Loading...
20170918 Council Packet Monday, September 18, 2017 Closed Session – 6:30 p.m. Regular Session – 7:00 p.m. Room 102 CALL TO ORDER CLOSED SESSION PROPERTY ACQUISITION REGULAR SESSION ROLL CALL PRAYER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION (matters not on the Agenda) CITY CLERK ANNOUNCEMENTS ALDERMEN ANNOUNCEMENTS | CONSENT AGENDA 1. Award Bid for Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrade (utilizing applicable ComEd energy efficiency incentives) to Jasco Electric Corporation, 2750 Barney Court, McHenry, IL in the Amount of $291,491. Budgeted Funds – TIF #1/R&M Buildings and Structures. 1a. RESOLUTION R-152-17: A Resolution Approving an Agreement with Jasco Electric Corporation to Upgrade Existing Lighting and Exit Signs at the Library and Metropolitan Square Parking Decks 2. Approve License Agreement with Operation North Pole, Inc., 50 West Oakton Street, Des Plaines, IL for the Temporary Use of City-Owned Property 2a. RESOLUTION R-153-17: A Resolution Approving a License Agreement with Operation North Pole, Inc., to Permit the Temporary Use of 1486 and 1486 ½ Miner Street for the Storage of Toys and Children’s Coats 3. Award Bid for the 2017 Sewer Lining Project to Michels Pipe Services, 817 Main Street, Brownsville, WI in the Amount of $369,619.00. Budgeted Funds – Capital Improvement Program - Water/Sewer. 3a. RESOLUTION R-154-17: A Resolution Approving an Agreement with Michels Corporation for Sewer Lining Project as Part of the 2017 Capital Improvement Project 4. Minutes/Regular Meeting – September 5, 2017 5. Minutes/Closed Session – September 5, 2017 6. Approve Final Bona Fide Offer to Acquire Fee Simple Title to Certain Property Located at 1476 Miner Street 6a. ORDINANCE M-20-17: An Ordinance Authorizing the Making of a Final Bona Fide Offer to Acquire Fee Simple Title to Certain Property Located at 1476 Miner Street END OF CONSENT AGENDA | COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 1. FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION – Alderman Mike Charewicz, Chair a. Warrant Register in the Amount of $3,569,000.12 – RESOLUTION R-155-17 b. Consideration of a Resolution Providing for the Redemption of Series 2007A and 2007B Bonds in the Amount of $2,206,135. Budgeted Funds – Debt Service and Capital Projects Funds – RESOLUTION R-158-17 2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – Alderman Dick Sayad, Chair a. Consideration of Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Avenue, Case #17-055-SUB (5th Ward) – RESOLUTION R-157-17 b. Consideration of Text Amendment to Sections 12-11-5 and 12-11-6 of the Zoning Code and Section 10-13-2, Case #17-057-TA – ORDINANCE Z-21-17 c. Approve Business Assistance Program, Multi-Unit Retail Grant Program for 554-570 E. Algonquin Road (3rd Ward) – RESOLUTION R-156-17 3. BUILDING CODE – Alderman John Robinson, Chair a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title 6 of the City Code Regarding the Keeping of Chickens – ORDINANCE M-19-17 (deferred from 9/5/2017 City Council Agenda) 4. PUBLIC SAFETY – Alderman Rodd, Chair a. Discussion of Photo Red Light Enforcement Program IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN UNDER NEW BUSINESS, THESE ITEMS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING CONSENT AGENDA OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS. IF IT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE ACTION ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS THIS EVENING, THEY MUST BE REPORTED OUT BY THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN UNDER “NEW BUSINESS” UNFINISHED BUSINESS N/A | NEW BUSINESS: IF REPORTED OUT BY COMMITTEE 1. a. RESOLUTION R-155-17: Warrant Register in the amount of $3,569,000.12 b. RESOLUTION R-158-17: A Resolution Authorizing the Calling and Payment of All Obligations Related to Series 2007A and 2007B General Obligation Refunding Bonds 2. a. RESOLUTION R-157-17: A Resolution Approving Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois b. ORDINANCE Z-21-17: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 11 of Title 12 and Chapter 13 of Title 10 of the City of Des Plaines City Code c. RESOLUTION R-156-17: A Resolution Approving a Business Assistance Program Grant for Façade Improvements at 554-570 E. Algonquin Road, Des Plaines, Illinois 3. a. ORDINANCE M-19-17: An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title 6 of the City Code Regarding the Keeping of Chickens 4. a. n/a MANAGER’S REPORT ALDERMEN COMMENTS MAYORAL COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT City of Des Plaines, in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in the meeting(s) or have questions about the accessibilit y of the meeting(s) or facilities, contact the ADA Coordinator at 391-5486 to allow the City to make reasonable accommodations for these persons. PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1111 Joseph J. Schwab Road Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5464 desplaines.org Date: August 25, 2017 To: Mike Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager From: Tom Bueser, Superintendent of General Services Timothy Watkins, Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering Cc: Timothy P. Oakley, P.E., CFM, Director of Public Works and Engineering Subject: Award Bid – Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrades Issue: Bids for Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrades were opened on August 23, 2017. Analysis: The Facilities and Grounds Division is routinely changing bulbs and ballasts at both the Library and Metropolitan Square parking garages. This budgeted project aims to reduce maintenance and energy costs while improving current lighting for safety and security. Walker Parking Consultants conducted a review of current lighting systems in the Library and Metropolitan Square Parking decks to make a recommendation for replacing lighting fixtures for the Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrades project. The CREE IG (ceiling mounted) and OSQ (pole light mounted) Series has been specified and utilized successfully in similar applications by Walker Parking Consultants. The City received seven bids for this contract with a summary listed below: Company Total Bid Price Jasco Electric $291,491.00 All Tech Energy $313,831,43 Power Energy $315,122.30 Eco Lighting Services $350,539.00 Facilities Solutions Group $442,554.00 Hecker & Co. $458,949.10 Genesis Electric $473,047.00 The low bid received for this project was submitted by Jasco Electric Corporation in the amount of $291,491. The bid also includes hourly labor pricing and a material mark-up not to exceed 15% for any additional work required. Jasco Electric Corporation has been in business since 1995 and we MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 34 have received positive feedback through reference checks which included the following municipalities: Evanston, Buffalo Grove, Oak Lawn, Tinley Park, and Schaumburg as well as Northwestern University and the River Trails School District. The City has completed a facility assessment for both parking decks with representatives from Com Ed to estimate potential annual savings and energy incentives. A standard pre-approval incentive form has been submitted to Com Ed which will be utilized for this project which are listed below: Location Estimated Annual Energy Savings Com Ed Energy Efficiency Program Incentives Library Parking Deck $23,050 $25,635.44 Metro Square Parking Deck $27,670 $24,517.69 Based upon the submitted Com Ed energy efficiency program incentives to the City for this project, the cost after rebates will be approximately $241,337.87. The annual estimated energy savings the City receives by completing this project is approximately $50,720; which results in an approximate project payoff of 4.75 years. Recommendation: We recommend utilizing applicable Com Ed energy efficiency incentives and award of the bid for the Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrade to Jasco Electric Corporation, 2750 Barney Court, McHenry, IL 60051, in the amount of $291,491, with alternate pricing of $102 per man hour and material mark-up of 15%. This purchase will be funded from TIF #1, R&M Buildings and Structures (201-00-000-0000.6315). Attachments: Resolution R-152-17 Exhibit A – Jasco Electric Corporation Contract Page 2 of 34 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 152 - 17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH JASCO ELECTRIC CORPORATION TO UPGRADE EXISTING LIGHTING AND EXIT SIGNS AT THE LIBRARY AND METROPOLITAN SQUARE PARKING DECKS. WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the City to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City has appropriated funds from the TIF #1, R&M Buildings and Structure fund during the 2017 fiscal year to upgrade parking garage lighting and exit signs ("Work"); and WHEREAS, Pursuant to Chapter 10 of Title 1 of the City of Des Plaines City Code and the City’s purchasing policy, the City solicited bids for the procurement of the Work; and WHEREAS, the City received seven bids, which were opened on August 23, 2017; and WHEREAS, Jasco Electric Corporation ("Contractor") submitted the lowest responsible bid for the Work in the total not-to-exceed amount of $291,491; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an agreement with Contractor for the performance of the Work in the not to exceed amount of $291,491 ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into the Agreement with Contractor; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby approves the Agreement in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and in a final form to be approved by the General Counsel. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute and seal, on behalf of the City, the final Agreement. Page 3 of 34 SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. PASSED this _____ day of ____________, 2017. APPROVED this _____ day of _____________, 2017. VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____ MAYOR ATTEST: Approved as to form: CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel DP-Resolution Approving Bid Award to Jasco Electric Corporation for Parking Garage Lighting and Exit Sign Upgrades 2017 Page 4 of 34 Exhibit A Page 5 of 34 Exhibit A Page 6 of 34 Exhibit A Page 7 of 34 Exhibit A Page 8 of 34 Exhibit A Page 9 of 34 Exhibit A Page 10 of 34 Exhibit A Page 11 of 34 Exhibit A Page 12 of 34 Exhibit A Page 13 of 34 Exhibit A Page 14 of 34 Exhibit A Page 15 of 34 Exhibit A Page 16 of 34 Exhibit A Page 17 of 34 Exhibit A Page 18 of 34 Exhibit A Page 19 of 34 Exhibit A Page 20 of 34 Exhibit A Page 21 of 34 Exhibit A Page 22 of 34 Exhibit A Page 23 of 34 Exhibit A Page 24 of 34 Exhibit A Page 25 of 34 Exhibit A Page 26 of 34 Exhibit A Page 27 of 34 Exhibit A Page 28 of 34 Exhibit A Page 29 of 34 Exhibit A Page 30 of 34 Exhibit A Page 31 of 34 Exhibit A Page 32 of 34 Exhibit A Page 33 of 34 Exhibit A Page 34 of 34 PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1111 Joseph J. Schwab Road Des Plaines, IL 60016 Tel: 847-391-5464 www.desplaines.org Date: August 29, 2017 To: Mike Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager From: Tom Bueser, Superintendent of General Services Timothy Watkins, Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering Cc: Timothy P. Oakley, P.E., CFM, Director of Public Works and Engineering Subject: Operation North Pole License Agreement Issue: Similar to last year, Operation North Pole, Inc. has requested the temporary use of our vacant building space at 1486 and 1486½ Miner Street. Analysis: Operation North Pole, Inc. (ONP) is a Des Plaines based 501(c)(3) volunteer public charity that provides terminally and seriously ill children and their families with a day of fun and fantasy each holiday season. Their organization networks closely with the Des Plaines Fire, Police and Public Works Departments, hosting 75 families to a chartered train ride to the “North Pole” to visit Santa. This year, ONP is in need of temporary storage space beginning October 20, 2017 through December 20, 2017. They have requested the use of City owned space at 1486 and 1486½ Miner Street during that time to store gifts and used coats. Since this space is currently vacant, we are able to accommodate the request. Recommendation: We recommend approval of the license agreement with Operation North Pole, Inc., 50 West Oakton Street, Des Plaines, Illinois, 60018 for the temporary use of City owned property. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Request from ONP Resolution R-153-17 Exhibit A – License Agreement MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 10 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 10 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 153 - 17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH OPERATION NORTH POLE, INC., TO PERMIT THE TEMPORARY USE OF 1486 AND 1486 ½ MINER STREET FOR THE STORAGE OF TOYS AND CHILDREN’S COATS. WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the City to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City owns that certain property commonly known as 1486 and 1486 ½ Miner Street in the City ("Property"); and WHEREAS, Operation North Pole, Inc. ("Licensee"), desires to temporarily use the Property for the storage of donated toys, children’s winter coats, and other items collected as donations for charitable purposes ("Donations"); and WHEREAS, the City and Licensee desire to enter into a license agreement permitting Licensee to temporarily use the Property for the purpose of storing the Donations ("License Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into the License Agreement with Licensee; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF LICENSE AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby approves the License Agreement in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and in a final form approved by the General Counsel. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE LICENSE AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute, and the City Clerk to seal, on behalf of the City, the final License Agreement. SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 3 of 10 PASSED this _____ day of ____________, 2017. APPROVED this _____ day of _____________, 2017. VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____ ___________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: Approved as to form: CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel DP-Resolution Approving a License Agreement for Operation North Pole at 1486 Miner St 2017 Page 4 of 10 LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT ("Agreement"), dated as of this ____ day of _______________, 2017, (“Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF DES PLAINES (“City”), and OPERATION NORTH POLE, INC. (“Licensee”), an Illinois not-for-profit corporation. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, mutual covenants, and agreements set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby mutually agree as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS. A. The City is the owner of the property commonly known as 1486 - 1486 ½ Miner Street, Des Plaines, Illinois, and legally described in Exhibit A to this Agreement (“Licensed Premises”). B. The Licensee desires to use the Licensed Premises for the storage of toys, children’s winter coats, and other items collected as donations by the Licensee as part of the Operation North Pole Secret Santa Program (collectively, the "Donations"). C. The City and the Licensee desire to enter into this Agreement to permit the storage of the Donations within the Licensed Premises. SECTION 2. GRANT OF LICENSE; LIMITATION OF INTEREST. A. Grant of License. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, City hereby grants to the Licensee, and the Licensee hereby accepts, a license to enter and use the Licensed Premises for the sole purpose of storing the Donations within the Licensed Premises pursuant to and in strict accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement (“License”). B. License Fee. In consideration of the License granted by Section 2.A of this Agreement, the Licensee agrees to pay the City a one-time license fee in the amount of $10.00. C. Limitation of Interest. Except for the License granted pursuant to this Agreement, the Licensee shall have no legal, beneficial, or equitable interest, whether by adverse possession or prescription or otherwise, in the Licensed Premises. SECTION 3. AS-IS CONDITION; DELIVERY, STORAGE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE DONATIONS AND THE LICENSED PREMISES. A. As-Is. The Licensee hereby accepts the Licensed Premises in its condition at the time of the execution of this Agreement. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that: (i) the City has made no representation or warranty as to the suitability of the Licensed Premises for the Licensee’s intended purposes; and (ii) the City will have no responsibility to maintain the Licensed Premises in any particular condition or manner. The Licensee waives any implied warranty that the Licensed Premises are or will be suitable for the Licensee's intended purposes. Exhibit A Page 5 of 10 -2- B. Delivery and Storage. The Licensee shall deliver and store the Donations within the Licensed Premises in a safe, good, and workmanlike manner and in a safe, secure, and neat condition. C. Maintenance. 1. Acknowledgment of Licensee Obligations. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the Licensee, and not the City, is solely responsible for the delivery, storage, protection, maintenance, and replacement of the Donations. 2. Maintenance in Safe and Secure Condition. The Licensee shall store and maintain the Donations at all times in a safe, secure, and neat condition and in a condition of good repair. 3. Compliance with Laws. The Licensee shall deliver, store, and maintain the Donations in compliance at all times with all applicable laws, ordinances, resolutions, rules, and regulations, as the same have been or may be amended from time to time. D. Security of Licensed Premises. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the City will not provide any security services at the Licensed Premises and will not be responsible or liable to the Licensee for, and the Licensee hereby waives any claim against the City with respect to, any loss by theft or any other damage suffered or incurred by the Licensee in connection with any unauthorized entry into the Licensed Premises or any other breach of security with respect to the Licensed Premises. SECTION 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. The City hereby reserves the right to use the Licensed Premises in any manner that will not prevent, impede, or interfere in any way with the exercise by Licensee of the rights granted pursuant to this Agreement. The City further reserves its right of full and normal access to the Licensed Premises for the maintenance of any existing or future utility located thereon. SECTION 5. LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY OF CITY. A. Liability. The Licensee acknowledges and agrees that the City is not, and shall not be, in any way liable for any damages or injuries that may be sustained as the result of: (i) the City’s issuance of any approvals for the delivery and storage of the Donations within the Licensed Premises; and (ii) the delivery and storage of the Donations within the Licensed Premises by the Licensee. B. Indemnity. The Licensee agrees to, and does hereby, hold harmless and indemnify the City and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims that may be asserted at any time against the City in connection with: (i) the delivery and storage of any portion of the Donations within the Licensed Premises; and (ii) the Licensee’s performance of, or failure to perform, its obligations under this Agreement. Exhibit A Page 6 of 10 -3- SECTION 6. TERM; TERMINATION; RESTORATION. A. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on October 20, 2017 and shall end on December 20, 2017. B. Termination by the City. In the event that the Licensee violates any provision of this Agreement, the City shall have the right, upon 10 days written notice and an opportunity to cure the violation, to terminate this Agreement. C. Termination by Licensee. The Licensee may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice to the City at any time with or without cause. E. Restoration of Licensed Premises. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Licensee, at its sole cost and expense, shall remove all Donations from the Licensed Premises and restore the Licensed Premises as nearly as practicable to its condition as of the Effective Date. SECTION 7. ENFORCEMENT. A. Enforcement. The City and the Licensee may, in law or in equity, by suit, action, mandamus or any other proceeding, including, without limitation, specific performance, enforce or compel the performance of this Agreement. B. Prevailing Party. In the event of a judicial proceeding brought by one party against the other party, the prevailing party in the judicial proceeding shall be entitled to reimbursement from the unsuccessful party of all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred in connection with the judicial proceeding. SECTION 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Notices. All notices required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be given by the parties by: (i) personal delivery; (ii) deposit in the United States mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope with first class postage thereon; or (iii) deposit with a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, addressed as stated in this Section 8.A. The address of any party may be changed by written notice to the other parties. Any mailed notice shall be deemed to have been given and received within three days after the same has been mailed and any notice given by overnight courier shall be deemed to have been given and received within 24 hours after deposit. Notices and communications to the parties shall be addressed to, and delivered at, the following addresses: If to Licensor: City of Des Plaines 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 Attention: Director of Public Works and Engineering Exhibit A Page 7 of 10 -4- with a copy to: Holland & Knight LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street, 30th Floor Chicago, IL 60603 Attention: Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel If to the Licensee: Operation North Pole, Inc. 50 W. Oakton Street Des Plaines, IL 60018 Attention: Timothy J. Crossin with a copy to: B. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. C. Amendments. No amendment or modification to this Agreement shall be effective until it is reduced to writing and approved and executed by all parties to this Agreement in accordance with all applicable statutory procedures. D. Rights Cumulative. Unless expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, each and every one of the rights, remedies, and benefits provided by this Agreement shall be cumulative and shall not be exclusive of any other such rights, remedies, and benefits allowed by law. E. Non-Waiver. Neither party shall be under an obligation to exercise any of the rights granted to it in this Agreement. The failure of either party to exercise at any time any right granted to it shall not be deemed or construed to be a waiver of that right, nor shall the failure void or affect the party's right to enforce that right or any other right. F. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by, construed, and enforced in accordance with the internal laws, but not the conflicts of laws rules, of the State of Illinois. G. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is construed or held to be void, invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the remaining part of that provision and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected, impaired, or invalidated thereby, but shall remain in full force and effect. The unenforceability of any provision of this Agreement shall not affect the enforceability of that provision in any other situation. H. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any and all prior agreements and negotiations between the parties, whether written or oral, relating to the License granted pursuant to this Agreement. I. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be construed without regard to the identity of the party who drafted the various provisions of this Agreement. Moreover, each and every provision of this Agreement shall be construed as though all parties participated equally in the Exhibit A Page 8 of 10 -5- drafting of this Agreement. As a result of the foregoing, any rule or construction that a document is to be construed against the drafting party shall not be applicable to this Agreement. J. Exhibits. Exhibit A attached hereto is, by this reference, incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between an exhibit and the text of this Agreement, the text of this Agreement shall control. K. No Third Party Beneficiaries. No claim as a third party beneficiary under this Agreement by any person shall be made, or be valid, against the City or the Licensee. L. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to constitute a duly authorized original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed, effective as of the date first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF DES PLAINES By: By: Its: Its: ATTEST: OPERATION NORTH POLE, INC. By: By: Its: Its: Exhibit A Page 9 of 10 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY THE SOUTHEASTERLY 30.0 FEET OF LOT 67 (EXCEPT THE NORTHEASTERLY 8 FEET TAKEN FOR ALLEY) IN TOWN OF RAND, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF SECTIONS 16, 17 20 AND SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PIN: 09-17-415-024-0000 Commonly known as 1486 and 1486 ½ Miner Street, Des Plaines, Illinois Exhibit A Page 10 of 10 PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 1111 Joseph J. Schwab Road Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5464 desplaines.org Date: September 6, 2017 To: Mike Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager From: Joel Gehrett, Superintendent of Utility Services Cc: Timothy P. Oakley, P.E., CFM, Director of Public Works and Engineering Timothy Watkins, Assistant Director of Public Works and Engineering Subject: Bid Award - 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining Project Issue: The 2017 budget includes $350,000 in funding for Sewer Lining. Four (4) bids were received and opened on September 6, 2017. Analysis: The scope of work includes installation of approximately 6,778 linear feet of cured in place pipe (CIPP) for various sewer main pipe segments along Des Plaines River Road and collecting lateral mains from Whitcomb Avenue to Rand Road. The breakdown of sewer lining consists of approximately 1,126 ft. of 8 inch, 583 ft. of 10 inch, 732 ft. of 12 inch, 1810 ft. of 15 inch, 1143 ft. of 18 inch, 119 ft. of 20 inch and 1265 ft. of 24 inch diameter gravity sewer main of varying material type including vitrified clay, concrete and brick. The bids for the lining project range from $369,619.00 to $535,544.50 and are as follows: BIDDER’S NAME BID AMOUNT Michels Pipe Services $ 369,619.00 Hoerr Construction $ 370,996.00 Insituform $ 447,389.40 Visu-Sewer $ 535,544.50 Recommendation: We recommend award of the 2017 Des Plaines Sewer Lining project to Michels Pipe Services, a Division of Michels Corporation; 817 Main Street, Brownsville, WI 53006-0128 in the amount of $369,619.00. Funding source for this project will be Capital Improvement Program Water/Sewer Fund (500- 00-580-8100). Attachments: Resolution R-154-17 Exhibit A – Michels Contract MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 52 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 154 - 17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH MICHELS CORPORATION FOR SEWER LINING PROJECT AS PART OF THE 2017 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois Constitution authorizes the City to contract with individuals, associations, and corporations in any manner not prohibited by law or ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City has appropriated funds in the Capital Improvement Program Water/Sewer Fund for use by the Department of Public Works and Engineering during the 2017 fiscal year for completion of water and sewer service projects that are part of the 2017 Capital Improvement Program ("Work"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 10 of Title 1 of the of the City of Des Plaines City Code and the City purchasing policy, the City solicited bids for the procurement of the Work; and WHEREAS, the City received four bids, which were opened on September 6, 2017; and WHEREAS, Michels Corporation ("Contractor"), submitted the lowest responsible bid in the not-to-exceed amount of $369,619; and WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a contract with Contractor for the performance of the Work in the not-to-exceed amount of $369,619 ("Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to enter into the Agreement with Contractor; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby approves the Agreement in substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A, and in a final form approved by the General Counsel. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute and seal, on behalf of the City, the final Agreement. Page 2 of 52 2 SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. PASSED this ___ day of _________________, 2017. APPROVED this ___ day of ____________________, 2017. VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____ MAYOR ATTEST: Approved as to form: CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel DP-Resolution Approving 2017 CIP Sewer Lining Project Bid Award to Michels Corporation Page 3 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 2017 SEWER LINING Exhibit A Page 4 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 2017 SEWER LINING TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLE I The Work ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Performance of the Work ............................................................................ 1 1.2 Commencement and Completion Dates ...................................................... 2 1.3 Required Submittals .................................................................................... 2 1.4 Review and Interpretation of Contract Provisions ...................................... 3 1.5 Conditions at the Work Site; Record Drawings .......................................... 3 1.6 Technical Ability to Perform ....................................................................... 4 1.7 Financial Ability to Perform ........................................................................ 4 1.8 Time ............................................................................................................. 4 1.9 Safety at the Work Site ................................................................................ 5 1.10 Cleanliness of the Work Site and Environs ................................................. 5 1.11 Damage to the Work, the Work Site, and Other Property ........................... 5 1.12 Subcontractors and Suppliers ...................................................................... 6 1.13 Simultaneous Work By Others .................................................................... 6 1.14 Occupancy Prior to Final Payment .............................................................. 6 1.15 Owner’s Right to Terminate or Suspend Work for Convenience ............... 6 ARTICLE II Changes And Delays .................................................................................. 7 2.1 Changes ....................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Delays .......................................................................................................... 7 ARTICLE III Contractor’s Responsibility For Defective Work ................................... 8 3.1 Inspection; Testing; Correction of Defects .................................................. 8 3.2 Warranty of Work ........................................................................................ 8 3.3 Owner’s Right to Correct ............................................................................ 9 ARTICLE IV Financial Assurances ................................................................................. 9 4.1 Bonds ........................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Insurance ...................................................................................................... 9 4.3 Indemnification .......................................................................................... 10 ARTICLE V Payment .................................................................................................... 10 5.1 Contract Price ............................................................................................ 10 5.2 Taxes and Benefits .................................................................................... 10 Exhibit A Page 5 of 52 5.3 Progress Payments ..................................................................................... 10 5.4 Final Acceptance and Final Payment ........................................................ 11 5.5 Liens .......................................................................................................... 