Center for the provision by the Senior Center of additional programming and services to senior citizens ("Additional Services"), which Additional Services more fully described in Exhibit A, incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the Senior Center desires to receive such funding from the City to provide the Additional Services; NOW THEREFORE, the City and the Senior Center hereby agree as follows: 1. The recitals as set forth above are incorporated into the body of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein. 2. During fiscal year 2017, the City shall provide $13,333.00 to the Senior Center for the provision of the Additional Services and during fiscal year 2018, the City shall provide $40,000 to the Senior Center for the provision of the Additional Services. At the conclusion of each fiscal year, the Senior Center shall provide the City with an accounting of the funds expended on the Additional Services. 3. Prior Interlocal Agreements between the Parties for the provision and funding of services, including without limitation those Interlocal Agreements approved by the City Council by the adoption of Resolutions R-18-05, R-37-05, and R-28-17, shall remain in full force and effect to the extent not inconsistent herewith. 4. On an annual basis, the Parties will: (a) review the Additional Services that were funded by the City during the prior year, and (b) will agree to the Additional Services to be funded by the City and the Park District during the upcoming year. The City may restrict use of City funding to Additional Services that are the same as, or comparable to, Additional Services funded by the City during prior years, all as determined by the City Manager or his designee. Notice of any change(s) to the Additional Services shall be made in writing 60 days prior to effective date of the change(s). Page 5 of 7Exhibit A 2 5. The Senior Center Staff shall provide the City periodic reports on not less than a semiannual basis, which reports shall include the number of Des Plaines residents served by the Senior Center. The Senior Center shall, at a time and date mutually agreed upon by the Parties, make an annual presentation to the City regarding the Additional Services delivered by the Senior Center using City funds. 6. The Senior Center will acknowledge the City’s funding support as Diamond Level Sponsors in its monthly newsletter, materials both paper and electronic, and any publicity efforts or promotional vehicles as reasonably identified by the respective Parties. The City will continue to provide refuse pickup and landscaping services to the Senior Center as previously agreed under separate agreements. 7. This Agreement shall be controlled by the law of the State of Illinois and the venue for any disputes that arise hereunder shall be in the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois, Second Municipal District. 8. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their successors, and/or assigns, and may not be terminated or restricted except in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and by a writing executed by both parties. 9. This Agreement may be terminated by any of the Parties by written notice to the other Parties dated at least 90 days prior to the effective date of termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed and by executing this Agreement, the parties do hereby affirmatively state that they have been given full authority by their respective governing bodies to execute this Agreement. C I T Y O F D E S P L A I N E S D E S P L A I N E S C O M M U N I T Y C E N T E R B y : B y : I t s : C i t y M a n a g e r I t s : D a t e : D a t e : ATTEST: ATTEST: I t s : C i t y C l e r k I t s : Legal\Agreements\Senior Center Agreement July 2017 Page 6 of 7Exhibit A 3 EXHIBIT A ADDITIONAL SERVICES The Additional Services, include, but are not limited to, the following:  Health Screenings o Blood pressure (2x per month) o Cholesterol (monthly) o Balance (monthly) o Flu shots (2x per year) o Hearing (TBD) o Podiatrist (TBD)  Health Presentations o “Lunch & Learn” Senior Health Talk (monthly) o “Ask the Pharmacist – Brown Bag” (quarterly) o Shingles (annually) o Dental health (bi-annually) o Take Charge of Your Health (TBD)  Support Groups o Parkinson’s Disease (monthly) o Caregivers Support Group (monthly) o Diabetes (TBD) o Various w/ mental health focus (TBD)  Referrals o Senior-related services  Housing  In-home support  Rehabilitation o Miscellaneous local resources and assistance programs  City Services o Benefits Access o Access to Care o Handicap Placards o Subsidized Taxi Ride Program o Emergency Assistance Page 7 of 7Exhibit A OFFICE OF the MAYOR 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5301 desplaines.org Date: August 10, 2017 To: Aldermen Cc: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager From: Matthew J. Bogusz, Mayor Subject: Appointments/Reappointments to Commissions Appointments Expires Board of Fire and Police Thomas Green 04/30/2020 Library Board of Trustees Umair Qadeer 06/30/2019 Nicholas Harkovich 06/30/2020 Planning & Zoning Board Rebecca Fowler 04/30/2018 Reappointments Library Board of Trustees Bruce Lester 06/30/2020 Denise Hudec 06/30/2020 Vincent Rangel 06/30/2020 Planning and Zoning Board Joseph Catalano 04/30/2020 Steve Bader 04/30/2020 MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 13 May 8 , 2017 Mayor Mathew J . Bogusz 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines , Illinois 60016 RE : Board of Fire and Police Commissioners Dear Mayor Bogusz: I am in terested in serving on the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners . I w ill b ri ng to the board a s incere interest in serving the C ity of Des Plaines residents in the capacity as a commissioner. I have been a Des Pla ines resident for over 35 years and have served on the Economic Development Commission and the Planning and Zoning Board and th ink that I can ably represent Des Pla ines citizens in this position . In the past I have served as the President of the Illinois Professional Land Surveyors Association and was twice appointed by the Governor of Illinois to serve on the State of Illinois Land Surveyors Licensing Board . Should you require my Curriculum Vitae , I would be happy to provide it. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Shou ld you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me . Respectfully , G . Thomas Green Page 2 of 13 ~ ~ HOJKA QADEER ._) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW May12, 2017 Re: Des Plaines Public Library trustee position Dear Mayor Bogusz and Dr. Sarlo: I am writing to express interest in the opening for one of two Des Plaines Public Library trustees. I am a resident of incorporated Des Plaines and work as a patent attorney. My interest in the position stems from my own experiences with the public library growing up in Naperville. From biographies of Mickey Mantle and Sandy Koufax to Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydainto a variety of books on animals, the childhood interests facilitated by my public library card have remained with me as an adult. While the library is much more than a house of books, especially in the Internet age, there still is a certain charm associated with physically holding a book in one's hands and accessing the material therein. I am also now a father of three. My eldest has a love of reading that developed before we moved to Des Plaines, and I hope his younger siblings will join him in that. Thus I am interested in serving as a Des Plaines Public Library trustee, to help facilitate the process of fostering that interest in my own children and the children of other Des Plaines residents. I have attached a copy of my resume for your review and consideration. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail at or by phone at - -if you have any questions. Best re ards, Umair A. Qadeer 118 N. Clinton Street, Suite 440, Chicago, IL 60661 Tel 312.248.3020 •Fax 312 .674.7579 www.hojkaqadee r.com Page 3 of 13 EDUCATION ADMISSIONS EXPERIENCE . t• ·~· 1 The University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL J.D., 2007 • Participant, Hinton Moot Court Competition, 2005 The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL M.S. in Chemistry, 2002 • Thesis: "Reaction of Vinyl Ethers with Single-Site Olefin Polymerization Catalysts." • Research Assistant, Department of Chemistry, 1999-2002 • Teaching Assistant , Department of Chemistry, 1999-2000, 2001-2002 Harvard University, Cambridge, MA A.B . in Chemistry, cum laude, 1998 • Research Assistant, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, 1995-1998 • Teaching Fellow, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, 1996-1998 • President and Co-founder, Boston Muslim Students' Council, 1997-1998 • Faculty Liaison, Harvard Chemistry Students' Association, 1996-1998 California Illinois U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Hojka Qadeer, LLC Managing Partner, 2014-present • Prepare and prosecute patent applications and counsel clients in technologies including pharmaceuticals, chemicals and chemical compositions, biotechnology, medical devices, clean technologies, materials science, food products, and mechanical devices. • Prepare legal opinions and advise clients regarding patentability, patent validity, patent infringement, and the freedom to operate. • Prepare intellectual property agreements and counsel clients regarding patent licensing. • Assist clients in settling intellectual property disputes. UAQ Law Group, LLC Member, 2011-2014 • Prepared and prosecuted patent applications, prepared intellectual property agreements, counseled clients, and assisted clients in settling intellectual property disputes. Hampton Holley LLP, Corona del Mar, C A Contract Attorney, 2011 • Participated in patent and trade secret litigation practice, including drafting motions and pleadings, researching legal issues, and reviewing documents. Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Chicago, IL (worked remotely in Irvine, CA) Contract Attorney , 2010 • Reviewed and analyzed documents to develop infringement case for biotechnology patent litigation. Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP, Irvine, CA Associate, 200 7-2009, Summer Associate, 2006 • Participated in patent and trademark litigation practice by drafting pleadings, motio ns, di scovery requests and res ponses, and correspondence, researching and drafting memoranda on legal issues, and reviewing documents. Practice focused primarily in pharmaceuticals and medical devices. • Managed patent portfolios for clients in biotechnology and chemical arts by preparing and prosecuting patent applications and counseling clients. • Analyzed technical issues related to pharmaceutical patent licen sing. • Conducted due diligence evaluation of patents to advise clients regarding potential acquisitions . Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, Chicago, IL Summer Associate, 2005, 2006, Law Clerk, 2 005-2006 • A ssi sted with various aspects of patent litigation, patent prosecution, and licensing . UOP LLC, Exploratory & Fundamentals Research, Advanced Characterization, Des Plaines, IL Chemist, 2003-2004 • Analyzed zeolite catalysts us ed in petrochemical and petroleum refining industries. Page 4 of 13 Dear Mayor Matt Bogusz, My name is Nicholas Harkovich, I am a 28 year resident of Des Plaines and have been an educator from 1976-2010. With being a home school educator from 2001 -2010. I also worked at Prairie Lakes Community Center from 1998 to 2009. Being a home educator I have been an avid patron of the DPPL for many years . I find it to be a wonderfu l resource for our community. As such, I can safely say I am sincerely dedicated to our city and seeing it move forward . I am a firm supporter of you and the efforts you have made to move us forward thus far in your first term . As a result of my dedication and appreciation of your work, it has motivated me to really want to give back to the community and serve on the DPPL Board . I am writing to express my interest formally in serving as a library board trustee . From a professional perspective, I have an appreciation for the value of a library, as wel l as the improvements Dr . Sarlo and the present Board has made regard ing the updates in the library. As a lifelong reader and learner, I appreciate the place that libraries provide readers, patrons, and the community at large. I feel as an educator and someone devoted to the community of Des Plaines I feel I can contribute to the expertise already present on the Board . I would be happy and honored to serve the community, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you have rega ~f interest, my sincerity, or my qualifications. Please feel free to contact me at- Thank you for your consideration and kind regards , Nicholas Harkovich Page 5 of 13 Nick Harkovich Objectives To be appointed to a position on the Des Plaines Library Board Education • Bachelor of Science, Health and Driver Education, May 197 6, Sou t hern Ill inois University at Carbondale Experience • Personal Caregiver 20 12-Present ./ Help elderly with chores and daily living skills ./ Transport elderly to doctor's appointments • Home Educator September 2001 -2010 ./ Educated our two sons • Des Plaines Park District Prairie Lakes Community Center Bui lding Supervisor/Part Time 1998-Sept. 2009 ./ Set up for events ./ Handled patrons needs and concerns • Glenbrook South High School District 225 Glenview, IL Tea cher/Athletic Equipment manager/coach 19 76-2001 ./ Health/driver education instructor ./ Coached basketball, football, softball, gymnastics ./ Dis tribution of athletic equipment • Volunteer for Rainbow Hospice 2010-2013 ./ Answered phones ./ Filing ./ Greeting visitors ./ Sat with patients Activities • Member of the Southern Illinois Alumni Board • Volunteer for Southern Illinois University Athletics • Member of the SIU Chicagoland Golf Committee. Skills • Apple Computer Ski ll s • Avid Reader • Good Communication • Flexible/self motivated Page 6 of 13 Rebecca Fowler CORE COMPETENCIES Integrated Marketing Partner Program Management Email Marketing National Account Management Media Relations Business Development Public Relations Social Media Marketing Account Management Presentation Skills Campaign Strategy Sales Rep Management Fundraising Volunteer Management Sales Training Relationship Development PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE March 2014- Present December 2011- December 2012 February 2011 - December 2011 SHOPRAISE, div. of The Fundraising Portal, Littleton, CO Vice-President of Business Development Manage all aspects of business development, marketing, volunteer, and account management to national and local non-profits. Developed and manage the Partner Program re sulting in expanding ShopRaise's reach and the integration with other companies in the non-profit market. Conduct presentations to development directors to promote ShopRaise and its products. Initiate and maintain integrated marketing campaign that includes soc ial media, and email marketing. Develop and maintain relationships with national and local non-profits, schools, teams, clubs, and other organizations to optimize their fund raising efforts via professional staff and/or volunteers. Hire , manage and train account managers nationwide to maximize presentation and sales skills. PETERSON ASSOCIATES, Chicago, IL Marketing Manager Managed corporate marketing and communications for a multi-line manufacturer's representative group in the Merchandi se Mart focusing on B2B sales to retail stores. Duties included: public relation s; brand management; email marketing; social media marketing; newsletter publication s; advertising, sales collateral; tradeshow marketing and, press releases for gift industry publications. AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, Chicago, IL Youth Market Director Responsible for account management, volunteer management and achieving fundraising objectives in the K-12 school market. Recruited teachers as coordinators at area schools and providing training, resources, and motivation throughout event cycles to maximi ze re sults. Monitored statu s of Jump Rope for Heart/Hoops for Heart events in schools and provided excellent customer service, trouble shooting and support. Collaborated with other AHA staff and volunteers as needed to promote and sup port local initiatives . Page 7 of 13 January 1995 - January 2009 EDUCATION INNISBROOK WRAPS, Greensboro, NC Business Development/ Fundraising Consultant Managed fundraising programs in the K-12 school market working with parent groups, school principals, organizations, and clubs. Through excellent customer service and strong interpersonal and organizational skills, I could consistently retain existing customers as well as obtain new accounts. Created marketing materials and conducted workshops to train volunteers and professiona ls on how to fund raise. Presented effective and innovative promotional plans and ideas designed to motivate accounts to maximize their fund raising potential. Managed and provided support throughout fund raising events and helped volunteers stay on t rack to meet their fund raising goals. DE PAUL UNIVERSITY, Chicago, IL Bachelor of Science and Arts, Political Science DE PAUL UNIVERSITY, KELLSTADT MARKETING CENTER, Chicago, IL Integrated Marketing Communications Certificate -June 2014 Completion Paid Search Marketing Certificate -December 2013 Customer Relationship Manager Marketing Certificate -December 2013 Building an Effective Marketing Plan Certificate -December 2013 VOLUNTEER EXPERIENCE 2015 -Present June 2010 - Present 2011-2013 2009 -2010 2008 -2010 Maine Hockey Board Member -Philanthropy Responsible for all philanthropic and fundraising efforts, event planning and marketing of the Parent's Night Out dinner and auction. Advocacy, Living and Mentoring After Assault (ALMAA) -Vice-President, Communications and Fundraising Founding board member, involved in all aspects forming ALMAA. Duties include fund development, Gala Chairperson, sponsorship, volunteer management, communications, and event planning. Cumberland PTO -Vice-President Central Little League -Sponsorship and Fundraising Chairperson Central PTO -President Highlights included doubling parent participation through inclusion and marketing efforts, started the annual Central Strut, after sc hool and science programs. Other po sition s included Vice-President of Fundraising and Pro grams in addition to being a room parent. Participated in District 62's Charting the Path Master Plan process. Page 8 of 13 Nancy Peterson From: Sent: To: Bruce Lester Friday, May 5, 2017 11 :25 PM Nancy Peterson Subject: Re : Library Board Nancy I would glad to serve again if the Mayor would like me too. Bruce On May 5, 2017 at 4:14 PM Nancy Peterson <npeterson@desplaines.org> wrote: Bruce, Your term on the Library Board of Trustees will expire on June 30, 2017. The Mayor asked that I contact you in hopes that you would like to be reappointed. Please let me know via email or letter if you would be interested in serving. Thanks much, Nancy NANCY PETERSON EXECUT I VE SECRETARY. OFFICE OF T H E MAYOR City of Des Plaines 1420 Miner Street, Des Pla ines, IL 60016 P. 847.391.5301 W. desp laines .org 1 Page 9 of 13 Nancy Peterson From: Deni se Hudec Sent: M o nday, May 8, 2017 8 :25 AM To: Nancy Peterson Cc: Subject: Holly So ren sen (hsorensen @dppl.o rg ) Re : Library Bo ard of Trustees Hi Nancy, Thank you so much for your email. I would like to be reappointed to the library board . Please tell the mayor thank you . Denise Sent from my iPhone On May 5, 2017, at 4 :15 PM , Nancy Peterson <npeterson@desplaines.org> wrote : Denise, Your term on the Library Board of Trustees will expire on June 30, 2017. The Mayor asked that I contact you in hopes that you would like to be reappointed. Please let me know via email or letter if you would be interested in serving. Thanks much, Nan cy NANCY P ET ERSON EXECUT I VE SECRETARY, OFF I C E OF TH E MAYOR City of Des Plaines 1420 M iner Street, De s Plaine s, IL 60016 P. 84 7.3 9 1.5301 W. despla ines.org <imageOOl.jpg> This e-mail message , and any attached files (collectively, this "E-mail Message"), is intended solely for the individuals or entities to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law, including protected health information. If you are not the intended rec ipient, or an agent or employee of the intended recipient who is authorized to receive this E-mail Message, please notify the sender immediately and delete this E-mail Message from your computer. Do not read , view, or copy this E-mail Message, and do not disclose it to anyone else. Reading , viewing, copying , or disclosing this E-mail Message may be prohibited, restricted , and/or punishable by law. The statements, opinions, and views expressed by the author in this E-mail Message are the personal statements , opinions, and views of the author only, and they should not be construed, deemed , or interpreted to be those of the City of Des Plaines or any other elected or appointed official , officer, agent, or employee of the City of Des Plaines. All e-mail messages. and any attached files. sent to and from the City of Des Plaines may be pu blic records obtainable by the public under t he Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq. 1 Page 10 of 13 Nancy Peterson From: Sent: To: Vincent Rangel Friday, May 12, 2017 8:00 PM Nancy Peterson Subject: Re : Library Board of Tru stees Nancy, Please tell the Mayor that I would be honored to serve on the Library Board. Thank you for the offer. Vince Rangel Sent from my iPhone On May 5, 2017, at 4:16 PM , Nancy Peterson <npeterson@desplaines.org> wrote: Vince , Your term on the Library Board of Trustees will expire on June 30, 2017. The Mayor asked that I contact you in hopes that you would like to be reappointed . Please let me know via email or letter if you would be interested in serving. Thanks much, Nancy NANCY P ET ERSON EXECUTIVE SECRETARY . OFF ICE OF T H E MAYOR City of Des Plai nes 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 P. 847.391.5301 W. desp laines .org lt DES l'PLAINIS OFF ICE OF THE MAYOR This e-mail message, and any attached files (collectively , this "E-mail Message"), is intended solely for the individuals or entities to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is proprietary , confidential , and/or exempt from disclosure unde r applicable law, including protected health informat ion . If you are not the intended recipient, or an agent or employee of the intended recipient who is authorized to receive this E-mail Message, please notify the sender immediately and delete this E-mail Message from your computer. Do not read , view, or copy this E-mail Message, and do not disclose it to anyone else . Reading , viewing , copying , or disclosi ng this E-mail Message may be prohibited , restricted . and/or punishabl e by law. The statements , opinions, and views expressed by t he author in this E-mail Message are the personal statements, opinions, and v iews of the author only, and they should not be construed , deemed , or interpreted to be those of the City of Des Plaines or any other elected or appointed official , officer, agent, or employee of the City of Des Plaines. All e-mail messages, and any attached files , sent to and from the City of Des Plaines may be public records obtainable by the public unde r the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq . 1 Page 11 of 13 May 9 , 2017 Mayor Matt Bogusz City of Des Plaines 1420 Miner St. Des Plaines, IL 60016 Dear Mayor Bogusz: I have enjoyed serving on the Zoning Board for the last several years and would like to continue for another term . With all of my past ZB experience and my background in engineering and program management and development, I feel I can continue to contribute to the Zoning Board. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Joseph R. Catalano, P .E. JRC/ ID:\C :\Users\jcatalano\AECOM\Personal\Zoning Board Reappointment Request_ 04-04-13.doc Page 12 of 13 May 7, 2017 Mr. Matthew J. Bogusz Mayor City of Des Plaines 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 Steven E. Bader Per the email I received on Friday, May 5, 2017 that my term is expiring, I would like to be reappointed to the Planning and Zoning Board . I have found it to be quite interesting to learn how the various functions of the city government make our city both a resident and business friendly community. It is my honor to be able to be on the Planning and Zoning Board and I Thank You for the opportunity to be a part of the government function . Steven E. Bader Page 13 of 13 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org 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-XX-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 * * * MEMORANDUM 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 Dundee iii • 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. Lombard vii • (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 Springs viii • 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 County x • 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 - hbartlin@depaul.edu 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, PA Attachment 2 Page 13 of 56 Wake Forest, NC Ypsilanti, MI Attachment 2 Page 14 of 56 1 of 2 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 ground, it is here to stay; and that includes family flocks of chickens. Chickens are the mascots of local foods because of the many talents and skill sets they innately bring to small-scale food production. These skill sets include being pesticiders (eating mosquitoes, ticks and fleas), herbiciders (by eating and clearing unwanted vegetation), and organic fertilizer generators (that can help create and enhance garden soil). The trend for backyard flocks is so strong, that in the past two years, over 500 towns and cities have revised their laws to allow urban folks to keep their own chickens. Along with the re-emergence of backyard chickens across the country, have come great numbers of misconceptions, false beliefs and downright prejudice surrounding the keeping of micro-flocks of chickens. As the co-host of the Chicken Whisperer Backyard Poultry and Sustainable Lifestyles Talk Show, I have heard it all. There are seven main concerns that routinely surface when the topic of city chicks is discussed. These are: 1. disease, 2. noise, 3. waste, odor and flies, 4. predators and rodents, 5. property values, 6. appearance, and 7. What will neighbors think? Let’s look at the facts behind each of these concerns. Myth 1. Chickens carry diseases communicable to humans. Fact: The truth is that small flocks have literally no risk of avian flu transmission to humans. The 2006 Grain Report states: “When it comes to bird flu, diverse small-scale poultry is the solution, not the problem.” Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states on their website: “There is no need at present to remove a (family) flock of chickens because of concerns regarding avian flu.” Avian flu has been in the press as a concern to commercial poultry production where birds are raised in monster-size flocks confined in over- crowded environments. This causes high stress and compromised immune systems in the birds. Any sign of disease, including a sneeze, could result in a huge number of birds getting sick; and this puts at risk a large amount of profit. As many experts have stated publicly, the solution to avian flu is in small-scale poultry. Myth 2. Chickens are too noisy. Fact: Laying hens—at their loudest—have about the same decibel level as human conversation (60 to 70 decibels). Hens are so quiet that there have been cases of family flocks being kept for years without the next door neighbors knowing it. To some, noise is a concern with roosters and their pre-dawn heralding of sunrises. Many urban codes ban roosters, or allow them to be kept only with special permits. The noise level of a rooster’s crow is about the same as a barking dog: 90 decibels. But there are ways to keep roosters quiet throughout the night. Many folks regard crowing as a pleasant sound. Myth 3. Chickens cause waste and odor. Fact: A 40- pound dog generates more solid waste than 10 chickens. To be more specific, one 40-pound dog generates about .75 pounds of poop every day. Ten chickens generate about .66 pounds daily poop. The advantage to chicken poop is that it can be used as valuable, high-nitrogen fertilizer. Unlike dog or cat poop, chicken poop can be combined with yard and leaf waste to create compost. Just as valuable, about 40 percent of the chicken manure is organic matter necessary for building fertile, healthy topsoil. Chicken manure is so valuable that there is a product called Cockadoodle Doo. What is Cockadoodle Doo made of? You guessed it; dried chicken manure. A 20-pound bag sells for $15. That’s 76 cents a pound for chicken manure! Let’s take the stakes even higher. Where does most commercial fertilizer come from? Think oil. Can chickens’ services and products help us decrease our dependence on oil? Yes, in many ways and on many levels. Attachment 3 Page 15 of 56 2 of 2 Myth 4. Chickens attract predators, pests and rodents. Fact: Predators and rodents are already living in urban areas. Wild bird feeders, pet food, gardens, fish ponds, bird baths and trash waiting to be collected all attract raccoons, foxes, rodents and flies. Modern micro-flock coops, such as chicken tractors, arks, and other pens are ways of keeping, and managing, family flocks that eliminate concerns about predators, rodents and other pests. Indeed, chickens are part of the solution to pesky problems. Chickens are voracious carnivores and will seek out and eat just about anything that moves including ticks (think Lyme disease), fleas, mosquitoes, grasshoppers, stink bugs, slugs, and even mice, baby rats and small snakes. Myth 5. Property values will decrease. Fact: There is not one single documented case that we know of about a next door family flock that has decreased the value of real estate. On the contrary, local foods and living green is so fashionable, that some realtors and home sellers are offering a free chicken coop with every sale. An example of this can be found at www.GreenWayNews.com. Myth 6. Coops are ugly. Fact: Micro-flock coop designs can be totally charming, upscale and even whimsical. Some of them are architect designed and cost thousands of dollars. Common design features include blending in with the local architectural style, matching the slope of the roof and complementing color schemes. For examples go to www.MyPetChicken.com. Myth 7. What will neighbors think? Fact: You can’t control what anyone thinks, much less your neighbor. Once folks gain more experience with the advantages and charms of chickens, most prejudice and fear evaporates; especially when you share some of those fresh, heart-healthy, good-for-you eggs from your family flock. There is one huge advantage to family flocks that is often overlooked during chicken debates. That is their role and value in solid waste management systems. Chickens, as clucking civic workers, are biomass recyclers and can divert tons of organic matter from the trash collection and landfills. Chickens will eat just about all kitchen “waste.” They love people food, even those “gone-by” leftovers that have seasoned in the refrigerator. Combine their manure with grass clippings, fallen leaves and garden waste, and you create compost. Composting with chicken helpers keeps tons of biomass out of municipal trash collection systems. All this can save big time taxpayer dollars, which is especially valuable in these times of stressed municipal budgets. There is precedence for employing family flocks as part of trash management. It is being done very successfully in some European towns. One example is the town of Deist in Flanders, Belgium. The city buys laying hens to give to residents who want them. The chickens’ job is to divert food waste from the trash stream and eliminates having to be picked up by workers, transported, and then disposed. The savings are significant. May the flock be with you…and to quote the 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 Attachment 3 Page 16 of 56 8/15/2017 Illinois Fact Sheet: Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/poultry.htm 1/4 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 Attachment 4 Page 17 of 56 8/15/2017 Illinois Fact Sheet: Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/poultry.htm 2/4 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. Attachment 4 Page 18 of 56 8/15/2017 Illinois Fact Sheet: Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/poultry.htm 3/4 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 Attachment 4 Page 19 of 56 8/15/2017 Illinois Fact Sheet: Human Health Concerns About Raising Poultry http://www.idph.state.il.us/health/infect/poultry.htm 4/4 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 Attachment 4 Page 20 of 56 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=211949442 ELR 10888 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens by Jaime Bouvier Jaime Bouvier is Visiting Legal Writing Professor, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law . Summary As the movement toward keeping backyard chickens continues to grow, many cities are facing the decision of whether to allow residents to keep chickens and, if so, how to effectively regulate the practice . A survey of municipal ordinances in the top 100 most popu- lous cities in the United States that concern keeping and raising chickens offers lessons that may be applied to designing a model ordinance . This survey reveals that chickens are, perhaps surprisingly, legal in the vast majority of large cities . The survey also identifies regulatory norms and some effective and less effective ways to regulate the keeping of chickens . A proposed model ordinance, based on the background informa- tion and survey results, could be adopted by a city or easily modified to fit a city’s unique needs . So much depends upon a red wheel barrow glazed with rain water beside the white chickens . William Carlos Williams, 1923 . The movement toward bringing agricultural practices into 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 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 to feed those animals2—many city-dwellers are taking it into their own hands to provide solutions .3 Community 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 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 country—allowing smaller scale local farmers to directly link to consumers and sell their produce for far above the wholesale amounts they could get from selling through 1 . Kimberly Hodgson et al ., UrbanAgriculture:GrowingHealthySustainable Places, American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Report No . 