11 5.6 Deductions ................................................................................................. 12 ARTICLE VI Disputes And Remedies ........................................................................... 13 6.1 Dispute Resolution Procedure ................................................................... 13 6.2 Contractor’s Remedies .............................................................................. 13 6.3 Owner’s Remedies ..................................................................................... 13 6.4 Owner’s Special Remedy for Delay .......................................................... 15 6.5 Terminations and Suspensions Deemed for Convenience ........................ 15 ARTICLE VII Legal Relationships And Requirements ................................................ 15 7.1 Binding Effect ........................................................................................... 15 7.2 Relationship of the Parties ......................................................................... 15 7.3 No Collusion/Prohibited Interests ............................................................. 15 7.4 Assignment ................................................................................................ 16 7.5 Confidential Information ........................................................................... 16 7.6 No Waiver ................................................................................................. 16 7.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries ..................................................................... 17 7.8 Notices ....................................................................................................... 17 7.9 Governing Laws ........................................................................................ 17 7.10 Changes in Laws ........................................................................................ 18 7.11 Compliance with Laws .............................................................................. 18 7.12 Compliance with Patents ........................................................................... 19 7.13 Time ........................................................................................................... 19 7.14 Severability ................................................................................................ 19 7.15 Entire Agreement ....................................................................................... 20 7.16 Amendments .............................................................................................. 20 Contractor’s Certification Attachment A: Supplemental Schedule of Contract Terms Attachment B: Special Provisions Attachment C: List of Drawings Appendix 1: Prevailing Wage Ordinance Exhibit A Page 6 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 2017 SEWER LINING In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, the City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street / Northwest Highway, Des Plaines, Illinois 60016, an Illinois municipal corporation (“Owner”), and Michels Pipe Services, a division of Michels Corporation, (“Contractor”), make this Contract as of September 18, 2017, (the “Effective Date”) and hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE I: THE WORK 1.1 Performance of the Work Contractor, at its sole cost and expense, must provide, perform, and complete all of the following, all of which is herein referred to as the “Work”: 1.Labor, Equipment, Materials, and Supplies. Provide, perform, and complete, in the manner described and specified in this Contract, all necessary work, labor, services, transportation, equipment, materials, apparatus, machinery, tools, fuels, gas, electric, water, waste disposal, information, data, and other means and items necessary to accomplish the Project at the Work Site, both as defined in Attachment A, in accordance with the specifications attached hereto as Attachment B, the drawings identified in the list attached hereto as Attachment C, and the Special Project Requirements attached hereto as Attachment D. 2.Permits. Except as otherwise provided in Attachment A, procure and furnish all permits, licenses, and other governmental approvals and authorizations necessary in connection therewith. 3.Bonds and Insurance. Procure and furnish all Bonds and all certificates and policies of insurance specified in this Contract. 4.Taxes. Pay all applicable federal, state, and local taxes. 5.Miscellaneous. Do all other things required of Contractor by this Contract, including without limitation arranging for utility and other services needed for the Work and for testing, including the installation of temporary utility lines, wiring, switches, fixtures, hoses, connections, and meters, and providing sufficient sanitary conveniences and shelters to accommodate all workers and all personnel of Owner engaged in the Work. Exhibit A Page 7 of 52 6.Quality. Provide, perform, and complete all of the foregoing in a proper and workmanlike manner, consistent with the highest standards of professional and construction practices and in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract, and with the greatest economy, efficiency, and expedition consistent therewith, with only new, undamaged and first quality equipment, materials, and supplies. 1.2 Commencement and Completion Dates Contractor must commence the Work not later than the “Commencement Date” set forth on Attachment A and must diligently and continuously prosecute the Work at such a rate as will allow the Work to be fully provided, performed, and completed in full compliance with this Contract not later than the “Completion Date” set forth in Attachment A. The time of commencement, rate of progress, and time of completion are referred to in this Contract as the “Contract Time.” 1.3 Required Submittals A. Submittals Required. Contractor must submit to Owner all documents, data, and information specifically required to be submitted by Contractor under this Contract and must, in addition, submit to Owner all such drawings, specifications, descriptive information, and engineering documents, data, and information as may be required, or as may be requested by Owner, to show the details of the Work, including a complete description of all equipment, materials, and supplies to be provided under this Contract (“Required Submittals”). Such details must include, but are not limited to, design data, structural and operating features, principal dimensions, space required or provided, clearances required or provided, type and brand of finish, and all similar matters, for all components of the Work. B. Number and Format. Contractor must provide [three] complete sets for each Required Submittal. All Required Submittals, except drawings, must be prepared on white 8-1/2” x 11”. Two blueline prints and one sepia transparency of each drawing must be provided. All drawings must be clearly marked in the lower right-hand corner with the names of Owner and Contractor. C. Time of Submission and Owner’s Review. All Required Submittals must be provided to Owner no later than the time, if any, specified in this Contract for their submission or, if no time for submission is specified, in sufficient time, in Owner’s sole opinion, to permit Owner to review the same prior to the commencement of the part of the Work to which they relate and prior to the purchase of any equipment, materials, or supplies that they describe. Owner will have the right to require such corrections as may be necessary to make such submittals conform to this Contract. All such submittals will, after final processing and review with no exception noted by Owner, become a part of this Contract. No Work related to any submittal may be performed by Contractor until Owner has completed review of such submittal with no exception noted. Owner’s review and stamping of any Required Submittal will be for the sole purpose of examining the general management, design, and details of the proposed Work, does not relieve Contractor of the entire Exhibit A Page 8 of 52 responsibility for the performance of the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to this Contract, and may not be regarded as any assumption of risk or liability by Owner. D. Responsibility for Delay. Contractor is responsible for any delay in the Work due to delay in providing Required Submittals conforming to this Contract. 1.4 Review and Interpretation of Contract Provisions Contractor represents and warrants that it has carefully reviewed this Contract, including all of its Attachments, and the drawings identified in Attachment C, all of which are by this reference incorporated into and made a part of this Contract. Contractor must, at no increase in the Contract Price, provide workmanship, equipment, materials, and supplies that fully conform to this Contract. Whenever any equipment, materials or supplies are specified or described in this Contract by using the name or other identifying feature of a proprietary product or the name or other identifying feature of a particular manufacturer or vendor, the specific item mentioned is understood as establishing the type, function and quality desired. Other manufacturers’ or vendors’ products may be accepted, provided that the products proposed are equivalent in substance and function to those named as determined by Owner in its sole and absolute discretion. Contractor must promptly notify Owner of any discrepancy, error, omission, ambiguity, or conflict among any of the provisions of this Contract before proceeding with any Work affected thereby. If Contractor fails to give such notice to Owner, then the subsequent decision of Owner as to which provision of this Contract governs is final, and any corrective work required does not entitle Contractor to any damages, to any compensation in excess of the Contract Price, or to any delay or extension of the Contract Time. When the equipment, materials, or supplies furnished by Contractor cannot be installed as specified in this Contract, Contractor must, without any increase in the Contract Price, make all modifications required to properly install the equipment, materials, or supplies. Any such modification is subject to the prior review and consent of Owner. 1.5 Conditions at the Work Site; Record Drawings Contractor represents and warrants that it has had a sufficient opportunity to conduct a thorough investigation of the Work Site and the surrounding area and has completed such investigation to its satisfaction. Contractor will have no claim for damages, for compensation in excess of the Contract Price, or for a delay or extension of the Contract Time based upon conditions found at, or in the vicinity of, the Work Site. When information pertaining to subsurface, underground or other concealed conditions, soils analysis, borings, test pits, utility locations or conditions, buried structures, condition of existing structures, and other investigations is or has been provided by Owner, or is or has been otherwise made available to Contractor by Owner, such information is or has been provided or made available solely for the convenience of Contractor and is not part of this Contract. Owner assumes no responsibility whatever in respect to the sufficiency or accuracy of such information, and Exhibit A Page 9 of 52 there is no guaranty or warranty, either expressed or implied, that the conditions indicated are representative of those existing throughout the Work or the Work Site, or that the conditions indicated are representative of those existing at any particular location, or that the conditions indicated may not change, or that unanticipated conditions may not be present. Contractor is solely responsible for locating all existing underground installations by prospecting no later than two workdays prior to any scheduled excavation or trenching, whichever is earlier. Contractor must check all dimensions, elevations, and quantities indicated in this Contract within the same time period as set forth above for prospecting underground installations. Contractor must lay out the Work in accordance with this Contract and must establish and maintain such locations, lines and levels. Wherever pre-existing work is encountered, Contractor must verify and be responsible for dimensions and location of such pre-existing work. Contractor must notify Owner of any discrepancy between the dimensions, elevations and quantities indicated in this Contract and the conditions of the Work Site or any other errors, omissions or discrepancies which Contract may discover during such inspections. Full instructions will be furnished by Owner should such error, omission, or discrepancy be discovered, and Contractor must carry out such instructions as if originally specified and without any increase in Contract Price. Before Final Acceptance of the Work, Contractor must submit to Owner two sets of Drawings of Record, unless a greater number is specified elsewhere in this Contract, indicating al field deviations from Attachment B or the drawings identified in Attachment C. 1.6 Technical Ability to Perform Contractor represents and warrants that it is sufficiently experienced and competent, and has the necessary capital, facilities, plant, organization, and staff, to provide, perform and complete the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract. 1.7 Financial Ability to Perform Contractor represents and warrants that it is financially solvent, and Contractor has the financial resources necessary to provide, perform and complete the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract. 1.8 Time Contractor represents and warrants that it is ready, willing, able and prepared to begin the Work on the Commencement Date and that the Contract Time is sufficient time to permit completion of the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract for the Contract Price, all with due regard to all natural and man-made conditions that may affect the Work or the Work Site and all difficulties, hindrances, and delays that may be incident to the Work. Exhibit A Page 10 of 52 1.9 Safety at the Work Site Contractor is solely and completely responsible for providing and maintaining safe conditions at the Work Site, including the safety of all persons and property during performance of the Work. This requirement applies continuously and is not limited to normal working hours. Contractor must take all safety precautions as necessary to comply with all applicable laws and to prevent injury to persons and damage to property. Contractor must conduct all of its operations without interruption or interference with vehicular and pedestrian traffic on public and private rights-of-way, unless it has obtained permits therefor from the proper authorities. If any public or private right-of-way are rendered unsafe by Contractor’s operations, Contractor must make such repairs or provide such temporary ways or guards as are acceptable to the proper authorities. 1.10 Cleanliness of the Work Site and Environs Contractor must keep the Work Site and adjacent areas clean at all times during performance of the Work and must, upon completion of the Work, leave the Work Site and adjacent areas in a clean and orderly condition. 1.11 Damage to the Work, the Work Site, and Other Property The Work and everything pertaining thereto is provided, performed, completed, and maintained at the sole risk and cost of Contractor from the Commencement Date until Final Payment. Contractor is fully responsible for the protection of all public and private property and all persons. Without limiting the foregoing, Contractor must, at its own cost and expense, provide all permanent and temporary shoring, anchoring and bracing required by the nature of the Work in order to make all parts absolutely stable and rigid, even when such shoring, anchoring and bracing is not explicitly specified, and support and protect all buildings, bridges, roadways, conduits, wires, water pipes, gas pipes, sewers, pavements, curbs, sidewalks, fixtures and landscaping of all kinds and all other public or private property that may be encountered or endangered in providing, performing and completing the Work. Contractor will have no claim against Owner because of any damage or loss to the Work or to Contractor’s equipment, materials, or supplies from any cause whatsoever, including damage or loss due to simultaneous work by others. Contractor must, promptly and without charge to Owner, repair or replace, to the satisfaction of Owner, any damage done to, and any loss suffered by, the Work and any damage done to, and any loss suffered by, the Work Site or other property as a result of the Work. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract, Contractor’s obligations under this Section exist without regard to, and may not be construed to be waived by, the availability or unavailability of any insurance, either of Owner or Contractor, to indemnify, hold harmless, or reimburse Contractor for the cost of any repair or replacement work required by this Section. Exhibit A Page 11 of 52 1.12 Subcontractors and Suppliers A. Approval and Use of Subcontractors and Suppliers. Contractor must perform the Work with its own personnel and under the management, supervision, and control of its own organization unless otherwise approved by Owner in writing. All subcontractors, suppliers, and subcontracts used by Contractor must be acceptable to, and approved in advance by, Owner. Owner’s approval of any subcontractor, supplier, and subcontract does not relieve Contractor of full responsibility and liability for the provision, performance, and completion of the Work in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract. All Work performed under any subcontract is subject to all of the provisions of this Contract in the same manner as if performed by employees of Contractor. Every reference in this Contract to “Contractor” is deemed also to refer to all subcontractors and suppliers of Contractor. Every subcontract must include a provision binding the subcontractor or supplier to all provisions of this Contract. B. Removal of Subcontractors and Suppliers. If any subcontractor or supplier fails to perform the part of the Work undertaken by it in a manner satisfactory to Owner, Contractor must immediately upon notice from Owner terminate such subcontractor or supplier. Contractor will have no claim for damages, for compensation in excess of the Contract Price, or for a delay or extension of the Contract Time as a result of any such termination. 1.13 Simultaneous Work By Others Owner has the right to perform or have performed such other work as Owner may desire in, about, or near the Work Site during the performance of the Work by Contractor. Contractor must make every reasonable effort to perform the Work in such manner as to enable both the Work and such other work to be completed without hindrance or interference from each other. Contractor must afford Owner and other contractors reasonable opportunity for the execution of such other work and must properly coordinate the Work with such other work. 1.14 Occupancy Prior to Final Payment Owner will have the right, at its election, to occupy, use, or place in service any part of the Work prior to Final Payment. Such occupancy, use, or placement in service must be conducted in such manner as not to damage any of the Work or to unreasonably interfere with the progress of the Work. No such occupancy, use, or placement in service may be construed as an acceptance of any of the Work or a release or satisfaction of Contractor’s duty to insure and protect the Work, nor may it, unless conducted in an unreasonable manner, be considered as an interference with Contractor’s provision, performance, or completion of the Work. 1.15 Owner’s Right to Terminate or Suspend Work for Convenience A. Termination or Suspension for Convenience. Owner has the right, for its convenience, to terminate or suspend the Work in whole or in part at any time by written Exhibit A Page 12 of 52 notice to Contractor. Every such notice must state the extent and effective date of such termination or suspension. On such effective date, Contractor must, as and to the extent directed, stop Work under this Contract, cease all placement of further orders or subcontracts, terminate or suspend Work under existing orders and subcontracts, cancel any outstanding orders or subcontracts that may be cancelled, and take any action necessary to protect any property in its possession in which Owner has or may acquire any interest and to dispose of such property in such manner as may be directed by Owner. B. Payment for Completed Work. In the event of any termination pursuant to Subsection 1.15A above, Owner must pay Contractor (1) such direct costs, excluding overhead, as Contractor has paid or incurred for all Work done in compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract up to the effective date of termination together with ten percent of such costs for overhead and profit; and (2) such other costs pertaining to the Work, exclusive of overhead and profit, as Contractor may have reasonably and necessarily incurred as the result of such termination. Any such payment may be offset by any prior payment or payments and is subject to Owner’s rights to withhold and deduct as provided in this Contract. ARTICLE II: CHANGES AND DELAYS 2.1 Changes Owner has the right, by written order executed by Owner, to make changes in the Contract, the Work, the Work Site, and the Contract Time (“Change Order”). If any Change Order causes an increase or decrease in the amount of the Work, an equitable adjustment in the Contract Price or Contract Time may be made. All claims by Contractor for an equitable adjustment in either the Contract Price or the Contract Time must be made within two business days following receipt of such Change Order, and may, if not made prior to such time, be conclusively deemed to have been waived. No decrease in the amount of the Work caused by any Change Order will entitle Contractor to make any claim for damages, anticipated profits, or other compensation. 2.2 Delays A. Extensions for Unavoidable Delays. For any delay that may result from causes that could not be avoided or controlled by Contractor, Contractor must, upon timely written application, be entitled to issuance of a Change Order providing for an extension of the Contract Time for a period of time equal to the delay resulting from such unavoidable cause. No extension of the Contract Time will be allowed for any other delay in completion of the Work. B. No Compensation for Delays. No payment, compensation, damages, or adjustment of any kind, other than the extension of the Contract Time provided in Subsection 2.2A above, may be made to, or claimed by, Contractor because of hindrances or delays from any cause in the commencement, prosecution, or completion of the Work, whether caused by Owner or any other party and whether avoidable or unavoidable. Exhibit A Page 13 of 52 ARTICLE III: CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY FOR DEFECTIVE WORK 3.1 Inspection; Testing; Correction of Defects A. Inspection. Until Final Payment, all parts of the Work are subject to inspection and testing by Owner or its designated representatives. Contractor must furnish, at its own expense, all reasonable access, assistance, and facilities required by Owner for such inspection and testing. B. Re-Inspection. Re-inspection and re-testing of any Work may be ordered by Owner at any time, and, if so ordered, any covered or closed Work must be uncovered or opened by Contractor. If the Work is found to be in full compliance with this Contract, then Owner must pay the cost of uncovering, opening, re-inspecting, or re-testing, as the case may be. If such Work is not in full compliance with this Contract, then Contractor must pay such cost. C. Correction. Until Final Payment, Contractor must, promptly and without charge, repair, correct, or replace all or any part of the Work that is defective, damaged, flawed, or unsuitable or that in any way fails to conform strictly to the requirements of this Contract. 3.2 Warranty of Work A. Scope of Warranty. Contractor warrants that the Work and all of its components will be free from defects and flaws in design, workmanship, and materials; must strictly conform to the requirements of this Contract; and will be fit, sufficient, and suitable for the purposes expressed in, or reasonably inferred from, this Contract. The warranty herein expressed is in addition to any other warranties expressed in this Contract, or expressed or implied by law, which are hereby reserved unto Owner. B. Repairs; Extension of Warranty. Contractor, promptly and without charge, must correct any failure to fulfill the above warranty that may be discovered or develop at any time within one year after Final Payment or such longer period as may be prescribed in Attachment B or Attachment D to this Contract or by law. The above warranty may be extended automatically to cover all repaired and replacement parts and labor provided or performed under such warranty and Contractor’s obligation to correct Work may be extended for a period of one year from the date of such repair or replacement. The time period established in this Subsection 3.2B relates only to the specific obligation of Contractor to correct Work and may not be construed to establish a period of limitation with respect to other obligations that Contractor has under this Contract. C. Subcontractor and Supplier Warranties. Whenever Attachment B or Attachment D requires a subcontractor or supplier to provide a guaranty or warranty, Contractor is solely responsible for obtaining said guaranty or warranty in form satisfactory to Exhibit A Page 14 of 52 Owner and assigning said warranty or guaranty to Owner. Acceptance of any assigned warranties or guaranties by Owner is a precondition to Final Payment and does not relieve Contractor of any of its guaranty or warranty obligations under this Contract. 3.3 Owner’s Right to Correct If, within two business days after Owner gives Contractor notice of any defect, damage, flaw, unsuitability, nonconformity, or failure to meet warranty subject to correction by Contractor pursuant to Section 3.1 or Section 3.2 of this Contract, Contractor neglects to make, or undertake with due diligence to make, the necessary corrections, then Owner is entitled to make, either with its own forces or with contract forces, the corrections and to recover from Contractor all resulting costs, expenses, losses, or damages, including attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses. ARTICLE IV: FINANCIAL ASSURANCES 4.1 Bonds Contemporaneous with Contractor’s execution of this Contract, Contractor must provide a Performance Bond and a Labor and Material Payment Bond, on forms provided by, or otherwise acceptable to, Owner, from a surety company licensed to do business in the State of Illinois with a general rating of A and a financial size category of Class X or better in Best’s Insurance Guide, each in the penal sum of the Contract Price (“Bonds”). Contractor, at all times while providing, performing, or completing the Work, including, without limitation, at all times while correcting any failure to meet warranty pursuant to Section 3.2 of this Contract, must maintain and keep in force, at Contractor’s expense, the Bonds required hereunder. 4.2 Insurance Contemporaneous with Contractor’s execution of this Contract, Contractor must provide certificates and policies of insurance evidencing the minimum insurance coverages and limits set forth in Attachment A. For good cause shown, Owner may extend the time for submission of the required policies of insurance upon such terms, and with such assurances of complete and prompt performance, as Owner may impose in the exercise of its sole discretion. Such policies must be in a form, and from companies, acceptable to Owner. Such insurance must provide that no change, modification in, or cancellation of any insurance becomes effective until the expiration of 30 days after written notice thereof has have been given by the insurance company to Owner. Contractor must, at all times while providing, performing, or completing the Work, including, without limitation, at all times while correcting any failure to meet warranty pursuant to Section 3.2 of this Contract, maintain and keep in force, at Contractor’s expense, the minimum insurance coverages and limits set forth in Attachment A. Exhibit A Page 15 of 52 4.3 Indemnification Contractor hereby agrees to and will indemnify, save harmless, and defend Owner and all of it elected officials, officers, employees, attorneys, agents, and representatives against any and all lawsuits, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses, that may arise, or be alleged to have arisen, out of or in connection with Contractor’s performance of, or failure to perform, the Work or any part thereof, whether or not due or claimed to be due in whole or in part to the active, passive, or concurrent negligence or fault of Contractor, except to the extent caused solely by the negligence of Owner. ARTICLE V: PAYMENT 5.1 Contract Price Owner must pay to Contractor, in accordance with and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Article V and Attachment A, and Contractor must accept in full satisfaction for providing, performing, and completing the Work, the amount or amounts set forth in Attachment A (the “Contract Price”), subject to any additions, deductions, or withholdings provided for in this Contract. 5.2 Taxes and Benefits Owner is exempt from and will not be responsible to pay, or reimburse Contractor for, any state or local sales, use, or excise taxes. The Contract Price includes all other applicable federal, state, and local taxes of every kind and nature applicable to the Work as well as all taxes, contributions, and premiums for unemployment insurance, old age or retirement benefits, pensions, annuities, or other similar benefits. All claim or right to claim additional compensation by reason of the payment of any such tax, contribution, or premium is hereby waived and released by Contractor. 5.3 Progress Payments A. Payment in Installments. The Contract Price must be paid in monthly installments in the manner set forth in Attachment A (“Progress Payments”). B. Pay Requests. Contractor must, as a condition precedent to its right to receive each Progress Payment, submit to Owner a pay request in the form provided by Owner (“Pay Request”). The first Pay Request must be submitted not sooner than 30 days following commencement of the Work. Owner may, by written notice to Contractor, designate a specific day of each month on or before which Pay Requests must be submitted. Each Pay Request must include (a) Contractor’s certification of the value of, and partial or final waivers of lien covering, all Work for which payment is then requested and (b) Contractor’s certification that all prior Progress Payments have been properly applied to the payment or reimbursement of the costs with respect to which they were paid. Exhibit A Page 16 of 52 C. Work Entire. This Contract and the Work are entire and the Work as a whole is of the essence of this Contract. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract, each and every part of this Contract and of the Work are interdependent and common to one another and to Owner’s obligation to pay all or any part of the Contract Price or any other consideration for the Work. Any and all Progress Payments made pursuant to this Article are provided merely for the convenience of Contractor and for no other purpose. 