563 (Jan . 2011); Janine de la Salle & Mark Holland, Agricul- tural Urbanism, Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agri- cultural Systems in 21st Century Cities, 9-12 (2010) . 2 . E.g., Food, Inc . (Magnolia Pictures 2009); Michael Pollan, The Om- nivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals (2006); Eric Schlosser, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All American Meal (2002); Marion Nestle, Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health (2002) . 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- ban Farming: Sustainable City Living in Your Backyard, in Your Community, and in the World (2011); Kelly Coyne & Erik Knutzen, The Urban Homestead: Your Guide to Self-Sufficient Living in the Heart of the City (2010); Kurt B . Reighley, The United States of Americana: Backyard Chickens, Burlesque Beauties, and Homemade Bitters (2010) . 4 . Jane E . Schukoske, CommunityDevelopmentThroughGardening:Stateand LocalPoliciesTransformingUrbanOpenSpace, 3 N .Y .U . J . Legis . & Pub . Pol’y 315, 354 (1999-2000) . 5 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 3-4 . Author’sNote:IwouldliketothankmyresearchassistantHannah Markel.IwouldalsoliketothankHeidiGorovitzRobertsonand CarolynBroering-Jacobsfortheirsupportandmentorship. Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 21 of 56 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=21194949-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10889 more established channels like supermarkets and conve- nience stores .6 Part of the greater urban agriculture movement involves urban animal husbandry—raising livestock in an urban setting .7 While many cities have allowed for bees, goats, and other livestock in the city,8 this Article will focus on how cities regulate chickens .9 Many people in urban envi- ronments are seeking to raise chickens to assert control over their food . This may be in reaction to increasing reports of how large industrial farms raise chickens in abusive and unsanitary settings—settings that not only are unhealthy for the chickens but negatively affect the health of people who live near such farms, as well as anyone who eats the eggs or meat from those chickens .10 Many people view rais- ing chickens and other urban agricultural practices as a way to combat a broken food system and a way to assert individual political power against the large corporations that control much of our food .11 In response to a growing demand from city-dwellers to raise their own chickens, either as part of a community 6 . Patricia E . Salkin & Amy Lavine, RegionalFoodsheds:AreOurLocalZoning andLandUseRegulationsHealthy?, 22 Fordham Envtl . L . Rev . 599, 617 (2011); Brandon Baird, ThePendingFarmer’sMarketFiasco:Small-Time Farmers,Part-TimeShoppers,andaBig-TimeProblem, 1 KYJEANRL 49, 49- 50 (2008-2009) . Seealso Kirk Johnson, SmallFarmersCreatingaNewBusi- nessModelasAgricultureGoesLocal, N .Y .Times, July 1, 2012, http://www . nytimes .com/2012/07/02/us/small-scale-farmers-creating-a-new-profit- model .html?_r=1&ref=agriculture . 7 . Hogdson, supra note 1, at 17 . See,e.g ., Robert & Hannah Litt, A Chick- en in Every Yard (2011); Harvey Ussery, The Small-Scale Poultry Flock: An All-Natural Approach to Raising Backyard and Urban Chickens (2011); Andy Schneider, The Chicken Whisperer’s Guide to Keeping Chickens, Everything You Need to Know . . . and Didn’t Know You Needed to Know About Raising Chickens (2011); Tara Layman Williams, The Complete Guide to Raising Chickens: Ev- erything You Need to Know Explained Simply (2010); Jerome D . Belanger, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Raising Chickens (2010); Carlee Madigan, The Backyard Homestead (2009); Kimberly Willis & Rob Ludlow, Raising Chickens for Dummies (2009) . 8 . E.g ., Heather Wooten & Amy Ackerman, SeedingtheCity:LandUsePoli- ciestoPromoteUrbanAgricultural, National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity, 34 (2011); Kailee Neuner et al ., PlanningtoEat:InnovativeLocalGovernmentPlansandPoliciestoBuild HealthyFoodSystemsintheUnitedStates, Food Systems Planning and Healthy Communities Lab, University of Buffalo, The State Univer- sity of New York, 17 (2011) . 9 . Seealso Patricia Salkin, FeedingtheLocavores,OneChickenataTime:Regu- latingBackyardChickens, 34:3 Zoning & Plan . L . Rep . 1 (2011) (briefly surveying chicken laws); Mary Wood et al ., PromotingtheUrbanHomestead: ReformofLocalLandUseLawstoAllowMicroLivestockonResidentialLots, 37 Ecology L . Currents 68 (2010) . 10 . See,e.g., Nicholas D . Kristof, IsanEggforBreakfastWorthThis?, N .Y . Times, Apr . 11, 2012, http://www .nytimes .com/2012/04/12/opinion/kristof-is- an-egg-for-breakfast-worth-this .html; Nicholas D . Kristof, ArsenicinOur Chicken, N .Y . Times, Apr . 4, 2012, http://www .nytimes .com/2012/04/05/ opinion/kristof-arsenic-in-our-chicken .html . 11 . Hugh Bartling, AChickenAin’tNothingbutaBird:LocalFoodProduc- tionandthePoliticsofLand-UseChange, Local Environment 17(a) (Jan . 2012) . For a different take on the political reasons behind backyard chick- ens, see Shannon Hayes, RadicalHomemakers:ReclaimingDomesticityFrom aConsumerCulture (2005) (asserting that urban farming can be a feminist response to modern urbanization) . garden, urban farm, or just in their own backyard, cities across the country are amending their ordinances to allow for and regulate backyard chickens .12 This Article will first provide a primer on what a city-dweller should know about chickens . This is especially targeted to city-dwellers who serve as councilpersons, mayors, or law directors and know little or nothing about chickens . Because many municipal officials lack agricultural knowledge, they lack a basis for understanding whether chickens can peacefully co-exist with their constituents in a cosmopolitan area . And, even if officials believe that residents should be able to keep chick- ens, they may still feel unequipped to figure out how to properly regulate chickens to head off practical concerns with noise, odor, and nuisance . Many people may be surprised to learn that even in cities where raising chickens is illegal, many people are doing so anyway .13 For instance, in a suburb of Cleve- land, Jennifer,14 a young mother of two boys, built a coop in her backyard and bought four chicks .15 These chicks grew up to be egg-laying hens and family pets before she learned that her city outlawed chickens . The city told her that if she did not get rid of the chickens, she would be subject to continuing expensive citations for violating the city’s ordinance . Because both she and her children 12 . Sarah Grieco, BackyardBees,Chickens,andGoatsApproved, NBCSanDi- ego, Feb . 1, 2012 http://www .nbcsandiego .com/news/local/Backyard- Bees-Chickens-Goats-Approved-138507104 .html; Michael Cass, Backyard ChickensMakeGainsinNashville, The Tennessean, Jan . 5, 2012, http:// www .healthynashville .org/modules .php?op=modload&name=News&file=a rticle&sid=20163; Peter Applebome, EnvisioningtheEndof“Don’tCluck, Don’tTell, N .Y . Times, Apr . 30, 2009, http://www .nytimes .com/2009/4/30/ nyregions/30town??; Jessica Bennet, TheNewCoopdeVille,theCrazefor UrbanPoultryFarming, Newsweek, Nov . 16, 2008, http://www .thedaily- beast .com/newsweek/2008/11/16/the-new-coop-de-ville .img .jpg . And this movement is not just in the United States; Australia, Canada, and Europe also are experiencing a surge in the number of people keeping backyard hens . See,e.g ., SurgeinBackyardPoultryNumbers, British Free Range Egg Producers Association (Jan . 9, 2011), http://www .theranger .co .uk/ news/Surge-in-backyard-poultry-numbers_21660 .html (last visited Feb . 24, 2012); Backyard Chickens in Toronto, Ontario, http://torontoch- ickens .com/Toronto_Chickens/Blog/Blog .html (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) (advocacy group seeking to legalize chickens in Toronto); Chris Mayberry & Peter Thomson, KeepingChickensintheBackyard, Department of Ag- riculture and Food, Government of Western Australia (Aug . 2004), http://www .agric .wa .gov .au/content/aap/pou/man/gn2004_022 .pdf (last visited Feb . 22, 2012); Andrea Gaynor, Harvest of the Suburbs: An Environmental History of Growing Food in Australian Cities (2006); Catharine Higginson, LivinginFrance-KeepingChickens, Living France, http://www .livingfrance .com/real-life-living-and-working-living- in-france-keeping-chickens–94936 (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) . 13 . See,e.g., WhereChickensAreOutlawedOnlyOutlawsWillHaveChickens, BackyardChickens .com,http://www .backyardchickens .com/t/616955/ where-chickens-are-outlawed-only-outlaws-will-have-chickens-t-shirt (last visited Feb . 15, 2012) (forum for people who own chickens illegally); Heather Cann et al ., UrbanLivestock:BarriersandOpportunitiesFacesby HomesteadersintheCityofWaterloo, Dec . 6, 2011, http://www .wrfoodsys- tem .ca/studentresearch (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) (interviewing several people who own chickens illegally in the Waterloo region of Canada) . 14 . Not her real name . 15 . Interview with Jennifer, July 18, 2011 (on file with author) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 22 of 56 42 ELR 10890 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 had grown close to the hens, they did not want to sim- ply dispose of them or give them away . Instead, Jennifer moved to a neighboring city that had recently passed an ordinance legalizing backyard hens and started a chicken cooperative .16 Now, a group of neighbors take turns car- ing for the chickens and share the eggs . Neither in the suburb where she started raising the chicks nor in the city where she started the cooperative did neighbors complain about odor, noise, or any other potential nuisance . And the suburb, by prohibiting chickens, lost the opportunity Jennifer was willing to provide to build strong commu- nity ties with her neighbors .17 Instead of moving away, others are seeking to change the law to raise chickens in the city where they already live . For instance, Cherise Walker has been advocating for a new ordinance in her community .18 Ms . Walker is a veteran of the Iraq war who became interested in hens when she read that keeping chickens can help relieve post-traumatic stress disorder .19 She subscribes to Back- yardPoultry —a magazine dedicated to backyard chick- ens20; she became certified in hen-keeping by the Ohio State University Extension; and, she began assembling the materials to build a coop in her yard . But, she soon learned that her city outlaws hens as dangerous animals, 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 edu- cate 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 ordi- nances 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 conten- tious issue .23 It has caused one mayor in Minnesota to say, “there is a lot of anger around this issue for some reason . 16 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §§205 .04, 347 .02 (2011) . 17 . Seeinfra Part I .E . (discussing how participating in urban agriculture can increase social connections and civic responsibility) . 18 . Interview with Jennifer, July 18, 2011 (on file with author) . 19 . Megan Zotterelli, VeteransFarming, The Leaflet: Newsletter of the Central Coast Chapter of California Rare Fruit Growers (July/ Aug . 2011), http://centralcoastfoodie .com/2011/08/veterans-farming/ (noting that the Farmer Veterans Coalition that seeks to link veterans with farming has done so not only to provide veterans with economic opportunities, but because “the nurturing environment of a greenhouse or a hatchery has helped these veterans make impressive strides in their recovery and transition”) . 20 . BackyardPoultryMagazine has been published since 2006 by Countryside Publications, Inc . It currently has a circulation of approximately 75,000 readers . See Advertising Information for Backyard Poultry, http:// www .backyardpoultrymag .com/advertise .html (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) . 21 . Lakewood Mun . Ordinance §505 .18 . 22 . Interview with Cherise Walker, Mar . 18, 2012 (on file with author) . 23 . Barak Y . Orbach & Frances R . Sjoberg, DebatingOverBackyardChickens, Arizona Legal Studies, Discussion Paper No . 11-02 (Feb . 2012) (listing con- flicts in dozens of cities where people were seeking to change ordinances to either legalize or ban chickens); seealso Salkin, supra note 9, at 1 (describing criticism of efforts to allow chickens in neighborhoods as including “worry that property values will plummet, that chickens will create foul odors and noise, and that they will attract coyotes, foxes, and other pests”) . More so than the war by far .”24 City leaders are understand- ably concerned that chickens may cause nuisances .25 They have raised such concerns as decreasing property values26 and increasing greenhouse emissions,27 as well as concerns about excessive clucking and overwhelming odors bother- ing the neighbors .28 Some express the belief that chickens, and other agricultural practices, simply do not belong in cities .29 The controversy over backyard chicken regulation has been so contentious that at least one law review article uses it as a case study for the Coase theorem to illustrate how we unnecessarily inflate the costs of processes related to legal change .30 In Part I, this Article will discuss the benefits of back- yard chickens . Part II will investigate concerns that many people have with keeping chickens in the city . Part III will provide some background about chickens and chicken behavior that municipalities should understand before crafting any ordinance . Part IV will survey ordinances related to keeping chickens in the 100 most populous cit- ies in the United States, identifying regulatory norms and particularly effective and ineffective means of regulation . Finally, Part V will put forward a model ordinance that regulates keeping chickens in an urban setting while pro- viding sufficient regulation to abate nuisance concerns . 24 . Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 23, at 24 . 25 . P .J . Huffstutter, BackyardChickensontheRise,DespitetheNeighbor’sClucks, L .A . Times, June 15, 2009, http://articles .latimes .com/2009/jun/15/ nation/na-chicken-economy15 . 26 . Tiara Hodges, Cary:NoChickensYet, IndyWeek .com, Feb . 10, 2012, http://www .indyweek .com/BigBite/archives/2012/02/10/cary-no-chickens yet (last visited Feb . 17, 2012); BackyardChickens:GoodorBadIdea, KVAL . com, Mar . 3, 2009, http://www .kval .com/news/40648802 .html (last vis- ited Feb . 17, 2012) . 27 . Valerie Taylor, ChickensforMontgomery (2009), http://www .scribd .com/ doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws (last visited Feb . 17, 2012) (addressing a concern that Montgomery council people voiced about greenhouse gases) . 28 . Josie Garthwaite, UrbanGarden?Check.Now,Chickens, N .Y . Times, Feb . 7, 2012, http://green .blogs .nytimes .com/2012/02/07/urban-garden-check- now-chickens/ . 29 . Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 23, at 19 (citing one mayor from Frankling- ton, Louisiana, as stating the “city has changed and grown so much since the original ordinance . We are trying to look to the future . You can’t raise animals or livestock (in the city) .”); Barry Y . Orbach & Frances R . Sjoberg, ExcessiveSpeech,CivilityNorms,andtheCluckingTheorem, 44 Conn . L . Rev . 1 (2011) (stating that an alderman in Chicago was seeking to ban chickens in part because, “[a]ll things considered, I think chickens should be raised on a farm”); Jerry Kaufman & Martin Bailkey, FarmingInsideCities, 13 Landlines 1 (2001) . 30 . See Orbach & Sjoberg, supra note 29 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 23 of 56 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 back- yard 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 lit- tle 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 text- book’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 reevaluating the suburbanization of America that occurred after World War II and reincorporating agricultural prac- tices into daily life .38 Keeping domesticated fowl has been a part of human existence for millennia,39 and only in the last century has been seen as something that should be kept separate from the family and the home .40 While humanity has long understood the benefits of keeping domesticated chickens, many city-dwellers have lost touch with what 31 . William Thompson Skilling, Nature-Study Agriculture (World Book Co . 1920) . 32 . Id . at 296 . 33 . Id . 34 . Id . 35 . Scott Doyon, Chickens:WWISolutiontoAlmostEverything, Better Cities & Towns, Nov . 4, 2011, http://bettercities .net/news-opinion/blogs/scott- doyon/15562/backyard-chickens-wwi-era-solution-almost-everything (last visited Feb . 15, 2012) . 36 . Id. 37 . Id . 38 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 11-12 . See,e.g ., Robert M . Fogelson, Bour- geois Nightmares 168-81 (2005) (noting that backyard poultry-keeping went from being universal and encouraged to being banned as a nuisance when newly developed suburbs aimed toward attracting wealthy residents began instituting policies to ban all household pets in an effort to distin- guish themselves from both the urban and rural lower class) . 39 . Barbara West & Ben-Xiong Zhou, DidChickensGoNorth?NewEvidence forDomestication, 44 World’s Poultry Sci . J . 205-18 (1999) . Christine Heinrichs, How to Raise Chickens: Everything You Need to Know (2007) . 40 . See,e.g., Andrea Gaynor, Harvest of the Suburbs 133 (2006); Janine De La Salle & Mark Holland, Agricultural Urbanism: Handbook for Building Sustainable Food & Agriculture Systems in 21st Cen- tury Cities 23 (2010) . chickens have to offer . There continue to be many benefits to raising hens . Some of the benefits are apparent—like getting fresh free eggs . Some are less apparent—like hen manure being a surprisingly pricey and effective fertilizer and research findings that urban agricultural practices in general raise property values and strengthen the social fab- ric of a community . The benefits of keeping hens will be discussed more thoroughly below . A. Chickens Are a Source of Fresh Nutritious Eggs The most obvious benefit of keeping chickens in the back- yard is the eggs . A hen will generally lay eggs for the first five to six years of her life, with peak production in the first two years .41 Hens lay more during the spring and summer months when they are exposed to more light because of the longer days .42 Hens also lay far more eggs when they are younger, starting off with between 150 to 300 eggs per year depending on the breed and dwindling down by about 20% each year .43 Young hens or pullets often start out lay- 41 . Litt, supranote 7, at 168-69 . 42 . Id . at 169 . 43 . Id. USDA Poster from Scott Doyon, Chickens: WWI Solution to Almost Everything, Better Cities & Towns, Nov. 4, 2011, http://bettercities.net/ news-opinion/blogs/scott-doyon/15562/backyard-chickens-wwi-era- solution-almost-everything (last visited Feb. 15, 2012). Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 24 of 56 42 ELR 10892 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 they are kept in a more natural environment with exposure to sun, weather, and adequate companionship .57 Scientific nutritional analyses have proven that eggs from hens that are kept in small flocks and allowed to forage, when com- pared with store-bought eggs, have • 1/3 less cholesterol • 1/4 less saturated fat • 2/3 more vitamin A • 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids • 3 times more vitamin E • 7 times more beta-carotene .58 Thus, four to six hens can easily provide enough eggs for a typical household and sometimes enough for the neigh- bors as well . And, the eggs are more nutritious, fresher, and tastier than those available in stores . B. Chickens Provide Companionship as Pets Many people who own a small flock of chickens consider their chickens to be pets and a part of their family—just like a dog or a cat .59 Chickens have personalities, and many people and children bond with them just like any other pet .60 Several forums exist on the Internet where people can trade stories about hen antics61 or debate what breed of chicken is best for children .62 Chicken owners tend to name their hens, and many can easily describe each hen’s temperament and personality .63 Perhaps recognizing this, many cities, as shown below, actually regulate chickens as pets—and place no further burden on chicken owners than it would on dog or cat owners .64 C. Chicken Manure Is a Surprisingly Valuable Fertilizer Chicken manure is an excellent and surprisingly valuable fertilizer . Currently, 20-pound bags of organic chicken manure fertilizer can fetch a price of between $10 and 57 . Id. 58 . Litt, supra note 7, at 179 . 59 . Id. at 4-10 . 60 . See,e.g ., Carolyn Bush, AChickenChristmasTale, Backyard Poultry Mag ., Jan . 2010, http://www .backyardpoultrymag .com/issues/5/5-6/a_chicken_ christmas_tale .html (describing her pet chickens and mourning one of their deaths); Chickenvideo .com, http://www .chickenvideo .com/outlawchick- ens .html (last visited July 2, 2012) (collecting stories from people who keep chickens as pets despite their illegality) . 61 . Funny,FunnyChickenAntics, Backyardchickens .com, http://www .back- yardchickens .com/forum/viewtopic .php?id=380593 (last visited July 2, 2012) . 62 . WhatBreedsAreBestforChildrentoShowin4-H?, Backyardchickens .com, http://www .backyardchickens .com/forum/viewtopic .php?pid=5726813 (last visited July 2, 2012) . 63 . Litt, supra note 7, at 4 . 64 . See infra Part IV .C .1 . ing abnormal-looking or even double-yolked eggs, but as they mature begin laying more uniform eggs .44 Although hens can live up to 15 or even 20 years, the average hen’s lifespan is between four to eight years, so most hens will lay eggs during most of their life—but production will drop off considerably as they age .45 Although some have argued that raising backyard chick- ens will save money that would have been used to buy eggs over time, this claim is dubious .46 It would take many years to recoup the cost of the chickens, the chicken feed, and the coops .47 But cost is only part of the equation . Eggs from backyard hens have been scientifically shown to taste better .48 First, they taste better because they are fresher .49 Most eggs bought in a grocery store are weeks if not months old before they reach the point of sale .50 Recent studies in agriculture science, moreover, demon- strate that if a chicken is allowed to forage for fresh clover and grass, eat insects, and is fed oyster shells for calcium, her eggs will have a deeper colored yolk, ranging from rich gold to bright orange, and the taste of the egg will be significantly fresher .51 Next, eggs from backyard hens are more nutritious .52 Poultry scientists have long known that a hen’s diet will affect the nutrient value of her eggs .53 Thus, most commer- cial hens are subjected to a standardized diet that provides essential nutrients; but even with this knowledge, large- scale operations cannot provide chickens with an optimal diet under optimal conditions .54 Tests have found that eggs from small-flock pasture-raised hens actually have a remarkably different nutritional content than your typical store-bought egg—even those certified organic .55 This is because backyard chickens can forage for fresh grass and other greens and get access to insects and other more nat- ural chicken food .56 The nutritional differences may also be attributed to the fact that hens are less stressed because 44 . Bernal R . Weimer, APeculiarEggAbnormality, 2-4:10 Poultry Sci . 78-79 (July 1918) . 45 . Litt, supra note 7, at 173 . 46 . Gail Damerow, Backyard Homestead Guide to Raising Chickens (2011) . 47 . Litt, supra note 7, at 16 . William Neuman, KeepingTheirEggsin TheirBackyardNests, N .Y . Times, Aug . 3, 2009, http://www .nytimes . 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 ., EffectofGrassCloverForageandWhole-WheatFeeding ontheSensoryQualityofEggs, 90:2 J . Sci . Food & Agric . 343-48 (Jan . 2010) . 49 . Litt, supra note 7, at 17 . 50 . Id . 51 . Horsted et al ., supra note 48 . 52 . Litt, supra note 7, at 179 (citing Cheryl Long & Tabitha Alterman, Meet RealFree-RangeEggs, Mother Earth News, Oct ./Nov . 2007, http://www . motherearthnews .com/Real-Food/2007-10-01/Tests-Reveal-Healthier-Eggs . aspx; Artemis P . Simopoulos & Norman Salem Jr ., EggYolk:ASourceof Long-ChainPolyunsaturatedFatsinInfantFeeding, 4 Am . J . Clinical Nu- trition 411 (1992) (finding a significant increase in nutrition and signifi- cant decrease in harmful fats in small-flock free-range eggs) . 53 . William J . Stadelman & Owen J . Cotterill, Egg Science & Technol- ogy 185 (1995) . 54 . Id . 55 . Litt, supra note 7, at 17 . 56 . Id .; Simopoulos & Salem Jr ., supra note 52 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 25 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10893 $20 .65 Poultry waste has long been used as a fertilizer—it provides necessary nutrients for plants and works well as an addition to compost .66 Large amounts of uncomposted chicken manure applied directly to a garden will over- whelm or burn the plants, because its nitrogen content is too high .67 But, the amount of manure that a backyard flock of four to six hens would produce is not enough to harm the plants and can be beneficial to a home garden, even without first being composted .68 A small flock of chickens, moreover, does not actually produce much manure . A fully grown four-pound laying hen produces approximately a quarter-pound of manure per day .69 In comparison, an average dog produces three- quarters of a pound per day, or three times as much waste as one hen .70 As cities have been able to deal with waste from other pets like dogs and cats with proper regulation, even though there is no market for their waste, cities should be confident that the city and chicken owners can properly manage chicken waste . D. Chickens Eat Insects Chickens, like other birds, eat insects such as ants, spiders, ticks, fleas, slugs, roaches, and beetles .71 Chickens also occasionally eat worms, small snakes, and small mice .72 Insects provide protein that the chickens need to lay nutri- tionally dense eggs .73 Small flocks of chickens are recom- mended as a way to eliminate weeds, although a chicken does not discriminate between weeds and plants and, if left 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 65 . Black Gold Compost Chicken Fertilizer sold for $13 .43 for 20 pounds on Amazon . Amazon .com, http://www .amazon .com/Black-Compost-Chick- 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, PoultryforSmallFarmsandBackyard, UW Cooperative Extension, http://learning store .uwex .edu/assets/pdfs/ A3908-03 . 67 . Litt, supra note 7, at 9 . 68 . Id . 69 . OhioLivestockManureManagementGuide, Ohio State University Ex- tension, Bulletin 604-06, p . 3, T . 1 2006, http://ohioline .osu .edu/b604/ (providing that a four-pound laying hen produces 0 .26 of a pound per day of manure) . 70 . Leah Nemiroff & Judith Patterson, Design,TestingandImplementationof aLarge-ScaleUrbanDogWasteCompostingProgram, 15:4 Compost Sci . & Utilization 237-42 (2007) (“On average, a dog produces 0 .34 [kilograms (kg)] (0 .75 lbs) of feces per day .”) . 71 . Simopoulos & Salem Jr ., supra note 52, at 412 . Schneider, supra note 8, at 15 . 72 . Id . 73 . Id . 74 . John P . Bishop, Chickens:ImprovingSmall-ScaleProduction, Echo technical note, echo .net, 1995, http://www .google .com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s &source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww . echocommunity .org%2Fresource%2Fcollection%2FE66CDFDB-0A0D- 4DDE-8AB1-74D9D8C3EDD4%2FChickens .pdf&ei=39zxT41Sh7etAd SUmY8C&usg=AFQjCNHh0_bkG_5sVmlovgngOXD53AJagA&sig2=_ cgyLnv7jDV7hGIVZty89g (last visited July 2, 2012) . to a garden can eliminate a need to use chemicals or other insecticides and prevent insect infestations .75 E. Chickens Help Build Community Several studies have found that urban agriculture can increase social connections and civic engagement in the community .76 Agricultural projects can provide a center- piece around which communities can organize and, by doing so, become more resilient .77 Building a sense of com- munity is often especially valuable for more marginalized groups—like recent immigrants and impoverished inner- city areas .78 Keeping chickens easily fits into the community- building benefit of urban agriculture . Because chickens lay more eggs in the spring and summer, an owner often has more eggs than he can use: neighbors, thus, become the beneficiaries of the excess eggs . Because chickens are still seen as a novelty in many communities, many chicken owners help to educate their neighbors and their communities by inviting them over for a visit and let- ting neighbors see the coops and interact with the chick- ens .79 Finally, like the example of Jennifer above, keeping chickens can become a community endeavor; many peo- ple have formed chicken cooperatives where neighbors band together to share in the work of tending the hens and also share in the eggs .80 II. Cities’ Concerns With Backyard Hens 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 . Bruce Weigl, KillingChickens, 1999 . 75 . Tara Layman Williams, The Complete Guide to Raising Chickens: Everything You Need to Know 95 (2011) . 76 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 3 (citing Lorraine Johnson, City Farmer: Adventures in Urban Food Growing (2010), and Patricia Hynes, A Patch of Eden: America’s Inner City Gardeners (1996)) . 77 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 94 . 78 . Id . SeealsoIowaConcentratedAnimalFeedingOperationsAirQualityStudy, FinalReport, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group 148, Feb . 2002, http://www .ehsrc .uiowa .edu/cafo_air_qual- ity_study .html (finding that in rural areas communities where farms were smaller, were owner-operated, and used the labor of the operating family, the community “had a richer civic and social fabric: residents of all social classes were more involved in community affairs, more community organi- zations served people of both middle and working class background, and there were more local businesses and more retail activity”) . 79 . Litt, supra note 7, at 12-13 . See,e.g ., Jeff S . Sharp & Molly B . Smith, Social CapitalandFarmingattheRural-UrbanInterface:TheImportanceofNon- farmerandFarmerRelations, 76 Agric . Sys . 913-27 (2003) (finding that communities benefit and agricultural uses have more support when farmers develop social relationships with non-farmers) . 80 . E.g ., Abby Quillen, HowtoShareaChickenorTwo, Shareable: Cities (Nov . 22, 2009), http://shareable .net/blog/how-to-share-a-chicken (last vis- ited Feb . 12, 2012) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 26 of 56 42 ELR 10894 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 A. Noise The most frequently expressed concern is that hens will be noisy . This may come from associating roosters with hens . Roosters are noisy .81 Hens are not particularly noisy . While they will cluck, the clucking is neither loud nor frequent .82 The clucking of hens is commonly compared to human conversation—both register around 65 decibels .83 By con- trast, the barking of a single dog can reach levels well over 100 decibels .84 It should also be noted that chickens have a homing instinct to roost and sleep at night . A hen will return to her coop at night and generally fall asleep before or at sun- down .85 Thus, there should be little concern with clucking hens disturbing a neighborhood at night . B. Odor Many people are concerned that chicken droppings will cause odors that reach neighbors and perhaps even affect the neighborhood . These concerns may stem from pub- licized reports of odors from large poultry operations .86 While it is no doubt true that the odors coming from these intensive commercial-scale chicken farms is overwhelming and harmful,87 these operations often have hundreds of thousands of chickens in very small spaces .88 Most of the odor that people may associate with poul- try is actually ammonia . Ammonia, however, is a product of a poorly ventilated and moist coop .89 Coop designs for backyard hens should take this into account and allow for proper ventilation . And, if coops are regularly cleaned, there should be little to no odor associated with the hens .90 81 . ManagementofNoiseonPoultryFarms, Poultry Fact Sheet, British Colum- bia, Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Aug . 1999), http://www .agf . gov .bc .ca/poultry/publications/documents/noise .pdf . 82 . Id . 83 . ProtectingAgainstNoise, National Ag Safety Database, The Ohio State University Extension, http://nasdonline .org/document/1744/d001721/ protecting-against-noise .html (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) (explaining that a chicken coop and human conversation are both about 65 decibels) . 84 . Crista L . Coppola et al ., NoiseintheAnimalShelterEnvironment:Building DesignandtheEffectsofDailyNoiseExposure, 9(l) J . applied Animal Wel- fare Sci . 1-7 (2006) . 85 . Williams, supra note 75, at 92 . Robert Plamondon, RangePoultryHousing, ATTRA 11 (June 2003) . 86 . E.g., William Neuman, CleanLivingintheHenhouse, N .Y . Times, Oct . 6, 2010, http://www .nytimes .com/2010/10/07/business/07eggfarm .html? scp=2&sq=large%20chicken%20farms%20and%20odor&st=cse . 87 . Doug Gurian Sherman, CAFOSUncovered,TheUntoldCostsofAnimal FeedingOperations, Union of Concerned Scientists, Apr . 2008, http:// www .ucsusa .org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/cafos-uncovered . pdf; IowaConcentratedAnimalFeedingOperationsandAirQualityStudy, Final Report, Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group (Feb . 2002) (finding extensive literature documenting acute and chronic respiratory diseases and dysfunction among poultry work- ers exposed to complex mixtures of particulates, gases, and vapors within CAFO units) . 88 . Id . 89 . Id . 90 . Gail Damerow, The Backyard Homestead Guide to Raising Farm An- imals 35 (2011) (“A chicken coop that smells like manure or has the pun- gent odor of ammonia is mismanaged . These problems are easily avoided by keeping litter dry, adding fresh litter as needed to absorb droppings, and periodically removing the old litter and replacing it with a fresh batch .”) . C. Diseases Two diseases are frequently raised in discussions of back- yard hens: avian flu and salmonella . For different reasons, neither justifies a ban on backyard hens .91 First, with the attention that avian flu has received in the past few years, some have expressed a concern that allow- ing backyard chickens could provide a transition point for an avian virus to infect humans .92 While no one can pre- dict whether this virus will cross over to cause widespread illness or how it might do so, it is important to note that avian flu, right now, would have to mutate for it to become an illness that can spread from person to person .93 Even the H5N1 strain of the virus, a highly pathogenic form that garnered news in the early 2000s because it infected humans, is very difficult for humans to catch and has not been shown to spread from person to person .94 And that strain of the virus does not exist in the United States—it has not been found in birds, wild or domestic, in North or South America .95 Encouraging a return to more small-scale agriculture, moreover, may prevent such a mutation from occurring . Many world and national governmental health organi- zations that are concerned with the possible mutation of avian flu link the increased risks of disease to the intensi- fication of the processes for raising animals for food—in other words, large-scale factory farms .96 For instance, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) blamed “the intensification of food-animal production” in part on the increasing threat .97 The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, an industry-funded group, cre- 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 modern intensive animal farming techniques increase the risk of new virulent diseases .98 The report stated “a major impact of modern intensive production systems is that they allow the rapid selection and amplification of patho- gens that arise from a virulent ancestor (frequently by 91 . Sue L . Pollock et al ., RaisingChickensinCityBackyards:ThePublicHealth Role, J . Community Health, DOI: 10 .1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011) (finding that public health concerns about infectious diseases and other nui- sances that might be caused by keeping hens in an urban setting cannot be supported by literature specific to the urban agriculture context and recom- mending that public health practitioners approach this issue in a manner analogous to concerns over keeping domestic pets) . 92 . E.g., Orbach & Sjoberg, supranote 23, at 29 . 93 . AvianInfluenza, USDA, http://www .ars .usda .gov/News/docs .htm?docid= 11244 (last visited July 2, 2012) . 94 . AvianInfluenza,Questions&Answers, Food and Agric . Org . of the United Nations, http://www .fao .org/avianflu/en/qanda .html (last visited July 26, 2012) . 95 . Id . 96 . Michael Greger, BirdFlu, AVirusofOurOwnHatching, BirdFluBook . Com (2006-2008), http://birdflubook .com/a .php?id=50 (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) (finding that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit- ed Nations, the World Health Organization, and the World Organization for Animal Health attribute risk factors for the emergence of new diseases from animals to the increasing demand for animal protein) . 97 . Id . 98 . Id . (citing GlobalRisksofInfectiousAnimalDiseases, Council for Agric . Sci . and Tech ., Issue Paper No . 28, 2005) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 27 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10895 subtle mutation), thus, there is increasing risk for disease entrance and/or dissemination .”99 The report concludes by stating, “because of the Livestock Revolution, global risks of disease are increasing .”100 It is for this reason that many believe that the movement toward backyard chick- ens and diverse small-scale poultry farming, rather than being a problem, is a solution to concerns about mutating avian viruses .101 Another theory for how an avian flu mutation may occur is that it will first occur in wild birds that could pass it on to domesticated birds .102 In this case, backyard hens could provide a transition point . For this reason the USDA, rather than advocating a ban on backyard hens, has instead offered some simple-to-follow precautionary procedures for small flock owners: the USDA counsels backyard bird enthusiasts to separate domesticated birds from other birds by enclosing coops and runs, to clean the coops regularly, and to wash their hands before and after touching the birds .103 Another illness that causes concern because it can be transferred to humans is salmonella .104 Chickens, like other common household pets—including dogs, turtles, and caged birds—can carry salmonella .105 For this reason, the CDC counsels that people should wash their hands after touching poultry, should supervise young children around poultry, and make sure that young children wash their hands after touching chicks or other live poultry .106 Chickens, like other pets, can get sick and carry dis- ease . But public health scholars have found that there is no evidence that the incidence of disease in small flocks of backyard hens merits banning hens in the city and counsel city officials to regulate backyard hens like they would any other pet .107 99 . Id . 100 . Id . 101 . Ben Block, U.S.CityDwellersFlocktoRaisingChickens, WorldWatch Insti- tute, http://www .worldwatch .org/node/5900 (last visited Feb . 22, 2012); FowlPlay,thePoultryIndustry’sCentralRoleintheBirdFluCrisis, GRAIN, http://www .grain .org/article/entries/22-fowl-play-the-poultry-industry-s- central-role-in-the-bird-flu-crisis (last visited Feb . 22, 2012); PuttingMeat ontheTable:IndustrialFarmAnimalProductioninAmerica, A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (2006), http://www .ncifap .org/ (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 102 . Rachel Dennis, CAFOsandPublicHealth:RisksAssociatedWithWelfare FriendlyFarming, Purdue Univ . Extension, Aug . 2007, https://mdc .itap . purdue .edu/item .asp?itemID=18335# .T_Hjd3CZOOU . 103 . BackyardBiosecurity,6WaystoPreventPoultryDisease, USDA, May 2004, http://www .aphis .usda .gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity/biosecurity/ba- sicspoultry .htm (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 104 . KeepingLivePoultry, CDC, http://www .cdc .gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- try/ (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 105 . See Shaohua Zhao, CharacterizationofSalmonellaEntericaSerotypeNewport IsolatedFromHumansandFoodAnimals, 41 J . Clinical Microbiology, No . 12, 5367 (2003) (stating that dogs and pigeons, as well as chickens, can carry salmonella); J . Hidalgo-Villa, SalmonellainFreeLivingTerrestrialand AquaticTurtles, 119:2-4 Veterinary Microbiology 311-15 (Jan . 2007) . 106 . KeepingLivePoultry, CDC, http://www .cdc .gov/features/SalmonellaPoul- try/ (last visited Feb . 21, 2012) . 107 . Sue L . Pollock et al ., RaisingChickensinCityBackyards:ThePublicHealth Role, J . Community Health, DOI: 10 .1007/s10900-011-9504-1 (2011) . D. Property Values Another common concern is that keeping backyard chick- ens will reduce surrounding property values .108 Several studies, however, have found that agricultural uses within the city actually increase property values .109 Community gardens increase neighboring property values by as much as 9 .4% when the garden is first implemented .110 The property value continues to increase as the gardens become more integrated into the neighborhood .111 The poorest neighbor- hoods, moreover, showed the greatest increase in property values .112 Studies have also found that rent increased and the rates of home ownership increased in areas surround- ing a newly opened community garden .113 Studies concerning pets, moreover, find that apart- ment owners can charge higher rent for concessions such as allowing pets .114 Thus, accommodating pets has been shown to raise property values . As of yet, no studies have been done on how backyard chickens in particular affect property values, but given that communities express little concern that other pets, such as dogs or cats, reduce property values, and given research showing that pets and urban agricultural practices can increase them, there is little reason to believe that allowing backyard chickens will negatively affect them .115 E. Slaughter Some people are concerned that chicken owners will kill chickens in the backyard .116 People are concerned that it may be harmful to children in the neighborhood to watch a chicken being killed and prepared for a meal .117 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 chickens, as they would a cat or a dog, and treat a death 108 . Salkin, supra note 9, at 1 . 109 . Hodgson, supra note 1, at 21 . 110 . Id . 111 . Id . 112 . Id . 113 . Id . 114 . G . Stacy Sirmans & C .F . Sirmans, RentalConcessionsandPropertyValues, 5:1 J . Real Estate Res . 141-51(1990); C .A . Smith, ApartmentRents—Is Therea“Complex”Effect, 66:3 Appraisal J . (1998) (finding that average apartment unit commands $50 more rent per unit by allowing pets) . 115 . Michael Broadway, GrowingUrbanAgricultureinNorthAmericanCities: TheExampleofMilwaukee, 52:3-4 Focus on Geography 23-30 (Dec . 2009) . 116 . Neighbors Opposed to Backyard Slaughter, http://noslaughter .org (last visited Feb . 22, 2012) . 117 . Id . 118 . Id . 119 . Litt, supra note 7, at 3 (stating that “the vast majority of backyard chicken keepers regard their chickens as pets and find it unsettling—if not outright upsetting—to consider eating them”) . 120 . Jay Rossier, Living With Chickens: Everything You Need to Know to Raise Your Own Backyard Flock 4 (2002) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 28 of 56 42 ELR 10896 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 similarly .121 Veterinarians, moreover, have avenues for disposing of dead animals that are generally accepted in most communities .122 But, if a person did want to use her chickens for meat, there are other methods for butchering a chicken rather than doing so in the backyard . As part of the local food movement, small-scale butchers have made a comeback in the last few years, and many are particularly interested in locally raised animals .123 Thus, legalizing backyard chick- ens does not necessarily mean that a city must also legalize backyard chicken slaughtering .124 F. Greenhouse Gases Although worries that chickens will increase greenhouse gases appears to be a bit over the top, at least one city raised this as a concern when contemplating allowing chickens . In Montgomery, Ohio, at least one city council member was fearful that allowing chickens to be raised in the city might contribute to global warming .125 While chickens do produce methane as a natural byproduct of digestion just like any other animal (includ- ing humans), the amount they produce is negligible in comparison to other livestock . Methane production is a concern largely confined to ruminant animals, such as cows, goats, and buffaloes .126 These animals produce a large amount of methane every year because of the way in which they digest carbohydrates .127 Cows produce an average of 55 kilograms (kg) per year per cow .128 A goat will produce 5 kg per year, a pig 1 .5, and a human 0 .05 .129 Chickens, because they are nonruminant animals, and because they are much smaller than humans, produce less than 0 .05 kg per year per chicken .130 Finally, there is no reason to believe that an urban chicken would cause a net increase in the production of methane . A person who gets her eggs from her pet hen will 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 121 . Jose Linares, UrbanChickens, Am . Veterinary Med . Ass’n Welfare Fo- cus, Apr . 2011, http://www .avma .org/issues/animal_welfare/AWFocus/ 110404/urban_chickens .asp . 122 . Id . 123 . Elizabeth Keyser, TheButcher’sBack, Conn . Mag ., Apr . 2011, http:// www .connecticutmag .com/Connecticut-Magazine/April-2011/The-Butcher- 039s-Back/ . 124 . Butsee Simon v . Cleveland Heights, 188 N .E . 308, 310 (Ohio Ct . App . 1933) (holding that a ban on poultry slaughtering applied to a small busi- ness butcher violated the Ohio Constitution because it prohibited the con- duct of a lawful business) . 125 . Valerie Taylor, Chickens for Montgomery (June 2009) http://www . scribd .com/doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws (last vis- ited July 2, 2012) (responding to city’s concerns about increase in green- house gases) . 126 . See Methane,Sources,andEmissions, U .S . EPA, http://www .epa .gov/meth- ane/sources .html (last visited July 2, 2012) . 127 . Id . 128 . Paul J . Crutzen et al ., MethaneProductionbyDomesticAnimals,WildRumi- nants,OtherHerbivorousFaunaandHumans, 38B Tellus B . 271-74 (July- Sept . 1986) . 129 . Id . 130 . Id . increase in methane production caused by urban chickens is not only negligible, but also likely offset by a decrease in rural chickens .131 G. Winter Weather Northern cities may be concerned that their climate is not suitable for chickens . Chic kens, however, were bred to thrive in certain climates . There are breeds of chicken that are more suited to warm or even hot cli- mates . And, there are chickens that were bred specifi- cally to thrive in colder weather, such as Rhode Island Reds or Plymouth Rocks .132 While even cold-hardy breeds can be susceptible to frostbite in extreme winter weather, a sturdy coop with some extra insulation and perhaps a hot water bottle on frigid nights can protect the birds from harm .133 H. Running Wild Of all of the chicken ordinances that this Article will later discuss, it appears that one of the most popular regula- tions is to prohibit chickens running wild in the streets .134 Chickens, like dogs and cats, sometimes escape their enclo- sures . While it would be irresponsible to presume that no chicken will ever escape its enclosure, city officials can rest assured that chicken keepers do not want to see their hens escape any more than city officials want to see hens run- ning loose on the streets . For this reason, and also to protect against predators, cities should ensure that chickens are kept in an enclosure at all times . III. Some Necessary Background on Hens for Developing Urban Hen-Keeping Ordinances His comb was finest coral red and tall, And battlemented like a castle wall . His bill was black and like the jet it glowed, His legs and toes like azure when he strode . His nails were whiter than the lilies bloom, Like burnished gold the color of his plume . Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, The Nun’s Priest’s Tale135 131 . Letter from Brian Woodruff, Environmental Planner Department of Natu- ral Resources, to Cameron Gloss (June 12, 2008), http://www .scribd .com/ doc/16509728/Changing-Your-Citys-Chicken-Laws . 132 . Litt, supra note 7, at 119 . 133 . Id . 134 . Seeinfra Part IV .C .5 .a . 135 . Ronald Ecker trans ., Hodge & Braddock Publishers 1993 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 29 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10897 A. Hens Are Social Animals Chickens are social animals and do better if they are kept in flocks .136 Chickens can recognize one another and can remember up to 50 or 60 other chickens .137 Because of this, large flocks of chickens, like those found in most inten- sive farming operations, are socially unstable and can cause aggressive behavior .138 In the wild, most flocks form sub- groups of between four to six chickens .139 Chickens show affiliative behavior, eating together, preening together, gathering together in small groups if they are given space to do so, and sleeping at the same time .140 Chickens also learn behaviors from one another— for instance, chickens that watch another trained chicken peck a key to obtain food will learn this task more quickly than other chickens that are not exposed to the behavior .141 Because chickens are flock animals, a chicken left alone generally will not thrive .142 An isolated hen will often exhibit disturbed and self-destructive behaviors, like chas- ing its own tail and exhibiting excessive aggression .143 Because eating is social behavior, there are some reports that single chickens stop eating or eat less .144 While scien- tific studies have yet to prove that a hen feels loneliness,145 backyard hen enthusiasts are well aware that an isolated hen will often appear depressed or ill .146 B. The Pecking Order We often use the term pecking order to describe a hierar- chy in a community . The term comes from the tendency for chickens to peck at one another and display aggressive behavior until a hierarchy is established .147 Once the hier- 136 . Michael C . Appleby et al ., Poultry Behavior and Welfare 35, 77-82 (2004); Heinrichs, supranote 39, at 11 (2007) . 137 . Nicolas Lampkin, OrganicPoultryProduction, Welsh Inst . of Rural Studies 20 (Mar . 1997), available at http://orgprints .org/9975/1/Organic_Poulty_ Production .pdf . 138 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136 (noting that chickens have increased ag- gression and increased growth of adrenal glands when they come in contact with other chickens they do not know and also noting that chickens are stressed by being kept in large flocks because it is unlikely that birds in large flocks can form a hierarchy: they are instead “in a constant state of trying to establish a hierarchy but never achieving it”) . 139 . Id . at 71; Lampkin, supra note 137, at 20 . 140 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136, at 77-79 . 141 . Id . at 79 . 142 . Ian J .H . Duncan & Penny Hawkins, The Welfare of Domestic Fowl & Other Captive Birds 68-69 (2010) . 143 . D .G .M . Wood-Gush, The Behavior of the Domestic Fowl 124 (1971) . 144 . D .W . Rajecki et al ., SocialFactorsintheFacilitationofFeedinginChick- ens:EffectsofImitation,Arousal,orDisinhibition?, 32 J . Personality & Soc . Psychol . 510-18 (Sept . 1975) . Martine Adret-Hausberger & Robin B . Cumming, SocialExperienceandSelectionofDietinDomesticChickens, 7 Bird Behavior 37-43 (1987) (finding that isolated young broilers had lower growth rates than those placed with other birds) . 145 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136, at 142 (suggesting that poultry may suf- fer from loneliness and boredom and that “[c]onsidering the barrenness of many husbandry systems, boredom would seem to be a good candidate for further studies”) 146 . See,e.g., DoChickensGetLonely, Backyard Poultry Forum (Friday, Feb . 13, 2009), http://forum .backyardpoultry .com/viewtopic .php?f=5&t= 7970419&start=0 (last visited Mar . 4, 2012) . 147 . Alphaeus M . Guhl, SocialBehavioroftheDomesticFowl, 71 Transactions Kan . Acad . Sci . (1968) . Gladwyn K . Noble, TheRoleofDominanceinthe archy is established, the aggressive behavior will lessen or even abate until new birds are added to the flock or until a hen mounts a challenge to someone above her in the peck- ing order .148 Studies have shown, however, that incidence of pecking is greatly reduced when hens are kept in lower densities .149 (Feather pecking is often a problem in large-scale chicken farms .)150 When densities were approximately six or fewer birds per 10 square feet, pecking behaviors abated or were significantly reduced .151 Because a new introduction into the flock will upset the pecking order, some farmers advocate for introducing at least two chicks at a time .152 This will help spread out the abuse that could be laid on a solitary young hen . It will also more fully upset the pecking order, so that the birds are forced to find a new hierarchy that will include the new birds instead of leaving one isolated hen at the bottom of the flock .153 For these reasons, chicken owners should always be allowed to keep, at a minimum, four chickens . This ensures that city regulations do not stand in the way of good flock management: if any hens are lost through injury, illness, or old age, the chicken owner can ensure that the flock never goes below two hens before seeking to add new hens . This will also allow the owner to introduce new hens into the flock two at a time . C. Chickens and Predators Backyard hens in a metropolitan area may, in some ways, be better protected from predators than their rural coun- terparts, because there are fewer predators in the city . The more prevalent chicken predators in the United States— foxes, coyotes, and bobcats—are found less often in the city than they are in more rural areas .154 Other predators, however, such as hawks and raccoons, are frequently found in the city .155 These predators are one reason why chickens must have sturdy coops that are designed to protect hens from assault . Chickens have an instinct to return to their coop each night .156 And most predators are more active at night when SocialLifeofBirds, 56 The Auk 263 (July 1939) . 148 . Litt, supra note 7, at 122 . Alphaeus M . Guhl et al ., MatingBehaviorand theSocialHierarchyinSmallFlocksofWhiteLeghorns, 18 Physiological Zoology 365-68 (Oct . 1945) . 149 . B . Huber-Eicher & L . Audigé, AnalysisofRiskFactorsfortheOccurrenceof FeatherPeckingAmongLayingHenGrowers, 40 British Poultry Sci . 599- 604 (1999) (demonstrating through a study of commercial hen farms in Switzerland that hens were far less likely to feather peck if they were kept in low-density environments and if they had access to elevated perches) . 150 . Id . 151 . Id . 152 . Litt, supra note 7, at 122-23 . 153 . Id . 154 . See,e.g., Stanley D . Gehrt et al ., HomeRangeandLandscapeUseofCoyotesin aMetropolitanLandscape:ConflictorCoexistence, J . Mammalogy, 1053-55 (2009); Seth P .D . Riley, SpatialEcologyofBobcatsandGrayFoxesinUrban andRuralZonesofaNationalPark, 70(5) J . Wildlife Mgmt . 1425-35 (2006) . 155 . Williams, supra note 75, at 88-89 . 156 . Litt, supra note 7, at 71 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 30 of 56 42 ELR 10898 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 the chickens are sleeping in their coops .157 While there is no guarantee that predators will not find a way to prey on chickens, ensuring that coops are sturdily built with the intention to keep out predators can help ameliorate con- cerns with predators .158 D. Roosters Like to Crow Even city-dwellers who have never met a rooster know that roosters crow . But the popular belief, passed on in chil- 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 in the afternoon or evening or, basically, whenever they feel like it .159 While the frequency of crowing depends on the breed and the individual rooster, many roosters crow a lot .160 In fact, because domestic roosters crow so much more frequently than their wild kin, one theory postulates that they were bred over many centuries for loud, long, and frequent crowing because such crowing played an impor- tant role in Zoroastrian religious ceremonies .161 Because roosters are noisy and frequently so, cities that have more dense urban environments should consider ban- ning them—at least on smaller lot sizes . Some cities have allowed an exception for “decrowed” roosters162: some veterinarians used to offer a “decrowing” procedure that would remove the rooster’s voicebox . Because of its high mortality rate—over 50%—veterinarians no longer offer this procedure .163 Because this procedure is dangerous and cruel to the rooster, cities that have such an exception should consider amending it so as not to encourage mis- treatment of roosters . E. Hens Don’t Need Roosters to Lay Eggs A common myth is that hens will not lay eggs without a rooster around . This is simply not true; hens do not need roosters to lay eggs .164 In fact, it is likely that every egg you have ever eaten was produced by a hen that never met a rooster .165 The only reason that hens require roosters is to fertil- ize the eggs, so that the eggs will hatch chicks .166 Because this can be an easier way to propagate a flock, rather than sending away for mail-order chicks, some chicken own- ers would like to keep a rooster around or at least allow it to visit . To address this concern, at least one city that bans roosters allows “conjugal visits .” Hopewell Town- 157 . Gehrt, supra note 154, at 1053 . 158 . Williams, supra note 75, at 88-89 . 159 . Heinrichs, supra note 39, at 16 . 160 . Id . 161 . Appleby et al ., supra note 136, at 36-37 . 162 . See,e.g ., Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(c) (2011) . 163 . SmallandBackyardFlocks, Ky . U . Ext ., http://www .ca .uky .edu/smallflocks/ faq .html#Q31 (last visited Feb . 17, 2012) . 164 . SmallandBackyardFlocks, Ky . U . Ext ., http://www .ca .uky .edu/smallflocks/ faq .html#Q11 (last visited Feb . 