5.4 Final Acceptance and Final Payment A. Notice of Completion. When the Work has been completed and is ready in all respects for acceptance by Owner, Contractor must notify Owner and request a final inspection (“Notice of Completion”). Contractor’s Notice of Completion must be given sufficiently in advance of the Completion Date to allow for scheduling of the final inspection and for completion or correction before the Completion Date of any items identified by such inspection as being defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming, incomplete, or otherwise not in full compliance with, or as required by or pursuant to, this Contract (“Punch List Work”). B. Punch List and Final Acceptance. The Work may be finally accepted when, and only when, the whole and all parts thereof have been completed to the satisfaction of Owner in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract. Upon receipt of Contractor’s Notice of Completion, Owner must make a review of the Work and notify Contractor in writing of all Punch List Work, if any, to be completed or corrected. Following Contractor’s completion or correction of all Punch List Work, Owner must make another review of the Work and prepare and deliver to Contractor either a written notice of additional Punch List Work to be completed or corrected or a written notice of final acceptance of the Work (“Final Acceptance”). C. Final Payment. As soon as practicable after Final Acceptance, Contractor must submit to Owner a properly completed final Pay Request in the form provided by Owner (“Final Pay Request”). Owner must pay to Contractor the balance of the Contract Price, after deducting therefrom all charges against Contractor as provided for in this Contract (“Final Payment”). Final Payment must be made not later than 60 days after Owner approves the Final Pay Request. The acceptance by Contractor of Final Payment will operate as a full and complete release of Owner of and from any and all lawsuits, claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, and expenses of, by, or to Contractor for anything done, furnished for, arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the Work or for or on account of any act or neglect of Owner arising out of, relating to, or in connection with the Work. 5.5 Liens A. Title. Nothing in this Contract may be construed as vesting in Contractor any right of property in any equipment, materials, supplies, and other items provided under this Contract after they have been installed in, incorporated into, attached to, or affixed to, the Work or the Work Site. All such equipment, materials, supplies, and other items will, upon being so installed, incorporated, attached or affixed, become the property of Owner, but such Exhibit A Page 17 of 52 title will not release Contractor from its duty to insure and protect the Work in accordance with the requirements of this Contract. B. Waivers of Lien. Contractor must, from time to time at Owner’s request and in any event prior to Final Payment, furnish to Owner such receipts, releases, affidavits, certificates, and other evidence as may be necessary to establish, to the reasonable satisfaction of Owner, that no lien against the Work or the public funds held by Owner exists in favor of any person whatsoever for or by reason of any equipment, material, supplies, or other item furnished, labor performed, or other thing done in connection with the Work or this Contract (“Lien”) and that no right to file any Lien exists in favor of any person whatsoever. C. Removal of Liens. If at any time any notice of any Lien is filed, then Contractor must, promptly and without charge, discharge, remove, or otherwise dispose of such Lien. Until such discharge, removal, or disposition, Owner will have the right to retain from any money payable hereunder an amount that Owner, in its sole judgment, deems necessary to satisfy such Lien and to pay the costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses, of any actions brought in connection therewith or by reason thereof. D. Protection of Owner Only. This Section does not operate to relieve Contractor’s surety or sureties from any of their obligations under the Bonds, nor may it be deemed to vest any right, interest, or entitlement in any subcontractor or supplier. Owner’s retention of funds pursuant to this Section is deemed solely for the protection of its own interests pending removal of such Liens by Contractor, and Owner will have no obligation to apply such funds to such removal but may, nevertheless, do so where Owner’s interests would thereby be served. 5.6 Deductions A. Owner’s Right to Withhold. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Contract and without prejudice to any of Owner’s other rights or remedies, Owner will have the right at any time or times, whether before or after approval of any Pay Request, to deduct and withhold from any Progress or Final Payment that may be or become due under this Contract such amount as may reasonably appear necessary to compensate Owner for any actual or prospective loss due to: (1) Work that is defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming, or incomplete; (2) damage for which Contractor is liable under this Contract; (3) state or local sales, use, or excise taxes from which Owner is exempt; (4) Liens or claims of Lien regardless of merit; (5) claims of subcontractors, suppliers, or other persons regardless of merit; (6) delay in the progress or completion of the Work; (7) inability of Contractor to complete the Work; (8) failure of Contractor to properly complete or document any Pay Request; (9) any other failure of Contractor to perform any of its obligations under this Contract; or (10) the cost to Owner, including attorneys’ fees and administrative costs, of correcting any of the aforesaid matters or exercising any one or more of Owner’s remedies set forth in Section 6.3 of this Contract. B. Use of Withheld Funds. Owner is entitled to retain any and all amounts withheld pursuant to Subsection 5.6A above until Contractor has either performed the Exhibit A Page 18 of 52 obligations in question or furnished security for such performance satisfactory to Owner. Owner is entitled to apply any money withheld or any other money due Contractor under this Contract to reimburse itself for any and all costs, expenses, losses, damages, liabilities, suits, judgments, awards, attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses incurred, suffered, or sustained by Owner and chargeable to Contractor under this Contract. ARTICLE VI: DISPUTES AND REMEDIES 6.1 Dispute Resolution Procedure A. Notice of Disputes and Objections. If Contractor disputes or objects to any requirement, direction, instruction, interpretation, determination, or decision of Owner, Contractor may notify Owner in writing of its dispute or objection and of the amount of any equitable adjustment to the Contract Price or Contract Time to which Contractor claims it will be entitled as a result thereof; provided, however, that Contractor must, nevertheless, proceed without delay to perform the Work as required, directed, instructed, interpreted, determined, or decided by Owner, without regard to such dispute or objection. Unless Contractor so notifies Owner within two business days after receipt of such requirement, direction, instruction, interpretation, determination, or decision, Contractor is conclusively deemed to have waived all such disputes or objections and all claims based thereon. B. Negotiation of Disputes and Objections. To avoid and settle without litigation any such dispute or objection, Owner and Contractor agree to engage in good faith negotiations. Within three business days after Owner’s receipt of Contractor’s written notice of dispute or objection, a conference between Owner and Contractor will be held to resolve the dispute. Within three business days after the end of the conference, Owner must render its final decision, in writing, to Contractor. If Contractor objects to the final decision of Owner, then it must, within three business days, give Owner notice thereof and, in such notice, must state its final demand for settlement of the dispute. Unless Contractor so notifies Owner, Contractor will be conclusively deemed (1) to have agreed to and accepted Owner’s final decision and (2) to have waived all claims based on such final decision. 6.2 Contractor’s Remedies If Owner fails or refuses to satisfy a final demand made by Contractor pursuant to Section 6.1 of this Contract, or to otherwise resolve the dispute which is the subject of such demand to the satisfaction of Contractor, within 10 days after receipt of such demand, then Contractor will be entitled to pursue such remedies, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Contract, as it may have in law or equity. 6.3 Owner’s Remedies If it should appear at any time prior to Final Payment that Contractor has failed or refused to prosecute, or has delayed in the prosecution of, the Work with diligence at a rate that assures completion of the Work in full compliance with the requirements of this Contract on or before the Completion Date, or has attempted to assign this Contract or Contractor’s Exhibit A Page 19 of 52 rights under this Contract, either in whole or in part, or has falsely made any representation or warranty in this Contract, or has otherwise failed, refused, or delayed to perform or satisfy any other requirement of this Contract or has failed to pay its debts as they come due (“Event of Default”), and has failed to cure any such Event of Default within five business days after Contractor’s receipt of written notice of such Event of Default, then Owner will have the right, at its election and without prejudice to any other remedies provided by law or equity, to pursue any one or more of the following remedies: 1.Owner may require Contractor, within such reasonable time as may be fixed by Owner, to complete or correct all or any part of the Work that is defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming, or incomplete; to remove from the Work Site any such Work; to accelerate all or any part of the Work; and to take any or all other action necessary to bring Contractor and the Work into strict compliance with this Contract. 2.Owner may perform or have performed all Work necessary for the accomplishment of the results stated in Paragraph 1 above and withhold or recover from Contractor all the cost and expense, including attorneys’ fees and administrative costs, incurred by Owner in connection therewith. 3.Owner may accept the defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming, incomplete, or dilatory Work or part thereof and make an equitable reduction in the Contract Price. 4.Owner may terminate this Contract without liability for further payment of amounts due or to become due under this Contract. 5.Owner may, without terminating this Contract, terminate Contractor’s rights under this Contract and, for the purpose of completing or correcting the Work, evict Contractor and take possession of all equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, plans, specifications, schedules, manuals, drawings, and other papers relating to the Work, whether at the Work Site or elsewhere, and either complete or correct the Work with its own forces or contracted forces, all at Contractor’s expense. 6.Upon any termination of this Contract or of Contractor’s rights under this Contract, and at Owner’s option exercised in writing, any or all subcontracts and supplier contracts of Contractor will be deemed to be assigned to Owner without any further action being required, but Owner may not thereby assume any obligation for payments due under such subcontracts and supplier contracts for any Work provided or performed prior to such assignment. 7.Owner may withhold from any Progress Payment or Final Payment, whether or not previously approved, or may recover from Contractor, any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees and administrative expenses, incurred by Owner as Exhibit A Page 20 of 52 the result of any Event of Default or as a result of actions taken by Owner in response to any Event of Default. 8. Owner may recover any damages suffered by Owner. 6.4 Owner’s Additional Remedy for Delay If the Work is not completed by Contractor, in full compliance with, and as required by or pursuant to, this Contract, within the Contract Time as such time may be extended by Change Order, then Owner may invoke its remedies under Section 6.3 of this Contract or may, in the exercise of its sole and absolute discretion, permit Contractor to complete the Work but charge to Contractor, and deduct from any Progress or Final Payments, whether or not previously approved, administrative expenses and costs for each day completion of the Work is delayed beyond the Completion Date, computed on the basis of the “Per Diem Administrative Charge” set forth in Attachment A, as well as any additional damages caused by such delay. 6.5 Terminations and Suspensions Deemed for Convenience Any termination or suspension of Contractor’s rights under this Contract for an alleged default that is ultimately held unjustified will automatically be deemed to be a termination or suspension for the convenience of Owner under Section 1.15 of this Contract. ARTICLE VII: LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS AND REQUIREMENTS 7.1 Binding Effect This Contract is binding on Owner and Contractor and on their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, and permitted successors and assigns. Every reference in this Contract to a party is deemed to be a reference to the authorized officers, employees, agents, and representatives of such party. 7.2 Relationship of the Parties Contractor will act as an independent contractor in providing and performing the Work. Nothing in, nor done pursuant to, this Contract may be construed (1) to create the relationship of principal and agent, partners, or joint venturers between Owner and Contractor or (2) except as provided in Paragraph 6.3(6) above, to create any relationship between Owner and any subcontractor or supplier of Contractor. 7.3 No Collusion/Prohibited Interests Contractor hereby represents that the only persons, firms, or corporations interested in this Contract as principals are those disclosed to Owner prior to the execution of this Contract, and that this Contract is made without collusion with any other person, firm, or corporation. Exhibit A Page 21 of 52 If at any time it is found that Contractor has, in procuring this Contract, colluded with any other person, firm, or corporation, then Contractor will be liable to Owner for all loss or damage that Owner may suffer thereby, and this Contract will, at Owner’s option, be null and void. Contractor hereby represents ands warrants that neither Contractor nor any person affiliated with Contractor or that has an economic interest in Contractor or that has or will have an interest in the Work or will participate, in any manner whatsoever, in the Work is acting, directly or indirectly, for or on behalf of any person, group, entity or nation named by the United States Treasury Department as a Specially Designated National and Blocked Person, or for or on behalf of any person, group, entity or nation designated in Presidential Executive Order 13224 as a person who commits, threatens to commit, or supports terrorism, and neither Contractor nor any person affiliated with Contractor or that has an economic interest in Contractor or that has or will have an interest in the Work or will participate, in any manner whatsoever, in the Work is, directly or indirectly, engaged in, or facilitating, the Work on behalf of any such person, group, entity or nation. 7.4 Assignment Contractor may not (1) assign this Contract in whole or in part, (2) assign any of Contractor’s rights or obligations under this Contract, or (3) assign any payment due or to become due under this Contract without the prior express written approval of Owner, which approval may be withheld in the sole and unfettered discretion of Owner; provided, however, that Owner’s prior written approval will not be required for assignments of accounts, as defined in the Illinois Commercial Code, if to do so would violate Section 9-318 of the Illinois Commercial Code, 810 ILCS 5/9-318. Owner may assign this Contract, in whole or in part, or any or all of its rights or obligations under this Contract, without the consent of Contractor. 7.5 Confidential Information All information supplied by Owner to Contractor for or in connection with this Contract or the Work must be held confidential by Contractor and may not, without the prior express written consent of Owner, be used for any purpose other than performance of the Work. 7.6 No Waiver No examination, inspection, investigation, test, measurement, review, determination, decision, certificate, or approval by Owner, nor any order by Owner for the payment of money, nor any payment for, or use, occupancy, possession, or acceptance of, the whole or any part of the Work by Owner, nor any extension of time granted by Owner, nor any delay by Owner in exercising any right under this Contract, nor any other act or omission of Owner may constitute or be deemed to be an acceptance of any defective, damaged, flawed, unsuitable, nonconforming or incomplete Work, equipment, materials, or supplies, nor operate to waive or otherwise diminish the effect of any warranty or representation made by Exhibit A Page 22 of 52 Contractor; or of any requirement or provision of this Contract; or of any remedy, power, or right of Owner. 7.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries No claim as a third party beneficiary under this Contract by any person, firm, or corporation other than Contractor may be made or be valid against Owner. 7.8 Notices All notices required or permitted to be given under this Contract must be in writing and are deemed received by the addressee thereof when delivered in person on a business day at the address set forth below or on the third business day after being deposited in any main or branch United States post office, for delivery at the address set forth below by properly addressed, postage prepaid, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Notices and communications to Owner must be addressed to, and delivered at, the following address: with a copy to: City of Des Plaines Holland & Knight LLP 1111 Joseph Schwab Rd. 131 South Dearborn Street, 30th Floor Des Plaines, Illinois 60016 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Attention: Joel Gehrett Attention: Peter Friedman Notices and communications to Contractor must be addressed to, and delivered at, the following address: Michels Pipe Services 817 Main Street Brownsville, WI 53006 The foregoing may not be deemed to preclude the use of other non-oral means of notification or to invalidate any notice properly given by any such other non-oral means. By notice complying with the requirements of this Section, Owner and Contractor each have the right to change the address or addressee or both for all future notices to it, but no notice of a change of address is effective until actually received. 7.9 Governing Laws This Contract and the rights of Owner and Contractor under this Contract will be interpreted according to the internal laws, but not the conflict of laws rules, of the State of Illinois. Exhibit A Page 23 of 52 7.10 Changes in Laws Unless otherwise explicitly provided in this Contract, any reference to laws includes such laws as they may be amended or modified from time to time. 7.11 Compliance with Laws A. Compliance Required. Contractor must give all notices, pay all fees, and take all other action that may be necessary to ensure that the Work is provided, performed, and completed in accordance with all required governmental permits, licenses or other approvals and authorizations that may be required in connection with providing, performing, and completing the Work, and with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations, including without limitation the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS 130/0.01 et seq. (see Subsection C of this Section) (a copy of Owner’s ordinance ascertaining the prevailing rate of wages, in effect as of the date of this Contract, has been attached as an Appendix to this Contract; if the Illinois Department of Labor revises the prevailing rate of hourly wages to be paid, the revised rate applies to this Contract); any other applicable prevailing wage laws; the Fair Labor Standards Act; any statutes regarding qualification to do business; any statutes requiring preference to laborers of specified classes; the Illinois Steel Products Procurement Act, 30 ILCS 565/1 et seq.; any statutes prohibiting discrimination because of, or requiring affirmative action based on, race, creed, color, national origin, age, sex, or other prohibited classification, including, without limitation, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq., and the Public Works Discrimination Act, 775 ILCS 10/0.01 et seq.; and any statutes regarding safety or the performance of the Work, including the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act, 220 ILCS 50/1 et seq., and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. §§ 651 et seq. B. Liability for Fines, Penalties. Contractor is solely liable for any fines or civil penalties that are imposed by any governmental or quasi-governmental agency or body that may arise, or be alleged to have arisen, out of or in connection with Contractor’s, or its subcontractors’ or suppliers’, performance of, or failure to perform, the Work or any part thereof. C. Prevailing Wage Act. Contractor and each subcontractor, in order to comply with the Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS 130/0.01 et seq. (the “Act”), must submit to the City a certified payroll on a monthly basis, in accordance with Section 5 of the Act. The certified payroll must consist of a complete copy of those records required to be made and kept by the Act. The certified payroll must be accompanied by a statement signed by the contractor or subcontractor that certifies that (1) such records are true and accurate, (2) the hourly rate paid is not less than the general prevailing rate of hourly wages required by the Act, and (3) the contractor or subcontractor is aware that filing a certified payroll that he or she knows to be false is a Class B misdemeanor. Contractor may rely on the certification of a subcontractor, provided that Contractor does not knowingly rely on a subcontractor’s false certification. On two business days’ notice, Contractor and each subcontractor must make available for inspection the records required to be made and kept by the Act (i) to the City and its officers Exhibit A Page 24 of 52 and agents and to the Director of the Illinois Department of Labor and his or her deputies and agents and (ii) at all reasonable hours at a location within the State. D. Required Provisions Deemed Inserted. Every provision of law required by law to be inserted into this Contract is deemed to be inserted herein. 7.12 Compliance with Patents A. Assumption of Costs, Royalties, and Fees. Contractor will pay or cause to be paid all costs, royalties, and fees arising from the use on, or the incorporation into, the Work, of patented equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions. B. Effect of Contractor Being Enjoined. Should Contractor be enjoined from furnishing or using any equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions supplied or required to be supplied or used under this Contract, Contractor must promptly offer substitute equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions in lieu thereof, of equal efficiency, quality, suitability, and market value, for review by Owner. If Owner should disapprove the offered substitutes and should elect, in lieu of a substitution, to have supplied, and to retain and use, any such equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions as may by this Contract be required to be supplied, Contractor must pay such royalties and secure such valid licenses as may be requisite and necessary for Owner to use such equipment, materials, supplies, tools, appliances, devices, processes, or inventions without being disturbed or in any way interfered with by any proceeding in law or equity on account thereof. Should Contractor neglect or refuse to make any approved substitution promptly, or to pay such royalties and secure such licenses as may be necessary, then Owner will have the right to make such substitution, or Owner may pay such royalties and secure such licenses and charge the cost thereof against any money due Contractor from Owner or recover the amount thereof from Contractor and its surety or sureties notwithstanding that Final Payment may have been made. 7.13 Time The Contract Time is of the essence of this Contract. Except where otherwise stated, references in this Contract to days is construed to refer to calendar days. 7.14 Severability The provisions of this Contract will be interpreted when possible to sustain their legality and enforceability as a whole. In the event any provision of this Contract is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, in whole or in part, neither the validity of the remaining part of such provision, nor the validity of any other provisions of this Contract will be in any way affected thereby. Exhibit A Page 25 of 52 7.15 Entire Agreement This Contract sets forth the entire agreement of Owner and Contractor with respect to the accomplishment of the Work and the payment of the Contract Price therefor, and there are no other understandings or agreements, oral or written, between Owner and Contractor with respect to the Work and the compensation therefor. 7.16 Amendments No modification, addition, deletion, revision, alteration or other change to this Contract is effective unless and until such change is reduced to writing and executed and delivered by Owner and Contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner and Contractor have caused this Contract to be executed by their properly authorized representatives in two original counterparts as of the Effective Date. CITY OF DES PLAINES By: _________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: _________________________________ Attest: By: _________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: _________________________________ MICHELS PIPE SERVICES By: _________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: _________________________________ Attest: By: _________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: _________________________________ Exhibit A Page 26 of 52 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) )SS COUNTY OF __________ ) CONTRACTOR’S CERTIFICATION _____________________executing officer, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and states that all statements herein made are made on behalf of Contractor, that this deponent is authorized to make them, and that the statements contained herein are true and correct. Contractor deposes, states, and certifies that Contractor is not barred from contracting with a unit of state or local government as a result of (i) a violation of either Section 33E-3 or Section 33E-4 of Article 33E of the Criminal Code of 1961, 720 ILCS 5/33E-1 et seq.; or (ii) a violation of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, 107 Public Law 56 (October 26, 2001) (the “Patriot Act”) or other statutes, orders, rules, and regulations of the United States government and its various executive departments, agencies and offices related to the subject matter of the Patriot Act, including, but not limited to, Executive Order 13224 effective September 24, 2001. DATED: ____________________, 20___. MICHELS PIPE SERVICES By: _________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: _________________________________ Attest: By: _________________________________ Name: _________________________________ Title: _________________________________ Subscribed and Sworn to before me on ____________________, 20___. My Commission expires: __________________ ____________________________ Notary Public (SEAL) Exhibit A Page 27 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 2017 SEWER LINING ATTACHMENT A SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE OF CONTRACT TERMS 1.Project: Project consists of approximately 6,778 linear feet of Sewer Lining using CIPP for sewer mains ranging in size from 8 inches to 24 inches. 2.Work Site: Work will be performed throughout the City of Des Plaines with areas concentrated along River Rd. between Rand Rd and Algonquin Rd. 3.Permits, Licenses, Approvals, and Authorizations: Contractor must obtain all required governmental permits, licenses, approvals, and authorizations, except: MWRD –  IDOT – Utility Permit  No Exceptions 4.Commencement Date:  the date of execution of the Contract by Owner.  ______________ days after execution of the Contract by Owner.  OR no later than August 1, 2017 5.Completion Date: Exhibit A Page 28 of 52  30 days after the Commencement Date plus extensions, if any, authorized by a Change Order issued pursuant to Subsection 2.2A of the Contract  December 31, 2017, plus extensions, if any, authorized by a Change Order issued pursuant to Subsection 2.2A of the Contract Completion includes the approved and acceptable construction of all pay items: including concrete correction (punch) list items, all hot-mix asphalt items including surface courses and all landscape restoration work, including topsoil and sod placement. Days and Hours of Work. Workdays for this Contract are Monday through Friday between the hours of 7AM to 6PM. No work shall be done or equipment operated outside of these permitted hours. No work shall be done on any Saturdays, Sundays or the following specified days unless otherwise approved by the Project Manager. Monday September 4, 2017 Labor Day Holiday Monday October 9, 2017 Columbus Day Holiday Friday November 10, 2017 Veterans Day Holiday Thursday November 23, 2017 Thanksgiving Day Holiday Friday November 24, 2017 City Holiday Monday December 25, Christmas Holiday In the event, the Contractor works on Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, during which time the Engineer and/or Inspector(s) are required to be present, the City of Des Plaines shall pay the cost for such overtime engineering services and shall deduct such cost from payments due the Contractor. Overtime engineering services shall be charged at the Engineer’s standard hourly rate for all time over eight hours on any single weekday and for all hours on Saturday, Sunday, and holidays and/or Inspector(s) standard hourly rate applied on a one and one-half (x 1 ½) basis for all time over eight hours on any single weekday and for all hours on Saturday and a double time (x 2) basis for all Sunday and holiday hours of the Inspector’s standard hourly rate. If the amount due the Contractor is not sufficient to cover the cost of overtime engineering service, the Contractor shall reimburse the City of Des Plaines in the amount necessary to cover such costs. The Project Manager shall approve necessary personnel and time for engineering services. 6.Insurance Coverage: A.Worker’s Compensation and Employer’s Liability with limits not less than: (1) Worker’s Compensation: Statutory; (2) Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 injury-per occurrence; $1,000,000 disease-per employee; $1,000,000 disease-policy limit Exhibit A Page 29 of 52 Such insurance must evidence that coverage applies in the State of Illinois. B. Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Liability with a combined single limit of liability for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $2,000,000 for vehicles owned, non-owned, or rented. All employees must be included as insureds. C. Comprehensive General Liability with coverage written on an “occurrence” basis and with limits no less than: (1) General Aggregate: $5,000,000. See Subsection F below regarding use of umbrella overage. (2) Bodily Injury: $2,000,000 per person; $2,000,000 per occurrence (3) Property Damage: $2,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 aggregate. Coverage must include: - Premises / Operations - Products / Completed Operations (to be maintained for two years after Final Payment) - Independent Contractors - Personal Injury (with Employment Exclusion deleted) - Broad Form Property Damage Endorsement - Blanket Contractual Liability (must expressly cover the indemnity provisions of the Contract) - Bodily Injury and Property Damage “X”, “C”, and “U” exclusions must be deleted. Railroad exclusions must be deleted if Work Site is within 50 feet of any railroad track. All employees must be included as insured.  D.Builders Risk Insurance. This insurance must be written in completed value form, must protect Contractor and Owner against “all risks” of direct physical loss to buildings, structures, equipment, and materials to be used in providing, performing, and completing the Work, including without limitation fire extended coverage, vandalism and malicious mischief, sprinkler leakage, Exhibit A Page 30 of 52 flood, earth movement and collapse, and must be designed for the circumstances that may affect the Work. This insurance must be written with limits not less than the insurable value of the Work at completion. The insurable value must include the aggregate value of Owner-furnished equipment and materials to be constructed or installed by Contractor. This insurance must include coverage while equipment or materials are in warehouses, during installation, during testing, and after the Work is completed, but prior to Final Payment. This insurance must include coverage while Owner is occupying all or any part of the Work prior to Final Payment without the need for the insurance company’s consent.  E.Owner’s and Contractor’s Protective Liability Insurance. Contractor, at its sole cost and expense, must purchase this Insurance in the name of Owner with a combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000.  F.Umbrella Policy. The required coverage may be in the form of an umbrella policy above $2,000,000 primary coverage. All umbrella policies must provide excess coverage over underlying insurance on a following-form basis so that, when any loss covered by the primary policy exceeds the limits under the primary policy, the excess or umbrella policy becomes effective to cover that loss.  G.Deductible. Each policy must have a deductible or self-insured retention of not more than $________.  H. Owner as Additional Insured. Owner must be named as an Additional Insured on the following policies: Comprehensive General Liability The Additional Insured endorsement must identify Owner as follows: The City of Des Plaines and its boards, commissions, committees, authorities, employees, agencies, officers, voluntary associations, and other units operating under the jurisdiction and within the appointment of its budget.  