17, 2012) . 165 . Id . 166 . Id . ship, New Jersey, allows roosters that are certified disease- free to visit a hen flock for 10 days out of every year .167 Although news about the township’s policy garnered national attention for its quirkiness, it may work as a solu- tion for hen owners seeking to add to their flock without having to buy new chicks .168 IV. The Current State of Municipal Ordinances Governing Backyard Chickens Such a fine pullet ought to go All coiffured to a winter show, And be exhibited, and win . The answer is this one has been— And come with all her honors home . Her golden leg, her coral comb, Her fluff of plumage, white as chalk, Her style, were all the fancy’s talk Robert Frost, ABlueRibbonatAmesbury (1916) . A. Introduction To determine the current state of chicken legislation in the United States, the laws of the top 100 cities by population, according to the 2000 census are surveyed in this Article .169 Currently, 94% of these cities allow for chickens in some manner .170 While many cities impose various restrictions 167 . NJTownLimitsConjugalVisitsBetweenRoosters&Hens, Huffington Post, Apr . 27, 2011, http://www .huffingtonpost .com/2011/04/28/nj-limits-chicken- 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, They’reCute,ButBabyChicksCanHarborSalmonella, U .S . News & World Re- port, May 30, 2012, http://health .usnews .com/health-news/news/articles/ 2012/05/30/theyre-cute-but-baby-chicks-can-harbor-salmonella . 169 . CitiesWith100,000orMorePopulationin2000RankedbyPopulation,2000 inRankOrder, U .S . Census, http://www .census .gov/statab/ccdb/cit1020r . txt (last visited Jan . 26, 2012) . 170 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances tit . 17, 21 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Augus- ta-Richmond, Ga ., Code of Ordinances tit . 4, art . 2 (2007); Aurora, Colo ., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordi- 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, 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 ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordi- nances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205 .04, 347 .02 (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Co- lumbus, Ohio, City Code tit . III, ch . 221 (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §§6-153, 6-154 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §§10 .201-10 .205 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 31 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10899 on keeping chickens through zoning, setbacks, and per- mitting requirements, only three of the top 100 cities have ordinances that clearly ban the keeping of chickens within city limits: Detroit, Aurora, and Yonkers .171 Three others have unclear ordinances that city officials have interpreted as banning backyard chickens: Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Lubbock .172 An additional 10 cities, while allowing for chickens, restrict them to either very large lots or only to Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011); Greens- boro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Or- dinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . 6, art . II (2010); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code tit . III, ch . 531 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011) (not regulating chickens at 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- sas City, Mont ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011); Lexington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Or- 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 . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code ch . 91 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §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- nances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78- 6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Nashville- Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §§8-12-020, 17-16-330 (2011); New Or- 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- nances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §§12-3001, 12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011); id. tit . 17; Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordi- nances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Sacremento, Cal ., City Code §9-44-340 (2011); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015 (2010); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances tit . 7 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052 (2011); Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordi- nances ch . 106 (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .010 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . VI (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §§505 .07(a)(4), 1705 .07 (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d)(e) (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .1 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) . 171 . Aurora, Colo ., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Detroit, Mich ., City Code §6-1-3 (2010); Yonkers, N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990) . 172 . Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances §157 .104 (2011) (banning live- stock within the city, even though chickens are not listed in the definition of livestock, the animal control department says that the city interprets chicken as livestock); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010) (“No farm animal shall be kept or allowed to be kept within any dwelling or dwelling unit or within one hundred (100) feet of any dwelling, dwell- ing unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch or drain .”); Lubbock, Tex ., City Ordinance §4 .07 .001 (2011) (permitting chickens “in those areas appropriately permitted by the zoning ordinances of the city” when zoning ordinances are silent) . agriculturally zoned land .173 Because such restrictions will exclude most people within the city from being able to keep hens, if such restrictions are interpreted to be a ban on chickens, then 84% of cities can be considered to allow for chickens . Within that 84%, there is a wide range of how cities reg- ulate chickens—ranging from no regulation174 to a great 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 Some of these cities also have restrictive setbacks or other regulations that will prohibit some residents from owning chickens—especially residents in multi-family dwellings or who live on small lots in a dense area of the city .178 As described more fully below, there is no uniformity in the ways that cities regulate chickens; each city’s ordinance is unique . Regulations are placed in different areas of a city’s codified ordinances . Some regulations are spread through- out the code, making it difficult for a chicken owner to determine how to comply with the city’s ordinances . Some cities regulate through zoning, others through animal regulations, and others through the health code .179 Some cities simply define chickens as pets and provide no regula- tions at all .180 Each of these methods of regulation will be explored in more detail below . Although other surveys of urban chicken laws have been done, no basis was given for the choice of the cities sur- 173 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (restricting chick- ens to land zoned for agricultural use); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordi- nances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3 (restricting to low-density zones and restricting to properties of one acre or more); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011) (restricting chickens to agricultural or low- density residential zones); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII (restricting chickens to agricultural or low-density residential zones); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, app . A, art . II, §4-0 .5 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties of five acres or more); Oklahoma City,Okla ., Mun . Code tit . 8, 59 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with one acre or more); Phila ., Pa ., Code of Ordi- nances §10-112 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with three acres or more); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (restrict- ing chickens to properties with one acre or more); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use) . 174 . E.g., N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990) (only regulating chickens if they are kept for sale: “A person who holds a permit to keep for sale or sell live rabbits or poultry shall keep them in coops and runwasy and prevent them from being at large .”); Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (“No person shall own keep, or otherwise possess, or slaughter any . . . poultry, rabbit, dog, cat, or any other animal intending to use such ani- mal for food purposes .”) Chicago’s ordinance has been interpreted to allow keeping chickens for eggs . Kara Spak, RaisingChickensLegalinChicago,and PeopleAreCrowingAboutIt, Chi . Sun Times, Aug . 13, 2011, http://www . suntimes .com/news/metro/6942644-418/city-of-chicken-coops .html; Ir- ving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances 6-1 (2011) (not regulating chickens) . 175 . Seeinfra V .C .2 176 . Seeinfra V .C .5 .c . 177 . Seeinfra V .C .5 .b . 178 . Seeinfra V .C .4 . 179 . Seeinfra V .B . 180 . Seeinfra V .A . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 32 of 56 42 ELR 10900 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 veyed181 and the survey sizes were far smaller .182 By choos- ing the largest cities in the United States by population, this survey is meant to give a snapshot of what kind of laws govern the most densely populated urban areas . An understanding of how large cosmopolitan areas approach backyard chickens can help smaller cities determine the best way to fashion an ordinance .183 Several aspects of these ordinances will be examined . First, the area within the codified ordinances that the city chooses to regulate chickens will be discussed .184 Next, regulations based on space requirements, zoning require- ments, and setbacks will be examined .185 After that, the different sorts of sanitation requirements that cities impose will be examined, including looking at how specific or gen- eral those requirements are .186 Then, the coop construction requirements, including how much space a city requires per chicken, will be examined .187 Next, cities’ use of per- mits to regulate chickens will be evaluated .188 The Article will then discuss anti-slaughter laws .189 Finally, the preva- lence of banning roosters will be discussed, while noting 181 . See Orbach & Sjoberg, DebatingBackyardChickens; Sarah Schindler, Of BackyardChickensandFrontYardGarden:TheConflictBetweenLocalGov- ernmentandLocavores, 87 Tul . L . Rev . (forthcoming Nov . 2, 2012); Patricia Salkin, FeedingtheLocavores,OneChickenataTime:RegulatingBackyard Chickens, 34:3 Zoning & Plan . L . Rep . 1 (Mar . 2011); Kieran Miller, BackyardChickenPolicy:LessonsFromVancouver,Seattle,andNiagaraFalls, QSPACE at Queens U . (2011), http://qspace .library .queensu .ca/han- dle/1974/6521; Katherine T . Labadie, ResidentialUrbanKeeping:AnExam- inationof25Cities, U .N .M . Research Paper (2008) http://www .google . com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE0QFjAA &url=http%3A%2F%2F66 .147 .242 .185%2F~urbanch5%2Fwp-content %2Fuploads%2F2012%2F02%2FOrdinance-research-paper .pdf&ei=f_ T5T8jOLcrjqgGP5NGKCQ&usg=AFQjCNE-ArE_uYe4XcKDfhMrwS a4mOLfQw&sig2=UcWfdU1smpoifnqTiE_wvA; Jennifer Blecha, Urban LifeWithLivestock:PerformingAlternativeImaginariesThroughSmallStock UrbanLivestockAgricultureintheUnitedStates, Proquest Information and Learning Company (2007) . Seealso ChickenL.O.R.EProject:Chicken LawsandOrdinancesandYourRightsandEntitlements, Backyard Chick- ens .com, http://www .backyardchickens .com/t/310268/chicken-lore- project-find-submit-local-chicken-laws-ordinances (last visited Feb . 20, 2012) (providing an extensive community-created database of municipal chicken laws) . 182 . Poultry2010,ReferenceoftheHealthandManagementofChickenStocksin UrbanSettingsinFourU.S.Cities, USDA, May 2011 (studying the urban chicken population in Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, and New York City) . 183 . Also, this survey is necessarily frozen in time for publicly accessible ordi- nances as of December of 2011 . This is because at least two cities have already changed their ordinances to allow for more comprehensive and permissive livestock regulations—Pittsburgh and San Diego . Diana Nel- son-Jones, PittsburghUrbanChickenCoopTourtoBeHeldonSunday, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www .post-gazette .com/ pg/11160/1152234-34 .stm (stating that Pittsburgh had amended its ordi- nances to allow for 3 chickens for every 2,000 square feet of property); Adrian Florino, SanDiegoCityCouncilApprovesBackyardChickens,Goats, andBees, KPBS, Feb . 1, 2012, http://www .kpbs .org/news/2012/feb/01/ san-diego-city-council-approves-backyard-chickens-/ . These ordinances, however, have not yet been codified within the cities code and, thus, are not yet publicly accessible . Although this Article intends to use the most recent ordinances, because of the size of the sample, and because of the scattered news coverage and the significant lag time in updating city codes, the author cannot be sure that other cities have not amended their ordinances . Thus, this study can do no more than provide a snapshot in time for these ordinances . 184 . Infra V .B . 185 . Infra V .C .1-4 . 186 . Infra V .C .5 187 . Infra V .C .5 188 . Infra V .C .6 . 189 . Infra V .C .7 . that quite a few cities do expressly allow roosters .190 Exam- ining each aspect of the ordinance piecemeal is designed to provide a thorough overview of ordinances regulating backyard chickens and classification of common concerns . Through this review, regulatory norms will be identified and especially effective, novel, or eccentric regulations will be noted . Norms and effective regulations will be taken into account in constructing a model ordinance . The most thoughtful, effective, and popular regulations from each of these ordinances will be incorporated into these recom- mendations . Also, data discussed in the first part of this Article about chickens, chicken behavior, and chicken- keeping will inform the model ordinance . But, before delving into each of these aspects of the ordinances, some more general impressions from this anal- ysis will be discussed . These more general impressions will include identifying some themes in these regulations based on population size and region . 1. The More Populous the City, the More Likely It Is to Allow for Backyard Chickens When reviewing the overall results of the survey concern- ing whether a city allows chickens or bans them, a pat- tern emerges based on population size . At least among the top 100 cities by population, the smaller the city, the greater the chance that the city will ban chickens . Of t he top 10 cities by population, all of them allow for chickens in some way .191 Of those top 10 cities, however, Philadel- phia has fairly strict zoning restrictions that only allows chickens in lots of three acres or larger .192 And, of the top 50 cities by population, only one city bans chickens outright: Detroit .193 But in the last 20 of the top 100 cities, four of them ban chickens: Yonkers, Grand Rapids, Fort Wayne, and Lubbock .194 So, within that subset, only 80% of the cit- 190 . Infra V .C .8 . 191 . The top 10 cities by population from most populous to least populous: N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §65-23 (1990); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7, 8-10 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . 6, art . II (2010) . 192 . Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011) . 193 . Detroit, Mich ., City Code §6-1-3 (2010) . 194 . The last 20 of the top 100 cities from most populous to least populous: Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010); Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52; Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Or- dinances §157 .104 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Montgom- ery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011); Lubbock, Tex ., City Code §4 .07 .001 (2011); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Yonkers, N .Y ., §65-23 (1990); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 (no date listed); Augusta- Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 33 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10901 ies allow for chickens . This may go against popular belief that chickens would be more prevalent in bucolic sub- urbs and less popular in densely populated cosmopoli- tan areas . Because this survey only includes large urban areas, the percentage of smaller cities, suburbs, and exurbs that allow for chickens is not known . But, based on this limited survey, it appears that more populous cities have largely accepted chickens, and the pursuit of more chicken-friendly legislation has moved to smaller cities and the suburbs . 2. Some Regional Observations Although it is difficult to draw regional distinctions from a limited set of data, it does appear that the states in what is colloquially called the Rustbelt are more likely to ban chickens . In Michigan, both cities within the top 100, Detroit and Grand Rapids, ban chickens .195 And in Pennsylvania, similarly, both of its most populated cit- ies, for the most part, ban chickens .196 Philadelphia only allows chickens on lots of three acres or more—far more than the average lot size in Philadelphia .197 Pittsburgh, although it recently amended its ordinances,198 used to allow chickens only on parcels of five acres or more .199 In either event, in both cities, keeping chickens is limited to property sizes that are far larger than the average for an urban area . Within the Rustbelt states, Ohio stands out for legaliz- ing chickens . All five of its major cities currently allow for 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- mals and defines chickens as farm animals); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010) (prohibiting farm animals within 100 ft . of any dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch, or drain . City officials have interpreted this to ban chickens .); butsee Ann Arbor, Mich ., Code of Ordinances tit . IX, ch . 107, §9:42 (allowing up to four chickens in single-family or two-family dwellings if a permit is secured and regula- tions are followed) . 196 . Phila . §10-112; Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011) . 197 . Susan Wachter, TheDeterminantsofNeighborhoodTransformationsin PhiladelphiaIdentificationandAnalysis:TheNewKensingtonPilotStudy, Spring 2005, The Wharton School, http://www .google .com/url?sa=t &rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http %3A%2F%2Fkabaffiliates .org%2FuploadedFiles%2FKAB_Affiliates .org %2FWharton%2520Study%2520NK%2520final .pdf&ei=X40hT56_ OOjCsQLogpyhCQ&usg=AFQjCNH-DYO3ImfVNsESWy6QZ9-79aW 87A&sig2=C2IvyXmR7twhy4K5RZYk-A (last visited Jan . 26, 2012) (find- ing that the average lot size within the New Kensington area of Philadelphia was just over 1,000 square feet) . 198 . Diana Nelson-Jones, PittsburghUrbanChickenCoopTourtoBeHeldon Sunday, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www .post- gazette .com/pg/11160/1152234-34 .stm (stating that Pittsburgh had amended its ordinances to allow for three chickens for every 2,000 square feet of property) . 199 . Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §911 .04(A)(2) (2011) . 200 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Or- dinances §§205 .04, 347 .02 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code tit . III, ch . 221 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §§505 .07(a)(4), 1705 .07 (2011) . ordinances, however . Columbus requires a permit to keep chickens and allows its Health Commissioner discretion over granting and revoking that permit .201 Akron requires chickens to be kept at least 100 feet from any dwelling, which will restrict owners of small parcels in densely popu- lated areas from raising chickens .202 In 2009, Cleveland passed a comprehensive ordinance legalizing chickens and bees .203 Cleveland allows for one chicken per 800 square feet, which would allow up to six chickens on a standard residential lot .204 Cleveland also has minimal setbacks and detailed coop requirements .205 And Cincinnati and Toledo have even more liberal ordi- nances, allowing for chickens as long as they do not create a nuisance .206 Virginia also stands out for restricting chickens . All four of Virginia’s cities within the top 100 cities by population—Chesapeake, Norfolk, Richmond, and Vir- ginia Beach—restrict chickens to large lots or to lands zoned agricultural .207 B. Where Regulations Concerning Chickens Are Placed Within a City’s Codified Ordinances The survey reveals that there is little consistency in where cities choose to locate chicken regulations within their cod- ified ordinances . Most cities regulate chickens in sections devoted to animals, zoning, health, or nuisances . Each method of regulation will be examined for how often it is used and how effective it is . 201 . Columbus §221 .05: The Health Commissioner may grant permission only after it is determined that the keeping of such animals: (1) creates no adverse environmental or health effects; (2) is in compliance with all other sections of this chapter; and (3) in the judgment of the Health Commissioner, after consultation with the staff of the Health De- partment and with the surrounding occupants of the place of keep- ing such animals, and considering the nature of the community (i .e ., residential or commercial single or multiple dwellings, etc . ), is reasonably inoffensive . The health commissioner may revoke such permission at any time for violation of this chapter or nay other just cause . 202 . Akron §92-18 . 203 . Cleveland §§347 .02 & 205 .04 . 204 . Id . 205 . Id . 206 . Cincinnati §701-17; id. §00053-11 (“No live geese, hens, chickens, pi- geons, ducks, hogs, goats, cows, mules, horses, dogs, cats, other fowl or any other domestic or non-domestic animals shall be kept in the city so as to create a nuisance, foul odors, or be a menace to the health of occupants or neighboring individuals .”); Toledo §§1705 .05 & 505 .07 (“No person shall keep or harbor any animal or fowl in the City so as to create noxious or offensive odors or unsanitary conditions which are a menace to the health, comfort or safety of the public .”) . 207 . Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3 (restricting to low-density zones and restricting to properties of one acre or more); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, app . A, art . II §4-0 .5 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties of five acres or more); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (restricting chickens to properties with one acre or more); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) (restricting chickens to land zoned for agricultural use) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 34 of 56 42 ELR 10902 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 1. Animal Control Regulations Seventy-one of the cities regulate chickens under their ani- mal control ordinances .208 This makes sense, because chick- ens are animals and this is the natural place for would-be chicken owners to look to make sure that they won’t get into legal trouble . Regulating chickens under animal con- trol also leads to fairly easy-to-follow ordinances . Chickens are either allowed, or they are not . And, if there are further regulations concerning lot size, setbacks, or coop require- ments, they are usually all in one place . 208 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances tit . 17, 21 (2011); Augusta-Richmond, Ga ., Code of Ordinances tit . 4, art . 2 (2007); Aurora, Colo ., Code of Ordinances §14-8 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances tit . III, ch . 3 .1 .1 (2011); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Ba- kersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .08 .10 (2011); Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224 (2011); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Cincin- nati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701 (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §§6-153, 6-154 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances §7-1 .1 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011); Des 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); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 (2011); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Or- dinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . 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 of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011); Lex- ington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Ordinances §4-10 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .020 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code ch . 91 (2011); Mem- phis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Mont- 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 (2011); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011); Okla- homa City, Okla ., Mun . Code tit . 8, 59 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §§8-7, 8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordi- nances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §§12-3001, 12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Or- dinances §30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Sacremento, Cal ., City Code §9-44-340 (2011); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015 (2010); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances tit . 7 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §505 .07(a)(4); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . VI (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d)(e) (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .1 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011); Yonkers, N .Y ., §65-23 (1990) . 2. Zoning Regulations Fourteen cities regulate chickens primarily under their zoning laws .209 These cities are much more likely to sub- stantially restrict raising hens .210 It also makes it much more difficult for a resident to determine whether he can legally raise chickens . Such a resident must not only determine in what zone chickens may be raised, but he must also determine whether his property falls within that zone . These laws also tend to sow unnecessary confusion . 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 that chickens are allowed if the animal code permits it .212 The Lubbock city clerk resolved the loop by stating that the city interprets these provisions to entirely ban chickens within the city .213 Finally, cities that regulate chickens primarily through zoning laws do so, presumptively, because they want to restrict raising chickens to certain zones . This, however, can cause unnecessary complications . Raising chickens is not only for residential backyards . Because of declining population and urban renewal projects in many cities, urban farms, market gardens, and community gardens are located in other zones, including business, commer- cial, and even industrial zones . Each time these farms or gardens would like to add a few chickens, they would have to petition the city for a zoning variance or seek a change in the law . This is not an efficient use of a city’s limited resources .214 In addition, other regulations pertaining to chickens, such as setbacks, coop construction, or sanitary require- ments, can get lost among the many building regulations within the zoning code . Zoning codes are generally written for an expert audience of businesses, builders, and devel- opers, and not for the lay audience that would comprise 209 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Or- dinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §§12-205 .1-12-207 .5 (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 (2011); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Jackson- ville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011); Lubbock, Tex ., City Code §4 .07 .001 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052; Wash ., Mun . Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011); id. tit . 17; id. §9 .52; Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 . 210 . Anaheim, Birmingham, Jacksonville, and Lubbock either ban hens alto- gether or restrict hens to certain zones . See Anaheim §18 .38 .030; Birming- ham §2 .4 .1; Jacksonville tit . XVIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656; Lubbock §4 .07 .001 . 211 . Lubbock §4 .07 .001 . 212 . Id . §40 .03 .3103 . 213 . See Interview with Lubbock city clerk (on file with author) . 214 . E.g ., Schindler, supra note 181, 68-71 (arguing that the movement toward urban agriculture should cause cities to reconsider Euclidean zoning because such zoning no longer serves the needs of the cities and its residents) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 35 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10903 chicken owners .215 If cities are concerned about raising chickens too near businesses or neighbors, other regula- tions like setbacks from the street and neighboring proper- ties can ameliorate this concern without having to include the regulation in the zoning code . Regulations placed within the animal code, as described above, are generally in one place and often within a single ordinance . This leads to a better understanding of the law for chicken owners and, thus, easier enforcement for city officials . Unless the zoning regulations have a subsection devoted specifically to animals, like the ones in Spokane216 or Greensboro,217 the most sensible place for regulating chickens is within the animal code . 3. Health Code Another popular place within a municipality’s code to regulate chickens is within the health code . Seven cit- ies regulate chickens primarily within the health code .218 Many of these, however, have a separate section concern- ing animals or animal-related businesses within the health code .219 Again, unless the code has such a separate section concerning animals, the better place to regulate is within the animal code . 4. Other Of the remaining cities, there is very little uniformity . Two, Boston and Columbus, regulate through permit sections within their codified ordinances .220 Because these cities require permits to keep chickens and give a great deal of discretion to city officials to grant or deny permits on a case-by-case basis, locating a chicken regulation within the permit section of the codified ordinance makes sense for those cities . But, as argued later, allowing such discretion is neither a good use of city resources nor a fair and consistent way to regulate chickens . The only other pattern within these ordinances is that two other cities—Buffalo and Tampa—regulate chickens 215 . See Lea S . VanderVelde, LocalKnowledge,LegalKnowledge,andZoningLaw, Iowa L . Rev ., May 1990, at 1057 (describing zoning law as “arcane”) . Also, the sheer number of law treatises for zoning laws demonstrates that zoning 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 ed . 2003); Edward H . Ziegler Jr ., Rathkopf ’s the Law of Zoning and Planning (4th ed . 2012) . 216 . Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code tit . 17C Land Use Standards, ch . 17C .310 Animal Keeping (no date listed) . 217 . Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) . 218 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); Cleve- land, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §§205 .04, 347 .02 (2011); Co- lumbus, Ohio, City Code tit . III, ch . 221 (2011); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-21 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) . 219 . E.g., San Diego §42 .0709; Cleveland §§204 .04, 347 .02; Tacoma §5 .3 .010 . 220 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Columbus tit . III, ch, 221 . under the property maintenance area of the code .221 This is not an ideal place to locate such an ordinance, because potential chicken owners are unlikely to look for chicken regulations there . Finally, one city—Arlington, Texas—places its chicken regulations in a section of the code entitled sale and breed- ing of animals .222 Because backyard chicken owners gener- ally do not raise their chickens for sale, and also likely do not consider themselves to be breeders, this area of the code is not well-suited to this regulation . C. How Cities Regulate Chickens 1. Chickens Are Defined as Pets or Domestic Animals Seven cities—Dallas, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Plano, Raleigh, and Spokane—define chickens as domestic animals or pets, and thus subject them to the same enclosure and nuisance regulations as other domes- tic animals like cats and dogs .223 These cities’ ordinances appear to be long-standing and were not recently modified in response to the backyard chicken movement .224 While many cities may want to more explicitly regulate chickens, this is a workable approach . General nuisance laws already regulate things like odor and noise .225 While many regula- tions particular to chickens duplicate nuisance ordinances, it is unclear whether such duplication actually reduces nui- sances . More precise requirements on sanitation, coop stan- dards, setbacks, and permits may signal to chicken owners that the city is serious about regulating chickens, protect- ing neighbors, and protecting the health and well-being of chickens . But, as chickens regain prevalence in urban areas, cities that regulate chickens as pets or domestic ani- mals may find that—through inertia—they have taken the most efficient approach, both in terms of preserving city resources and curbing potential nuisances . 2. Space Requirements Of the 94 cities that allow for raising chickens, 31 of them impose restrictions based upon how big the property is, either explicitly through lot size requirements, or implicitly through zoning requirements .226 Of those, 16 cities restrict 221 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordi- nances §19 .76 (2008) . 222 . Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010) . 223 . Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code tit . III, ch . 531 .101 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code §656 .1601 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18- 2 .1 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §12-3001 (2011); Pla- no, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-184 (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 (no date listed) . 224 . Supra note 223. 225 . Every city surveyed had general nuisance provisions in its code regulating odor and noise . 226 . Cities that impose lot size requirements: Anaheim, Cleveland, Fort Wayne, Fremont, Garland, Greensboro, Nashville, Norfolk, Oklahoma, Philadel- phia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Rochester, Stockton, and Tampa . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 36 of 56 42 ELR 10904 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 based on lot size and 17 restrict based on zoning . This adds up to 33, rather than 31, because two cities restrict based on both lot size and zoning .227 These restrictions range from draconian, practically banning chickens in most of the city by restricting chickens to extremely large lots,228 to extremely liberal, allowing up to 30 chickens per 240 square feet—or 30 chickens in an area approximately the size of a large bedroom .229 As discussed below, an addi- tional 10 cities should be considered unfriendly to keep- ing hens because, while they do allow chickens under some circumstances, those circumstances are restricted to very large lots or agriculturally zoned land .230 a. Lot Size Requirements Of the 15 cities that restrict based on lot size only, six of them restrict chickens to property that is one acre or more: Nashville, Norfolk, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Richmond .231 Nashville, Norfolk, and Pittsburgh appear to limit chickens to property of more than five acres, which in any urban area is a practical ban . Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances §157 .104 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Greens- boro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Nashville-Da- vidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §17-16-330 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §§4-05, 6 .1-7 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350(c) (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-10 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §16 .80 .060 (2011); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) . Cities that impose zoning re- strictions: Bakersfield, Birmingham, Chesapeake, Dallas, Fresno, Glendale, Arizona, Greensboro, Hialeah, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Madison, Mem- phis, Montgomery, San Diego, Shreveport, Stockton, and Virginia Beach . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code tit . 17 (2011); Birmingham, Ala ., Zon- ing Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances Zoning art . 3 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code ch . 12 (2011); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Or- dinances §§5 .132 & 5 .212 (2011); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordi- nances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances ch . 98 (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- dinances ch . 28 (no date listed); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances tit . 16 (2009); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances, app . C, art . VII (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) . 227 . Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Stock- ton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420 & 16 .80 .060 (2011) . 228 . E.g., Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §§8-12-020, 17-16-330 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011) . 229 . See Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12, 30-19 (no date listed) . 230 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Or- dinances §§10 .1, 10 .2 (2011); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code §656 .331(2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4, art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII; Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, app . A, art . II §4-0 .5 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Or- dinances §10-88 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545, app . A (2011) . 231 . Nashville-Davidson, Tenn ., Mun . Code §17-16-330(b) (2011); Pitts- burgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §§635 .02, 911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Phila ., Pa ., Code §10-112 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59- 9350 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) . Norfolk appears to allow for an exception to the five-acre minimum232 by allowing a would-be chicken owner to procure a permit to keep hens,233 but in practice, the city will not issue this permit to chicken hobbyists .234 But, as discussed below, Nashville and Pittsburgh have interpreted their restrictive ordinances to allow for chickens on much smaller parcels of property . In Nashville, the zoning code conflicts with the health code, and the health code apparently won out . The zoning ordinance limits “common domestic farm animals” to a lot size of five acres or more, but the ordinance does not define what qualifies as a common domestic farm animal .235 Nash- ville’s health code, by contrast, specifically allows for chick- ens, as long as they do not create a nuisance .236 Nashville issued a memorandum in 2009 providing that the Board of Zoning Appeals held that the health code takes precedence over the zoning code .237 In so holding, the Board allowed a property owner to keep her chickens, because their owner considered them to be pets and the chickens did not create a nuisance .238 In Pittsburgh, while agricultural uses were limited to property of five acres or more, like Nashville, the code did not specifically define whether raising chickens was considered an agricultural use .239 Pittsburgh, thus, would allow chicken keepers to seek a variance for raising chick- ens on property of less than five acres .240 Apparently, though it is not yet codified, Pittsburgh recently made it much easier to raise chickens, and also bees, by allowing up to three hens and two beehives on property of 2,000 square feet or more .241 So, both Nashville and Pittsburgh, while appearing to ban chickens, have become chicken-friendly . The next most restrictive ordinance is in Philadelphia . Philadelphia restricts chickens to property of three acres or more . Philadelphia, however, apparently means it . In Philadelphia, the code specifically defines poultry as a farm animal,242 and only allows farm animals on a parcel of property of three acres or more .243 232 . Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances, Zoning Ordinance, app . A, §4-05 (2011) (“Except as otherwise noted, there shall be no raising or keeping of . . . poultry, fowl, . . . on less than five acres .”) . 233 . Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011) (allowing for a person wishing to raise poultry to procure a permit issued by the department of public health) . 234 . Amelia Baker, BackyardChickens:NowYou’reClucking, AltDaily, June 2, 2010, http://www .altdaily .com/features/food/backyard-chickens-now- youre-clucking .html (providing that the city will only issue permits for sentinel chickens that the city has on surveillance to check for mosquito- borne diseases) . 235 . Nashville-Davidson §17 .16 .330(b) . 236 . Id. §8 .12 .020 . 237 . Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Office, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author) . 238 . Id . 239 . Pittsburgh §911 .04 . 240 . Diana Nelson Jones, OrdinanceChangesBotherKeepersofBeesandChickens, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Feb . 8, 2010, http://www .post-gazette .com/ pg/10039/1034293-53 .stm . 241 . Diana Nelson Jones, PittsburghUrbanCoopTourtoBeHeldSunday, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 9, 2011, http://www .post-gazette .com/ pg/11160/1152234-34 .stm . 242 . Phila . §10-100 . 243 . Id. §10-112 . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 37 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10905 Oklahoma City and Richmond both require at least one acre . Oklahoma City restricts raising chickens to prop- erty that is at least one acre, but apparently if the property owner has one acre, there is no restriction on how many chickens can be kept on that acre .244 Richmond requires 50,000 square feet, or slightly more square footage than the 43,560 square feet in an acre .245 After these, the lot sizes are far more lenient . Two cities, Garland and Stockton, require at least ½ acre .246 Three cities, Fremont, Greensboro, and Phoenix, require between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet, or between a little less than 1/8 to a little less than 1/4 acre .247 And four cit- ies, Anaheim, Cleveland, Rochester, and Tampa, require between 240 to 1,800 square feet, or from not much larger than a shed to about the size of a modern master bedroom .248 So, out of the 15 cities that restrict based on lot size, the majority of them allow most residents to raise backyard chickens . b. Zoning Requirements Seventeen cities restrict chickens to certain zones . Of these, three of the cities restrict chickens only to land zoned for agricultural use: Birmingham, Hialeah, and Virginia Beach .249 Three more cities restrict chickens to agricultural or very low-density residential zones: Chesapeake, Jackson- ville, and Montgomery .250 Thus, six of the 17 cities confine chickens to so few zones that it excludes the possibility of raising chickens for most families . The remaining eleven cities, however, while still restrict- ing chickens to certain zones, allow chickens in many or most residential zones .251 Dallas only applies zoning 244 . Oklahoma City §59-8150 (definitions); id. §59-9350 (confining to one acre) . 245 . Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88(b) (2011) . 246 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §16 .80 .060 (2011) . 247 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) (6,000 sq . ft .); Greensboro, 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 .) . 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 resi- dential, and 400 for commercial); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-12, 30-19 (no date listed) (240 sq . ft .); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordi- nances §19 .76 (2008) (1,000 sq . ft .) . 249 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §§10 .1 & 10 .2 (2011); Virginia Beach, Va ., City Code §5-545 app . A (2011) . 250 . Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); id. Zoning art . 3; Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code tit . XIII, ch . 462, tit . XVII, ch . 656 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances app . C, art . VII (2011) . 251 . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §§17 .12 .010-RS & 17 .32 .020 (2011) (permitting chickens in agriculture and residential suburban areas); Dal- las, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011) (requiring chickens that are raised for commercial purposes to be on agriculturally zoned land, otherwise chickens are regulated as pets); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §§12-204 .11-12-207 .5 (2011) (providing different setbacks depending on zone); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §§5 .132 & 5 .212 (2011) (restricting poultry to rural residential and suburban residential zones); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (allowing chickens as an accessory on single-family detached dwellings on R-3, E-5, R-7, RM-9, RM-12, and RM-18 districts); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§12 .01, 12 .05-12 .09 (2011) (allowing chickens in agricultural and requirements if chickens are being raised for commercial purposes .252 Memphis merely applies different building restrictions for coops depending on the zone .253 And two cities employ zoning laws to augment the area where chick- ens are allowed: Cleveland and Stockton specifically allow raising chickens in industrially zoned areas .254 c. Multi-Family Units Two cities, Minneapolis and Newark, specifically regulate multi-family dwellings such as apartments . Both of these cities require permits, but will not grant one to certain multi-family dwellings . Minneapolis will not grant a per- mit to someone who lives in a multi-family home with four or more dwelling units .255 Newark will not grant one to anyone living in any multi-family home .256 d. Using Lot Size to Determine the Number of Chickens Many other cities do not restrict chickens to certain lot sizes, but use lot size to determine how many chickens a property can have . There is no uniformity to these ordi- nances . Some ordinances set a maximum number of chickens for property of a certain size and under, and then allow for more chickens as the property size increases . For instance, Seattle allows up to eight chickens for lots under 10,000 square, and one more chicken for each additional 1,000 square feet .257 Fremont has an intricate step system, with four chickens for at least 6,000 square feet, six for at least 8,000 square feet, 10 for at least 10,000, 20 for at least ½ acre, and 25 for more than one acre .258 Riverside allows for up to four chickens on property between 7,200 and 40,000 square feet and up to 12 on property 40,000 square feet or more in residentially zoned areas .259 Some cities decide the number of chickens based on zoning . El Paso allows for up to six chickens on land not zoned agricultural .260 Tulsa allows up to six adults and 14 chicks under eight weeks of age on land not zoned agricul- residential districts including districts zoned A1, A2, RA, RE, RS R1, and RMP); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52 (allowing chickens in both residential and commer- cial districts); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances tit . 16, app . A (2009) (applying complex zoning requirements for outbuildings to chicken coops); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011) (using zoning to define different kinds of setbacks, but allowing chickens in most zones); Shreveport, La ., Code of Ordinances ch . 106 (2011) (allowing poultry raising in residential and agricultural districts by right, and in most other zones through a special exception from the zoning board) Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011) (allowing chickens in residen- tial and industrially zoned areas) . 252 . Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-1 .1 (2011) . 253 . Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances tit . 16 (2009) . 254 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §16 .80 .060 (2011) . 255 . Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10(c) (2011) . 256 . Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-33 (2010) . 257 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(C) (2011) . 258 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) . 259 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §17 .24 (2011) . 260 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B) (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 38 of 56 42 ELR 10906 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 tural .261 Neither city restricts the amount of chickens on agriculturally zoned land .262 Instead of using square footage or zoning, many cities divide by acre . These ordinances range between four to 12 chickens for property under ½ acre . For instance, Fort Worth allows for no more than 12 chickens on lots under ½ acre, no more than 20 on lots between ½ and one acre, and no more than 50 on lots of one acre or more .263 Mesa City allows for 10 rodents or fowl on ½ acre or less, and an additional 10 for each ½ acre, but no longer limits the number of chickens after 2 ½ acres .264 Louisville allows for five chickens on property of less than ½ acre, and no limit above that .265 Arlington provides for four on less than ½ acre, 10 for lots between ½ and one acre, and 25 for lots over one acre .266 And, Charlotte requires a permit and restricts chickens to 20 per acre .267 Des Moines’ ordinance employs a similar step system but provides for a mix of other livestock . It allows for no more than 30 of any two species for property less than one acre . For property greater than one acre, one can have a total of 50 animals divided among up to six species .268 Lincoln, Nebraska, has one of the more unique chicken ordinances when it comes to limiting the number, in that it not only provides for a maximum number of chickens, but also a minimum . It also specifies the weight of the chick- ens . So, for property under one acre, with a permit, a person can have seven to 30 chickens under three pounds, three to 20 chickens between three and five pounds, and two to five chickens between five and 20 pounds .269 It allows chicken owners to double the number for each additional acre . Lincoln’s ordinance should be applauded for recog- nizing that chickens are flock animals and thus require, at least, a minimum of two . It should also be applauded for not penalizing an owner for keeping less than two and only making it unlawful to keep numbers greater than the maximum .270 After all, if it penalized keeping less than a minimum number of chickens, Lincoln might be unique among cities for making it unlawful not to keep chickens . More problematic are cities that do not allow owners to own a minimum number of four chickens . Several cities allow one chicken per a certain square footage area . Greens- boro provides for one chicken for every 3,000 square feet, as long as the area is greater than 7,000 square feet .271 Ana- heim allows one chicken for each 1,800 square feet, but it does provide that if the calculation results in more than half an animal, the owner can round up to the next whole 261 . Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(E) (2011) . 262 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordi- nances §200(A) . 263 . Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c), (d), (e) (2011) . 264 . Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-21(A) (2011) . 265 . Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Code §91 .011 Restraint (8) (2011) . 266 . Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010) . 267 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(1), (g) (2010) . 268 . Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011) . Des Moines also allows up to two fowl to be kept as pets . Id. §18-136 . 269 . Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code tbl . 6 .04 .040 (2011) . 270 . Id. §6 .04 .040(b)(1) . 271 . Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3(B) (2011) . animal .272 Tampa provides five per 5,000 square feet . And, Cleveland allows for one chicken for each 800 square feet if residential and each 400 square feet if commercial or industrial .273 Cleveland, at least, has stated in its ordinance that these square feet requirements are meant to allow six chickens on an average-sized Cleveland lot . While many of these cities provide a small enough chicken to square foot ratio that the average single-family home should be able to accommodate four or more chickens, this method still leaves open the possibility that a chicken owner would be restricted to one or two chickens . An ordinance that allows only one chicken per a certain area does not take into account that chickens are flock animals that do not thrive when left alone . 3. Limit Number of Chickens Many other cities limit the number of chickens any house- hold can keep, no matter the size of the property . Thirty cities place a simple limit on the number of chickens .274 Of those cities that simply limit the number of chickens, the average number they allow is 12, the median number is nine, and the most popular number is a tie between four and 25 .275 The lowest number is Garland and Honolulu with two .276 Somewhat surprisingly, the highest number comes from Jersey City—with 50 .277 Jersey City collapses ducks and pigeons within the restriction of 50 fowl .278 Jer- sey City also requires a permit to keep chickens .279 At least four cities set a maximum number of chickens that can be owned before it is necessary to procure a per- 272 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .050 (2011) . 273 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(2) (2011) . 274 . From lowest to highest: Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (two); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) (two); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(b) & (e) (2011) (three); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(A)(1) (2011) (three); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) (three); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011) (four); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordi- nances §78-6 .5(3) (2011) (four); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015 (2010) (four); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011) (four); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); id. §7 .29; id. §9 .52 (four); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009) (five); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .815 (2007) (six); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011) (six); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (six); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances ch . 6, art . II (2010) (seven); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances tit . III, ch . 3 .1 .1 (2011) (nine); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City 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- sas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) (15); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) (15); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .020 (2011) (20); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4- 56 (2011) (24); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) (25); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0708 (2011) (25); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010) (25); Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordi- nance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (25); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011) (25); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) (50) . 275 . Supra note 274 and accompanying text . 276 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) (two); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (two) . 277 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) . 278 . Id . 279 . Id . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 39 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10907 mit .280 Wichita allows three chickens, Santa Ana allows four, and San Jose and El Paso both allow up to six .281 This appears to be the most workable system, because it takes into account that there are different levels of chicken-keep- ing in an urban agriculture context . It provides a bright- line rule for people who want small backyard flocks, while still allowing owners of market gardens, urban farms, or chicken cooperatives the opportunity to expand their operations without seeking to change the ordinance . It also conserves city resources by not forcing every would-be chicken owner to procure a permit . Finally, because there is no permit, it saves the city from any obligations to monitor the backyard operation . If any problem arises with a small backyard flock, the city can rely on its nuisance laws, or other setback or coop requirements within the statute to resolve the problem . Some cities always require a permit, but set a relatively high number of chickens allowed . As noted earlier, with a permit, Jersey City allows up to 50,282 and Boston and Mobile allow up to 25 .283 According to several Bostonians who want chickens, however, Boston does not easily grant this permit .284 Miami allows up to 15 hens with a permit .285 Some cities take a belt-and-suspenders approach and require both a permit and restrict hens to a small number . With a permit, Milwaukee only allows four,286 and Sacra- mento, three .287 Several other cities, perhaps understanding that the hens may occasionally be used to produce more chickens, allow considerably more chicks than full-grown chickens . Both Miami and Kansas City allow only 15 grown hens, but Miami allows 30 chicks,288 and Kansas City allows 50 .289 Tulsa allows seven adults and 14 chicks .290 Colo- rado Springs allows 10 hens and an unlimited number of chicks .291 And Garland, even though it allows only two hens, does not limit the number of chicks less than one- month old .292 And for pure eccentricity, Houston has the most inter- esting restriction on the number of chickens . Houston allows up to seven hens if a person can present a written certification from a licensed physician that the person needs “fresh unfertilized chicken eggs for serious reasons 280 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157(a) (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordi- nances tit . 7 (2007); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011) . 281 . Seesupranote 280 . 282 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011) . 283 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning art . 8 No . 75 (2010); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011) . 284 . See,e.g., Legalize Chickens in Boston, http://legalizechickensinboston . org/ (last visited July 5, 2012) (stating that the city of Boston denies chicken permits and seeking a more reasonable legislative solution to regulate chick- ens in Boston) . 285 . Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) . 286 . Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011) . 287 . Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(a)(1) (2011) . 288 . Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011) . 289 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) . 290 . Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) . 291 . Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) . 292 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011) . pertaining to said person’s health .”293 This ordinance was passed in 2010,294 presumably because Houstonites were able to show that fresh eggs help alleviate certain medi- cal ailments . 4. Setbacks Setbacks are, by far, the most popular way to regulate chickens . Sixty-three cities have some sort of setback requirement in their ordinances . The most popular setback is a setback from a neighboring dwelling: 56 cities require that chickens and chickens coops be kept a certain distance from other residences .295 The next most popular is a setback 293 . Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-38 (2010) . 294 . Id. 295 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92-18 (2011) (100 ft .); Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) (50 ft .); Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §§21 .40 .060 & 21 .40 .080 (2011) (25-100 ft); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02 (2010) (50 ft .); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011) (50 ft .); Aus- tin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3 .2 .16 (2011) (50 ft .); Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010 R-S (2011) (50 ft .); Baton Rouge, La ., 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 ft . from any residential structure); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning, art . 8, No . 