I.Other Parties as Additional Insureds. In addition to Owner, the following parties must be named as additional insured on the following policies: Exhibit A Page 31 of 52 Additional Insured Policy or Policies ________________________ __________________________ 7.Contract Price: SCHEDULE OF PRICES  A.LUMP SUM CONTRACT For providing, performing, and completing all Work, the total Contract Price of (write in numbers only): $ ________________________________  All Work will be paid on a force account basis, using the terms of Section 109.04(b) of the IDOT Standard Specifications For Road And Bridge Construction 2012, without limitation to “extra work.” Contractor shall be paid in installments (see below). Contractor must submit Pay Requests including itemized statements of the cost of the Work, accompanied and supported by statements and invoices for all labor, materials, transportation charges and other items of the Work, using standard Illinois Department of Transportation schedules and report forms.  B. UNIT PRICE CONTRACT NOTE: If Owner has provided a separate form Schedule of Pricing attached to this Attachment A, then that Schedule of Prices will be used and this Subsection B should not be used. If Owner has not provided a separate form Schedule of Prices, then this Subsection B should be used. For providing, performing, and completing all Work, the sum of the products resulting from multiplying the number of acceptable units of Unit Price Items listed below incorporated in the Work by the Unit Price set forth below for such Unit Price Item: Exhibit A Page 32 of 52 COMPLETE TABLE AS INDICATED Unit Price Item Unit Approximate Number of Units Price Per Unit Extension 1 8” Sewer lining Ft 1126 $23.00 $_______________ 2 10” Sewer lining Ft 583 $31.00 $_______________ 3 12” Sewer lining Ft 732 $36.00 $_______________ 4 15” Sewer lining Ft 1810 $46.00 $_______________ 5 18” Sewer lining Ft 1143 $63.00 $_______________ 6 20” Sewer lining Ft 119 $88.00 $_______________ 7 24” Sewer lining Ft 1265 $95.00 $_______________ 8 Traffic Control Per Contract 1 $13,380.00 $_______________ TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE (write in numbers only): $ 369,619.00  C.COMBINED LUMP SUM/UNIT PRICE CONTRACT (1) For providing, performing, and completing all Work related to [describe lump sum work], the total sum of (write in numbers only): $ ______________________________________ (2) For providing, performing, and completing all Work related to [describe unit price work], the sum of the products resulting from multiplying the number of acceptable units of Unit Price Items listed below incorporated in the Work by the Unit Price set forth below for such Unit Price Item: COMPLETE TABLE AS INDICATED Unit Price Item Unit Approximate Number of Units Price Per Unit Extension 1 $_________ $_______________ 2 $_________ $_______________ 25,898.00 18,073.00 26,352.00 83,260.00 72,009.00 10,472.00 120,175.00 13,380.00 Exhibit A Page 33 of 52 Unit Price Item Unit Approximate Number of Units Price Per Unit Extension 3 $_________ $_______________ TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE, being the sum of (1) plus the extension of (2) (write in numbers only): $ ________________________________________ D. Any items of Work not specifically listed or referred to in the Schedule of Prices, or not specifically included for payment under any Unit Price Item, shall be deemed incidental to the Contract Price, shall not be measured for payment, and shall not be paid for separately except as incidental to the Contract Price, including without limitation extraordinary equipment repair, the cost of transportation, packing, cartage, and containers, the cost of preparing schedules and submittals, the cost or rental of small tools or buildings, the cost of utilities and sanitary conveniences, and any portion of the time of Bidder, its superintendents, or its office and engineering staff. 8.Progress Payments: A.General. Owner must pay to Contractor 90 percent of the Value of Work, determined in the manner set forth below, installed and complete in place up to the day before the Pay Request, less the aggregate of all previous Progress Payments. The total amount of Progress Payments made prior to Final Acceptance by Owner may not exceed 90 percent of the Contract Price. B. Value of Work. The Value of the Work will be determined as follows: (1) Lump Sum Items. For all Work to be paid on a lump sum basis, Contractor must, not later than 10 days after execution of the Contract and before submitting its first Pay Request, submit to Owner a schedule showing the value of each component part of such Work in form and with substantiating data acceptable to Owner (“Breakdown Schedule”). The sum of the items listed in the Breakdown Schedule must equal the amount or amounts set forth in the Schedule of Prices for Lump Sum Work. An unbalanced Breakdown Schedule providing for overpayment of Contractor on component parts of the Work to be performed first will not be accepted. The Breakdown Schedule must be revised and resubmitted until acceptable to Owner. No payment may be made for any lump sum item until Contractor has submitted, and Owner has approved, an acceptable Breakdown Schedule. Exhibit A Page 34 of 52 Owner may require that the approved Breakdown Schedule be revised based on developments occurring during the provision and performance of the Work. If Contractor fails to submit a revised Breakdown Schedule that is acceptable to Owner, Owner will have the right either to suspend Progress and Final Payments for Lump Sum Work or to make such Payments based on Owner’s determination of the value of the Work completed. (2) Unit Price Items. For all Work to be paid on a unit price basis, the value of such Work will be determined by Owner on the basis of the actual number of acceptable units of Unit Price Items installed and complete in place, multiplied by the applicable Unit Price set forth in the Schedule of Prices. The actual number of acceptable units installed and complete in place will be measured on the basis described in Attachment B to the Contract or, in the absence of such description, on the basis determined by Owner. The number of units of Unit Price Items stated in the Schedule of Prices are Owner’s estimate only and may not be used in establishing the Progress or Final Payments due Contractor. The Contract Price will be adjusted to reflect the actual number of acceptable units of Unit Price Items installed and complete in place upon Final Acceptance. C. Application of Payments. All Progress and Final Payments made by Owner to Contractor will be applied to the payment or reimbursement of the costs with respect to which they were paid and will not be applied to or used for any pre- existing or unrelated debt between Contractor and Owner or between Contractor and any third party. 9.Per Diem Administrative Charge:  $1250 per day  No Charge 10.Standard Specifications: The Contract includes the following Illinois Department of Transportation standard specifications, each of which are incorporated into the Contract by reference:  "State of Illinois Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" (SSRB) Exhibit A Page 35 of 52  "Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Main Construction in Illinois" (SSWS)  "Illinois Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways" (MUTCD). The Contract also includes Owner’s City Code and Building Codes. References to any of these manuals, codes, and specifications means the latest editions effective on the date of the bid opening. See Attachment D for any special project requirements. Exhibit A Page 36 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 2017 SEWER LINING ATTACHMENT B SPECIAL PROVISIONS Exhibit A Page 37 of 52 INDEX OF SPECIAL PROVISIONS Page Number Description 2 DEFINITION OF TERMS 2 COMBINED SEWER REPAIR 3 DIRT ON PAVEMENT 3 STORM MANHOLE AND CATCH BASIN CONSTRUCTION 5 MANHOLE, CATCH BASIN, VALVE VAULT ADJUSTMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION 6 SANITARY MANHOLE, TYPE A, NEW FRAME, CLOSED LID 7 SANITARY MANHOLE ADJUSTMENT AND RECONSTRUCTION 8 SANITARY MANHOLE, TYPE A NEW FRAME, CLOSED LID 9 SANITARY SEWER REPAIR 10 SEWER TELEVISING 13 SEWER LINING WITH CURED-IN-PLACE-PIPE LINER 19 TRENCH BACKFILL Exhibit A Page 38 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 2017 SEWER LINING ATTACHMENT C DRAWINGS AS SHOWN IN THE BID PACKAGE Exhibit A Page 39 of 52 CITY OF DES PLAINES CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 2017 SEWER LINING APPENDIX 1 PREVAILING WAGE ORDINANCE Exhibit A Page 40 of 52 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 116 - 17 A RESOLUTION ASCERTAINING THE PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES IN THE CITY OF DES PLAINES. WHEREAS,the State of Illinois has enacted the Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS 130/0.01, et seq. (“Act”); and WHEREAS,the Act requires that the City of Des Plaines (“City”) investigate and ascertain the prevailing rate of wages, as defined in the Act, for laborers, mechanics and other workers in the locality of the City employed in performing construction of public works for the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt this Resolution; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council. SECTION 2: PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES.To the extent and as required by the Act, the general prevailing rate of wages in Cook County for laborers, mechanics, and other workers engaged in construction of public works coming under the jurisdiction of the City is hereby ascertained to be the same as the prevailing rate of wages for construction work in the Cook County area as determined by the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois as of June 2017 (which determination is the most recent determination made by the Department of Labor). A copy of that determination is attached to and, by this reference, made a part of this Resolution as Exhibit A. As required by the Act, any and all revisions to the prevailing rate of wages by the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois shall supersede the Department's July determination and apply to any and all public works construction in Cook County undertaken by the City. SECTION 3: DEFINITIONS; APPLICABILITY.The definition of any term appearing in this Resolution that is also used in the Act shall be the same as in the Act. Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to apply the general prevailing rate of wages for Cook County, as ascertained pursuant to this Resolution, to any work or employment except public works construction of the City conducted in Cook County to the extent required by the Act. SECTION 4: AVAILABILITY OF PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES.The City Clerk of the City of Des Plaines is hereby directed to publicly post or keep available for inspection by any interested party in the City Clerk’s office this determination or any revisions of the prevailing rate of wages for Cook County. A copy of this determination or of the revised Exhibit A Page 41 of 52 2 determination of the prevailing rate of wages then in effect shall be attached to all public works construction contract specifications. SECTION 5: MAILING OF PREVAILING RATE OF WAGES.The City Clerk is hereby directed to mail a copy of this determination to any employer, to any association of employers, and to any person or association of employees who have filed their names and addresses requesting copies of any determination stating the particular rates and the particular class of workers whose wages will be affected by such rates. SECTION 6: FILING OF RESOLUTION.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 promptly file a certified copy of this Resolution with both the Secretary of State and the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois. SECTION 7: PUBLICATION OF RESOLUTION.The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the area a copy of this Resolution, within 30 days after its filing with the Secretary of State and the Department of Labor of the State of Illinois, and such publication shall constitute notice that the determination is effective and that this is the determination of the City. SECTION 8: EFFECTIVE DATE.This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as provided by law. P A S S E D this _____ day of ____________, 2017. APPROVED this _____ day of _____________, 2017. V O T E :AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____ ___________________________________ M A Y O R ATTEST: 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 Prevailing Wage 2017 #46719831_v1 Exhibit A Page 42 of 52 Th i s s c h e d u l e c o n t a i n s t h e p r e v a i l i n g w a g e r a t e s r e q u i r e d t o b e p a i d f o r w o r k p e r f o r m e d o n o r a f t e r M o n d a y , J u n e 5 , 2 0 1 7 o n p u b li c wo r k s p r o j e c t s i n t h i s C o u n t y . P u r s u a n t t o 8 2 0 I L C S 1 3 0 / 4 , p u b l i c b o d i e s i n t h i s C o u n t y t h a t h a v e a c t i v e p u b l i c w o r k s p r o j e c t s a r e re s p o n s i b l e f o r n o t i f y i n g a l l c o n t r a c t o r s a n d s u b c o n t r a c t o r s w o r k i n g o n t h o s e p u b l i c w o r k s p r o j e c t s o f t h e c h a n g e ( i f a n y ) t o r at e s t h a t we r e p r e v i o u s l y i n e f f e c t . T h e f a i l u r e o f a p u b l i c b o d y t o p r o v i d e s u c h n o t i c e d o e s n o t r e l i e v e c o n t r a c t o r s o r s u b c o n t r a c t o r s of t h e i r ob l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h e P r e v a i l i n g W a g e A c t , i n c l u d i n g t h e d u t y t o pa y t h e r e l e v a n t p r e v a i l i n g w a g e i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e w o r k s u bj e c t t o th e A c t i s p e r f o r m e d . CO O K C O U N T Y PR EV A I L I N G W A G E RA T E S E F F E C T I V E JU N E 5 , 2 0 1 7 Tr a d e T i t l e Re g i o n Ty p e Cl a s s Ba s e Wa g e Fo r e m a n Wa g e M- F OT OS A O S H H/ W Pe n s i o n Va c a t i o n Tr a i n i n g AS B E S T O S A B T - G E N A l l A l l 40 . 4 0 4 0 . 9 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 4 . 2 3 1 1 . 5 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 0 AS B E S T O S A B T - M E C A l l B L D 37 . 4 6 3 9 . 9 6 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 1 . 6 2 1 1 . 0 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 7 2 BO I L E R M A K E R A l l B L D 47 . 0 7 5 1 . 3 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 6 . 9 7 1 8 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 4 0 BR I C K M A S O N A l l B L D 44 . 8 8 4 8 . 8 4 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 2 5 1 5 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 8 5 CA R P E N T E R A l l A l l 45 . 3 5 4 7 . 3 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 1 . 7 9 1 7 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 3 CE M E N T M A S O N A l l A l l 44 . 2 5 4 6 . 2 5 2 . 0 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 3 . 6 5 1 5 . 5 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 CE R A M I C T I L E F N S H E R A l l B L D 37 . 8 1 1. 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 5 5 1 0 . 1 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 CO M M . E L E C T . A l l B L D 42 . 0 2 4 4 . 8 2 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 8 8 1 2 . 7 8 0 . 5 9 0 . 7 5 EL E C T R I C P W R E Q M T OP Al l A l l 48 . 9 0 5 3 . 9 0 1. 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 11 . 4 1 1 6 . 3 9 0. 0 0 3 . 1 0 EL E C T R I C P W R GR N D M A N Al l A l l 38 . 1 4 5 3 . 9 0 1. 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 9 0 12 . 7 8 0. 0 0 2 . 7 5 EL E C T R I C P W R LI N E M A N Al l A l l 48 . 9 0 5 3 . 9 0 1. 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 11 . 4 1 1 6 . 3 9 0. 0 0 3 . 1 0 EL E C T R I C I A N A l l A l l 46 . 1 0 4 9 . 1 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 4 . 3 3 1 5 . 5 2 0 . 7 0 1 . 0 0 EL E V A T O R CO N S T R U C T O R Al l BL D 51 . 9 4 5 8 . 4 3 2. 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 14 . 4 3 1 4 . 9 6 4. 1 6 0 . 9 0 FE N C E E R E C T O R A l l A l l 38 . 3 4 4 0 . 3 4 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 3 . 1 5 1 3 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 4 0 GL A Z I E R A l l B L D 41 . 7 0 4 3 . 2 0 1 . 5 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 3 . 9 4 1 8 . 9 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 9 4 HT / F R O S T I N S U L A T O R A l l B L D 49 . 9 5 5 2 . 4 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 1 . 6 2 1 2 . 2 6 0 . 0 0 0 . 7 2 Exhibit A Page 43 of 52 IR O N W O R K E R A l l A l l 46 . 2 0 4 8 . 2 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 3 . 6 5 2 1 . 5 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 3 5 LA B O R E R Al l A l l 40 . 2 0 4 0 . 9 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 4 . 2 3 1 1 . 5 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 0 LA T H E R Al l A l l 44 . 3 5 4 6 . 3 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 3 . 2 9 1 6 . 3 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 3 MA C H I N I S T A l l B L D 45 . 3 5 4 7 . 8 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 7 . 2 6 8 . 9 5 1 . 8 5 1 . 3 0 MA R B L E F I N I S H E R S A l l A l l 33 . 4 5 3 3 . 4 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 2 5 1 4 . 4 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 4 6 MA R B L E M A S O N A l l B L D 44 . 1 3 4 8 . 5 4 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 2 5 1 4 . 9 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 9 MA T E R I A L T E S T E R I A l l A l l 30 . 2 0 3 0 . 2 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 4 . 2 3 1 1 . 5 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 0 MA T E R I A L S T E S T E R I I A l l A l l 35 . 2 0 3 5 . 2 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 4 . 2 3 1 1 . 5 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 0 MI L L W R I G H T A l l A l l 45 . 3 5 4 7 . 3 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 1 . 7 9 1 7 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 3 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R Al l B L D 1 4 9 . 1 0 5 3 . 1 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l B L D 2 4 7 . 8 0 5 3 . 1 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R Al l B L D 3 4 5 . 2 5 5 3 . 1 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l B L D 4 4 3 . 5 0 5 3 . 1 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l B L D 5 5 2 . 8 5 5 3 . 1 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R Al l B L D 6 5 0 . 1 0 5 3 . 1 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R Al l B L D 7 5 2 . 1 0 5 3 . 1 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R Al l F L T 1 5 4 . 7 5 5 4 . 7 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 7 . 6 5 1 2 . 6 5 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 5 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l F L T 2 5 3 . 2 5 5 4 . 7 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 7 . 6 5 1 2 . 6 5 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 5 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l F L T 3 4 7 . 4 0 5 4 . 7 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 7 . 6 5 1 2 . 6 5 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 5 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l F L T 4 3 9 . 4 0 5 4 . 7 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 7 . 6 5 1 2 . 6 5 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 5 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l F L T 5 5 6 . 2 5 5 4 . 7 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 7 . 6 5 1 2 . 6 5 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 5 Exhibit A Page 44 of 52 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l F L T 6 3 7 . 0 0 5 4 . 7 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 7 . 6 5 1 2 . 6 5 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 5 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l H W Y 1 4 7 . 3 0 5 1 . 3 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R Al l H W Y 2 4 6 . 7 5 5 1 . 3 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R Al l H W Y 3 4 4 . 7 0 5 1 . 3 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l H W Y 4 4 3 . 3 0 5 1 . 3 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R A l l H W Y 5 4 2 . 1 0 5 1 . 3 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R Al l H W Y 6 5 0 . 3 0 5 1 . 3 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OP E R A T I N G EN G I N E E R Al l H W Y 7 4 8 . 3 0 5 1 . 3 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 8 . 0 5 1 3 . 6 0 1 . 9 0 1 . 3 0 OR N A M N T L I R O N WO R K E R A l l A l l 4 5 . 7 5 4 8 . 2 5 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 3 . 6 5 1 8 . 9 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 7 5 PA I N T E R A l l A l l 44 . 5 5 4 9 . 3 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 1 . 5 0 1 1 . 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 . 2 7 PA I N T E R S I G N S A l l B L D 33 . 9 2 3 8 . 0 9 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 6 0 2 . 7 1 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 PI L E D R I V E R A l l A l l 45 . 3 5 4 7 . 3 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 1 . 7 9 1 7 . 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 3 PI P E F I T T E R A l l B L D 47 . 5 0 5 0 . 5 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 9 . 5 5 1 7 . 8 5 0 . 0 0 2 . 0 7 PL A S T E R E R A l l B L D 42 . 2 5 4 4 . 7 9 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 3 . 6 5 9 . 5 0 5 . 0 0 0 . 6 5 PL U M B E R A l l B L D 48 . 2 5 5 0 . 2 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 4 . 0 9 1 2 . 6 5 0 . 0 0 1 . 1 8 RO O F E R A l l B L D 41 . 7 0 4 4 . 7 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 2 8 1 1 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 3 SH E E T M E T A L WO R K E R A l l B L D 4 3 . 0 3 4 6 . 4 7 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 7 3 2 1 . 8 7 0 . 0 0 0 . 7 5 SI G N H A N G E R A l l B L D 31 . 3 1 3 3 . 8 1 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 4 . 8 5 3 . 2 8 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 SP R I N K L E R F I T T E R A l l B L D 47 . 2 0 4 9 . 2 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 2 . 2 5 1 1 . 5 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 5 ST E E L E R E C T O R A l l A l l 42 . 0 7 4 4 . 0 7 2 . 0 2 . 0 2 . 0 1 3 . 4 5 1 9 . 5 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 3 5 ST O N E M A S O N A l l B L D 44 . 8 8 4 9 . 3 7 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 2 5 1 5 . 3 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 8 5 TE R R A Z Z O F I N I S H E R A l l B L D 39 . 5 4 3 9 . 5 4 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 5 5 1 1 . 7 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 6 7 TE R R A Z Z O M A S O N A l l B L D 43 . 3 8 4 3 . 3 8 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 5 5 1 3 . 1 3 0 . 0 0 0 . 7 9 Exhibit A Page 45 of 52 TI L E M A S O N A l l B L D 4 3 . 8 4 4 7 . 8 4 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 1 0 . 5 5 1 1 . 4 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 9 9 TR A F F I C S A F E T Y WR K R Al l H W Y 33 . 5 0 3 9 . 5 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 6 . 0 0 7 . 2 5 0 . 0 0 0 . 5 0 TR U C K D R I V E R E A l l 1 3 5 . 6 0 3 6 . 2 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 5 6 1 1 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 5 TR U C K D R I V E R E A l l 2 3 5 . 8 5 3 6 . 2 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 5 6 1 1 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 5 TR U C K D R I V E R E A l l 3 3 6 . 0 5 3 6 . 2 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 5 6 1 1 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 5 TR U C K D R I V E R E A l l 4 3 6 . 2 5 3 6 . 2 5 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 5 6 1 1 . 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 5 TR U C K D R I V E R W A l l 1 3 5 . 9 8 3 6 . 5 3 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 2 5 1 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 5 TR U C K D R I V E R W A l l 2 3 6 . 1 3 3 6 . 5 3 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 2 5 1 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 5 TR U C K D R I V E R W A l l 3 3 6 . 3 3 3 6 . 5 3 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 2 5 1 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 5 TR U C K D R I V E R W A l l 4 3 6 . 5 3 3 6 . 5 3 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 2 5 1 0 . 1 4 0 . 0 0 0 . 1 5 TU C K P O I N T E R A l l B L D 44 . 9 0 4 5 . 9 0 1 . 5 1 . 5 2 . 0 8 . 3 0 1 4 . 2 9 0 . 0 0 0 . 4 8 Exhibit A Page 46 of 52 Explanations COOK COUNTY The following list is considered as those days for which holiday rates of wages for work performed apply: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Fourth of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day and Veterans Day in some classifications/counties. Generally, any of these holidays which fall on a Sunday is celebrated on the following Monday. This then makes work performed on that Monday payable at the appropriate overtime rate for holiday pay. Common practice in a given local may alter certain days of celebration. If in doubt, please check with IDOL. TRUCK DRIVERS (WEST) - That part of the county West of Barrington Road. EXPLANATION OF CLASSES ASBESTOS - GENERAL - removal of asbestos material/mold and hazardous materials from any place in a building, including mechanical systems where those mechanical systems are to be removed. This includes the removal of asbestos materials/mold and hazardous materials from ductwork or pipes in a building when the building is to be demolished at the time or at some close future date. ASBESTOS - MECHANICAL - removal of asbestos material from mechanical systems, such as pipes, ducts, and boilers, where the mechanical systems are to remain. CERAMIC TILE FINISHER The grouting, cleaning, and polishing of all classes of tile, whether for interior or exterior purposes, all burned, glazed or unglazed products; all composition materials, granite tiles, warning detectable tiles, cement tiles, epoxy composite materials, pavers, glass, mosaics, fiberglass, and all substitute materials, for tile made in tile-like units; all mixtures in tile like form of cement, metals, and other materials that are for and intended for use as a finished floor surface, stair treads, promenade roofs, walks, walls, ceilings, swimming pools, and all other places where tile is to form a finished interior or exterior. The mixing of all setting mortars including but not limited to thin-set mortars, epoxies, wall mud, and any other sand and cement mixtures or adhesives when used in the preparation, installation, repair, or maintenance of tile and/or similar materials. The handling and unloading of all sand, cement, lime, tile, fixtures, equipment, adhesives, or any other materials to be used in the preparation, installation, repair, or maintenance of tile and/or similar materials. Ceramic Tile Finishers shall fill all joints and voids regardless of method on all tile work, particularly and especially after installation of said tile work. Application of any and all protective coverings to all types of tile installations including, but not be limited to, all soap compounds, paper products, tapes, and all polyethylene coverings, plywood, masonite, cardboard, and any new type of products that may be used to protect tile installations, Blastrac equipment, and all floor scarifying equipment used in preparing floors to receive tile. The clean up and removal of all waste and materials. All demolition of existing tile floors and walls to be re-tiled. COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRICIAN Installation, operation, inspection, maintenance, repair and service of radio, television, recording, voice sound vision production and reproduction, telephone and telephone interconnect, facsimile, data Exhibit A Page 47 of 52 apparatus, coaxial, fibre optic and wireless equipment, appliances and systems used for the transmission and reception of signals of any nature, business, domestic, commercial, education, entertainment, and residential purposes, including but not limited to, communication and telephone, electronic and sound equipment, fibre optic and data communication systems, and the performance of any task directly related to such installation or service whether at new or existing sites, such tasks to include the placing of wire and cable and electrical power conduit or other raceway work within the equipment room and pulling wire and/or cable through conduit and the installation of any incidental conduit, such that the employees covered hereby can complete any job in full. MARBLE FINISHER Loading and unloading trucks, distribution of all materials (all stone, sand, etc.), stocking of floors with material, performing all rigging for heavy work, the handling of all material that may be needed for the installation of such materials, building of scaffolding, polishing if needed, patching, waxing of material if damaged, pointing up, caulking, grouting and cleaning of marble, holding water on diamond or Carborundum blade or saw for setters cutting, use of tub saw or any other saw needed for preparation of material, drilling of holes for wires that anchor material set by setters, mixing up of molding plaster for installation of material, mixing up thin set for the installation of material, mixing up of sand to cement for the installation of material and such other work as may be required in helping a Marble Setter in the handling of all material in the erection or installation of interior marble, slate, travertine, art marble, serpentine, alberene stone, blue stone, granite and other stones (meaning as to stone any foreign or domestic materials as are specified and used in building interiors and exteriors and customarily known as stone in the trade), carrara, sanionyx, vitrolite and similar opaque glass and the laying of all marble tile, terrazzo tile, slate tile and precast tile, steps, risers treads, base, or any other materials that may be used as substitutes for any of the aforementioned materials and which are used on interior and exterior which are installed in a similar manner. MATERIAL TESTER I: Hand coring and drilling for testing of materials; field inspection of uncured concrete and asphalt. MATERIAL TESTER II: Field inspection of welds, structural steel, fireproofing, masonry, soil, facade, reinforcing steel, formwork, cured concrete, and concrete and asphalt batch plants; adjusting proportions of bituminous mixtures. OPERATING ENGINEER - BUILDING Class 1. Asphalt Plant; Asphalt Spreader; Autograde; Backhoes with Caisson Attachment; Batch Plant; Benoto (requires Two Engineers); Boiler and Throttle Valve; Caisson Rigs; Central Redi-Mix Plant; Combination Back Hoe Front End-loader Machine; Compressor and Throttle Valve; Concrete Breaker (Truck Mounted); Concrete Conveyor; Concrete Conveyor (Truck Mounted); Concrete Paver Over 27E cu. ft; Concrete Paver 27E cu. ft. and Under: Concrete Placer; Concrete Placing Boom; Concrete Pump (Truck Mounted); Concrete Tower; Cranes, All; Cranes, Hammerhead; Cranes, (GCI and similar Type); Creter Crane; Spider Crane; Crusher, Stone, etc.; Derricks, All; Derricks, Traveling; Formless Curb and Gutter Machine; Grader, Elevating; Grouting Machines; Heavy Duty Self-Propelled Transporter or Prime Mover; Highlift Shovels or Front Endloader 2-1/4 yd. and over; Hoists, Elevators, outside type rack and pinion and Exhibit A Page 48 of 52 similar machines; Hoists, One, Two and Three Drum; Hoists, Two Tugger One Floor; Hydraulic Backhoes; Hydraulic Boom Trucks; Hydro Vac (and similar equipment); Locomotives, All; Motor Patrol; Lubrication Technician; Manipulators; Pile Drivers and Skid Rig; Post Hole Digger; Pre-Stress Machine; Pump Cretes Dual Ram; Pump Cretes: Squeeze Cretes-Screw Type Pumps; Gypsum Bulker and Pump; Raised and Blind Hole Drill; Roto Mill Grinder; Scoops - Tractor Drawn; Slip-Form Paver; Straddle Buggies; Operation of Tie Back Machine; Tournapull; Tractor with Boom and Side Boom; Trenching Machines. Class 2. Boilers; Broom, All Power Propelled; Bulldozers; Concrete Mixer (Two Bag and Over); Conveyor, Portable; Forklift Trucks; Highlift Shovels or Front Endloaders under 2-1/4 yd.; Hoists, Automatic; Hoists, Inside Elevators; Hoists, Sewer Dragging Machine; Hoists, Tugger Single Drum; Laser Screed; Rock Drill (Self-Propelled); Rock Drill (Truck Mounted); Rollers, All; Steam Generators; Tractors, All; Tractor Drawn Vibratory Roller; Winch Trucks with "A" Frame. Class 3. Air Compressor; Combination Small Equipment Operator; Generators; Heaters, Mechanical; Hoists, Inside Elevators (remodeling or renovation work); Hydraulic Power Units (Pile Driving, Extracting, and Drilling); Pumps, over 3" (1 to 3 not to exceed a total of 300 ft.); Low Boys; Pumps, Well Points; Welding Machines (2 through 5); Winches, 4 Small Electric Drill Winches. Class 4. Bobcats and/or other Skid Steer Loaders; Oilers; and Brick Forklift. Class 5. Assistant Craft Foreman. Class 6. Gradall. Class 7. Mechanics; Welders. OPERATING ENGINEERS - HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION Class 1. Asphalt Plant; Asphalt Heater and Planer Combination; Asphalt Heater Scarfire; Asphalt Spreader; Autograder/GOMACO or other similar type machines: ABG Paver; Backhoes with Caisson Attachment; Ballast Regulator; Belt Loader; Caisson Rigs; Car Dumper; Central Redi-Mix Plant; Combination Backhoe Front Endloader Machine, (1 cu. yd. Backhoe Bucket or over or with attachments); Concrete Breaker (Truck Mounted); Concrete Conveyor; Concrete Paver over 27E cu. ft.; Concrete