75 (2010) (100 ft .); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009) (20 ft . from door or window); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (100 ft . if not enclosed); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011) (25 ft .); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .030 (2011) (30 ft .); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of 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 (2011) (30 ft .); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .030 (2011) (50 ft . from dwelling or 100 ft . from school or hospital); Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010) (100 ft .); Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582 (2010) (100 ft . from any dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch, or drain); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3(B) (2011) (50 ft .); Hialeah, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §10 .4 (2011) (100 ft .); Honolulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (300 ft .); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-31 (2010) (100 ft .); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011) (25 ft .); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011) (100 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 §§53 .58 & 53 .59 (2011) (Department of Animal Services promulgated regulations that require chicken coops to be 35 ft . from neighbor’s dwelling 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) (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 §17-16-330(B) (2011) (250 ft .); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §161 .09 (1990) (25 ft .); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010) (20 ft .); Oak- land, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-320 (2011) (20 ft .); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code 59-9350 (2011) (200 ft .); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7 (2011) (80 ft .); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (500 ft .); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011); id. tit . 17 (50 ft .); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19(H) (no date listed) (25 ft .); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) (20 ft .); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011) (100 ft . or 50 ft . with permit); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011) (50 ft .); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(b) (2011) (20 ft . from door or window); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .815 (2007) (20 ft . but more if have more chickens); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinanc- es §5-18 (2011) (100 ft .); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft .); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011) (100 ft . unless have permission from neighbors); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §§6 .04 .420, 16 .80 .060 (2011) (50 ft .); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) (50 ft . unless have permission from neighbors); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft .); Tucson, Ariz ., Code Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 40 of 56 42 ELR 10908 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 from the property line: 20 cities require chickens to be kept away from the neighbor’s property, even if the neighbor’s actual house is much further away .296 Three cities require a setback from the street .297 Six cities ban chickens from the front yard .298 This adds up to more than 63, because sev- eral cities employ more than one kind of setback . Finally, several cities have unique setback requirements that will be discussed later . a. Setbacks From Neighboring Buildings Of the 56 cities that require that chickens be kept a cer- tain distance away from neighboring residences,299 the set- backs range from 10300 to 500 feet .301 The average of all of the setbacks is 80 feet,302 although only one city, Phoenix, actually has a setback of 80 feet .303 The median and the mode are both 50 feet .304 The average is higher than both the median and the mode, because several cities that also require large lots, or agriculturally zoned land, also have very large setbacks .305 The mode, the most common set- of Ordinances §4-57 (2011) (50 ft .); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (50 ft .) . 296 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) (20 ft . from property 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 (2007) (100 ft . from property line); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (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 18 inches from rear yard); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §12-206 .1 (2011) (100 ft . from property line); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordi- nance Code §656 .401 (2011) (50 ft . from property line); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. app . C, art . VII (200 ft . from property line); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3-204 (2011) (5 ft . from property line); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(b) & (e) (2011) (50 ft . from residence or business where food is prepared); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft . from property line); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft . from property line); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d) & (e) (2011) (50 ft ., but 100 ft . if zoned agricultural); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (250 ft . unless have neighbor’s consent) . 297 . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010-RS (2011) (100 ft .); Bir- mingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (300 ft .); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning, art . 8, No . 75 (2010) (100 ft .) . 298 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- fied Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(g)-(j) (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7 (2011); Sacra- mento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) . 299 . Seesupranote 295 . 300 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) . 301 . Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) . Since Richmond also requires an acre of land to even own chickens, this setback doesn’t ex- clude any additional would-be chicken owners . 302 . Seesupra note 295 . 303 . Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-10 (2011) (80 ft . unless have permission from neighbor) . 304 . Seesupra note 295 . 305 . Birmingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) (300 ft .); Hono- lulu, Haw ., Rev . Ordinances §7-2 .5(d) (1990) (300 ft .); and Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) (500 ft .) . back, comprises 17 cities .306 After that, the most popular setbacks are the following: • Fifteen cities have setbacks of less than 30 feet, with two at 30 feet,307 seven at 25 feet,308 six at 20 feet,309 and one at 10 feet .310 • Thirteen cities have setbacks of 100 feet .311 Of those, three of them allow for smaller setback under certain conditions: St . Petersburg will allow for a smaller set- back if the owner seeks permission from neighboring property owners; San Antonio will allow for a smaller setback with a permit; and Corpus Christi will allow for a smaller setback if the coop is enclosed .312 • Seven cities have setbacks of more than 100 feet .313 Of those, Mobile, Alabama, has a 150-foot setback, but allows chicken coops that were built before the ordi- nance passed to be grandfathered in .314 Oklahoma City has a 200-foot setback and, puzzlingly, will waive these setbacks from horses, mules, donkeys, and pigs, but not for chickens .315 Oklahoma City also has an additional 400-foot setback for roosters .316 Several cities will shrink their setbacks under certain conditions . In what appears to be a thoughtful approach to requiring a neighbor’s consent, four cities provide a standard setback, but provide relief from the setback if the owner gets permission from his neighbors to keep chickens .317 And one city, San Antonio, as mentioned 306 . Anaheim; Arlington; Austin; Bakersfield; Baton Rouge; Fort Worth; Glendale, California; Greensboro; Lincoln; Long Beach (but 20 if just had one chicken); Portland; Riverside; San Diego; Stockton; Tacoma; Tucson; Washington . 307 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .030 (2011) (30 ft ., but only 20 ft . if separated by a fence that is at least six ft .); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances §22 .14(A) (2011) . 308 . Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §§21 .40 .060 & 21 .40 .080 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h)(1) (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-6 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); N .Y .C ., Mun . Code §161 .09 (1990) (for poultry market coops only—poultry not intended for sale is not regulated); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19(H) (no date listed) . 309 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6- 04-320 (2011); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .815 (2007) (applying setback to all small animals, not just chickens) . 310 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(C) (2011) . 311 . Akron, Atlanta, Boston, Corpus Christi, Glendale, Grand Rapids, Hialeah, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, San Antonio, Santa Ana, St . Petersburg . 312 . St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31 (2011) (100 ft . un- less have permission from neighbors); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances §5-109(c) (2011) (100 ft . or 50 ft . with permit); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) (100 ft . if not enclosed) . 313 . Mobile, Oklahoma, Tampa, Nashville, Birmingham, Honolulu, Richmond . 314 . Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-88(d) (2011) (150 ft . if not grandfathered in), butseeid. §7-103(d) (allowing for 20 ft . from the prop- erty line in a residential area) . 315 . Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350(F) & (I) (2011) . 316 . Id. §59-9350(H) . 317 . Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011) (300 ft . without per- mission); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-10 (2011) (80 ft . without per- mission); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(d) (2011) (100 ft . without permission); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §§5 .30 .010 & 5 .30 .030 (2011) (50 ft . without permission) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 41 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10909 above, will shrink its 100-foot setback to 50 feet if a per- mit is secured .318 Two cities do not frame the setback as from a neighbor- ing residence or building, but more specifically to a door or a window of the building . Both Buffalo and San Fran- cisco have a 20-foot setback from any door or window of a building .319 Several cities define the setback more broadly than a neighboring dwelling, and include schools, hospitals, and other businesses within the setback .320 Grand Rapids, Michigan, however, goes further; it has a 100-foot setback from any “dwelling unit, well, spring, stream, drainage ditch or drain .”321 This, in effect, bans all chickens within the city . b. Setbacks From Property Line Twenty cities mandate setbacks from the property line;322 those setbacks range from 18 inches323 to 250 feet .324 The average setback is 59 feet, but no city actually has such a setback . The closest are Jacksonville and Tulsa, which both have a setback of 50 feet .325 Again, a few cities with very large setbacks are raising the average .326 The median set- 318 . San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011) . 319 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 (2009); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011) . 320 . E.g., Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22 (2011); Glen- dale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011) . 321 . Grand Rapids, Mich ., Code of Ordinances §8 .582(2) (2010) . 322 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) (20 ft . from property 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 (2007) (100 ft . from property line); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (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 18 inches from rear yard); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §12-206 .1 (2011) (100 ft . from property line); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordi- nance Code §656 .401 (2011) (50 ft . from property line); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) (25 ft . from property line); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances ch . 4 art . I (2011); id. at app . C, art . VII (200 ft . from property line); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinanc- es §3-204 (2011) (5 ft . from property line); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(b) & (e) (2011) (50 ft . from residence or business where food is prepared); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .20 (2011) (20 ft . from property line); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) (10 ft . from property line); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft . from property line); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d) & (e) (2011) (50 ft ., but 100 ft . if zoned agricultural); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (250 ft . unless have neighbor’s consent) . 323 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02 (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009) . 324 . Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7 (no date listed) (250 ft . setback without consent of neighbors) . 325 . Jacksonville, Fla ., Ordinance Code §656 .401 (2011) (50 ft . from prop- erty line); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) . 326 . Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §200(d), (e) (2011) (200 ft .); Tam- pa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .76 (2008) (200 ft .); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(a) & (b) (no date listed) (250 ft .) . back is 25 feet .327 And the mode, or most popular, setback is tied at either 20328 or 25 feet .329 Washington, D .C ., which has the largest setback at 250 feet, allows relief from this setback if the owner has his neighbor’s consent to keep chickens .330 c. Setbacks From the Street Three cities require chickens to be kept away from the street: Bakersfield, Birmingham, and Boston .331 All of these setbacks are relatively large, ranging from 100 to 300 feet . Presumably, this is to stop chickens from being kept in the front yard or on a corner lot from a vantage point where passersby can easily see the coop . Bakersfield, provides a specific setback for corner lots, requiring that chicken 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 effectively, is by simply barring chickens from front yards, as six cities do .333 d. Other Kinds of Setbacks While many ordinances exclude the owner’s house from the definition of a dwelling,334 two cities provide a sepa- rate 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 that the chickens be kept at least 20 feet away from the owner’s house .336 Three cities do not provide for explicit setbacks, but leave each setback up to some city official’s discretion . In Wichita, the chief of police can examine the property and determine the setback .337 In St . Paul, it is up to the Health Inspector’s discretion .338 And, in Fremont, it is the Animal Services Supervisor who has discretion .339 327 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c)(1), (f) (2010); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8-11 .3 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011) . 328 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011); Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances ch . 10 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordi- nances §6 .04 .20 & tit . 17(2011) . 329 . Seesupra note 327 . 330 . Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(b) (no date listed) . 331 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A, Zoning, art . 8, No . 75 (2010); Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010-RS (2011); Birming- ham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) . 332 . Bakersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §17 .12 .010-RS (2011) . 333 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- fied Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(B) (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78- 6 .5(3)(i) (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7 (2011); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) . 334 . E.g., Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3 .2 .16 (2011) (50 ft); Ana- heim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .0202 (2011) . 335 . Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011) . 336 . L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §§53 .58 & 53 .59 (2011) (Department of Ani- mal Services promulgated regulations requiring coops to be 20 ft . from owner’s dwelling) . 337 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .173(c) (2011) . 338 . St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .05 (2011) . 339 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 42 of 56 42 ELR 10910 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 Finally, St . Louis wins for the most eccentric setback . It doesn’t have any setbacks for neighboring buildings, or the property line, but it does require that chickens be kept out of the milking barn .340 5. Coop Requirements Many cities regulate how the chicken coop should be built and maintained . There is a broad range in these reg- ulations, and no two ordinances are alike . Some simply decree that it is unlawful for chickens to run at large, and thus implicitly mandate that the coop be constructed in a secure enough way so that chickens can’t easily escape . Some appear to look out for animal welfare by decreeing that chickens should be provided adequate food, water, and shelter in sanitary conditions . And, some appear to try to proactively head off any potential problems by regulat- 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 . Then, more unique elements will be discussed . a. No Running at Large First, 33 cities prohibit chickens particularly or animals in general from running at large .341 Most of those cit- ies simply prohibit chickens from running at large, but some provide for a little more nuance . For instance, Cincinnati does not allow chickens to run at large “so as to do damage to gardens, lawns, shrubbery or other private property .”342 So, presumably, a chicken could run free, as long as it didn’t damage anything . Five cities, instead of making it unlawful to run at large, provide that the chicken must be kept enclosed in the coop and 340 . St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §11 .46 .410 (2010) . 341 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92 .01 (2011); Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3(D) (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02(e) (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701- 33 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §603 .01 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(c)(3) (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .205 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .03 (2011); Indianapolis, Ind ., Rev . Code §531 .102 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-2 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .030 (2011); Lexington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Ordinances §4- 10 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .080 (2011); Louis- ville, Ky ., Metro Code ch . 91 .001 Nuisance (2011); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-2 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6- 21(I) (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-2 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-34 (2010); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6-04-200 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-263 (2011); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §635 .02 (2011); Raleigh, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §12-3004 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Or- dinances §10-88 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(b) (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .750 (2007); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §10 .24 (no date listed); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .130 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .020 (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §505 .10 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-55 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordi- nances §6 .04 .173 (2011) . 342 . Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-33 (2011) . not allowed to escape .343 And two cities, Richmond and Stockton, frame it in terms of trespass and do not allow chicken trespassers .344 In any event, all of these statutes imply that a coop, minimally, must be constructed so that the birds cannot escape . b. Coops Must Be Clean and Sanitary Forty-six cities impose some sort of cleaning requirements on chicken owners .345 While many cities have cleaning requirements that apply to any animal,346 these cities ordi- nances are, for the most part, specific to chickens . Nearly all of these ordinances mandate that the chicken coop be kept in a clean and sanitary condition and free from offensive odors . The degree to which each city reg- ulates this, however, varies . Most cities have a variation on a general requirement that the coop be clean or sani- 343 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codi- 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) . 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 other person, firm, or corporation; or upon any park or public street or highway within the city) . 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 of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(c) & (d) (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(C) (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102 (2010); Chicago, Ill ., Code of Ordinances §7-12-290(b) (2011); Cin- cinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances ch . 701-35 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-3 .2 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-92 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-4(h) (2011); El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .030 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances §91 .017 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §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 of Ordinances §6-6 (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §§14-18 & 14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Lin- coln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .070 (2011); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-22 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78- 6 .5 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Newark, N .J ., Gen- eral Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(d) (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88(d) (2011); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .755 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-18 (2011); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .04-05 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(c) (2011); To- ledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §1705 .07 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Or- dinances §4-58 (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §§200(d), (e) & 406 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Con- trol §902 .10-13 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .174 (2011) . 346 . E.g ., Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .10 .030 (2011); At- lanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-8 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5600 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-3 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 Adequate Shelter (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-51 (2011); Tampa, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §19 .77 (2008) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 43 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10911 tary .347 Most cities also expressly prohibit odors or offen- sive odors .348 Some cities are a little more explicit and require that the coop be cleaned regularly or routinely .349 Some cities go further and require the coop to be clean at all times .350 And some cities regulate precisely how often the coop must be cleaned . Houston is the most fastidious . In Houston, the coop must be cleaned once per day, limed once every other day, and all containers containing chicken manure must be properly disposed of once per week .351 Milwaukee also requires coops to be cleaned daily and additionally “as is necessary .”352 The next two most fastidious cities, Des Moines and Santa Ana, require that the coop be cleaned at least every other day .353 Seven cities require that the coop be cleaned at least twice a week .354 And another four cities require that the coop be cleaned at least once a week .355 And, splitting the difference, Jersey City requires the coop to be cleaned once a week from November to May, and twice a week from May to November .356 Many cities also have a particular concern with either flies or rodents . Fourteen cities specify that attracting flies will be a nuisance .357 Cities that specifically mention flies 347 . E.g ., Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .203 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .070 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011); San Anto- nio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .755 (2007); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §1706 .07 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .174 (2011) . 348 . E.g., Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-35 (2011); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-3 .2 (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances §91 .017 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .203 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .17 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §§14-18 & 14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6- 261 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(c) (2011); Toledo, Ohio, Mun . Code §1705 .07 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .174 (2011) . 349 . E.g., Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(c) & (d) (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §§200(d), (e) & 406 (2011) . 350 . E.g., Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) . 351 . Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010) . 352 . Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011) . 353 . Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-137 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011) . 354 . Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .17 (2011); Glendale, Ariz . Mun . Code §25-24(h) (2010); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-6 (2011); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-22 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(d) (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-18 (2011) . 355 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2(B)(1) (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-35 (2010); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0709 (2011) . 356 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8(C) (2011) . 357 . Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §10-5-21 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(h) (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Or- dinances §22 .17 (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-19 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .755 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011); Scottsdale, within their ordinances are congregated mostly in the South or the Southwest .358 Several mandate that chicken feed or chicken waste be kept in fly-tight containers .359 Miami requires that a chicken’s droppings be treated to destroy fly maggots before it can be used as fertilizer .360 Mesa has four cleaning requirements all designed to keep flies away: (1) droppings must be removed twice weekly; (2) “fowl excreta” must be stored in fly-tight containers; (3) water and feed troughs must be kept sanitary; and (4) food and food waste must be kept in a fly-proof con- tainer—all explicitly “to prevent the breeding of flies .”361 Kansas City’s concern with flies will stand in the way of keeping hens for eggs that would meet organic standards; it mandates the use of insecticide by providing that “all struc- tures, pens or coops wherein fowl are kept or permitted to be shall be sprayed with such substances as will eliminate such insects .”362 Because chickens eat insects, and because the protein they gain from eating those insects has a ben- eficial effect on the nutritional value of their eggs, this regulation stands at odds with a reason many people are interested in keeping backyard hens . Glendale, California, appears to be the most concerned about flies, going so far as to mandate that the owner adhere to impossible building requirements . Glendale requires chickens to be kept in a fly-proof enclosure; it defines fly- proof quite specifically as “a structure or cage of a design which prevents the entry therein or the escape therefrom of any bee, moth or fly .”363 Because a chicken must enter into and exit from its enclosure, and because one would want the chicken to have access to fresh air and sunlight, such a structure presents itself as an architectural impossibility . Ten cities are particularly concerned with rats .364 Of these cities, several are concerned about both flies and rats .365 Most of these cities simply mandate that the coop be free of rats,366 but three cities require that food be kept Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §§4-17 & 4-18 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .11-13 (no date listed) . 358 . Seesupra note 357 . 359 . Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011) . 360 . Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011) . 361 . Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23 (2011) . 362 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(d) (2011) . 363 . Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011) . 364 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .13(B)(8) (2009); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §§604 .17 & 00053-11 (2011); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-92 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(h) (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-103 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Or- dinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-17 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §§902 .12 & 902 .13 (no date listed) . 365 . E.g., Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §§604 .17 & 00053-11 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Ve- gas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .36 .050 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordi- nances §7-102 (2011); Scottsdale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §§4-17 & 4-18 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .12 (no date listed) . 366 . Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §00053-11 (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A-22(d) (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 44 of 56 42 ELR 10912 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 within a rat-proof container .367 Denver appears to have the same antipathy toward rats as Glendale does toward flies . Denver requires that chickens be kept in a rat-proof building . A rat-proof building is one that is made with no “potential openings that rats could exploit and built with “material impervious to rat-gnawing .”368 While an open- ing for a rat would necessarily be bigger than an opening for a fly, because chickens will still have to enter and exit the structure, Denver appears to demand similarly impos- sible architecture . c. Coop Construction Requirements Thirty-seven cities regulate the construction of the chicken coop .369 Like the cleaning regulations, many of these cities’ ordinances are not particular to chickens, but cover any structure meant to house an animal .370 But, as demonstrated below, most specifically regulate chicken coops . Most of these ordinances require that chickens be kept within an enclosure, and many add that the enclosure must §7 .36 .050 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (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 of Ordinances §18-4(h) (2011); Richmond, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-88 (2011) . 368 . Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §§40 .41 & 40 .51 (2011) . 369 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Anchor- age, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .05 .010 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosure (2010); At- lanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3-2-11 (2011); Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-409 (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Or- dinances §00053-11 (2011); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(a)(1)(D) & (E) (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6- 154 (2011); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §10 .205 (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-36 (2010); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 Shelter (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .050 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 Restraint (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §28 .08 (no date listed); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-88 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 (2011); Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §8-96(c) & (e) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Se- cure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-9 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §§7 .20 .020 & 7 .60 .760 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b) (2011); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §17 .01 .010 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2) (c) (2011); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §406 (2011) . 370 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); Anchor- age, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .05 .010 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosures (2010); Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-409 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7- 15 (2011); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2)(c) (2011) . be secure .371 Some further require that the enclosure keep animals protected from inclement weather .372 Outside of this, however, there is no consistency to these statutes . Of the cities that have promulgated shelter require- ments specific to chickens, nine of them mandate that each chicken be given a specific amount of space .373 Of these cities, the average amount of space per chicken is five square feet, although no city actually mandates that .374 The median amount of space per chicken is four square feet . The mode, or most popular amount, is also four square feet .375 The next most popular is between two and two- and-one-half square feet .376 Cleveland requires 10 square feet per chicken, but specifies that this is for the outdoor run, not for the enclosed coop .377 Rochester also takes the difference between a chicken coop and a chicken run into account and requires at least four square feet per chicken in both the coop and the run .378 Long Beach does not give a particular square footage per chicken, but requires that each coop be at least twice as big as the bird .379 Instead of regulating coop size so specifically, some cit- ies require that the coops not be cramped or overcrowd- ed .380 Others state that the coop should be big enough for the chicken to move about freely,381 or have space to stand, 371 . E.g., Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-2-2 (2011); An- chorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .05 .010 (2011); Arling- ton, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §1 .01 Secure Enclosures (2010); Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3-2-11 (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341- 11 .3 (2009); Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011); Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011); Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 (2011); Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 (2011); Madi- son, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §28 .08 (no date listed); Montgomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Or- dinances §6 .1-2 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §17 .01 .010 (2011) . 372 . E.g., Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-2 (2011) (providing that a shelter must protect “each animal from injury, rain, sleet, snow, hail, direct sunlight”); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 (2011) (providing that fowl should be housed in a “structure that is capable of providing cover and protection from the weather”); Tulsa, Okla ., Code of Ordinances §406 (2011) (“Natural or artificial shelters appropriate to the local climactic conditions for the particular species of animal or fowl shall be provided for all animals or fowl kept outdoors .”) . 373 . Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7(1)(d) (2011) (2 sq . ft .); Buf- falo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(3) (2009) (2 sq . ft .); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010) (4 sq . ft .); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011) (10 sq . ft .); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) (4 sq . ft .); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011) (twice the size of the fowl); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-88 (2011) (15 sq . ft .); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) (4 sq . ft .); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b)(3) (2011) (2 .5 sq . ft .) . 374 . Seesupra note 373 . 375 . Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 376 . Atlanta, Ga ., Code of Ordinances §18-7(1)(d) (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(3) (2009); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordi- nances §5 .6(b)(3) (2011) . 377 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011) . 378 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 379 . Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011) . 380 . E.g., Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §701-35 (2011) . 381 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 45 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10913 turn around, and lie down .382 Des Moines is unique, in that it looks to state or national standards for the coop size, providing that “such enclosures shall be of sufficient size to house the number of animals or fowl permitted by state or national standards .”383 Some cities also mandate how large the coop can be . The coop sizes also lack uniformity—both Buffalo and Cleveland provide that the coop can be no larger than 32 square feet, but Cleveland will allow the coop to be up to 15 feet high, while Buffalo caps height at seven feet .384 Seattle allows for up to 1,000 square feet and caps the height at 12 feet .385 Finally, Charlotte is the only city that provides for a minimum height by requiring the coops to be at least 18 inches high .386 Other requirements that turn up in more than one city is that the coop’s floor be impervious,387 the coop be ade- quately ventilated,388and the coop be kept dry or allow for drainage .389 Some cities mandate that the enclosure protect the chickens from predators .390 And, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Colorado Springs require that the chickens have access to an outdoor run .391 Two cities stand at odds on the issue of keeping chickens within solid walls . Baltimore prohibits chickens from being confined in a cage entirely of solid walls,392 while Corpus Christi, to avoid large setbacks, requires that chickens be confined entirely within solid walls .393 And some cities have entirely unique ordinances . Irving is concerned with protecting chickens from inclement weather; it requires protection from the direct rays of the 382 . Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .100 (2011) (providing that ani- mals must have enough space to stand in a naturally erect position); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(2) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Tuc- son, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4-3(2)(c) (2011) . 383 . Des Moines, Iowa, Code of Ordinances §18-3(h) (2011) . 384 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) (2011); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(7) (2009) . 385 . Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(3) (2011) . 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 than 7,500 square feet, that the flooring be made of hard surface material); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(1) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b)(2) (2010) (providing that the “floors of every such building shall be smooth and tight”) . 388 . E.g., Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(7) (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(c) (2010); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); New Orleans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(1) (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-1 Secure Enclosure & Shelter (2011) . 389 . E.g., Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011); New Or- leans, La ., Code of Ordinances §18-2 .1(a)(1) (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6(b)(2) (2011) . 390 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(3) & (4) (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) . Seealso Nashville-David- son, Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Office, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author) (providing that coops must be kept in a predator-proof enclosure) . 391 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(1) (2009); Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(D) & (E) (2011); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .106(D) (2011) . 392 . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-409 (2011) . 393 . Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-154 (2011) . sun when the temperature is over 90 degrees and protec- tion from direct exposure to wind when the temperature is below 50 degrees .394 Jersey City’s ordinance stands out for its thoughtfulness .395 It requires that the coop contain win- dows if possible, that the coop be white-washed or painted, and that the coop contain removable perches and nests, so that they can be cleaned on a regular basis .396 Rochester does not allow fowl to be kept in a cellar .397 And San Anto- nio requires that the coop be built so that the chicken’s feet do not fall through the floor .398 d. Giving Authority Over Coop Requirements to a City Official Instead of legislating coop requirements through City Council, four cities delegate to some other city official . San Francisco requires the coop structure to be approved by the Department of Health399; Washington, D .C ., assigns it to the Director of the Department of Human Services .400 Columbus requires its Health Commissioner to approve the structure .401 St . Louis allows its Animal Health Com- missioner to set standards for coop construction .402 And finally, Rochester mandates that the coop will, at all times, be subject to inspection and subject to the orders of its Chief of Police .403 e. Feed and Water Requirements Eleven cities are concerned that chickens receive enough food and water .404 Most of these simply mandate that chickens receive adequate or sanitary food and water, but three of the cities show special concern with the chicken’s welfare . Long Beach and Los Angeles require chickens to be given water every 12 hours .405 Memphis and Omaha require that the chickens not only be given sufficient food but also “wholesome” food and water .406 And Buffalo requires that chickens be fed only through an approved 394 . Irving, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-1 Shelter (2011) . 395 . Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-8 (2011) . 396 . Id. 397 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 398 . San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-9 (2011) . 399 . San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(b) (2011) . 400 . Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .7(c) (no date listed) . 401 . Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221 .05(b) (2011) . 402 . St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .016 (2010) . 403 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed) . 404 . Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14:224(c)(1)(d) (2011); Buf- falo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(9) (2009); Chicago, Ill ., Code of Ordinances §7-12-290(b) (2011); Cincinnati, Ohio, Code of Or- dinances §701-35 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .090 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .46 (2011); Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Mesa, Ariz ., City Code §8-6-23(C) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Mont- gomery, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §4-161 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011) . 405 . Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .090 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .46 (2011) . 406 . Memphis, Tenn ., Code of Ordinances §8-8-1 (2009); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-261 (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 46 of 56 42 ELR 10914 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 trough and prohibits feeding them through scattering food on the ground .407 6. Permit Requirements Thirty-eight cities require a permit to keep chickens under certain circumstances .408 Like all of the other regulations, there is very little consistency . Eleven cities require permits for more than a maximum number of chickens .409 The average number the city allows before requiring a permit is seven . The average is high because San Diego allows up to 20 chickens before seeking a permit .410 The median is five and the mode, with three cities, Saint Louis, Santa Ana and Spokane, is four . Two cities, El Paso and San Jose, allow for six .411 And, two cities, Portland and Witchita allow for three .412 Two cities require a permit if one seeks 407 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(B)(9) (2009) . 408 . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (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 Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §§7 .24 .020 & 7 .24 .050 (2011); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6- 38 (2010); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011); Kan- sas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .070 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2- 30 (2010); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Phila Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-81 (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §17 .206 .020 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12 & 30-15 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §§9 .44 .870 & 9 .44 .880 (2011); San An- tonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0713 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d) (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .700 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §§5 .6 & 23 .42 .051(B) (2011); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §17C .310 .100 (no date listed); St . Lou- is, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015(c) (2010); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §§902 .1 & 902 .3-4 (no date listed); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) . 409 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011) (requiring permit if more than six); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .040 (2011) (requiring permit if more than 5, if fowl weigh over five pounds and more than 20 for fowl between three and five pounds); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-81 (2011) (requiring permit if more than 10); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(E) (2011) (requiring permit if more than three); San Antonio, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §5-109(c) (2011) (requiring permit if more than five); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0713 (2011) (requiring per- mit if more than 25); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .700(A) (2007) (requiring permit if more than six); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5 .6 (2011) (requiring permit if more than four); Spokane, Wash ., Mun . Code §§17C .310 .100 & 10 .20 .015(c) (no date listed) (re- quiring permit if more than four); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .015(c) (2010) (requiring permit if more than four ); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) (requiring permit if more than three) . 410 . San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0713 (2011) . 411 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020 (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .700(A) (2007) . 412 . Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .05 .015(E) (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) . to place the chickens within the legislated setbacks .413 And one city, Riverside, only requires a permit if one wants to keep roosters .414 The remaining 24 cities require a permit to keep chick- ens under all circumstances .415 Permit renewal periods and fees also differ substantially among cities . Of the cities that require permits to keep chickens in all circumstances, there is little agreement for how long these permits should last or how much they should cost . At least 10 of them require permit holders to renew annually .416 Two have an initial term of one year, but then either allow or require five-year permits after that .417 Cleveland has a biennial permit .418 Mobile allows for the permit to remain valid until revoked by the health officer .419 And several simply don’t specify how long the permit will last .420 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 Department of Child and Family Well-Being422; Sacra- mento to the Animal Care Services Operator423; Tacoma 413 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011) (requir- ing permit if want to be within setback); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) (requiring permission from city clerk to put coop with- in setback) . 414 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §17 .206 .020 (2011) . 415 . Baltimore, Md ., Health Code §10-312 (2011); Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010); Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (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); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011); Houston, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §6-38 (2010); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90- 7 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b) (2011); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-30 (2010); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Or- dinances §6-266 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §§30-12 & 30-15 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §§9 .44 .870 & 9 .44 .880 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d) (2011); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .02 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Ani- mal Control §§902 .1 & 902 .3-4 (no date listed) . 416 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010); Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5906 (2011); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .110 (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordi- nances §9 .52 (no date listed); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2- 30 (2010); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-271 (2011); Roch- ester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-15 (no date listed); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .04 (2011); Wash ., D .C ., Mun . Regulations for Animal Control §902 .3 (no date listed) . 417 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(h) (2011); Minneapo- lis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10 (2011) (five-year period offered as a choice) . 418 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205 .04 (2011) . 419 . Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011) . 420 . E.g., Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011); Plano, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §4-81 (2011); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordi- nances §5 .6 (2011); Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) . 421 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §205 .04 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §221 .05 (2011); Omaha, Neb ., Code of Ordinances §6-266 (2011); Norfolk, Va ., Code of Ordinances §6 .1-7 (2011) . 422 . Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-30 (2010) . 423 . Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9-44-870 (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 47 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10915 to the City Clerk424; and Boston to the Inspectional Ser- vices Department .425 Most cities, however, do not state in the ordinance by what means a person actually procures a permit .426 Three cities use the permit process to make sure that would-be chicken owners have the consent of their neigh- bors . St . Paul, Minnesota, requires that an applicant show, through written consent, that 75% of the owners or occu- pants of property within 150 feet have given permission for the chickens .427 Las Vegas requires written consent of neighbors within 350 feet .428 Buffalo and Milwaukee also requires written consent from adjacent landowners to secure a permit .429 Riverside, California, allows residents to keep hens without a permit, but requires a permit, with written permission from the neighbors, to keep more than six roosters .430 Finally, some cities use the permitting schemes to ensure that chicken owners comply with a long list of regulations . For instance, Buffalo has set forth a labyrinthine process for securing a “chicken license .”431 It requires the license seeker to provide his name, address, number of chickens sought, and the location of the coop . The city then notifies neighboring landowners with property within 50 feet of the applicant’s property of the application and allows them to provide written comments . The city also notifies the mayor and City Council . If the city clerk does not receive any comments, the clerk can issue a license for up to five hens . But if anyone lodges a negative comment, then the permit goes to City Council and Council must determine, after taking in the entire record before it, if the city will grant the license . If the Council approves it, it goes to the mayor, who has the power to veto it; if he does so—it would require a 2/3 majority at the following Council meeting to 424 . Tacoma, Wash ., Mun . Code §5 .30 .010 (2011) . 425 . Bos ., Mass ., Code of Ordinances §16-1 .8A (2010) . 426 . E.g., Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010) (provid- 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) . 427 . St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .04(b) (2011): The applicant for any permit required under the provisions of sec- tion 198 .02 shall provide with the application the written consent of seventy-five (75) percent of the owners or occupants of privately or publicly owned real estate within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the outer boundaries of the premises for which the permit is be- ing requested or, in the alternative, proof that applicant’s property lines are one hundred fifty (150) feet or more from any structure . However, where a street separates the premises for which the permit is being requested from other neighboring property, no consent is required from the owners or occupants of property located on the opposite side of the street . Where a property within one hundred fifty (150) feet consists of a multiple dwelling, the applicant need obtain only the written consent of the owner or manager, or other person in charge of the building . 428 . Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050 (2011) . 429 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .2 (2009) (“No chicken hens shall be allowed without the express written consent of all residents residing on property adjacent to that of the applicant .”); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5 (2011) (Before a permit is issued for the keeping of chickens, the applicant shall obtain the written consent of the owner of the property where the chickens shall be kept and owners of all directly or diagonally abutting properties, including those across an alley .”) 430 . Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .05 .020 (2011) . 431 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009) . pass .432 If the permit is granted, then the Animal Control Officer must inspect the coop before the licensee is actu- ally allowed to get chickens .433 Then, the licensee has to procure a separate license from the building department to build the chicken coop .434 And then Buffalo requires similar procedures for renew- ing the license each year . Each license automatically expires on June 1 . From May 1 to June 1, the city opens up a com- ment period for anyone to complain about licensed chick- ens . The City Council is to consider all of these comments and any rebuttals to them before deciding whether to renew the license . The City Council can also revoke the license at any time if it hears any complaints about the licensee .435 This licensing scheme appears designed to ameliorate concerns that the city will be overwhelmed with com- plaints . But the resources the city puts into this process and the time it is requiring councilmembers and the mayor to put into it if a single person registers a negative comment must far outweigh any resources the city would be using to prosecute rogue chickens owners . Many cities also charge fees for these permits . Because many cities do not list their fees on any publicly accessible website, it is difficult to draw strong conclusions on the norm for how much a city charges . But, 14 cities’ fees were identified .436 Three of the 14 charged an initial fee, Mil- waukee charged a $25 initial fee, Minneapolis $50, and St . Paul $72 .437 Thirteen cities, including Minneapolis and St . Paul, charged annual fees .438 The fees ranged from specifying that the permit would be free to $50 per year . The average annual fee was $29, although no city charged that amount . The median fee and the mode are both $25 per year . Two cities legislated late charges into the statute, Lincoln has a $25 late fee,439 and Madison charges $5 if a permit is renewed late .440 Finally, Minneapolis gives a $50 discount from the annual fee if a licensee renews for five years, instead of paying $40 a year, one can pay $150 for a five-year period .441 432 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Charter §3-19 . 433 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .4 (2009) . 434 . Id. 435 . Id . 436 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .1(G) (2009) ($25 annual fee); Char- lotte, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §3-102(a) (2010) ($50 annual fee); Denver, Colo ., Mun . Code §8-91 (2011) ($50 annual fees as listed on city website at http://www .denvergov .org/FrequentlyAskedQuestionsan- dRelatedLinks/tabid/434759/Default .aspx); Jersey City, N .J ., Code of Ordinances §90-7 (2011) ($25 annual fee); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .090 (2011) ($50 annual fee with a $25 late fee); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed) ($10 annual fee with a $5 late fee); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §60-7 (2011) ($35 ini- tial fee); Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10(f) (2011) ($50 initial fee and $40 annual fee); Mobile, Ala ., Code of Ordinances §7-102 (2011) (specifies that permits are free); Newark, N .J ., General Ordinances §6:2-31 (2010) ($10 annual fee); Rochester, N .Y ., City Or- dinances §30-16 (no date listed) ($37 annual fee); St . Louis, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §10 .20 .013(f) (2010) ($40 annual fee); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .04(c) (2011) ($72 initial fee and $25 annual fee); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .157 (2011) ($25 annual fee) . 437 . Supranote 436 and accompanying text . 438 . Id. 439 . Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .090 (2011) . 440 . Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §9 .52 (no date listed) . 