Placer; Concrete Tube Float; Cranes, all attachments; Cranes, Tower Cranes of all types: Creter Crane: Spider Crane; Crusher, Stone, etc.; Derricks, All; Derrick Boats; Derricks, Traveling; Dredges; Elevators, Outside type Rack & Pinion and Similar Machines; Formless Curb and Gutter Machine; Grader, Elevating; Grader, Motor Grader, Motor Patrol, Auto Patrol, Form Grader, Pull Grader, Subgrader; Guard Rail Post Driver Truck Mounted; Hoists, One, Two and Three Drum; Heavy Duty Self-Propelled Transporter or Prime Mover; Hydraulic Backhoes; Backhoes with shear attachments up to 40' of boom reach; Lubrication Technician; Manipulators; Mucking Machine; Pile Drivers and Skid Rig; Pre-Stress Machine; Pump Cretes Dual Ram; Rock Drill - Crawler or Skid Rig; Rock Drill - Truck Mounted; Rock/Track Tamper; Roto Mill Grinder; Slip-Form Paver; Snow Melters; Soil Test Drill Rig (Truck Mounted); Straddle Buggies; Hydraulic Telescoping Form (Tunnel); Operation of Tieback Machine; Tractor Drawn Belt Loader; Tractor Drawn Belt Loader (with attached pusher - two Exhibit A Page 49 of 52 engineers); Tractor with Boom; Tractaire with Attachments; Traffic Barrier Transfer Machine; Trenching; Truck Mounted Concrete Pump with Boom; Raised or Blind Hole Drills (Tunnel Shaft); Underground Boring and/or Mining Machines 5 ft. in diameter and over tunnel, etc; Underground Boring and/or Mining Machines under 5 ft. in diameter; Wheel Excavator; Widener (APSCO). Class 2. Batch Plant; Bituminous Mixer; Boiler and Throttle Valve; Bulldozers; Car Loader Trailing Conveyors; Combination Backhoe Front Endloader Machine (Less than 1 cu. yd. Backhoe Bucket or over or with attachments); Compressor and Throttle Valve; Compressor, Common Receiver (3); Concrete Breaker or Hydro Hammer; Concrete Grinding Machine; Concrete Mixer or Paver 7S Series to and including 27 cu. ft.; Concrete Spreader; Concrete Curing Machine, Burlap Machine, Belting Machine and Sealing Machine; Concrete Wheel Saw; Conveyor Muck Cars (Haglund or Similar Type); Drills, All; Finishing Machine - Concrete; Highlift Shovels or Front Endloader; Hoist - Sewer Dragging Machine; Hydraulic Boom Trucks (All Attachments); Hydro-Blaster; Hydro Excavating (excluding hose work); Laser Screed; All Locomotives, Dinky; Off-Road Hauling Units (including articulating) Non Self-Loading Ejection Dump; Pump Cretes: Squeeze Cretes - Screw Type Pumps, Gypsum Bulker and Pump; Roller, Asphalt; Rotary Snow Plows; Rototiller, Seaman, etc., self-propelled; Self-Propelled Compactor; Spreader - Chip - Stone, etc.; Scraper - Single/Twin Engine/Push and Pull; Scraper - Prime Mover in Tandem (Regardless of Size); Tractors pulling attachments, Sheeps Foot, Disc, Compactor, etc.; Tug Boats. Class 3. Boilers; Brooms, All Power Propelled; Cement Supply Tender; Compressor, Common Receiver (2); Concrete Mixer (Two Bag and Over); Conveyor, Portable; Farm-Type Tractors Used for Mowing, Seeding, etc.; Forklift Trucks; Grouting Machine; Hoists, Automatic; Hoists, All Elevators; Hoists, Tugger Single Drum; Jeep Diggers; Low Boys; Pipe Jacking Machines; Post-Hole Digger; Power Saw, Concrete Power Driven; Pug Mills; Rollers, other than Asphalt; Seed and Straw Blower; Steam Generators; Stump Machine; Winch Trucks with "A" Frame; Work Boats; Tamper-Form-Motor Driven. Class 4. Air Compressor; Combination - Small Equipment Operator; Directional Boring Machine; Generators; Heaters, Mechanical; Hydraulic Power Unit (Pile Driving, Extracting, or Drilling); Light Plants, All (1 through 5); Pumps, over 3" (1 to 3 not to exceed a total of 300 ft.); Pumps, Well Points; Vacuum Trucks (excluding hose work); Welding Machines (2 through 5); Winches, 4 Small Electric Drill Winches. Class 5. SkidSteer Loader (all); Brick Forklifts; Oilers. Class 6. Field Mechanics and Field Welders Class 7. Dowell Machine with Air Compressor; Gradall and machines of like nature. OPERATING ENGINEER - FLOATING Class 1. Craft Foreman; Master Mechanic; Diver/Wet Tender; Engineer; Engineer (Hydraulic Dredge). Class 2. Crane/Backhoe Operator; Boat Operator with towing endorsement; Mechanic/Welder; Assistant Engineer (Hydraulic Dredge); Leverman (Hydraulic Dredge); Diver Tender. Exhibit A Page 50 of 52 Class 3. Deck Equipment Operator, Machineryman, Maintenance of Crane (over 50 ton capacity) or Backhoe (115,000 lbs. or more); Tug/Launch Operator; Loader/Dozer and like equipment on Barge, Breakwater Wall, Slip/Dock, or Scow, Deck Machinery, etc. Class 4. Deck Equipment Operator, Machineryman/Fireman (4 Equipment Units or More); Off Road Trucks; Deck Hand, Tug Engineer, Crane Maintenance (50 Ton Capacity and Under) or Backhoe Weighing (115,000 pounds or less); Assistant Tug Operator. Class 5. Friction or Lattice Boom Cranes. Class 6. ROV Pilot, ROV Tender SURVEY WORKER - Operated survey equipment including data collectors, G.P.S. and robotic instruments, as well as conventional levels and transits. TERRAZZO FINISHER The handling of sand, cement, marble chips, and all other materials that may be used by the Mosaic Terrazzo Mechanic, and the mixing, grinding, grouting, cleaning and sealing of all Marble, Mosaic, and Terrazzo work, floors, base, stairs, and wainscoting by hand or machine, and in addition, assisting and aiding Marble, Masonic, and Terrazzo Mechanics. TRAFFIC SAFETY Work associated with barricades, horses and drums used to reduce lane usage on highway work, the installation and removal of temporary lane markings, and the installation and removal of temporary road signs. TRUCK DRIVER - BUILDING, HEAVY AND HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION - EAST & WEST Class 1. Two or three Axle Trucks. A-frame Truck when used for transportation purposes; Air Compressors and Welding Machines, including those pulled by cars, pick-up trucks and tractors; Ambulances; Batch Gate Lockers; Batch Hopperman; Car and Truck Washers; Carry-alls; Fork Lifts and Hoisters; Helpers; Mechanics Helpers and Greasers; Oil Distributors 2-man operation; Pavement Breakers; Pole Trailer, up to 40 feet; Power Mower Tractors; Self-propelled Chip Spreader; Skipman; Slurry Trucks, 2-man operation; Slurry Truck Conveyor Operation, 2 or 3 man; Teamsters; Unskilled Dumpman; and Truck Drivers hauling warning lights, barricades, and portable toilets on the job site. Class 2. Four axle trucks; Dump Crets and Adgetors under 7 yards; Dumpsters, Track Trucks, Euclids, Hug Bottom Dump Turnapulls or Turnatrailers when pulling other than self-loading equipment or similar equipment under 16 cubic yards; Mixer Trucks under 7 yards; Ready-mix Plant Hopper Operator, and Winch Trucks, 2 Axles. Class 3. Five axle trucks; Dump Crets and Adgetors 7 yards and over; Dumpsters, Track Trucks, Euclids, Hug Bottom Dump Turnatrailers or turnapulls when pulling other than self-loading equipment or similar Exhibit A Page 51 of 52 equipment over 16 cubic yards; Explosives and/or Fission Material Trucks; Mixer Trucks 7 yards or over; Mobile Cranes while in transit; Oil Distributors, 1-man operation; Pole Trailer, over 40 feet; Pole and Expandable Trailers hauling material over 50 feet long; Slurry trucks, 1-man operation; Winch trucks, 3 axles or more; Mechanic--Truck Welder and Truck Painter. Class 4. Six axle trucks; Dual-purpose vehicles, such as mounted crane trucks with hoist and accessories; Foreman; Master Mechanic; Self-loading equipment like P.B. and trucks with scoops on the front. Other Classifications of Work: For definitions of classifications not otherwise set out, the Department generally has on file such definitions which are available. If a task to be performed is not subject to one of the classifications of pay set out, the Department will upon being contacted state which neighboring county has such a classification and provide such rate, such rate being deemed to exist by reference in this document. If no neighboring county rate applies to the task, the Department shall undertake a special determination, such special determination being then deemed to have existed under this determination. If a project requires these, or any classification not listed, please contact IDOL at 217-782-1710 for wage rates or clarifications. LANDSCAPING Landscaping work falls under the existing classifications for laborer, operating engineer and truck driver. The work performed by landscape plantsman and landscape laborer is covered by the existing classification of laborer. The work performed by landscape operators (regardless of equipment used or its size) is covered by the classifications of operating engineer. The work performed by landscape truck drivers (regardless of size of truck driven) is covered by the classifications of truck driver. MATERIAL TESTER & MATERIAL TESTER/INSPECTOR I AND II Notwithstanding the difference in the classification title, the classification entitled "Material Tester I" involves the same job duties as the classification entitled "Material Tester/Inspector I". Likewise, the classification entitled "Material Tester II" involves the same job duties as the classification entitled "Material Tester/Inspector II". Exhibit A Page 52 of 52 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS HELD IN THE ELEANOR ROHRBACH MEMORIAL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, DES PLAINES CIVIC CENTER, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Illinois, was called to order by Mayor Bogusz at 6:03 p.m. in the Eleanor Rohrbach Memorial Council Chambers, Des Plaines Civic Center on Monday, September 5, 2017. ROLL CALL: Roll call indicated the following Aldermen present: Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, and Smith. Absent: Alderman Brookman and Alderman Charewicz. A quorum was present. CLOSED SESSION: Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to enter into Closed Session to discuss Collective Bargaining and Purchase of Property. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 1-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried. The City Council recessed at 6:03 p.m. The City Council reconvened at 7:00 p.m. Roll call indicated the following Aldermen present: Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith. Absent: Alderman Brookman and Alderman Charewicz. A quorum was present. Also present were: City Manager Bartholomew, Assistant City Manager/Director of Finance Wisniewski, Director of Public Works and Engineering Oakley, Director of Community and Economic Development McMahon, Fire Chief Wax, Police Chief Kushner, and General Counsel Weiss. PRAYER AND PLEDGE: The prayer was given by Cathy Seng of Bahai Community, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: Resident Wayne Serbin commended the City Council members for the progress that was made during the recent Strategic Planning Sessions. Resident Wharton Sinkler of the Des Plaines Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee announced the 6th Annual Des Plaines River Trail Bike Ride will take place on Saturday, September 9, 2017 at 10:00 am. Resident Ronald Moore requested that guidelines be adopted for the enforcement of drones in the city. DEFER UNFINISHED BUSINESS M-19-17: Moved by Rodd, seconded by Smith, to defer Unfinished Business, Ordinance M-19-17, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title 6 of the City code Regarding the Keeping of Chickens until the September 18, 2017 City Council Meeting. Hand vote indicated the vote was: Page 2 of 6 9/05/17 (Cont.) AYES: 2-Rodd, Smith NAYS: 4-Lysakowski, Robinson, Sayad, Chester ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion failed. MOVE M-19-17 TO THE BUILDING COMMITTEE: Moved by Sayad, seconded by Chester, to move Ordinance M-19-17, An Ordinance Amending Chapter 1 of Title 6 of the City code Regarding the Keeping of Chickens to the Building Committee. Hand vote indicated the vote was: AYES: 5-Lysakowski, Robinson, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 1-Rodd ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Moved by Sayad, seconded by Robinson, to establish the Consent Agenda except for items 1, 1a and 3 and 3a. Motion declared carried. Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried. Minutes were approved; Appointments and Reappointments were approved; Resolutions R-148-17, R-145-17 were adopted. APPROVE PAYMENT ORANGE CRUSH/ EMERGENCY TEMPORARY FLOOD WALL: Consent Agenda Resolution R-151-17 Alderman Chester requested this item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Alderman Chester inquired as to what consisted of the $140.00 an hour labor rate from Orange Crush, LLC. Director of Public Works and Engineering Oakley explained the rate was the overtime rate for the labors to install the temporary flood wall along the Des Plaines River from Oakwood to Thacker. Moved by Chester, seconded by Sayad, to concur with Staff recommendation to approve Payment to Orange Crush, LLC, 321 Center Street, Hillside, IL 60162 in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $36,937.50. Budgeted Funds – Sewer Systems, Miscellaneous Contractual Service; and further recommend to adopt Resolution R-151-17, A RESOLUTION RATIFYING AN EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT AND APPROVING AN EXPENDITURE FOR AN EMERGENCY TEMPORARY FLOOD WALL. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried. Page 3 of 6 9/05/17 EXTEND CONRACT/ SNOW PLOWING/ G&L CONTRACTORS: Consent Agenda Resolution R-148-17 Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to concur with Staff recommendation to approve Extension of Contractual Snow Plowing Contract for the 2017/2018 Snow Season Pursuant to Pricing Submitted in 2014 from G&L Contractors, Inc., 7401 North St. Louis Avenue, Skokie, IL in the Amount of $100,000 for 2017 and $100,000 for 2018. Budgeted Funds – Street Maintenance/Miscellaneous Contractual Services; and further recommend to adopt Resolution R-148-17, A RESOLUTION WAIVING THE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH G&L CONTRACTORS, INC., FOR SNOW REMOVAL SERVICES. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. APPROVE TASK ORDER NO. 1 ENG. SVCS/ SPACECO: Consent Agenda Resolution R-150-17 Alderman Chester requested this item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Alderman Chester requested clarification as to the need for additional Engineering Services from SPACECO. Director of Public Works and Engineering Oakley explained due to staff turnover, additional Engineering Services are need on a temporary basis to provide services primarily for the 2017 Capital Improvement Construction Program. The request is for an amount not to exceed $108,000. Moved by Chester, seconded by Rodd, to concur with Staff recommendation to approve Task Order No. 1 for SPACECO, Inc., 9575 West Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL to Provide 2017 Capital Improvement Program Construction Observation Services in the not-to-exceed amount of $108,000. Budgeted Funds – Capital Projects; and further recommend to adopt R-150-17, A RESOLUTION APPROVING TASK ORDER NO. 1 WITH SPACECO, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lysakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried. APPROVE APPT./ BOARD OF FIRE & POLICE COMMISSIONERS Consent Agenda Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to approve the August 21, 2017 Appointment of Thomas Green to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, Term to Expire 4/30/2020. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. APPROVE APPTS./ LIBRARY BOARD: Consent Agenda Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve the August 21, 2017 Appointments of Umair Qadeer (Term to Expire 6/30/2019) and Nicholas Harkovich (Term to Expire 6/30/2020) to the Library Board of Trustees. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. APPROVE APPT./ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD: Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to approve the August 21, 2017 Appointment of Rebecca Fowler to the Planning & Zoning Board, Term to Expire Page 4 of 6 9/05/17 Consent Agenda (Cont.) 4/30/2018. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. APPROVE APPTS./ LIBRARY BOARD: Consent Agenda Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve August 21, 2017 Reappointments of Bruce Lester, Denise Hudec, and Vincent Rangel to the Library Board of Trustees, Terms to Expire 6/30/2020. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. APPROVE APPTS./ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD: Consent Agenda Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve August 21, 2017 Reappointments of Joseph Catalano and Steve Bader to the Planning & Zoning Board, Terms to Expire 4/30/2020. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. APPROVE MINUTES: Consent Agenda Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council of August 21, 2017, as published. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd to approve Minutes of the Closed Session Meeting of the City Council of August 21, 2017, as published. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. APPROVE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 4211 BARGAINING AGREEMENT/ JANUARY 2017 – DECEMBER 2020: Consent Agenda Resolution R-145-17 Moved by Robinson, seconded by Rodd, to concur with Staff recommendation to approve Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Des Plaines Professional Firefighters Union – International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local 4211 from January 1, 2017 – December 31, 2020; and further recommend to adopt Resolution R-145-17, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FOUR-YEAR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH THE DES PLAINES PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS UNION – INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 4211. Motion declared carried as approved unanimously under Consent Agenda. MAYOR BOGUSZ DECLARED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS NOW RESOLVED INTO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION – Alderman Charewicz, Chair WARRANT REGISTER: Alderman Sayad presented the Warrant Register for consideration. Moved by Smith, seconded by Chester, to recommend to the City Council approval of the September 5, 2017 – Warrant Register in the Amount of $4,626,400.48; and Page 5 of 6 9/05/17 (Cont.) further recommend that Resolution R-149-17 be adopted at appropriate time this evening. Motion declared carried. COMMUNITY SERVICES – Alderman Chester, Chair DISCUSSION/ NEW PROCESS TO DISBURSE SOCIAL SERVICE FUNDS: Alderman Chester requested that the Health and Human Services (HHS) staff present to the City Council the process they use to allocate funds to social service agency applicants. Jeanine Stricker, Social Worker with the HHS Department, explained there was $150,000 in funds available for 2017, in which 36 agencies were considered for funding. In the past, the applicant’s application was reviewed to determine the number of Des Plaines clients served, the number of referrals by HHS, their funding resources and their recent history of funding. This year, a five-category points system was created based on the following criteria: the number of Des Plaines residents served in the program, the percentage of Des Plaines Clients served, the program budget, staff performance feedback, and if the agency provides a particular type of service. The Social Service Funding State Budget Impact was also considered. The HHS Department worked with the Finance Department as to how to distribute the $150,000 in funding and provided the results in a Distribution of Funds table. Alderman Chester thanked Ms. Stricker for providing an empirical approach to calculating the distribution of funding. CONSIDERATION OF $5,000 CONTRIBUTION FOR THE TRAVELING VIETNAM WALL: Alderman Chester explained Des Plaines will be hosting the Vietnam moving wall and mobile education center and would like the city to authorize a $5,000 or alternate monetary donation to the VFW for the associated expenses. Alderman Chester thanked Alderman Brookman for her effort in securing an approximate $15,000 donation from Rivers Casino for the event. Keith Renner of the Des Plaines VFW Post 2992 informed the Council members the cost to bring the wall and museum is over $9,000. In addition, there are numerous other associated costs. There are actually four other organizations involved and the committee responsible is the Vietnam Wall Committee. Moved by Robinson to amend Resolution R-146-17 to replace $5,000 with $15,000, seconded by Sayad; and further recommend that Resolution R-146-17 be adopted at appropriate time this evening. Motion declared carried. MAYOR BOGUSZ DECLARED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WAS NOW BACK IN REGULAR SESSION NEW BUSINESS: WARRANT REGISTER: Moved by Sayad, seconded by Chester, to concur with recommendation of Committee of the Whole to adopt Resolution R-149-17, BE IT RESOLVED BY Page 6 of 6 9/05/17 (Cont.) Resolution R-149-17 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. Total: $4,626,400.48. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lyasakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried. APPROVE CONTRIBUTION FOR HOSTING THE VIETNAM MOVING WALL: Resolution R-146-17 Moved by Chester, seconded by Robinson, to concur with recommendation of Committee of the Whole to adopt Resolution R-146-17 as amended, A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRIBUTION FOR HOSTING THE VIETNAM MOVING WALL AND MOBILE EDUCATION CENTER. Upon roll call, the vote was: AYES: 6-Lyasakowski, Robinson, Rodd, Sayad, Chester, Smith NAYS: 0-None ABSENT: 2-Brookman, Charewicz Motion declared carried. ADJOURNMENT: Moved by Robinson, seconded by Sayad, to adjourn the meeting. Motion declared carried. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. ` Laura Fast – DEPUTY CITY CLERK APPROVED BY ME THIS DAY OF , 2017 ______________________________ Matthew J. Bogusz, MAYOR 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org Date: September 12, 2017 To: Mayor Bogusz and Aldermen of the City Council From: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager Subject: Final Bona Fide Offer for Des Plaines Theatre Attached is an ordinance for your consideration on the September 18, 2017 City Council Agenda authorizing the City Manager and General Counsel to make a final and bona fide offer to acquire fee simple title to certain property located at 1476 Miner Street, otherwise known as the Des Plaines Theatre. Attachment: Ordinance M-20-17 Page 1 of 5 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES ORDINANCE M -20-17 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAKING OF A FINAL BONA FIDE OFFER TO ACQUIRE FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1476 M I N E R S T R E E T . WHEREAS, the City of Des Plaines (“City”) is a home rule municipal corporation in accordance with Article VII, Section 6(a) of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and WHEREAS, the Des Plaines City Council has sought to stimulate redevelopment in the in the City’s central business district, including specifically providing cultural and educational amenities that serve residents of the downtown area as well as generate foot traffic; and WHEREAS, the City has established a Redevelopment Project District within the City’s central business district pursuant to the Illinois Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act (65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1 et seq.) for the purpose of stimulating redevelopment and supporting downtown businesses (“TIF #1”); and WHEREAS, the Des Plaines Theater is a historical theater (“Theater”) located in TIF #1 on a parcel commonly known as 1476 Miner Street (“Subject Property”), which is legally described in Exhibit A attached to, and by this reference, made a part of this Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Theater was constructed in 1925 and is a prime example of Art Deco, Spanish Moorish and Spanish Renaissance architecture styles and design; and WHEREAS, the Theater has fallen into severe disrepair and was declared uninhabitable by the City on February 20, 2014 after its owners failed to repair and remediate numerous health safety code violations; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the acquisition and redevelopment of the Theater by the City would provide a significant cultural and educational amenity to both the residents of the City’s central business district and to the City at large; and WHEREAS, the City has been negotiating in good faith with the owner of the Subject Property ("Owner"), and the City is continuing such good faith negotiations with the Owner with the goal of reaching a mutual agreement with the Owner on a price at which the Owner would be willing to sell the Subject Property to the City and at which the City would be willing to purchase the Subject Property from the Owner ("Fair Price"); and Page 2 of 5 2 WHEREAS, because the City has been unable to reach a mutual agreement on a Fair Price with the Owner, the City desires to make a final bona fide offer to the Owner for the purchase of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the City Council specifically finds that it is necessary, advisable, and in the best interests of the City to acquire the Subject Property in the manner, and pursuant to the powers and authority, set forth in this Ordinance and/or in the Illinois Compiled Statues, including specifically but without limitation the provisions of Section 5/11-61-1 et seq. of the Illinois Municipal Code, Section 5/11-74.4-4(c) of the Illinois Municipal Code, and Section 5/7- 101 et seq. of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Ordinance as the findings of the City Council. SECTION 2: ACQUISITION IS NECESSARY, CONVENIENT, AND DESIRABLE. The City Council finds that it is necessary, convenient, and desirable for the City to acquire the Subject Property in furtherance of the purposes set forth in the recitals of this Ordinance. The City Council finds that the location of the Subject Property is proper and appropriate for the purposes and that the Subject Property is properly and lawfully subject to condemnation by the City. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE AND TO MAKE FINAL OFFERS. The City Council, in furtherance of the findings and purposes set forth in this Ordinance, does hereby authorize and direct the City Manager and the City’s General Counsel to negotiate in good faith with, and to make a final bona fide offer to, in an amount not less than the appraised market value as approved by the City, the Owner of the Subject Property for the purchase of the Subject Property, all in accordance with the directions and authority given the City Manager and the City Attorney by the City Council. SECTION 4: FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZATION FOR ACQUISITION. If the Owner and the City Manager and City’s General Counsel are unable to agree as to the amount of compensation to be paid by the City to the Owner for the purchase of the Subject Property, and if the Owner fails or refuses to accept the City's final bona fide offer as presented, then the City Council, in furtherance of the findings and public purposes set forth in this Ordinance and in accordance with the authority conferred by the Illinois Compiled Statues including specifically but without limitation the provisions of Section 5/11-61-1 et seq. of the Illinois Municipal Code, Section 5/11-74.4-4(c) of the Illinois Municipal Code, and Section 5/7- 101 et seq. of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, will consider whether to authorize and direct the City’s General Counsel to file and prosecute to completion eminent domain or other legal proceedings to acquire fee simple title to the Subject Property. Page 3 of 5 3 SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval, and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law. PASSED this ___ day of _________________, 2017. A P P R O V E D this ___ day of ____________________, 2017. V O T E : 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 Page 4 of 5 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY LOTS 68 AND 69 (EXCEPT THE NORTHEASTERLY 8 FEET TAKEN FOR ALLEYS) IN ORIGINAL TOWN OF RAND (NOW VILLAGE OF DES PLAINES), A SUBDIVISION OF PARTS OF SECTION 16, 17, 20, AND 21, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PIN 09-17-415-010-0000 Commonly known as 1476 Miner Street, Des Plaines, Illinois Page 5 of 5 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org Date: September 7, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager From: Dorothy Wisniewski, Assistant City Manager/Director of Finance Subject: Resolution R-155-17, September 18, 2017 Warrant Register Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council approve the September 18, 2017 Warrant Register Resolution R-155-17. Warrant Register……………………………$3,569,000.12 MEMORANDUM Estimated General Fund Balance Balance as of 07/31/2017: $23,512,344 Please use caution when evaluating this number as revenues fluctuate dramatically from month to month due to delays in receiving sales tax revenue from the State and 1st & 2nd installments of property tax revenue. Page 1 of 32 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R-155-17 Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines that the following bills are due and payable and that the Mayor and City Clerk be and are hereby authorized to make payment for same. September 18, 2017 Page 2 of 32 Line # 1 1880 2943 Crowe Horwath LLP 707-2107305 Auditing Svcs for Tax Yr 2016 (Yr 1 of 3)-Library Thru 06/30/17 4,400.00 2 4160 6981 Aloisio, Estelle Refund 08/23/17 Real Estate Transfer Tax Refund 08/23/2017 1,000.00 3 4300 6980 Dabros, Sylvia J Refund 08/04/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 08/04/2017 50.00 4 4300 6186 Decker, William A Refund 08/11/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 08/11/2017 37.50 5 4300 6978 Ellis, Trinia Refund 08/11/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 08/11/2017 45.00 6 4300 6979 Sroka, Wieslaw & Jadwiga Refund 08/11/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 08/11/2017 100.00 7 4300 6977 Khan, Waqas Refund 08/17/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 08/17/2017 30.00 8 4300 6975 Russo, Beth Refund 08/21/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 08/21/2017 25.00 9 4300 6976 McDonald, Mary B Refund 08/21/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 08/21/2017 5.00 10 4300 6990 Roldan, Maria Refund 08/23/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 08/23/2017 10.00 11 4300 6989 Tahir, Abdul Rehman Refund 08/24/17 Vehicle Sticker Refund 08/24/2017 60.00 12 4400 6970 Raymond, Caren Lucente 2017-07000132 Permit Refund Originally Issued 7/17/2017 40.00 13 4500 6966 Rafalo Corp / Marek Rafalo P0238944 Overpayment on Parking Ticket 8/11/2017 25.00 14 4500 6965 Kulieke, Marilynn P0239334 Overpayment for Parking Ticket 8/14/17 4.00 15 4510 6968 Alarcon, Carlos C0238314 Overpayment for Compliance Ticket 8/22/2017 40.00 16 4630 5274 Close, Leo 17-0025570 Medical Reimbursement DOS 06/27/2017 91.39 5,962.89 17 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 571.30 571.30 18 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 55.13 Division: 120 - City Clerk Communication Services Elected Office Division: 110 - Legislative Communication Services Total 110 - Legislative Building Permits Court Costs, Fees & Charges Court Costs, Fees & Charges Compliance Ticket Fines Resident Ambulance Fees Total 00 - Non Departmental Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses Fund: 100 - General Fund Due from Component Unit Real Estate Transfer Tax Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses Vehicle Licenses City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Page 3 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 19 6100 1050 Journal & Topics 174286 Legal Notice - Sidewalk Snow Removal 09/12/2017 73.78 20 7000 1644 Warehouse Direct Inc 3600360-0 3 Binders, 3 Calendars 71.76 21 7000 1066 Office Depot 954878054001 Copy Paper, File Folders, Tape, Labels, Scissors 219.13 419.80 991.10 22 5325 6972 Filippini Law Firm LLP August 18, 2017 RLUIPA Training 08/07/2017 - Misc Depts 5,500.00 23 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 62.68 24 7000 1220 Runco Office Supply 692959-0 3 Cases of Copy Paper and 1 Literature Sorter 103.24 5,665.92 25 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542640 7-17 Non-Retainer Flood 2013 988.00 26 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542651 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 662.70 27 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542652 7-17 Non-Retainer IEMA & FEMA Review FEMA 1935 960.00 28 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542653 7-17 Non-Retainer IEMA & FEMA Review 9,620.00 29 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542653 7-17 Non-Retainer IEMA & FEMA Review 104.00 30 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542654 7-17 Non-Retainer IEMA & FEMA Review FEMA 4116 1,820.00 31 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542668 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation*80.00 32 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542673 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation*351.00 33 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542674 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation*2,717.50 34 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542675 7-17 Non-Retainer Matters 172.50 35 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542683 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation*945.00 