441 . Minneapolis, Minn ., Code of Ordinances §70 .10(g) (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 48 of 56 42 ELR 10916 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 7. Slaughtering Thirteen cities regulate slaughtering442; however, of those, only six ban slaughtering altogether .443 Three cities, Buffalo, Charlotte, and Pittsburgh, allow chickens to be slaugh- tered, but require that it not occur outdoors or in a public place .444 Cleveland allows a chicken to be slaughtered on site, but only if it is meant to be consumed on the occu- pant’s premises .445 San Francisco requires that any slaugh- ter occur in an “entirely separate” room than the one that fowl occupy .446 Rochester requires a poulterer’s license to both keep chickens and slaughter them .447 And, Glendale, in keeping with its aversion to rats described above, only allows for slaughter if it occurs in a rat-proof structure .448 Several other cities only ban slaughter if a person is kill- ing another’s chickens without permission .449 Chesapeake is particularly concerned with dogs killing chickens . Ches- apeake mandates compensation of no more than $10 per fowl, if a dog or hybrid dog kills a chicken .450 Finally, several cities stand directly opposed concern- ing the killing of chickens for animal sacrifice . Chicago’s ordinance banning the slaughter of chickens is directed toward chickens killed for animal sacrifice; it provides in the ordinance that this “section is applicable to any cult that kills (sacrifices) animals for any type of ritual, regard- 442 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(d) (2009); Charlotte, N .C ., 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); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §2809(9)(b)(6) (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(b) (2011); Nashville- Davidson, Tenn . Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Coun- cil Office, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author); Pittsburgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §911 .04 .A .2 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-12 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d)(5) (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .175(p) (2011) . 443 . Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (“No person shall own, keep or otherwise possess, or slaughter any sheep, goat, pig, cow or the young of such species, poultry, rabbit, dog, cat, or any other animal, intending to use such animal for food purposes .”); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §2809(9)(b)(6) (no date listed) (“No person shall slaughter any chickens .”); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(b) (2011); (“No person shall slaughter any chickens .”); Nashville-Davidson, Tenn . Memo from John Cooper, Director Metropolitan Council Office, to All Members of Metropolitan Council (Sept . 1, 2009) (on file with author); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860 (2011) (“No hen chickens shall be slaughtered on any developed lot used exclusively for resi- dential purposes .”); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .175(p) (2011) (prohibiting slaughtering “on residentially zoned lots or lots utilized for residential purposes”) . 444 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .3(d) (2009) (“There shall be no out- door slaughtering of chicken hens .”); Charlotte, N .C ., Code of Ordi- nances §3-102(c)(4) (2010); (providing that any slaughter “shall be done only in a humane and sanitary manner and shall not be done open to the view of any public area or adjacent property owned by another”); Pitts- burgh, Pa ., Code of Ordinances §911 .04 .A .2 (2011) (“Killing or dress- ing of poultry raised on the premises shall be permitted if conducted entirely within an enclosed building .”) . 445 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(h) (2011) . 446 . San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37(d)(5) (2011) . 447 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-12 (no date listed) . 448 . Glendale, Cal ., Mun . Code §8 .48 .020 (2011) . 449 . Akron, Ohio, Code of Ordinances §92 .03 (2011); Austin, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §3-2-61 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-3 (2011) . 450 . Chesapeake, Va ., Code of Ordinances §10-19 (2011) . less of whether or not the flesh or blood of the animal is to be consumed .”451 Witchita, however, while banning the slaughter of chickens, states that the ordinance does not apply “to the slaughter of animals as part of religious practices .”452 And, Los Angeles expressly allows slaughter both for food and religious purposes .453 8. Roosters Many cities that allow for hens ban roosters . Twenty-six cities prohibit roosters .454 Of these cities, four have excep- tions: Phoenix will allow a rooster only if it is incapable of making vocal noises455; Rochester and San Jose will allow roosters under four months of age456; and Sacramento only prohibits roosters on developed lots used exclusively for residential purposes .457 Fort Wayne does not say anything about roosters, but its ordinance effectively bans them by defining poultry only as “laying hens .”458 Many cities, instead of banning roosters altogether impose very large setbacks for roosters, require a larger property size for roosters, or relegate roosters to agricul- turally zoned land . Four cities require relatively large set- backs for roosters: Cleveland requires 100-foot setbacks459; Kansas City, 300 feet460; Oklahoma City, 400 feet461; and Glendale, California, requires 500 feet .462 Wichita will also allow for roosters if they are more than 500 feet from any residentially zoned lot .463 Three cities require greater 451 . Chi ., ill ., Code of Ordinances §17-12-300 (2011) (but exempting Ko- sher slaughtering from this ordinance) . 452 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .175(p) (2011) . 453 . L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .67 (2011) . 454 . Buffalo, N .Y ., City Code §341-11 .1(d) (2009); Colorado Springs, Colo ., City Code §6 .7 .110(A) (2011); Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances ch . 157 (2011); Fresno, Cal ., Mun . Code §§12-204 .11 & 12-205 .1 & 12-206 .1 (2011); Garland, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §22 .14 (2011); Las Vegas, Nev ., Mun . Code §7 .38 .050(a)(2) (2011); Lincoln, Neb ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .041 (2011); Long Beach, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .20 .050 (2011); Miami, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §6-1(b)(2) (2011); Madison, Wis ., Code of Ordinances ch . 28 (no date listed); Milwaukee, Wis ., Code of Ordinances §78-6 .5(3)(a) (2011); N .Y .C ., Health Code §§161 .19(a) & 161 .01(b)(11) (1990); Newark, N .J ., Gen- eral Ordinances §6:2-36 (2010); Oakland, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .320 (2011); Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(c) (2011); Portland, Or ., City Code §13 .10 .010 (2011); Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(B) (2011); St . Paul, Minn ., §198 .03 (2011); St . Petersburg, Fla ., Code of Ordinances §4-31(e) (2011); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .820 (2007); Santa Ana, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §5-6 .5 (2011); Seattle, Wash ., Mun . Code §23 .42 .052(c)(2) (2011); Stockton, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .440 (2011); Tucson, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances §4- 59 (2011); Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .171 (2011) . 455 . Phoenix, Ariz ., City Code §8-7(c) (2011) . Removing a roosters vocal chords was routinely done by vets many years ago . But because of the ex- tremely high mortality rate (over 50%) most vets will no longer perform this procedure . See SmallandBackyardFlocks, Ky . U . Ext ., http://www .ca .uky . edu/smallflocks/faq .html#Q31 (last visited July 8, 2012) . 456 . Rochester, N .Y ., City Ordinances §30-19 (no date listed); San Jose, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §7 .60 .820 (2007) . 457 . Sacramento, Cal ., City Code §9 .44 .860(B) (2011) . 458 . Fort Wayne, Ind ., Code of Ordinances ch . 157 (2011) . 459 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(c) (2011) . 460 . Kansas City, Mo ., Code of Ordinances §14-15(f) (2011) . 461 . Oklahoma City, Okla ., Mun . Code §59-9350(c), (d) (2011) . 462 . Glendale, Ariz ., Code of Ordinances pt . II, art . 5 (2010) (multiple provisions in zoning code relating to roosters) . 463 . Wichita, Kan ., Code of Ordinances §6 .04 .171 (2011) . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 49 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10917 acreage for roosters: Cleveland requires at least one acre464; Baton Rouge requires two acres465; and Fremont California allows one rooster for ½ acre, and two roosters for more than one acre .466 Three cities, Anaheim, Arlington, and Dallas, relegate roosters to agriculturally zoned land .467 Many cities do not ban roosters but have noise regula- tions that would effectively cause any rooster to be a nui- sance, at least a rooster that crows .468 Finally, nine cities expressly allow for roosters .469 Most of these cities, however, limit the number of roosters allowed . Three cities allow for only one rooster .470 Two cit- ies allow for two roosters .471 El Paso allows for up to three roosters with a permit .472 And Riverside allows up to six and only requires a permit to keep seven or more roost- ers .473 San Diego and San Francisco allow for unlimited roosters; however, San Francisco animal control authorities stated that they do not recommend that San Franciscans keep roosters due to the number of complaints they have received concerning roosters .474 And, winning the award for most eccentric rooster ordi- nance is the city that allows roosters conjugal visits . While this city is not within the top 100 surveyed, Hopewell Township, New Jersey, as discussed above, allows roosters that are certified disease-free to visit a hen flock for 10 days out of every year .475 464 . Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinances §347 .02(b)(1)(c) (2011) . 465 . Baton Rouge, La ., Code of Ordinances §14-224(b) (2011) . 466 . Fremont, Cal ., Mun . Code §3-5803 (2011) . 467 . Anaheim, Cal ., Mun . Code §18 .38 .030 .050 (2011); Arlington, Tex ., Ordinances Governing Animals §5 .02(f) (2010); Dallas, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §7-7 .3 (2011) . 468 . E.g., Anchorage, Alaska, Code of Ordinances §17 .10 .015 (2011); Ba- kersfield, Cal ., Mun . Code §6 .04 .230 (2011); Columbus, Ohio, City Code §2327 .14(A) (2011) (“No person shall keep or harbor any animal which howls, barks, or emits audible sounds that are unreasonably loud 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 and health of any individual .”); Corpus Christi, Tex ., Code of Ordi- nances §31-2 (2011); Greensboro, N .C ., Code of Ordinances §30-8- 11 .3(B) (2011) (“No poultry animals that make sounds clearly audible off- site are permitted .”); Lexington-Fayette, Ky ., Code of Ordinances §4- 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 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) . 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 §7 .24 .020(B)(1) (2011); Fort Worth, Tex ., Code of Ordinances §11A- 22(c)(2) (2011); L .A ., Cal ., Mun . Code §53 .71 (2011); Louisville, Ky ., Metro Code §91 .001 (2011); Riverside, Cal ., Code of Ordinances §6 .05 .010 (2011); San Diego, Cal ., Mun . Code §42 .0708 (2011); San Francisco, Cal ., Health Code §37 (2011) . 470 . Albuquerque, N .M ., Code of Ordinances §9-2-4-3 (2011); L .A ., Cal ., 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- mingham, Ala ., Zoning Ordinance §2 .4 .1 (2007) . 472 . El Paso, Tex ., Mun . Code §7 .24 .020(B)(1) (2011) . 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 ., Health Code §37 (2011); Interview with San Francisco animal control (on file with author) . 475 . NJTownLimitsConjugalVisitsBetweenRoosters&Hens, Huffington Post, Apr . 27, 2011, http://www .huffingtonpost .com/2011/04/28/nj-limits-chicken- mating_n_854404 .html (last visited July 8, 2012) . V. Model Ordinance A. Reasons Behind the Choices in the Model Ordinance Because many cities are recognizing that keeping chick- ens in the city should be allowed, but would like to regu- late it properly so that the city can stop any nuisances before they arise, a model ordinance is provided below . Through surveying the ordinances of the most populous American cities, many types of regulatory schemes have already been identified and discussed . While different regulatory schemes may work better for different kinds of cities, depending on the density and variety of their residential, commercial, and industrial neighborhoods, the model ordinance provided should be easy to adapt to any city . First, each section of the model ordinance will be described and the reasons for choosing the regulation will be set out . Then, the model ordinance will be set out in full . 1. Chickens Should Be Regulated in a Unified Ordinance Within the Section Concerning Animals Most cities regulate chickens within the animal code . This also appears to be the best option for where to place regula- tions affecting chickens within a city’s codified ordinances . This is the natural place for a person to look to see if the city allows chickens . By placing the regulation within the animal code, it also allows for all of the regulations affect- ing chickens to be in one place . This will help a chicken owner to more easily find and follow the city’s law . If a city still wishes to incorporate zoning restrictions within a chicken ordinance, the city can easily do so within the unified ordinance located within the animal section by restricting chickens to certain zones . And if a city wishes to require a permit to keep chickens, the permit requirement may also easily be placed in a unified ordinance . 2. Chickens Should Be Limited to a Small Flock A chicken ordinance should allow for at least four chick- ens . Because chickens are flock animals, they do not thrive when left alone . And, because chickens enforce a domi- nant social order by harassing new chicks, it is always best to introduce at least two chicks to a new flock . By a llow- ing a minimum of four chickens, the city does not leave a chicken owner in a position of having to leave a hen in a solitary environment if another chicken dies . It also allows the chicken owner to introduce at least two new chicks to an existing flock of two . The model ordinance sets out a maximum of six chick- ens . This number is still below the average number of chickens allowed in most cities, but is sufficient to keep a balanced backyard flock . Six hens will allow plenty of eggs for the hen-keepers, while still allowing an owner to keep Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 50 of 56 42 ELR 10918 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 hens that no longer produce many eggs but are still valued by the owner for their companionship . Cities may want to consider allowing even more chick- ens . Allowing more chickens will allow owners to keep chickens that are no longer producing eggs . Chicken own- ers who raise hens for eggs may feel pressured to rid them- selves of older hens when they are faced with limitations on their flock .476 This has raised concerns in some areas that those chickens will burden animal shelters .477 Allowing a slightly larger flock may help to alleviate any burden . 3. Lot Size Should Not Be Restricted The majority of cities do not require a specific lot size before a person can keep chickens . Lot size restrictions, moreover, often do little more than prohibit the majority of city residents from keeping hens . The concern that cities are mainly addressing through lot size, that of making sure that chickens are not located too close to neighbors, can better be addressed through setbacks . For this reason, the model ordinance does not restrict through lot size . If a city has a wide variety of lot sizes, however, a city may wish to allow more hens for larger lot sizes . The city, for instance, can legislate a maximum num- ber of chickens for lot sizes of ½ acre or below, and then increase the number of chickens for larger lot sizes . 4. Setbacks Because there is a universal concern with keeping chickens too close to neighbors, a setback, rather than lot size, pro- vides the best solution for this concern . A setback actually ensures that the chickens will be kept at an appropriate distance from neighbors without unduly restricting people who own smaller properties from owning chickens . The model ordinance proposes a setback of 25 feet from the doors or windows of any dwelling or occupied structure other than the owner’s dwelling . This setback is less than the median setback of 80 feet and the most popular setback of 50 feet, but is in line with the setbacks of many cities that have recently amended their ordinances . A setback of 25 feet is far enough that any noise or odor from the hens should not cause nuisance to the neighbors, while allowing homeowners in smaller properties to keep hens . The addi- tion of requiring the setback to be from doors or windows also allows more flexibility for where a coop can be placed, while still ensuring that it will not annoy neighbors . Setbacks from a neighboring residence make sense because it can be assumed that no one wants someone keep- ing any pet, including chickens, very close to their house . A setback from the property line, however, may make less sense depending on where on the property chickens are kept . While a neighbor may be concerned that his neigh- 476 . E.g., Kim Severson, WhentheProblemsComeHometoRoost, N .Y . Times, Oct . 22, 2009, http://www .nytimes .com/2009/10/23/dining/23sfdine . html . 477 . Id . bor does not build a coop abutting his property that is also right next to a frequently used patio or deck, these sorts of setbacks may also overreach . For instance, these setbacks may require a coop to be located far from a little-used or overgrown part of a neighbor’s property . It may also require the coop to be located far from an area of the neighbor’s property where a garage or shed already provides a bar- rier . For these reasons, setbacks from property lines should be employed with care . But, it is understandable that a neighbor would not want a coop built directly next to a frequently used area of the yard, nor does a neighbor want to be responsible for cleaning errant droppings . For this reason, the model ordinance proposes minimal setbacks from property lines along the lines of the newly passed ordinances in Cleveland and Buffalo, of five feet from the side yard and 18 inches from the rear yard line . Finally, the model ordinance provides that chickens may not be kept in the front yard . Because most cities are justifiably concerned that easily accessible chickens will attract vandalism, theft, or pranks, or possibly cause neighborhood dogs to behave in a predatory manner, instead of setting elaborate setbacks from the street, it is more efficient and more clear to simply ban chickens from the front yard . 5. Sanitation Requirements The model ordinance requires that the coop and outdoor enclosure be kept in a sanitary condition and free from offensive odors . It also requires that the coop and out- door enclosure be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent the accumulation of animal waste . The model ordinance does not go into further detail because more stringent cleaning requirements will be difficult to police and impossible to enforce . A city inspector will be able to tell if a coop is clean and odor-free when inspecting the coop . Unless the city inspector monitors a coop closely with daily visits, the inspector will be unable to tell if an owner cleaned it daily, or every other day, or weekly . It is unlikely that any city inspector would want to devote that much time to surveil- lance of chicken coops . Also, because there are several different methods for cleaning a coop, and there continue to be new innovations in chicken-keeping and maintenance (witness the evolu- tion of cat litter over the past few decades), legislating one particular method of cleaning might foreclose more effi- cient, more sanitary, and more attractive cleaning options . The city’s concern is with sanitation and odor . Thus, the city should address its regulations to these concerns, rather than to more specific cleaning methods . Concerns with flies will also be taken care of through requiring clean and odor-free coops and enclosures . As 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- larly concerned with rats, it may add that chicken feed be kept in a rat-proof container . But this regulation appears Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 51 of 56 9-2012 NEWS & ANALYSIS 42 ELR 10919 unnecessary in light of the fact that many people keep dog and cat food in bulk, as well as food for their own consumption, without regulations that the food be kept in a rat-proof container . There is no logical basis for the belief that rats will be more attracted to chicken feed than other food . If a city is concerned that feed scattered on the ground will attract rats, instead of legislating a rat-proof container for keeping the feed, a city may be better off following Buffalo’s lead by prohibiting feed from being scattered on the ground and requiring chickens to be fed from a trough . 6. Enclosures The model ordinance provides specific requirements for coops and outdoor runs . It also requires that hens should remain in the coop or outdoor run at all times, except when an adult is directly supervising the hen . First, the model ordinance requires a covered, predator- proof coop or cage that is well-ventilated and designed to be easily accessed for cleaning . It also requires that the coop provide at least two square feet per hen . Fina lly, it requires that the birds have access to an outdoor run that is adequately fenced to contain the birds on the property and prevent predators from access to the birds . This ordinance is designed to address the city’s concerns with odor, with the chicken’s well-being, and with not attracting predators looking for an easy meal . The ordinance allows for only two square feet per hen to give each hen adequate space, but also to allow for a smaller coop size that can help to keep birds warm in the winter . The ordinance avoids giv- ing too many instructions on building a coop that could preclude future innovations in coop design .478 If the city, however, wants to prohibit coops over a specific dimension, or will waive a building permit for coops under a specific dimension that are not permanent structures, the city can easily insert such a provision here . The model ordinance also provides that chickens should not be allowed out of their coops, except when supervised by an adult . This addresses a city’s concern with chickens running free on the streets while also recognizing that own- ers will need to remove hens from the coop and run occa- sionally to clean the areas, to inspect a bird more closely, or to allow a chicken to briefly roam the yard or garden to forage for fresh greens . 478 . Many companies sell commercially made coops, runs, and chicken tractors (portable enclosed structures that allow the owner to move the chickens around the yard) with novel designs . See,e.g., SayHellototheBrandNew EgluGo, Omlet, http://www .omlet .us/products_services/products_services . php?cat=Eglu+Go (last visted July 25, 2012) (offering a plastic portable chick- en coop and run designed for two chickens); ChickenCoops, Sheds Unlim ited, http://www .shedsunlimited .net/portable-chicken-runs-and-coops-for- sale .html?gclid=CKXzvd2ruLECFeEDQAodcCIAkw (last visited July 25, 2012) (offering Amish-built chicken coops and runs); ChickenSaloon . com, http://chickensaloon .com/?gclid=COLs7qysuLECFYS6KgodGBAAsw (last visited July 25, 2012); The Green Chicken Coop, http://www .gre- enchickencoop .com/ (last visited July 25, 2012) . 7. Slaughtering The model ordinance prohibits slaughtering chickens out- doors . Because many people are concerned that neighbors or neighbors’ children will accidentally witness a bird being killed and are also concerned with the lack of hygiene in backyard butchering, this regulation is included in the ordinance . Also, because most backyard hen enthusiasts are raising hens for eggs and companionship, and not for meat, most will not object to this regulation . 8. Roosters The model ordinance prohibits roosters . It does so because roosters are noisy and are much more likely to bother neighbors than hens . Because, as discussed above, most backyard hen enthusiasts are interested in eggs, and roost- ers are not necessary to egg production, prohibiting roost- ers will not likely meet with much objection . Because bringing in a rooster on occasion can help to cheaply and easily propagate a flock, cities may explore rooster “conjugal visits,” like Hopewell township has done . While the township’s regulation attracted press because of its eccentricity, it was a thoughtful solution to the practical effects of banning roosters . Most hen owners, however, are willing to add to their flocks through other means where they can be better assured of procuring only female fowl . 9. Permits The model ordinance, following the ordinances of many other cities, does not require a permit, as long as the ordi- nance is followed . Because chickens are novel to many com- munities, city officials naturally want to closely monitor how well owners are maintaining their flocks . But, regulat- ing through a permitting or licensing process, dedicating a city official to overseeing it, and maintaining the records that such a process will require appears to be an inefficient use of city resources . It is also expensive for owners to pay permitting fees on an annual basis and is a barrier to entry to keeping chickens to those with low or modest incomes . The fees that some cities charge, over $50 annually, effec- tively prohibit poorer people from owning chickens . The permitting process, moreover, does not necessarily 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 unnecessary, inefficient, and expensive layer to the process of legalizing hens . The model ordinance does require a permit, however, if the chicken owner puts forth a proposal for why she should not have to comply with the city’s regulations—for instance if the owner wishes to keep more than the maxi- mum amount of hens, wishes to keep hens in a multi-fam- ily dwelling, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that is unconnected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 52 of 56 42 ELR 10920 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW REPORTER 9-2012 This permit is set up to allow people to keep chickens within setbacks, or to allow for more intensive chicken- keeping for urban agricultural uses, perhaps on an urban farm or market garden . As urban agriculture gains support and becomes more prevalent in the city, this will allow for people who wish to keep more chickens, or keep a rooster, as part of a market garden a set path for doing so with- out seeking to amend the ordinance . The permit process is designed to allow for more flexibility within the ordinance, while still laying down firm standards that all chicken owners must follow . B. Model Ordinance Below is a model ordinance designed for a city to either adopt or use as a starting point when deciding whether to allow hens in the city and how to regulate them: (a) Purpose . The following regulations will govern the keeping of chickens and are designed to prevent nui- sances and prevent conditions that are unsanitary or unsafe . No person shall keep chickens unless the fol- lowing regulations are followed: a. Number . No more than six (6) hens shall be allowed for each single-family dwelling . b. Setbacks . Coops or cages housing chickens shall be kept at least twenty-five (25) feet from the door or window of any dwelling or occupied structure other than the owner’s dwelling . Coops and cages shall not be located within five (5) feet of a side- yard lot line, nor within eighteen (18) inches of a rear-yard lot line . Coops and cages shall not be located in the front yard . c. Enclosure . Hens shall be provided with a cov- ered, predator-proof coop or cage that is well- ventilated and designed to be easily accessed for cleaning . The coop shall allow at least two square feet per hen . Hens shall have access to an outdoor enclosure that is adequately fenced to contain the birds on the property and to prevent preda- tors from access to the birds . Hens shall not be allowed out of these enclosures unless a respon- sible individual, over 18 years of age, is directly monitoring the hens and able to immediately return the hens to the cage or coop if necessary . d. Sanitation . The coop and outdoor enclosure must be kept in a sanitary condition and free from offensive odors . The coop and outdoor enclosure must be cleaned on a regular basis to prevent the accumulation of waste . e. Slaughtering . There shall be no outdoor slaugh- tering of chickens . f. Roosters . It is unlawful for any person to keep roosters . (b) Permit . A permit shall not be required if the above regulations are followed . If a person wishes to keep more than the maximum allowed number of hens, wishes to keep hens within the setback required, wishes to keep hens in a multi-family dwelling, wishes to keep hens on a parcel of land that is uncon- nected to a dwelling, or wishes to keep a rooster, a permit will be required . An application for a permit must contain the following items: a. The name, phone number, and address of the applicant . b. The size and location of the subject property . c. A proposal containing the following information . i. The number of hens the applicant seeks to keep on the property . ii. A description of any coops or cages or out- door enclosures providing precise dimen- sions and the precise location of these enclosures in relation to property lines and adjacent properties . iii. The number of roosters the applicant seeks to keep on the property . d. If the applicant proposes to keep chickens in the yard of a multi-family dwelling, the applicant must present a signed statement from any and all owners or tenants of the multi-family dwelling consenting to the applicant’s proposal for keeping chickens on the premises . e. If the applicant proposes to keep more chickens than allowed in the above ordinance or wishes to keep a rooster, the applicant must present a signed statement from all residents of property adjacent to or within 50 feet of the applicant’s property consenting to the applicant’s proposal for keeping chickens on the premises . If the applicant proposes to keep chickens within a required setback, the applicant must present a signed statement from all residents of the prop- erty affected by that setback . (c) Permit Renewal . Permits will be granted on an annual basis . If t he city receives no complaints regarding the permit holder’s keeping of chickens, the permit will be presumptively renewed and the applicant may continue to keep chickens under the terms and condition of the initial permit . The city may revoke the permit at any time if the per- mittee does not follow the terms of the permit, if the city receives complaints regarding the permit holder’s keeping of chickens, or the city finds that the permit holder has not maintained the chickens, coops, or outdoor enclosures in a clean and sani- tary condition . Copyright © 2012 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinted with permission from ELR®, http://www.eli.org, 1-800-433-5120. Attachment 5 Page 53 of 56 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: 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.” 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