36 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542684 7-17 Non-Retainer Flood 2017 1,305.50 37 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5548861 7-17 Non-Retainer Litigation*1,890.00 Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Communication Services Office Supplies Total 210 - City Manager Division: 220 - Legal Legal Fees Total 10 - Elected Office City Administration Division: 210 - City Manager Training Publication of Notices Office Supplies Office Supplies Total 120 - City Clerk * On-going City litigation items provided separately to the City Council Page 4 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 38 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5548950 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 192.50 39 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP JULY 2017 RET July 2017 Retainer 18,500.00 40 6009 1735 Cohen Law Firm PC 04/05/06-17 Administrative Hearing Officer 04/13-06/15/2017 2,700.00 41 6009 1735 Cohen Law Firm PC 07-17 Administrative Hearing Officer 07/06-07/20/2017 900.00 42 6009 1073 Bartel, Raymond 17-14 Legal Services 8/18-8/28/2017 565.00 43 7500 1041 Federal Express 5-907-30955 Delivery Services 07/25- 08/14/2017 40.17 44,513.87 44 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 442.76 45 7005 1820 Datasource, Ink 16305 8 Toner Cartridges For Various City Printers 1,309.68 1,752.44 46 6000 5079 RV Enterprises Ltd 8170143 Promotional Giveaways - 492 Customized Pens for Events 08/23/2017 487.08 47 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 55.13 48 7000 1220 Runco Office Supply 693203-0 24 AAA Batteries, Carton (8) Dishwashing Soap for Lunchroom 9.19 551.40 49 5530 4651 Perspectives 87482 2017 Employee Assistance Program 09/01-09/30/2017 542.50 50 6000 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402722 Staffing Services 08/06- 08/12/2017 275.40 51 6000 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402747 Staffing Services 08/13- 08/19/2017 131.96 Division: 250 - Human Resources Employee Assistance Program Professional Services Professional Services Division: 240 - Media Services Professional Services Communication Services Office Supplies Total 240 - Media Services Total 220 - Legal Division: 230 - Information Technology Communication Services Printer Supplies Total 230 - Information Technology Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees - Admin Hearings/Prosecu tions Legal Fees - Admin Hearings/Prosecu tions Legal Fees - Admin Hearings/Prosecu tions Postage & Parcel Page 5 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 52 7000 1220 Runco Office Supply 693075-0 5 Boxes of Folders, 2 Dz Pens & 1 Dz Paper Pads 193.55 53 7000 1220 Runco Office Supply 693680-0 Calculator, Tissue, Paper Pads, Post-It Pads, Highlighters, Tray 56.99 54 7000 1220 Runco Office Supply 693900-0 2 Hole Punch, 1 Box Correction Tape, Pocket Files, Labels, Pens 73.70 1,274.10 55 6110 1222 Rydin Decal 336064 100 Temporary Handicap Parking Placards 161.65 56 6530 6464 Park Ridge Dispatch Inc 00002426 Subsidized Taxi Vouchers June 2017 & Emergency Transportation 6.00 57 6540 1383 Frisbie Senior Center 4432 Additional Health & Support Services 2017 R-144-17 13,333.00 58 6550 6464 Park Ridge Dispatch Inc 00002426 Subsidized Taxi Vouchers June 2017 & Emergency Transportation 1,398.00 59 6550 1421 American Charge Service 100618A Subsidized Taxi Voucher Program July 2017 M-12-11 249.00 15,147.65 68,905.38 60 6000 2943 Crowe Horwath LLP 707-2107306 Auditing Services for Tax Year 2016 (Yr 1 of 3) Thru 06/30/2017 9,300.00 61 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 155.82 62 7000 1644 Warehouse Direct Inc 3569879-0 1 Desk Tray 21.99 63 7000 1644 Warehouse Direct Inc 3590161-0 4 Packs of Lysol Wipes & 1 Pencil Holder 1.24 64 7200 1644 Warehouse Direct Inc 3590161-0 4 Packs of Lysol Wipes & 1 Pencil Holder 23.12 9,502.17 65 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542657 7-17 Non-Retainer Property Enforcement Matters 1,380.00Legal Fees Office Supplies Other Supplies Total 30 - Finance Community Development Division: 410 - Building & Code Enforcement Total 20 - City Administration Department: 30 - Finance Professional Services Communication Services Office Supplies Subsidy - Community Outreach Subsidy - Senior Center Subsidy - Senior Citizen Cab Service Subsidy - Senior Citizen Cab Service Total 260 - Health & Human Services Office Supplies Office Supplies Total 250 - Human Resources Division: 260 - Health & Human Services Printing Services Office Supplies Page 6 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 66 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542663 7-17 Non-Retainer Property Enforcement Matters 108.00 67 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542663 7-17 Non-Retainer Property Enforcement Matters 1,020.00 68 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542665 7-17 Non-Retainer Property Enforcement Matters 3,801.50 69 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 651.98 70 6105 6121 Shred First Inc 124725 Shred 17 Boxes of Code Enforcement Files 8/18/2017 190.00 71 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 40991 1000 Regular, 1000 Window & 1000 Return Envelopes 8/23/17 254.00 72 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 41033 2 Boxes of Business Cards 40.00 73 6195 2234 Chicago Title Insurance Co 1401-8985658 Minutes of Demolition - Title Commitment 8/21/2017 2,000.00 74 7000 1066 Office Depot 954246737001 Graph Paper, Post-Its, Glass Wipes, 4 Packs of Pens 09/21/2017 66.97 75 7000 1066 Office Depot 954246879001 1 Pack of Trace Paper 22.89 76 7000 1066 Office Depot 957427640001 2 Stamps for Shed and Fence Permits 39.58 77 7000 1066 Office Depot 958345701001 Two Cases of Copy Paper 39.26 78 7200 1066 Office Depot 957427550001 Chairmat 34.99 9,649.17 79 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 40991 1000 Regular, 1000 Window & 1000 Return Envelopes 8/23/17 254.00 80 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 41032 1 Box of Business Cards 20.00 81 6195 4070 Cerabona, Gale M 77 Joint Review Board Meeting and Minutes 08/15/2017 90.00 82 7000 1066 Office Depot 954246737001 Graph Paper, Post-Its, Glass Wipes, 4 Packs of Pens 09/21/2017 66.97 83 7000 1066 Office Depot 958345701001 Two Cases of Copy Paper 39.26 470.23 Printing Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Office Supplies Office Supplies Total 420 - Planning & Zoning Office Supplies Other Supplies Total 410 - Building & Code Enforcement Division: 420 - Planning & Zoning Printing Services Printing Services Printing Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Legal Fees Legal Fees Legal Fees Communication Services Records Preservation Page 7 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 84 6000 5215 CoStar Realty Information Inc 105246069 September 2017 Available Property Database 349.44 85 6000 1332 Kane McKenna & Associates 14829 TIF Document Preparation and Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 618.75 968.19 11,087.59 86 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 121.84 87 6025 1172 Third Millennium Associates Inc 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 08/16/2017 496.46 88 6040 6047 Vintage Tech LLC 17822 Electronic Recycling - 08/17/2017 1,146.93 89 6195 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402723 PW Temp Services 08/07/- 08/11/2017 734.40 90 7500 1172 Third Millennium Associates Inc 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 08/16/2017 21.05 2,520.68 91 5310 1563 American Water Works Assoc (AWWA) 7001412398 Asst Dir PW Membership Renewal 11/01/2017- 10/31/2018 83.00 92 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 266.72 349.72 93 5325 1252 NIPSTA 16983 Flagger Training -3 Street Maintenance Operators - 09/26/2017 225.00 94 5325 1576 Illinois Section American Water Works Association 200030865 Certified Flagger Training 09/13/2017 - 2 Sewer Maint Operators 160.00 95 5325 5753 Vaisala Inc 2017RDS- SILS0026 Snow & Ice Training Seminar 08/22/17-Str Foreman & 2 Maint Oprs 255.00 96 6000 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402748 PW Temp Services 08//14- 08/19/2017 906.53 Training Professional Services Communication Services Total 510 - Engineering Division: 530 - Street Maintenance Training Training Miscellaneous Contractual Services Postage & Parcel Total 100 - Administration Division: 510 - Engineering Membership Dues Public Works & Engineering Division: 100 - Administration Communication Services Administrative Services Waste Hauling & Debris Removal Division: 430 - Economic Development Professional Services Professional Services Total 430 - Economic Development Total 40 - Community Development Page 8 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 97 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 434.93 98 6115 4044 Fininis, William Reimb 08/08/2017 CDL Renewal - Expires 09/24/2021 30.00 99 6195 1067 Orange Crush 35931 Asphalt Grinding - 08/08- 08/18/2017, R-56-17 21,563.88 100 6195 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402671 PW Temp Services - 07/24- 07/28/2017 918.00 101 6195 1178 Trugreen Limited Partnership 70793706 Vegetation Control Application - 08/09/2017, R-49-17 3,139.72 102 6195 1178 Trugreen Limited Partnership 70808028 Busse & Miner, Alleys, Riverwalk-Veg Control- 08/09/2017 R-49-17 2,105.00 103 6195 1178 Trugreen Limited Partnership 71161577 Lawn Service Zone 5 - 08/15/2017, R-49-17 665.74 104 6195 1732 Traffic Control & Protection Inc 90105 4 Miscellaneous Signs - Food Pantry 379.40 105 7000 1066 Office Depot 949729043001 1 Cs of Copy Paper, 3 Pks of Correction Tape & 4 Dz Pens 68.64 106 7000 1066 Office Depot 949742178001 Stapler 6.99 107 7020 4093 HDS White Cap Construction Supply 10007493068 3 Boxes Earplugs 104.97 108 7020 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/840910 1 Pair of Slush Boots 14.25 109 7050 1057 Menard Incorporated 251 Torch Kit & 2 Couplings 18.95 110 7050 1520 Russo Power Equipment 4385222 12 Cans Wasp Spray 47.88 111 7050 1347 Lurvey Landscape Supply T1-10220130 3 Yds Top Soil - Parkway Restorations 80.70 112 7055 1067 Orange Crush 36732 1.11 Tons Asphalt -Sewer Repair Restoration- 08/18/2017, R 56-17 30.95 113 7055 1067 Orange Crush 37282 0.52 Tons Asphalt for Potholes - R-56-17 14.50 114 7055 1067 Orange Crush 37453 0.96 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 08/24/2017, R-56-17 26.77 115 7055 1067 Orange Crush 37588 13.68 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 08/18/2017, R-56-17 381.45 Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Safety Supplies - Safety Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Street R&M Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Office Supplies Office Supplies Communication Services Licensing/Titles Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Page 9 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 116 7055 1057 Menard Incorporated 861 Framing Materials for Concrete Pads-Salt Dome Conveyor 82.10 117 7055 1057 Menard Incorporated 99936 4 Quick Links & (2) 5/8"X100' Polypropylene Sheets - Salt Pile 73.94 118 7055 1192 Sherwin Industries Inc SS071819 30 Traffic Barricade Replacements & Upgrades 4,118.50 35,853.79 119 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 178.98 120 6115 3874 Serpe, Dave Reimb 8/18/2017 CDL Renewal Expires 06/11/2022 30.00 121 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75310 Custodial Services - PW - Aug 2017, R-169-16 1,850.00 122 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75313 Custodial Services - Police - Aug 2017, R-169-16 2,600.00 123 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75315 Custodial Services - City Hall - Aug 2017, R-169-16 3,500.00 124 6195 2027 American National Skyline Inc 239784 Window Washing - Metra Station - 03/31/2017 215.00 125 6195 6664 Diaz Group LLC 24268 Mowing of Additional Locations - 07/01-31/2017 2,160.00 126 6195 2027 American National Skyline Inc 243762 Window Washing - Metra Station - 06/15/2017 215.00 127 6195 4711 Stivers Staffing Services 5402697 PW Temp Services 07/31- 08/04/2017 918.00 128 6195 5399 Beary Landscape Management 63647 Time Controller for Irrigation Sys 08/02/2017-Golf & Wolf Circle 860.00 129 6195 1178 Trugreen Limited Partnership 71524708 Fertilizer Application - Dog Park - 08/21/2017 2,160.00 130 6195 1029 Cintas Corporation 769266662 Mat Service - 08/16/2017 - PW 275.68 131 6195 1029 Cintas Corporation 769266663 Mat Service - 08/16/2017 - City Hall 465.45 Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Custodial Services Custodial Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Total 530 - Street Maintenance Division: 535 - Facilities & Grounds Maintenance Communication Services Licensing/Titles Custodial Services Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Supplies - Street R&M Page 10 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 132 6195 1029 Cintas Corporation 769266664 9 Soaps & 2 Urinal Mats - 08/16/2017 - PW 88.23 133 6195 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274045 Mat Service - 08/30/2017 - Police & PW 137.84 134 6195 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274045 Mat Service - 08/30/2017 - Police & PW 137.84 135 6195 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274046 Mat Service - 08/30/2017 - City Hall & Metra Station 415.24 136 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8376 Pest Control Service- 07/12/2017 - Fire, Police, Food Pantry 125.50 137 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8376 Pest Control Service- 07/12/2017 - Fire, Police, Food Pantry 86.00 138 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8376 Pest Control Service- 07/12/2017 - Fire, Police, Food Pantry 86.00 139 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8377 Pest Control - 07/25/2017 - PW 118.00 140 6195 6420 International Exterminator Company Inc 8437 Pest Control & Fly Sticks - 8/10/2017 - City Hall 53.70 141 6195 5214 State Industrial Products 900130779 Drain Maintenance - 08/24/2017 - City Hall 100.00 142 6315 1025 Bedco Inc 094357 Cooling System Repair - City Hall - 08/17/2017, R-170-16 268.15 143 6315 5162 Allied Central Security & Alarm Inc 23368 Install Wiring for Door Lock Sys 8/22/17-2nd Flr Remodel- Police 2,280.00 144 7025 1220 Runco Office Supply 693203-0 24 AAA Batteries, Carton (8) Dishwashing Soap for Lunchroom 24.96 145 7025 1029 Cintas Corporation 769270357 10 Soaps, 2 Urinal Mats, 5 Air Fresheners & Paper Towels - PW 274.62 146 7025 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274047 8 Soaps, 2 Urinal Mats, 4 Air Fresheners - PW 88.23 147 7045 5699 March Industries Inc 182945 Floor Box - PW Improvement 279.00 Supplies - Custodial Supplies - Building R&M Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services R&M Buildings & Structures R&M Buildings & Structures Supplies - Custodial Supplies - Custodial Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Page 11 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 148 7045 1699 Metal Supermarkets Villa Park 1001111 6 Pieces Steel - PW Repair Entry Door 216.94 149 7045 3378 Michael Wagner & Sons Inc 1415476 Pro Press 12 Couplings & 3 Balls - Police 99.00 150 7045 5699 March Industries Inc 182512 Power Data Center for Conference Table - PW 254.50 151 7045 5699 March Industries Inc 182946 Floor Box Cover & MAAP Device Plate - PW Buildout 379.65 152 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 2023667 Mortar, Bondo & 2 Elastomer Gaskets - PW 31.84 153 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 266 3 Conduit Extensions & 3 Mudrings - Police Kitchen 10.17 154 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 294 Phasing Tape for Automatic Transfer Switch - City Hall 15.92 155 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 4010258 500' Red & White Wire and Misc Electrical Parts - Police Remodel 131.45 156 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 456 2 Bags Patch, 2 Bags Tile Spacers, Knife & Trowel - PW Imp 55.42 157 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 5061545 Two 1x8 & Four 1x6 Pcs of Wood - PW Improvements 42.70 158 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 532 Diamond Blade - PW Improvement 19.99 159 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 5583499 500' Copper Wiring & Plumbing Parts - PW 204.08 160 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 639 5 Washers, 2 Drills & 13 Sheets Drywall-Police 2nd Floor Remodel 222.93 161 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 7064228 Plumbing Parts - Police Kitchen Remodel 187.59 162 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 8020778 Paint - Police 2nd Floor Door Remodel 87.96 163 7045 5698 Doors Done Right Inc 8432 8890 Installed New Frame and Sound Proofing - 08/21/2017 - Police 935.00 164 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 863 Misc Plumbing Parts - Police 2nd Floor Remodel 116.79 165 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 864 Clamp & Screw Organizer - Police Kitchen 54.97 166 7045 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 9043075 Plumbing Parts - PW 42.70 167 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98258 Returned Two 2-Packs of Bulbs - City Hall (29.96) 168 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 98716 Galvanized & All Purpose Screws for PW 32.32 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 Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Page 12 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 169 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 99923 Laminate Trimmer Bit & Silicone Clear Caulk - PW Buildout 16.98 170 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 99949 Primer, Cement - 2 Couplings - Police 2nd Floor Renovations 21.14 171 7045 5969 Security Equipment Supply Inc (SES) A80241 Electronic Strike - 08/18/2017 - Police 2nd Floor 479.70 172 7045 5969 Security Equipment Supply Inc (SES) A82559 Electronic Strike - 08/18/2017 - Police 2nd Floor 319.80 173 7045 5969 Security Equipment Supply Inc (SES) A83317 Security Equipment - 8/18/2017 - Police 2nd Floor 1,735.52 174 7045 2313 City Electric Supply Company (CES) DEP/036462 Wire, Connector & Plug - Fire #61 65.81 175 7045 1208 Steiner Electric Company S005805863.001 3 LED Tape Lights & 2 Dimmers - Police Kitchen 536.44 176 7055 2438 Flag Lady Corp The 26382 2 City Flags - City Clerks Office 443.47 177 8010 1047 Home Depot Credit Svcs 0971779 Kitchen Cabinets - Police Second Floor Remodel 1,823.43 28,545.67 178 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 119.32 179 6135 1029 Cintas Corporation 022509475 Mechanic's Uniform Rental - 08/14/2017 142.66 180 6135 1029 Cintas Corporation 022512307 Mechanic's Uniform Rental - 08/21/2017 142.66 181 6195 1741 Praxair Distribution Inc 78628537 Oxygen & Acetylene Rental - 08/22/2017 465.09 182 6305 1203 Standard Industrial & Automotive Equipment Inc WO-1207 Repair Drive on Lift - 06/30/2017 - PW LFT2 245.00 183 6310 1278 Dave & Jim's Auto Body Inc 17726 Front End Alignment - Police 6917 60.00 184 7020 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/841460 6 First Aid Kits - Mechanics 81.00 185 7030 2012 Gard Specialists Co Inc 105691 Grindcut Abrasive Wheel, 7 Drill Bits & 30 Roldisks 296.09 186 7040 5035 Northwest Trucks Inc 01P443068 4 Filters - PW Stock 43.28 Supplies - Tools & Hardware Supplies - Vehicle R&M Rentals Rentals Miscellaneous Contractual Services R&M Equipment R&M Vehicles Supplies - Safety Supplies - Street R&M Furniture & Fixtures Total 535 - Facilities & Grounds Maintenance Division: 540 - Vehicle Maintenance Communication Services 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 13 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 187 7040 5035 Northwest Trucks Inc 01P443108 4 Filters & 4 Cartridge Kits - PW Stock 582.88 188 7040 3518 O'Reilly Auto Parts 2479-319803 Gasket, Plugs, Radiator, Motor Mounts & Tensioner - CED 2023 399.86 189 7040 1673 Chicago Parts & Sound LLC 30IC026792 8 Brake Rotors, 3 Brake Pads & 19 Filters - Police Stock 767.77 190 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1092737 Exhaust Pipe, Muffler & Pipe Assembly - Engineering 2008 373.75 191 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1093163 2 Chrome Pipe Tips - Engineering 2008 (40.98) 192 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1093922 Air Tool Oil - PW 5090 14.98 193 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1094028 4 Wiper Blades - PW 7603 65.56 194 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1094152 High Tack Sealant - Fire 7603 7.49 195 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1094327 High Tack Sealant - Fire 7603 10.59 196 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095242 2 Air Filters - PW 5033 78.44 197 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095249 Oil Filter & 2 Air Filters - PW 5033 161.41 198 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095250 Air Filter - PW 5033 43.36 199 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095861 Brake Pads & Sway Bar - PW 5010 47.58 200 7040 1739 Morton Grove Automotive Inc 57439 Alternator - PW 5057 & Starter - PW 9001 185.00 201 7040 1053 Kimball Midwest 5809739 Hex Nuts, Bolts, Seal Plugs, Tubing, Washers, Brass Fittings 275.25 202 7040 5731 Advance Auto Parts 6027723322042 Alternator - PW 9030 123.27 203 7040 5731 Advance Auto Parts 6027723535936 Outlet With Bracket - CED 2024 4.96 204 7040 1526 Global Emergency Products Inc AG58032 Sensors, Exhaust Gasket & U- Clamp - Fire 7603 952.26 205 7040 1088 Atlas Bobcat LLC BD7015 2 Sprockets, Bearings & Washers, 36 Brushes, Chain Drive-PW 5B22 1,793.71 7,442.24 74,712.10 Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Total 540 - Vehicle Maintenance Total 50 - Public Works & Engineering 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 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 Page 14 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 206 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 242.98 242.98 207 5325 1261 Northeast Multiregional Training 223118 Police Urban Rifle Course 07/25-07/27/2017 - Officer 300.00 208 5325 1261 Northeast Multiregional Training 223389 Arrest, Search & Seizure for Sgts and Lts July 5-7, 2017 (Sgt) 50.00 209 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 2,042.46 210 6110 1233 Press Tech Inc 40962 One Box of Business Cards 20.00 211 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1389341 Highlighters (12), Staples (1 Bx), Rubber bands (2 Pks), CDR's 62.87 212 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1392821 Date Book Refill (1), Clip Binders (1 Dz), White Out (17) 51.75 2,527.08 213 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 1,455.50 214 7320 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 37.49 1,492.99 215 5310 1510 Northwest Police Academy 08/25/2017 2017-2018 Dept Annual Dues (Aug 2017-July 2018) 50.00 216 6015 1680 Pacific Telemanagement Services 934982 3 Public Pay Phones Monthly Fee, September 2017 228.00 217 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 475.94 218 6185 2950 When Nature Calls 8149 Nuisance Animal Control July 2017 1,950.00 219 6195 1077 Shred-It USA LLC 8122912716 Shredding Service PD 7/10, 7/14, 7/21, 7/28, 8/4/2017 745.35 220 6305 1045 Havey Communications 7678 Install Squad #69 Equipment (Opticon, Lights) 08/10/2017 601.20 Animal Control Miscellaneous Contractual Services R&M Equipment Total 620 - Criminal Investigation Division: 630 - Support Services Membership Dues Communication Services Communication Services Office Supplies Total 610 - Uniformed Patrol Division: 620 - Criminal Investigation Communication Services Equipment < $5,000 Division: 610 - Uniformed Patrol Training Training Communication Services Printing Services Office Supplies Police Department Division: 100 - Administration Communication Services Total 100 - Administration Page 15 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 221 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1386778 Cleaners (Screen Wipes, Air Blower, Dry Erase) Markers (1 set) 59.57 222 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1391214 Gripper Fingers (1 Set), Ruler (1), Plasticware, Napkins 10.23 223 7000 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1394461 Copy Paper (3 Cases), Badge Reels (1 Pk), Post-It Notes (1 PK) 127.15 224 7010 3356 Rand Red Hots LLC 0173 500 Hot Dogs For National Night Out 08/01/2017 750.00 225 7010 1498 Indestructo Rental Company Inc 23654 National Night Out Rental, Tents (4), Tables (35), Chairs (56) 08/01/2017 1,439.50 226 7200 1236 Proforma Creative Impressions Inc 0718002602 Lifesaving Award Plaque (Citizen) 8/2/2017 178.94 227 7200 1580 Mighty Mites 8240 Appreciation Plaque for Local Business Natl Night Out Donations 08/01/2017 45.00 228 7200 1389 Garvey's Office Products Inc PINV1391214 Gripper Fingers (1 Set), Ruler (1), Plasticware, Napkins 70.54 6,731.42 10,994.47 229 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 322.36 322.36 230 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 255.62 231 6195 1077 Shred-It USA LLC 8122936810 On-Site Shredding-Station 61 08/04/2017 59.86 232 7310 2864 JEMS-Journal of Emergency Medical Services 68141-R5 Subscription Renewal 08/01/2017-07/31/2018-EMS Coordinator 19.99 335.47 233 5325 2034 Romeoville Fire Academy, Village of 2017-419 Vehicle & Machinery Ops Class 08/18/2017-1 Paramedic 550.00 Total 100 - Administration Division: 710 - Emergency Services Training Fire Department Division: 100 - Administration Communication Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Publications Total 60 - Police Department Department: 65 - Emergency Management Agency Communication Services Total 65 - Emergency Management Agency Supplies - Community Relations Supplies - Community Relations Other Supplies Other Supplies Other Supplies Total 630 - Support Services Office Supplies Office Supplies Office Supplies Page 16 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 234 5330 1267 Northwest Community Hospital E170142 1st Qtr May to July 2017 Continued Education Classes & Fees 3,338.00 235 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 690.27 236 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 684.20 237 6140 1088 Atlas Bobcat LLC N23314 1 BobCat Rented During Flood 07/12-07/14/2017 691.25 238 6140 1088 Atlas Bobcat LLC N23315 1 BobCat Rented During Flood 07/12-07/28/2017 2,141.25 239 6305 2500 Bio-Tron Inc 37464 Valve/Pump Replacement on Zoll Monitor AR14C007587 08/18/2017 575.00 240 6305 2440 DJS Scuba Locker Inc 51378 Dive Repairs-Work Orders #14265, 14610 & 14772 Dec 2016-June 2017 468.00 241 7035 1147 Zoll Medical Corp 2562402 3 Sensors & 3 Patient Cables for Monitors 1,504.50 242 7120 6939 Fire Guys Enterprises Inc 1026 4-Cycle Fuel for Dive Boat 137.00 243 7200 1057 Menard Inc 00073 Training Supplies-Re-Bar & Earplugs 79.86 244 7200 1057 Menard Inc 00679 Picture Project-Station 61 Basement 13.94 245 7200 4298 Armstrong Medical Industries Inc 1784556 Two 5-Packs Medical Tape 253.36 246 7200 1057 Menard Incorporated 490 Lock for Training Purposes 11.87 247 7200 3297 Bound Tree Medical LLC 82594891 8 Cs Powder-Free Gloves & 1 Cs Bariatric Transfer Shts 1,335.15 248 7200 1076 Sam's Club Direct 9835 18 Cases Bottled Water- Station 63 53.82 249 7300 1148 WS Darley & Co 17296641 1 TurnOut Coat & 1 Pair of Pants for New Recruit 1,897.38 250 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 43318 2 T-Shirts, Twill Cap, 2 S/S Polos-1 Lieutenant 137.00 251 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 43651 6 T-Shirts, 2 Cargo Pocket Pants, 2 Polos-1 Engineer 266.00 252 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 43728 3 T-Shirts, 2 Shorts, 3 Pants, 2 Polos-1 Paramedic 333.00 253 7300 3212 On Time Embroidery Inc 44066 14 Dress Items for Newly Appointed Division Chief 610.00 254 8010 1066 Office Depot 954746118001 1 Chairmat for Lieutenant's Office-Station 61 99.99 15,870.84 Furniture & Fixtures Total 710 - Emergency Services Other Supplies Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Uniforms Gasoline Other Supplies Other Supplies Other Supplies Other Supplies Other Supplies Communication Services Leases Leases R&M Equipment R&M Equipment Supplies - Equip R&M In-Service Training Communication Services Page 17 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 255 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 157.41 157.41 16,363.72 256 5340 1427 I/O - Industrial Organizational Solutions Inc C40175A Police Dept Entry Level Testing Process 07/15/2017 3,096.00 3,096.00 257 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 1,350.00 1,350.00 203,287.78 258 6000 1332 Kane McKenna & Associates 14829 TIF Document Preparation and Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 618.75 259 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542664 7-17 Non-Retainer Property Enforcement Matters 888.00 260 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75311 Custodial Services - Library Parking Deck - Aug 2017, R- 169-16 400.00 261 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75312 Custodial Services-Metro Sq Parking Deck Aug 2017, R-106- 16 400.00 262 6145 6549 B&B Maintenance Inc 75314 Custodial Services - Metra Station - Aug 2017, R-169-16 1,000.00 263 6195 1029 Cintas Corporation 769270356 Mat Service - 08/23/2017 - Metra Station 66.79 264 6195 1029 Cintas Corporation 769274046 Mat Service - 08/30/2017 - City Hall & Metra Station 50.21 265 6601 6971 Muddy Mutts Makeover Inc BAP 08/24/2017 Business Assistance Facade Program R-117-17 4,051.50 Custodial Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Incentive - Business Assistance Fund: 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund Professional Services Legal Fees Custodial Services Custodial Services Department: 90 - Overhead Communication Services Total 90 - Overhead Total 100 - General Fund Total 70 - Fire Department Department: 75 - Fire & Police Commission Pre-Employment Exams Total 75 - Fire & Police Commission Division: 720 - Fire Prevention Communication Services Total 720 - Fire Prevention Page 18 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 266 6601 6971 Muddy Mutts Makeover Inc BAP 8/24/2017 Business Assistance Interior Build-Out R-117-17 15,000.00 267 6601 6987 WC Metropolitan Square LLC BAP 8/29/2017 Business Assistance Interior Build-Out 8/29/2017 7,432.50 268 6601 6647 RC Wahl Jewelers BAP 8/29/2017 Business Assistance Interior Build-Out R-75-17 08/29/2017 15,000.00 269 7045 2480 Just Faucets 176176 2 Sloan Optima Boxes - Train Depot 520.00 270 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 8 Grab Bar - Train Station 46.98 271 7050 1057 Menard Incorporated 395 Pump Aeration - Metro Square 1.16 45,475.89 272 6000 1332 Kane McKenna & Associates 14829 TIF Document Preparation and Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 618.75 618.75 273 6000 1332 Kane McKenna & Associates 14829 TIF Document Preparation and Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 618.75 618.75 274 6000 1332 Kane McKenna & Associates 14829 TIF Document Preparation and Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 618.75 618.75 275 6000 1332 Kane McKenna & Associates 14829 TIF Document Preparation and Review 07/03/2017- 07/31/2017 618.75 276 6000 6535 Gandhi & Associates Inc 17-807 Consultant-Mannheim Rd Relocation of Light Poles 01/01-08/16/17 4,861.21 277 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542662 7-17 Non-Retainer TIF #7 Matters 676.00 6,155.96 Fund: 207 - TIF #7 Mannheim/Higgins South Professional Services Professional Services Legal Fees Total 207 - TIF #7 Mannheim/Higgins South Total 205 - TIF #5 Perry/Lee Fund Fund: 206 - TIF #6 Mannheim/Higgins Fund Professional Services Total 206 - TIF #6 Mannheim/Higgins Fund Fund: 203 - TIF #3 Wille Road Fund Professional Services Total 203 - TIF #3 Wille Road Fund Fund: 205 - TIF #5 Perry/Lee Fund Professional Services Incentive - Business Assistance Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Streetscape Total 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund Incentive - Business Assistance Incentive - Business Assistance Page 19 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 278 6155 6770 Sumit Construction Co Inc 2017-0-P3 R-90-17 Contractor-2017 CIP Concrete & Alley Imp 07/29- 08/25/17 62,969.85 279 6330 2032 Mount Prospect, Village of 2017-00550003 Feehanville/Dursey Traffic Signal Maint 04/01- 06/30/2017 115.73 280 7160 6461 Compass Minerals America Inc 69696 4 Loads Rock Salt Delivered 08/14/2017 3,919.91 281 7160 6461 Compass Minerals America Inc 74140 12 Loads Bulk Road Salt - Delivered 08/11/2017 11,251.90 282 8100 6770 Sumit Construction Co Inc 2017-0-P3 R-90-17 Contractor-2017 CIP Concrete & Alley Imp 07/29- 08/25/17 12,925.02 91,182.41 283 6000 3338 Gabriel Environmental Services 0817A0048 Asbestos Inspections & Testing Services-1949 Big Bend 08/01/2017 1,325.00 284 6000 3338 Gabriel Environmental Services 0817A0049 Asbestos Inspections & Testing Services-1911 Big Bend 08/01/2017 1,190.00 285 6000 3338 Gabriel Environmental Services 0817A0051 Asbestos Home Inspections- 1958 Big Bend Dr 08/01/2017 1,190.00 286 6000 3338 Gabriel Environmental Services 0817A0052 Asbestos Home Inspections- 1998 Big Bend Dr 08/01/2017 1,190.00 287 6000 3338 Gabriel Environmental Services 0817A0056 Asbestos Inspections & Testing Services-320 Hawthorne 08/03/2017 1,010.00 288 6000 3338 Gabriel Environmental Services 0817A0057 Asbestos Inspections & Testing Services-1917 Big Bend 08/04/2017 1,145.00 289 6000 3338 Gabriel Environmental Services 0817A0073 Asbestos Inspections & Testing Services-368 Hawthorne 08/03/2017 2,000.00 290 6000 1394 Gewalt Hamilton Associates Inc 4816.200-17 Engr Svcs-Lee @ Forest Traffic Signalization 06/19- 07/23/2017 2,940.29 11,990.29 11,990.29 Total 2520 - Capital Grants Total 250 - Grant Projects Fund Professional Services Professional Services Professional Services Professional Services Professional Services Professional Services Total 230 - Motor Fuel Tax Fund Fund: 250 - Grant Projects Fund Program: 2520 - Capital Grants Professional Services Professional Services Fund: 230 - Motor Fuel Tax Fund Sidewalk Improvements R&M Traffic Signals Ice Control Ice Control Improvements Page 20 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 291 6305 5461 L3 Communications Mobile-Vision Inc 0266807-IN 1 Yr Warranty Renew on Software for Patrol Scout 8/20/17-8/19/18 1,280.00 292 6305 5461 L3 Communications Mobile-Vision Inc 0266808-IN Extended Maint. Agreement for DVD Burner/Camera 8/20/17-8/19/18 1,913.00 293 8010 1604 BOS Business Office Systems Inc 62362 New Bureau Furniture 2017, File Cabinets, Tops, Panels 2,166.00 294 8010 1604 BOS Business Office Systems Inc 62368 New Bureau Furniture 2017, Storage Cabinet 320.00 5,679.00 295 5325 1320 IL State Police 09/04-11/10/17 Full-Service Police Canine Training for Jager 09/04- 11/10/2017 1,918.30 296 6115 1744 IL Secretary of State S605962-2018 License Plate Renewal 2018 Squad #18 101.00 2,019.30 7,698.30 297 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542667 7-17 Non-Retainer ETSB Restructuring 1,820.00 1,820.00 298 6305 2933 SMS Systems Maintenance Services Inc 90078404 Computer Hardware Maintenance-911 Backup Center Aug. 2017 200.00 200.00 2,020.00 299 6000 1647 RJN Group Inc 30300202 TO #2 - General Sewer Services Through 08/18/2017 882.50 300 6000 1394 Gewalt Hamilton Associates Inc 4816.200-17 Engr Svcs-Lee @ Forest Traffic Signalization 06/19- 07/23/2017 2,940.29 Fund: 400 - Capital Projects Fund Professional Services Professional Services Department: 60 - Police Department R&M Equipment Total 60 - Police Department Total 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Fund: 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Department: 00 - Non Departmental Legal Fees Total 00 - Non Departmental Program: 2640 - Forfeit Training Licensing/Titles Total 2640 - Forfeit Total 260 - Asset Seizure Fund R&M Equipment R&M Equipment Furniture & Fixtures Furniture & Fixtures Total 2610 - Customs Fund: 260 - Asset Seizure Fund Program: 2610 - Customs Page 21 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 301 6000 3807 Chastain & Associates LLC 6635.00-1 Const Engr-2017 CIP Street & Utility Cont B 05/01- 07/29/2017 R-84-17 20,467.80 302 6000 5659 V3 Companies of Illinois Ltd 717251 Engineering Services - CAV Assistance 06/25-07/29/2017 291.06 303 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 397.23 304 6025 1172 Third Millennium Associates Inc 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 08/16/2017 248.23 305 7065 1067 Orange Crush 36732 1.11 Tons Asphalt -Sewer Repair Restoration- 08/18/2017, R 56-17 17.34 306 7065 1067 Orange Crush 37282 0.52 Tons Asphalt for Potholes - R-56-17 8.12 307 7065 1067 Orange Crush 37453 0.96 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 08/24/2017, R-56-17 14.99 308 7065 1067 Orange Crush 37588 13.68 Tons Asphalt - Potholes - 08/18/2017, R-56-17 213.64 309 7500 1566 UPS Store The 08/08/17 Eng UPS Shipping Service 01/19/2017 for Radar Recording Kit 56.70 310 7500 1172 Third Millennium Associates Inc 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 08/16/2017 10.53 311 8100 6770 Sumit Construction Co Inc 2017-0-P3 R-90-17 Contractor-2017 CIP Concrete & Alley Imp 07/29- 08/25/17 164,061.15 312 8100 1364 Martam Construction 2017-A-P R-91-17 - 2017 CIP Cont A Street & Utility 08/01- 08/29/2017 296,325.01 313 8100 1067 Orange Crush 2017-C-P4 R-92-17 2017 CIP Street Resurfacing 07/29-08/25/2017 128,922.71 614,857.30 314 8015 3014 Motorola Solutions Inc 13174396 2 Dual Control Head APX6500 Mobiles for New Ambs 7,386.00 7,386.00 7,386.00 Fund: 410 - Equipment Replacement Fund Department: 70 - Fire Department Equipment Total 70 - Fire Department Total 410 - Equipment Replacement Fund Postage & Parcel Improvements Improvements Improvements Total 400 - Capital Projects Fund Administrative Services Supplies - Capital Maintenance Supplies - Capital Maintenance Supplies - Capital Maintenance Supplies - Capital Maintenance Postage & Parcel Professional Services Professional Services Communication Services Page 22 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 315 8000 6935 Malwarebytes INV00069315 Malwarebytes Anti-Virus Subscription 08/29/2017 - 08/28/2020 15,000.00 316 8005 6625 Telquest International Inc 766422 15 Cisco 7975G IP Desk Phones 3,975.00 18,975.00 317 4601 6982 Boldt Company, The Refund 08/25/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 08/25/2017 (161.60) 318 4601 6983 MTJ Sports Refund 08/25/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 08/25/2017 (20.31) (181.91) 319 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 93.14 320 7035 1018 Anderson Lock Company LTD 0950863 3 Keys - Library Deck 11.85 104.99 321 5325 1576 Illinois Section American Water Works Association 200030878 SCADA Training - Utilities Superintendent & IT - 09/14/2017 92.00 322 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 895.30 323 6190 1567 Schimka Auto Wreckers, Inc 08/16/2017 Towed Truck to PW on 08/16/2017 - PW 9034 160.00 324 6195 1467 HBK Water Meter Service Inc 170551 60 Water Meter Bench Tests - 08/10/2017 1,274.00 325 6195 1467 HBK Water Meter Service Inc 170563 39 Water Meter Bench Tests - 08/21/2017 826.00 326 6195 4321 Luppino Plumbing & Sewer Co 5559 Replacement of 3/4 & 1/2 Elbow 08/08/2017 160.00 327 6195 4321 Luppino Plumbing & Sewer Co 5569 Replace Tailpieces on Water Lines 08/22/2017 252.00 Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Division: 550 - Water Systems Training Communication Services Tow/Storage/Ab andoned Fees Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Division: 510 - Engineering Communication Services Supplies - Equipment R&M Total 510 - Engineering 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 Fund: 420 - IT Replacement Fund Computer Software Computer Hardware Total 420 - IT Replacement Fund Page 23 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 328 6195 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H665358 Install 6 Meters - 07/03- 08/06/2017, R-11-17 8,990.00 329 7000 1066 Office Depot 954849847001 1 Case of Paper, 1 Dz Pens &1 Pack of Staples 50.11 330 7020 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/841050 24 Cans Blue Spray Paint & 1 Pair of Boots 83.95 331 7030 1057 Menard Incorporated 99653 One 20" Professional Toolbox & One Double Sided Stowaway 22.88 332 7035 1057 Menard Incorporated 97544 Batteries for Locator 20.65 333 7040 1677 Wholesale Direct Inc 000228988 LED Flashlight - PW 9026 172.70 334 7040 6224 Bumper to Bumper 408-1095799 Dielectic Grease - PW 9025 8.29 335 7040 1739 Morton Grove Automotive Inc 57439 Alternator - PW 5057 & Starter - PW 9001 165.00 336 7040 1053 Kimball Midwest 5809739 Hex Nuts, Bolts, Seal Plugs, Tubing, Washers, Brass Fittings 220.20 337 7040 5731 Advance Auto Parts 6027722835335 Brake Pads & Caliper - PW 9016 85.84 338 7045 1057 Menard Incorporated 870 Cement Patch & Drill Bit - Oakton Tower 26.46 339 7045 2313 City Electric Supply Company (CES) DEP/001183 Returned 4 Female Adapters - Oakton Tower (8.57) 340 7045 2313 City Electric Supply Company (CES) DEP/036589 Mogul Conduit Body, 4 Adapters & PVC Pipes - Oakton Tower 275.85 341 7045 2313 City Electric Supply Company (CES) DEP/036590 4 Terminal Adapters & 4 Couplings - Oakton Tower 17.53 342 7050 1757 JCK Contractors Inc 20622 20-22 Yds Topsoil-Delivered - Parkway Repairs 330.00 343 7050 1347 Lurvey Landscape Supply T1-10217828 2 Yds Topsoil - Mainbreak Repairs 53.80 344 7050 1347 Lurvey Landscape Supply T1-10218919 40 Rolls Sod - Main Break Repairs & Pallet Deposit 115.60 345 7070 2028 Northwest Electrical Supply 17335588 300 Ground Straps for Meter Installations 756.00 346 7070 1709 Ziebell Water Service Products Inc 238402-000 2 Flare Couplings 223.30 Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Building R&M Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Streetscape Supplies - Equipment R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Supplies - Vehicle R&M Miscellaneous Contractual Services Office Supplies Supplies - Safety Supplies - Tools & Hardware Page 24 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 347 7070 1709 Ziebell Water Service Products Inc 238403-000 3-1/2" B-Box Tap 97.72 348 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H503984 40 iPerls, 5 Omnis & 108 Smart Points, R-128-17 17,616.00 349 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H504022 108 Touchpads, 100 Bolts, Nuts & Washers 804.00 350 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H523498 12 Buffalo Boxes 612.00 351 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H617107 11 Repair Clamps & 12 Couplings 1,934.00 352 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H656662 80 iPerls & 108 Smart Points, R-128-17 19,956.00 353 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H656705 108 Touchpads 648.00 354 7070 1303 HD Supply Waterworks LTD H676190 41 - 1/2" Meter Couplings 410.00 355 7500 1566 UPS Store The 08/08/17 PW UPS Shipping Service 04/12/2017 for Leak Detection Eqpt Repair 267.32 356 7500 1041 Federal Express 5-907-30955 Delivery Services 07/25- 08/14/2017 83.50 57,697.43 357 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 289.41 358 6340 6714 Waukegan Roofing Co., Inc 17219-CO Repair & Replace Levee 50 Roof Insulation - 05/05/2017 2,450.00 359 6505 6973 Kurcz, Mateusz SLP17-021 Sewer Rebate 08/28/2017 100.00 360 6505 6974 Peischl, Ernst SLP17-022 Sewer Rebate 08/28/2017 19.50 361 6505 6871 Vance, Bradley SLP17-023 Sewer Rebate 08/28/2017 855.00 362 7000 1066 Office Depot 949743389001 Tape Dispenser, Desk Pad Cover & Wrist Pad & Palm Support 74.16 Subsidy - Sewer Lateral Program Subsidy - Sewer Lateral Program Subsidy - Sewer Lateral Program Office Supplies Postage & Parcel Total 550 - Water Systems Division: 560 - Sewer Systems Communication Services R&M Sewer System Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Postage & Parcel Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Supplies - Water System Maintenance Page 25 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 363 7020 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/841260 84 Pr Gloves, 12 Safety Glasses & Case Spray Paint 606.00 364 7030 1057 Menard Incorporated 265 5 Gal Wet/Dry Vac, 4 Glass & Surface Cleaners 60.33 365 7040 1471 Sewer Equipment Company of America 0000159574 Jet Truck Controller 1,005.60 366 7040 1071 Pomp's Tire Service Inc 410495757 4 Tires - PW 8022 586.52 367 7040 1520 Russo Power Equipment 4369622 V-Belt - PW Stock 45.60 368 7040 1053 Kimball Midwest 5809739 Hex Nuts, Bolts, Seal Plugs, Tubing, Washers, Brass Fittings 55.05 369 7075 1703 Prosafety Inc 2/841260 84 Pr Gloves, 12 Safety Glasses & Case Spray Paint 30.60 370 7075 1355 MQ Construction Company 7/18-7 457.13 Tons Sand - High Standing Water 7,496.93 371 7075 1043 WW Grainger Inc 9528413264 2 Storm Sewer Plugs - Dye Water Flooding 99.37 372 7075 1043 WW Grainger Inc 9529586266 2 Storm Sewer Plugs - Dye Water Flooding 75.02 13,849.09 373 6000 6941 Stantec Consulting Services Inc 1233915 TO #3 Central Warranty Inspection 07/05/2017 R-102- 16 1,959.06 374 6000 6941 Stantec Consulting Services Inc 1744475 TO #2 SCADA System Support - 02/04-03/03/2017, R-102-16 1,907.05 375 8100 1364 Martam Construction 2017-A-P R-91-17 - 2017 CIP Cont A Street & Utility 08/01- 08/29/2017 425,811.12 429,677.23 501,146.83 376 6015 1552 Verizon Wireless 9790966254 Communication Service 07/14- 08/13/2017 55.13 377 6025 1172 Third Millennium Associates Inc 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 08/16/2017 1,164.77 Department: 30 - Finance Communication Services Administrative Services Professional Services Improvements Total 580 - CIP - Water/Sewer Total 00 - Non Departmental Supplies - Sewer System Maintenance Supplies - Sewer System Maintenance Total 560 - Sewer Systems Division: 580 - CIP - Water/Sewer Professional Services 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 - Safety Supplies - Tools & Hardware Page 26 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 378 7500 1172 Third Millennium Associates Inc 21093 Utility Bill Rendering 08/16/2017 49.38 1,269.28 502,416.11 379 6305 1728 Total Parking Solutions Inc 103924 Repair to Fare Boxes - 08/03/2017 738.00 380 7035 1527 Sherwin Williams 4119-9 Paint for Graffiti - Top Deck Library Guardrail 4.39 742.39 381 6005 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542677 7-17 Non-Retainer PSEBA Proceedings 1,323.00 1,323.00 382 2464 6982 Boldt Company, The Refund 08/25/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 08/25/2017 1,100.00 383 2464 6983 MTJ Sports Refund 08/25/17 Hydrant Usage Refund 08/25/2017 1,100.00 384 2486 6770 Sumit Construction Co Inc 2017-0-P3 R-90-17 Contractor-2017 CIP Concrete & Alley Imp 07/29- 08/25/17 226.76 385 2493 1050 Journal & Topics 174263 1/4 Page 4-Color Ad for Friday Nights Live 08/16/2017 305.00 386 2493 1050 Journal & Topics 174297 1/4 Page 4-Color Ad for Friday Nights Live 08/23/2017 305.00 387 2493 1498 Indestructo Rental Company Inc 23679 Tents, Tables, Chairs, Umbrellas - Friday Nights Live 08/11/2017 1,774.00 388 2493 1498 Indestructo Rental Company Inc 23693 Tents, Tables, Chairs, Umbrellas - Friday Nights Live 08/18/2017 1,774.00 389 2493 6364 Citywide Security Group Inc 3324 Security Service for Friday Nights Live 07/07/2017 704.00 390 2493 6364 Citywide Security Group Inc 3325 Security Service for Friday Nights Live 07/14/2017 704.00 391 2493 6364 Citywide Security Group Inc 3326 Security Service for Friday Nights Live 07/21/2017 704.00 392 2493 6364 Citywide Security Group Inc 3327 Security Service for Friday Nights Live 07/28/2017 704.00 Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Hydrant Deposits Hydrant Deposits Additional Contracts - Engineering Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Fund: 600 - Risk Management Fund Legal Fees Total 600 - Risk Management Fund Fund: 700 - Escrow Fund Total 500 - Water/Sewer Fund Fund: 510 - City Owned Parking Fund R&M Equipment Supplies - Equipment R&M Total 510 - City Owned Parking Fund Postage & Parcel Total 30 - Finance Page 27 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount 393 2493 6364 Citywide Security Group Inc 3334 Security Service for Friday Nights Live 08/04/2017 704.00 394 2493 6364 Citywide Security Group Inc 3335 Security Service for Friday Nights Live 08/11/2017 704.00 395 2493 6364 Citywide Security Group Inc 3336 Security Service for Friday Nights Live 08/18/2017 704.00 396 2493 6364 Citywide Security Group Inc 3337 Security Service for Friday Nights Live 08/25/2017 704.00 397 2493 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5542655 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 572.00 398 2493 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5548863 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 295.00 399 2493 3447 Holland & Knight LLP 5548951 7-17 Reimb Redevelopment 3,002.00 400 2493 1498 Indestructo Rental Company Inc 82517 Tents, Tables, Chairs, Umbrellas - Friday Nights Live 08/25/2017 1,774.00 17,859.76 1,533,226.42Grand Total Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Escrow Projects Total 700 - Escrow Fund Escrow Projects Page 28 of 32 Line # 401 6015 1032 Comcast Cable 08/11/2017 x1141 Internet/Cable Service 08/18- 09/17/2017 235.69 402 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 7 Internet/Cable Service Misc 08/21-09/20/2017 19.05 403 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 7A Internet/Cable Service x6044 08/21-09/20/2017 146.96 404 6015 1201 Sprint 655730511-186 Communication Service 07/02- 08/01/2017 197.95 599.65 599.65 405 6125 5596 Cash N125648 Property Tax Payment Fee 128166 25.00 406 6125 5596 Cash N125650 Property Tax Payment Fee 128163 25.00 407 6125 5596 Cash N125651 Property Tax Payment Fee 128164 25.00 408 6125 5596 Cash N125658 Property Tax Payment Fee 128169 25.00 409 6125 5596 Cash N125761 Property Tax Payment Fee 128170 25.00 410 6125 5596 Cash N125762 Property Tax Payment Fee 128165 25.00 411 6125 5596 Cash N125766 Property Tax Payment Fee 128171 25.00 175.00 412 6015 1201 Sprint 655730511-186 Communication Service 07/02- 08/01/2017 40.24 40.24 40.24 413 6015 1032 Comcast Cable 08/18/2017 x6724 Internet/Cable Service for Sept 2017 16.74 16.74 Communication Services Total 610 - Uniformed Patrol Total 530 - Street Maintenance Total 50 - Public Works & Engineering Police Department Division: 610 - Uniformed Patrol Bank & CC Fees Total 30 - Finance Public Works & Engineering Division: 530 - Street Maintenance Communication Services Bank & CC Fees Bank & CC Fees Bank & CC Fees Bank & CC Fees Bank & CC Fees Bank & CC Fees Communication Services Total 230 - Information Technology Total 20 - City Administration Department: 30 - Finance Fund: 100 - General Fund City Administration Division: 230 - Information Technology Communication Services Communication Services Communication Services City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Manual Checks Page 29 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Manual Checks 414 6015 1201 Sprint 655730511-186 Communication Service 07/02- 08/01/2017 37.99 37.99 54.73 415 6015 1032 Comcast Cable 08/22/2017 x6716 Internet/Cable Service for Sept 2017 14.65 14.65 416 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 7 Internet/Cable Service Misc 08/21-09/20/2017 (25.33) 417 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 7B Internet/Cable Service x1245 08/21-09/20/2017 1,918.59 418 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 7C Internet/Cable Service x1246 08/21-09/20/2017 1,003.53 419 6015 1201 Sprint CR 655730511- 186 Communication Service 07/02- 08/01/2017 (314.17) 2,582.62 3,466.89 420 7110 1064 Nicor 08/14/17 x550488 Natural Gas Service 07/14- 08/12/2017 25.06 421 7110 1064 Nicor 08/14/17 x603131 Natural Gas Service 07/14- 08/14/2017 25.06 50.12 422 6195 6984 Sauerberg, Marilyn Refund 08/25/17 FEMA Flood Insurance Reimbursement - 1935 Grant 5,996.40 423 6195 6985 Spranze, Joseph & Arlene Refund 08/25/17 FEMA Flood Insurance Reimbursement - 1935 Grant 11,417.20 424 6195 6986 Stanley Lubash & Cynthia Michul Refund 08/25/17 FEMA Flood Insurance Reimbursement - 4116 Grant 11,537.05 28,950.65 28,950.65 Miscellaneous Contractual Services Miscellaneous Contractual Services Total 2520 - Capital Grants Total 250 - Grant Projects Fund Natural Gas Total 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund Fund: 250 - Grant Projects Fund Program: 2520 - Capital Grants Miscellaneous Contractual Services Total 90 - Overhead Total 100 - General Fund Fund: 201 - TIF #1 Downtown Fund Natural Gas Department: 90 - Overhead Communication Services Communication Services Communication Services Communication Services Total 60 - Police Department Department: 65 - Emergency Management Agency Communication Services Total 65 - Emergency Management Agency Division: 620 - Criminal Investigation Communication Services Total 620 - Criminal Investigation Page 30 of 32 Line # City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Account Vendor Invoice Invoice Description Amount Manual Checks 425 6015 1009 AT&T 708R06860008- 17 Communication Service 07/16- 08/15/2017 472.54 472.54 472.54 426 6015 1533 Wide Open West LLC 11526044Aug201 7D Internet/Cable Service x0573 08/21-09/20/2017 420.00 427 6015 1201 Sprint 655730511-186 Communication Service 07/02- 08/01/2017 37.99 428 7110 1064 Nicor 08/15/17 x400005 Natural Gas Service 07/18- 08/15/2017 85.20 429 7110 1064 Nicor 08/16/17 x054542 Natural Gas Service 07/18- 08/16/2017 85.32 430 7110 1064 Nicor 08/17/17 x500005 Natural Gas Service 07/19- 08/17/2017 128.83 431 7110 1064 Nicor 08/17/17 x500009 Natural Gas Service 07/19- 08/17/2017 25.05 782.39 782.39 33,722.59 Natural Gas Total 550 - Water Systems Total 500 - Water/Sewer Fund Grand Total Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Fund: 500 - Water/Sewer Fund Division: 550 - Water Systems Communication Services Communication Services Fund: 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Department: 60 - Police Department Communication Services Total 60 - Police Department Total 280 - Emergency Telephone System Fund Page 31 of 32 Amount Transfer Date Automated Accounts Payable 1,533,226.42$ **9/18/2017 Manual Checks 33,722.59$ **8/30/2017 Payroll 1,240,129.36$ 9/1/2017 -$ Electronic Transfer Activity: Bank of America Credit Card -$ Chicago Water Bill ACH -$ Postage Meter Direct Debits -$ Utility Billing Refunds 2,889.47$ 8/29/2017 First Merit Bank Fees -$ IMRF Payments 154,032.28$ 9/7/2017 FEMA Buyouts 605,000.00$ 9/5/2017 Employee Medical Trust Total Cash Disbursements:3,569,000.12$ * Multiple transfers processed on and/or before date shown ** See attached report Adopted by the City Council of Des Plaines This Eighteenth Day of September 2017 Ayes ______ Nays _______ Absent _______ Jennifer Tsalapatanis, City Clerk Matthew J. Bogusz, Mayor City of Des Plaines Warrant Register 09/18/2017 Summary RHS Payout Page 32 of 32 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5300 desplaines.org Date: September 7, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager From: Dorothy Wisniewski, Asst. City Manager/Director of Finance Subject: Redemption of Outstanding Bonds Series 2007A and 2007B Issue: For the City Council to authorize the redemption (early pay-off) of Series 2007A and 2007B Bonds. Analysis: Over the past several years, the City Council has taken a proactive approach in paying off debt early in order to take advantage of the interest savings generated from such action. On December 1, 2017 Bond Series 2007A and 2007B become callable to the City, and therefore are candidates for an early pay-off opportunity. During the 2017 Budget process, the City Council authorized proceeding with an early pay-off on both of these series. Table 1 below summarizes the outstanding balances after December 1, 2017 payments as well as the funding sources and maturity dates. The last column in the table provides the recommended course of action. Bond Issue Funding Source Purpose Principal Amount Outstanding Maturity Date Interest Savings Proposed Action 2007A CIP - Capital Street Portion 1,380,000 12/1/2021 133,570 Early Pay-Off 2007B P-tax Levy Fire Station Land (Lee & Prospect)390,000 12/1/2021 38,000 Early Pay-Off Total 1,770,000 171,570 Table 1 Redemption (Early Pay-off): The callable $1.77M G.O. Bonds, Series 2007A and 2007B were issued to refund 2001 bonds issued to finance street projects and purchase of the Lee and Prospect land for a potential fire station with the maturity date of December 1, 2021. By calling these bonds early and paying them off, the City will save approximately $172K in interest payments. The total amount needed to pay off this debt on November 1, 2017 is estimated at $1,770,000 plus the December principal and interest payment of $342,110 for Series 2007A and $94,025 for Series 2007B, a total of $2,206,135. The early bond pay-off will be funded by the Capital Projects fund as well as the debt service fund. Paying this debt early will alleviate approximately $400K in expenditures within the Capital Projects Page 1 of 4 fund that can be reallocated to future capital improvements on an annual basis. Additionally, the 2007B series will alleviate the property tax levy by approximately $100K. Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council approve the attached Resolution providing for the redemption of outstanding G.O. Bonds, Series 2007A and 2007B. Attachments: Attachment 1 – Resolution R-158-17 Page 2 of 4 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 158 - 17 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CALLING AND PAYMENT OF ALL OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO SERIES 2007A AND SERIES 2007B GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS.___________ WHEREAS, this resolution is authorized pursuant to the City’s powers under Article VII, Section 10 of the 1970 Illinois; and WHEREAS, on October 3, 2007, the City Council approved Ordinance M-60-07 which authorized the issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds in the maximum amount of $8,000,000 for the purpose of refunding previously borrowed funds associated with street projects along with the purchase of real property at the intersection of Lee Road and Prospect Avenue; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by Ordinance M-60-07, the City issued two series of bonds: (i) the Series 2007A Bonds which have a current principal amount outstanding of $1,380,000 (“Series 2007A Bonds”); and (ii) the Series 2007B Bonds which have a current principal amount outstanding of $390,000 (“Series 2007B Bonds”); and WHEREAS, both the Series 2007A Bonds and Series 2007B Bonds shall become callable and eligible for early payoff as of December 1, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City has sufficient funds available in the debt service and capital projects funds to pay the current principal amount outstanding as well as $436,135 in principal and interest due on the bonds through December 1, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute and attest such documents and the City Manager to make such payments as are necessary to call and pay all obligations related to the Series 2007A Bonds and the Series 2007B Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, County of Cook, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are incorporated here by reference. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF CALL. The City Council hereby approves the calling of the Series 2007A Bonds and Series 2007B Bonds as of December 1, 2017. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute and attest such documents as are necessary to call the Series Attachment 1 Page 3 of 4 2 2007A Bonds and the Series 2007B Bonds and authorizes the City Manager to make such payments necessary to satisfy all obligations related to said bond series. SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. PASSED this ____ day of __________________, 2017. APPROVED this _____ day of ______________, 2017. VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____ MAYOR ATTEST: Approved as to form: CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org Date: September 6, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED AP, City Manager From: Michael McMahon, Community and Economic Development Director Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner Subject: Consideration of Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Avenue, Case #17- 055-SUB (5th Ward) Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. Analysis: Address: 619 Howard Avenue Owner: Coleman McDonagh, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631 Petitioner: Kyle Kulala, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631 Case Number: 17-055-SUB Real Estate Index Number: 09-30-401-006-0000 Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman Existing Zoning R-1, Single-Family Residential District Existing Land Use Formerly a single-family home that was recently demolished; lot currently vacant Surrounding Zoning North: R-1, Single-Family Residential District South: R-1, Single-Family Residential District East: R-1, Single-Family Residential District West: R-1, Single-Family Residential District MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 18 Surrounding Land Use North: Maine West High School; Single-family residential South: Single-family residential East: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential Street Classification The Comprehensive Plan designates Howard Avenue as a collector street Comprehensive Plan Residential – Traditional Single Family is the recommended use of the property Project Description The applicant, Kyle Kulala, proposes to subdivide an existing 19,550 square- foot lot at 619 Howard Avenue into two lots. Lot 1 will have a width of a 60 feet and an area of 9,770 square feet. Lot 2 will have a width of 60 feet and an area of 9,780 square feet. Both proposed lots meet the required area and width for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. A single-family home and detached garage on the original lot were recently demolished. The site is currently vacant. Once subdivided, the applicant proposes to build a single-family residence on each of the two lots. Final Plat Report Name of Subdivision: McDonagh’s Subdivision Address: 619 Howard Avenue Request: Approval of Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision Total Acreage of Subdivision: 0.449 acres Lot Descriptions and Construction Plans: The petitioner’s Final Plat of Subdivision shows the existing 19,550 square-foot lot being subdivided into two lots with areas of 9,770 square feet (Lot 1) and 9,780 square feet (Lot 2). The Final Plat of Subdivision shows a 10-foot public utility and drainage easement in the rear of the property and a 35-foot building line in the front of the property. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot area and width required for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District and are consistent with the surrounding residential community. Planning and Zoning Board Review: The Planning and Zoning Board met on August 22, 2017, to consider a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots at 619 Howard Avenue in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. The petitioner presented the proposed Plat of Subdivision for McDonagh’s Subdivision. The petitioner stated that they recently demolished the single-family home on the property and that he plans to construct two new single- family homes, one on each of the new lots. No members of the public spoke on behalf of the proposal, either for or against. The Planning and Zoning Board, after having heard and fully considering the evidence, recommended (6-0) Page 2 of 18 that the City Council approve the Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, subject to the six conditions listed below and in the staff report. Conditions: 1. Submit a Grading and Drainage plan with NAVD 88 vertical datum, and an AutoCAD disk with Illinois State Plane coordinates. Please refer to www.desplaines.org for further guidelines for development; 2. A sidewalk escrow for the entire frontage length of the subdivision is required; 3. Connect water service to the 12” water main on the north side of Howard Avenue via the directional bore method. Do not connect to the 16” or 24” water mains which are closer since they are transmission mains; 4. Rear yard catch basins and storm sewer are required; 5. Remove and replace the fences along west and east sides of the subdivision; 6. Remove the remaining tree and stump from the northwest corner of the subdivision. 7. 5’ side yard easements for drainage and utilities are required for both lots. Recommendations: I recommend approval of Resolution R - 157 - 17 approving the Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, subject to the conditions listed above per the Public Works and Engineering Department. Pursuant to Section 13-2-8 of the Municipal Code, the City Council has the authority to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the application. It is requested that this item be placed on the Committee of the Whole agenda at the September 18, 2017 City Council meeting. JB/jb Attachments: Attachment 1: Subdivision Application Attachment 2: Location Map Attachment 3: Site and Context Photos Attachment 4: Plat of Survey Attachment 5: Letter from Planning & Zoning Board to the Mayor Attachment 6: Minutes of the August 22, 2017 Planning & Zoning Board hearing Exhibits: Resolution R - 157 - 17 Approving Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Avenue. Exhibit A: Final Plat of Subdivision, prepared by Gremley & Biederman, and last revised on August 9, 2017. Page 3 of 18 Attachment 1 Page 4 of 18 Attachment 1 Page 5 of 18 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 18 619 Howard Avenue – Public Notice 619 Howard Avenue – View Looking East 619 Howard Avenue – View Looking Southwest 619 Howard Avenue – View Looking North from Rear of Yard A t t a c h m e n t 3 P a g e 7 o f 1 8 Attachment 4 P a g e 8 o f 1 8 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org August 23, 2017 Mayor Bogusz and Des Plaines City Council CITY OF DES PLAINES Subject: Planning and Zoning Board, 619 Howard Avenue, 17-055-SUB, 5th Ward RE: Consideration of a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision at 619 Howard Avenue Honorable Mayor and Members of the Des Plaines City Council: The Planning and Zoning Board met on August 22, 2017, to consider a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots at 619 Howard Avenue in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. 1. The Petitioner presented the proposed Plat of Subdivision for McDonagh’s Subdivision, which is comprised of two 60-foot wide lots. 2. The Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of the requested Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision. They stated that the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area and width requirements for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District and are consistent with the surrounding residential community. 3. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended (6-0) that the City Council approve the Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, subject to the six conditions listed in the staff report. Respectfully submitted, James Szabo, Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board, Chairman Cc: City Officials Aldermen Attachment 5 Page 9 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING August 22, 2017 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD PRESENT: Bader, Catalano, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development Lauren Pruss, AICP, Coordinator/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Roll call was conducted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to approve the minutes of August 8, 2017 as submitted. AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Bader, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments. PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 1. Address: 77 Rand Road Case 17-064-SUB The petitioner is requesting a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two lots in the C-3 General Commercial District. PIN: 09-07-100-035-0000 Petitioner: Bradley Mayer, 3075 Highland Parkway, Suite 600, Downers Grove, IL 60515 Attachment 6 Page 10 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 4 Conditions of Approval: 1. Submit a Grading and Drainage plan with NAVD 88 vertical datum, and an AutoCAD disk with Illinois State Plane coordinates. Please refer to www.desplaines.org for further guidelines for development; 2. A public sidewalk shall be constructed across the entire frontage; 3. An easement for a future side path in the right-of-way is required; 4. IDOT may require a right turn lane to be constructed off of Rand Road; 5. Need NPDES, MWRD WMO, and IDOT permits; 6. Lighting will have to be designed with adjacent single-family residences in mind; 7. Sanitary sewer and storm sewer shall be connected to existing on-site utilities; 8. A new water service shall be constructed in the Rand Road right-of-way; 9. Need to verify with MWRD that volume control and detention for Lot 1 are already included; 10. Verify ingress/egress language. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Final Plat of Subdivision. Chairman Szabo asked if a stand-alone restaurant is allowable. Coordinator Pruss stated if it is built to code. Board Member Hofherr asked: • on the new lots, if left and right turns are allowed on Rand Road. Petitioner advised – yes • if Petitioner is aware of the 10 Conditions. Senior Planner Bye advised these Conditions are recommended by the City Engineer. Petitioner inquired about grading. Senior Planner Bye stated a meeting could be arranged with the City Engineer. A right turn is not required onto Rand Road; the new buyer could manage that. Petitioner addressed other conditions. New owner would remove inoperable lighting and replace same. Chairman Szabo asked if there are further questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Schell, to recommend approval to City Council with the 10 Conditions being further reviewed before submission to City Council. AYES: Hofherr, Schell, Bader, Catalano, Saletnik, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council. 2. Address: 619 Howard Avenue Case 17-055-SUB The petitioner is requesting a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. PIN: 09-30-401-006-0000 Attachment 6 Page 11 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 5 Petitioner: Kyle Kulala, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631 Owner: Coleman McDonagh, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631 Chairman Szabo swore in Coleman McDonagh, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL who advised the request is to subdivide the lot. A family home was there and demolished. Two residential homes are slated. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions. Board Member Hofherr stated/asked: • since the photos were taken, shrubs were removed • if Petitioner has talked with the neighbors. Petitioner advised – yes, on both side, and they are excited; could increase their values. Fence lines will be corrected. • if neighbors are concerned about size. Petitioner advised – no • Petitioner if the Alderman spoke with him. Petitioner advised – no Chairman Szabo asked: • if Petitioner is the builder. Petitioner advised – yes • if there is a rendering. Petitioner advised – no, and stated he wishes to obtain approval for subdivision before producing a rendering. The homes will be all brick, 2,500-3,000 sq. ft., with custom cabinetry, hand railings, two-car garages. Chairman Szabo commented he regrets the City has done away with the ARC (Architectural Review Commission) as it is important. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. There were none. He asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. Analysis: Owner: Coleman McDonagh, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631 Petitioner: Kyle Kulala, 7243 W. Touhy Avenue, Chicago, IL 60631 Case Number: 17-055-SUB Real Estate Index Number: 09-30-401-006-0000 Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman Existing Zoning R-1, Single-Family Residential District Existing Land Use Formerly a single-family home that was recently demolished; lot currently vacant Surrounding Zoning North: R-1, Single-Family Residential District South: R-1, Single-Family Residential District East: R-1, Single-Family Residential District Attachment 6 Page 12 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 6 West: R-1, Single-Family Residential District Surrounding Land Use North: Maine West High School; Single-family residential South: Single-family residential East: Single-family residential West: Single-family residential Street Classification The Comprehensive Plan designates Howard Avenue as a collector street Comprehensive Plan Residential – Traditional Single Family is the recommended use of the property Project Description The applicant, Kyle Kulala, proposes to subdivide an existing 19,550 square-foot lot at 619 Howard Avenue into two lots. Lot 1 will have a width of a 60 feet and an area of 9,770 square feet. Lot 2 will have a width of 60 feet and an area of 9,780 square feet. Both proposed lots meet the required area and width for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. A single-family home and detached garage on the original lot were recently demolished. The site is currently vacant. Once subdivided, the applicant proposes to build a single-family residence on each of the two lots. Final Plat of Subdivision Report Name of Subdivision: McDonagh’s Subdivision Address: 619 Howard Avenue Request: Approval of Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision Total Acreage of Subdivision: 0.449 acres Lot Descriptions and Construction Plans: The petitioner’s Final Plat of Subdivision shows the existing 19,550 square-foot lot being subdivided into two lots with areas of 9,770 square feet (Lot 1) and 9,780 square feet (Lot 2). The Final Plat of Subdivision shows a 10-foot public utility and drainage easement in the rear of the property and a 35-foot building line in the front of the property. Final Comments Staff Recommendation: I recommend approval of the Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision for the creation of two 60-foot wide lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, subject to the conditions listed below per the Public Works and Engineering Department. The proposed lots meet the minimum lot area and width required for lots in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District and are consistent with the surrounding residential community. Attachment 6 Page 13 of 18 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 7 Conditions of Approval: 1. Submit a Grading and Drainage plan with NAVD 88 vertical datum, and an AutoCAD disk with Illinois State Plane coordinates. Please refer to www.desplaines.org for further guidelines for development; 2. A sidewalk escrow for the entire frontage length of the subdivision is required; 3. Connect water service to the 12” water main on the north side of Howard Avenue via the directional bore method. Do not connect to the 16” or 24” water mains which are closer since they are transmission mains; 4. Rear yard catch basins and storm sewer are required; 5. Remove and replace the fences along west and east sides of the subdivision; 6. Remove the remaining tree and stump from the northwest corner of the subdivision. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Final Plat of Subdivision. Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioner is aware of all Conditions. Chair provided a handout to Petitioner. After reviewing, Petitioner advised he has no issues. Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to recommend approval with 6 Conditions. AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Bader, Hofherr, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council. 3. Address: Citywide Case 17-055-SUB City-initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines’ Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels. Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Coordinator Pruss shared that a vendor requested this proposed change. After consulting with the City Attorney, minimal changes were made (H1 was added). This Amendment does not allow new billboards, just existing converting billboards. Sections H-2 and 12-11-6 were referenced and explained. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions. Board Member Schell asked how one provides information that it is legal. Coordinator Pruss stated if a permit is valid (plat of survey, images, setback could be submitted) etc. Chairman Szabo asked Mr. Lupo with Lamar Advertising if there is a sign in question. He swore in Mr. Attachment 6 Page 14 of 18 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 157 - 17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING TENTATIVE AND FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION FOR 619 HOWARD AVENUE, DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS (CASE# 17-055-SUB ). WHEREAS, Kyle Kulala ("Applicant"), is the owner of the property commonly known as 619 Howard Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is a single lot of record consisting of approximately 19,550 square feet (.449 acres); and WHEREAS, Applicant desires to subdivide the Subject Property into two lots of record consisting of approximately 9,770 square feet ("Lot 1") and 9,780 square feet ("Lot 2"); and WHEREAS, Applicant submitted an application for subdivision of the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 2017 the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Des Plaines ("PZB") held a public hearing to consider approval of the tentative and final plat of the Subject Property ("Final Plat"), and, after considering the facts and reviewing the Final Plat, the PZB voted, by a vote of 6-0, to recommend approval of the Final Plat subject to a condition that the Applicant agree to construct certain improvements prior to developing the Subject Property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 13-2-8.A o f the City Code of the City of Des Plaines, the City Council has the power to approve, by resolution duly adopted, the Final Plat, with all improvements, conditions, variations, public ways and recorded easements and documents pertaining to the subdivision platted thereon; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined it is in the best interest of the City to approve the Final Plat; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows; SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as the findings of the City Council. SECTION 2: LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. The Subject Property is legally described as follows: Page 15 of 18 2 LOT 6 (EXCEPT THE NORTH 5 FEET OF SAID LOT) IN BLOCK 2 IN DOUGLAS MANOR, A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 12, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINICPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PIN: 09-30-401-006-0000 Commonly known as 619 Howard Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois. SECTION 3: APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT. The City Council hereby approves the Final Plat for the Subject Property, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, and the City Clerk to attest and seal, with the corporate seal of the City of Des Plaines, the original Final Plat, prepared by Gremley & Biederman, consisting of two sheets, and with a latest revision date of August 9, 2017. SECTION 4: RECORDATION OF FINAL PLAT. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Clerk to cause the executed and sealed Final Plat to be recorded with the office of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. SECTION 5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Page 16 of 18 3 PASSED this _____ day of ____________, 2017. APPROVED this _____ day of _____________, 2017. VOTE: AYES _____ NAYS _____ ABSENT _____ MAYOR ATTEST: Approved as to form: CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel DP-Resolution Approving Final Plat of Subdivision for 619 Howard Ave Page 17 of 18 Ex h i b i t A Page 18 of 18 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org Date: August 29, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED AP, City Manager From: Michael McMahon, Community and Economic Development Director Lauren Pruss, AICP, Economic Development Coordinator Subject: Consideration of a Text Amendment to Sections 12-11-5 and 12-11-6 of the Zoning Code and Section 10-13-2, Case #17-057-TA (Citywide) Issue: City initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Title 12 Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels. Analysis: Zoning Code Text Amendment Report PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Project Description: An Amendment is requested to Sections 12-11-5 and 12-11-6 of the Zoning Code to allow billboard signs to have digital LED panels. The proposed text would only permit LED panels for those billboards that 1) currently meet all provisions of the sign ordinance, 2) were lawfully erected, and 3) are located within 660 feet of either I-90 or I-294. Existing nonconforming billboard signs may be permitted to convert to LED panels subject to conditional use approval. Limitations are included on the size, frequency/duration of the message, and level of luminescence. Additionally, all billboard signs with LED panels will be required to display City sponsored messages to include without limitation Amber Alerts, FBI wanted messages, weather alerts, and messages promoting City sponsored events. Section 10-13-2: Fees for Permits is requested to be amended to include a $250 fee for any permit issued in compliance with this code and a separate fee for electrical and/or structural permits of 1.5% of the value of the alteration or $500.00, whichever is greater. The code enforcement officer may, at his discretion, require a MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 21 third-party inspection of the billboard or electronic message board billboard. The applicant will be responsible for the cost of any third-party inspection. Standards for Zoning Code Text Amendment: To analyze this text amendment request, the standards for amendments contained in Section 12-3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance are used. Following is a discussion of those standards. 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council; The City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2007, does not specifically address billboards, and as such, the proposed change is not inconsistent with the goal and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; The City currently has a significant number of billboards both along the tollway corridors and away from the tollway corridors. The amendment does not allow additional billboards to be built, but will allow those billboard signs that are conforming to be modernized to reflect the most current technology and advertising methods. Since the proposed amendment should only affect existing billboards, it would not significantly alter the overall character of development. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; The proposed amendment will not detrimentally affect the adequacy of public facilities and available services. In fact, the amendment would improve the ability for the City to disseminate critical public safety announcements. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and The proposed amendment will have a positive effect on the value of the billboard property. The amendment should not pose a detrimental effect to any residential areas due to the existing setback requirements for billboards within the sign code. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. (Ord. Z-8-98, 9-21-1998) The proposed amendment is narrowly tailored to apply only to those billboards that were lawfully erected and are located within the tollway corridors, and as such represents a reasonable and responsible standard for the modernization of billboard signs. Planning and Zoning Board: On July 25, 2017, the Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing regarding the draft text amendment. At the hearing, a representative of Lamar, a billboard company, inquired whether the ordinance would allow for the conversion of an existing non-conforming billboard to LED panels. After reviewing the text of the code, staff recommended a continuance to the August 22, 2017 meeting to give staff the ability to further review and revise the ordinance if necessary. After consulting with the City Attorney, minor changes were Page 2 of 21 made to the draft ordinance to clarify under what conditions a non-conforming sign may convert to LED. At its August 22, 2016 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board heard the case again unanimously recommended approval of the proposed text amendment. Recommendation: I recommend approval of Ordinance Z - 21 - 17 amending Sections 12-11-5 and 12-11-6 of the Zoning Code and Section 10-13-2 of the Municipal Code. Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D of the Zoning Code, the City Council has the authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned zoning request. It is requested that this item be placed on the Committee of the Whole agenda at the September 18, 2017 City Council meeting. Attachments: Attachment 1: Letter from Planning & Zoning Board to the Mayor Attachment 2: Draft Minutes excerpt of the July 25, 2017 and August 22, 2017 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing Attachment 3: Ordinance Z - 21 - 17 Page 3 of 21 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org November 4, 2016 Mayor Bogusz and Des Plaines City Council CITY OF DES PLAINES Subject: Consideration of Text Amendment to Section 12-3-5.B and 12-11-6.B of the Zoning Code, Case #16-071-TA Honorable Mayor and Members of the Des Plaines City Council: The Planning and Zoning Board met on October 25, 2016 to consider a text amendment to Section 12-3-5.B and 12-11-6.B of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to eliminate the minimum required Planned Unit Development (PUD) standard for lot area per dwelling unit for residential developments. 1. The Community and Economic Development Department presented the text amendment information. 2. The Community and Economic Development Department recommended approval of the requested text amendment. 3. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended (5-0) that the City Council approve the text amendment to Section 12-3-5.B and 12-11-6.B of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to permit residential planned unit developments in the R-1 zone and to modify the requirements for electronic message boards. Respectfully submitted, James Szabo, Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board, Chairman Cc: City Officials Aldermen Attachment 1 Page 4 of 21 Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 1            DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2017 MINUTES  The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD PRESENT: Bader, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo ABSENT: Catalano, Green ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development Lauren Pruss, AICP, Coordinator/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and read this evening’s case. Roll call was conducted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to approve the minutes of July 11, 2017 as submitted. AYES: Hofherr, Saletnik, Bader, Szabo ABSTAIN: Schell NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED 4-0*** PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments. CONTINUED FROM JULY 11, 2017 1. Address: 1692 Whitcomb Avenue Case 17-045-APL The petitioner is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a Minor Variation under Sections 12-9-6 and 12-7-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow an 11’-wide parking pad in a front yard and a 3’6”-wide sidewalk, instead of not more than 3’, in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. PIN: 09-21-303-027-0000 Petitioner: Shafee Baig, 1692 Whitcomb Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 21 Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 6 A motion was made by Board Member Schell to proceed with an alteration plan, meet with Staff, and pay the $750 fine. Discussion on options took place. Board Member Schell withdrew the motion and restated the following: A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to deny this petition. AYES: Schell, Hofherr, Bader, Saletnik, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Chairman Szabo stated Mr. Baig may not wish to use the former concrete contractor. PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 2. Address: Citywide Case 17-057-TA City-initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines’ Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels. Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Coordinator Pruss offered the Staff Report: Issue: City initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels. Analysis: Zoning Code Text Amendment Report PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Project Description: An Amendment is requested to the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance to change the Text to allow billboard signs to have digital LED panels. The proposed text would only permit LED panels for those billboards that 1) currently meet all provisions of the sign ordinance, 2) were lawfully erected, and 3) are located within 660 feet of either I-90 or I-294. Existing nonconforming billboard signs may be permitted to convert to LED panels subject to conditional use approval. Limitations are included on the size, frequency/duration of the message, and level of luminescence. Additionally, all billboard signs with LED panels will be required to display City sponsored messages to include without limitation Amber Alerts, FBI wanted messages, weather alerts, and messages promoting City sponsored events. Attachment 2 Page 6 of 21 Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 7 Standards for Zoning Code Text Amendment: To analyze this text amendment request, the standards for amendments contained in Section 12-3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance are used. Following is a discussion of those standards. 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council; The City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2007, does not specifically address billboards, and as such, the proposed change is not inconsistent with the goal and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; The City currently has a significant number of billboards both along the tollway corridors and away from the tollway corridors. The amendment does not allow additional billboards to be built, but will allow those billboard signs that are conforming to be modernized to reflect the most current technology and advertising methods. Since the proposed amendment should only affect existing billboards, it would not significantly alter the overall character of development. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; The proposed amendment will not detrimentally affect the adequacy of public facilities and available services. In fact, the amendment would improve the ability for the City to disseminate critical public safety announcements. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and The proposed amendment will have a positive effect on the value of the billboard property. The amendment should not pose a detrimental effect to any residential areas due to the existing setback requirements for billboards within the sign code. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. (Ord. Z-8-98, 9-21-1998) The proposed amendment is narrowly tailored to apply only to those billboards that were lawfully erected and are located within the tollway corridors, and as such represents a reasonable and responsible standard for the modernization of billboard signs. Recommendation: The Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Attachment 2 Page 7 of 21 Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 8 Planning & Zoning Board Procedure: Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D.3 of the Zoning Code, the Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Text Amendment. Board Member Schell asked Staff to add flood language; Coordinator Pruss concurred. Board Member Hofherr asked Staff when signs are approved for conversions, if fees will be levied. Coordinator Pruss advised – they would be $250.00 though licensing fees will not be applied. This will be regulated through the Sign Ordinance. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. There were none. He asked if anyone is in favor or objects to this proposal. An audience member came forward noting he has questions. Chairman Szabo swore in:  Chris Lupo, Lamar Advertising, 500 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL Mr. Lupo asked if there is a possibility, rather than go through the process for when a sign was initially erected illegally, if the face that does not affect the residential area could be converted to digital with a reduction on sign size. He asked if the Text Amendment could be tweaked to allow a sign that is reduced in size. Mr. Lupo asked, regarding a sign conversion, if the head must be removed and another face applied. Coordinator Pruss stated panels could be removed or panels would have to be repaired. She will discuss the recommendation with the City of Des Plaines’ Legal Department. Board Member Saletnik asked if LED lighting is that heavy. Mr. Lupo advised it is heavier. Board Member Schell stated it is important not to favor or burden an entity. Chairman Szabo asked if Mr. Lupo saw the Draft Amendment. Mr. Lupo advised he did. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Schell, to continue this matter to the August 22, 2017, PZB meeting so that revisions may be discussed with the Legal Department. AYES: Hofherr, Schell, Bader, Saletnik, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** ADJOURNMENT On a voice vote, Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Sincerely, Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners Attachment 2 Page 8 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING August 22, 2017 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 22, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD PRESENT: Bader, Catalano, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development Lauren Pruss, AICP, Coordinator/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Roll call was conducted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to approve the minutes of August 8, 2017 as submitted. AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Bader, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments. PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 1. Address: 77 Rand Road Case 17-064-SUB The petitioner is requesting a Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-5 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the creation of two lots in the C-3 General Commercial District. PIN: 09-07-100-035-0000 Petitioner: Bradley Mayer, 3075 Highland Parkway, Suite 600, Downers Grove, IL 60515 Attachment 2 Page 9 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 7 Conditions of Approval: 1.Submit a Grading and Drainage plan with NAVD 88 vertical datum, and an AutoCAD disk with Illinois State Plane coordinates. Please refer to www.desplaines.org for further guidelines for development; 2.A sidewalk escrow for the entire frontage length of the subdivision is required; 3.Connect water service to the 12” water main on the north side of Howard Avenue via the directional bore method. Do not connect to the 16” or 24” water mains which are closer since they are transmission mains; 4.Rear yard catch basins and storm sewer are required; 5.Remove and replace the fences along west and east sides of the subdivision; 6.Remove the remaining tree and stump from the northwest corner of the subdivision. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Final Plat of Subdivision. Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioner is aware of all Conditions. Chair provided a handout to Petitioner. After reviewing, Petitioner advised he has no issues. Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to recommend approval with 6 Conditions. AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Bader, Hofherr, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council. 3.Address:Citywide Case 17-057-TA City-initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines’ Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels. Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Coordinator Pruss shared that a vendor requested this proposed change. After consulting with the City Attorney, minimal changes were made (H1 was added). This Amendment does not allow new billboards, just existing converting billboards. Sections H-2 and 12-11-6 were referenced and explained. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions. Board Member Schell asked how one provides information that it is legal. Coordinator Pruss stated if a permit is valid (plat of survey, images, setback could be submitted) etc. Chairman Szabo asked Mr. Lupo with Lamar Advertising if there is a sign in question. He swore in Mr. Attachment 2 Page 10 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 8 Lupo who identified his 5 signs. He noted one legal, non-conforming sign does not have today’s setback requirement (under Code). Coordinator Pruss stated she is not aware of other non-conforming signs but is quite familiar with Mr. Lupo’s sign and explained the challenge and new amenable language to the code. Chairman Szabo asked about the Board’s input on LED signs in the area, asked if there are objections, and noted it is common. Mr. Lupo asked about Provision H. Coordinator Pruss responded accordingly. Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Coordinator Pruss did: Issue: City initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels. Analysis: Zoning Code Text Amendment Report PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Project Description: An Amendment is requested to the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance to change the Text to allow billboard signs to have digital LED panels. The proposed text would only permit LED panels for those billboards that 1) currently meet all provisions of the sign ordinance, 2) were lawfully erected, and 3) are located within 660 feet of either I-90 or I-294. Existing nonconforming billboard signs may be permitted to convert to LED panels subject to conditional use approval. Limitations are included on the size, frequency/duration of the message, and level of luminescence. Additionally, all billboard signs with LED panels will be required to display City sponsored messages to include without limitation Amber Alerts, FBI wanted messages, weather alerts, and messages promoting City sponsored events. The Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing regarding the draft text amendment on July 25, 2017. At the hearing, a representative of Lamar, a billboard company, inquired whether the ordinance would allow for the conversion of an existing non-conforming billboard to LED panels. After reviewing the text of the code, staff recommended a continuance to the August 22, 2017 meeting to give staff the ability to further review and revise the ordinance if necessary. After consulting with the City Attorney, minor changes were made to the draft ordinance to clarify under what conditions a non-conforming sign may convert to LED. Standards for Zoning Code Text Amendment: To analyze this text amendment request, the standards for amendments contained in Section 12-3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance are used. Following is a discussion of those standards. Attachment 2 Page 11 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 9 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council; The City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2007, does not specifically address billboards, and as such, the proposed change is not inconsistent with the goal and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; The City currently has a significant number of billboards both along the tollway corridors and away from the tollway corridors. The amendment does not allow additional billboards to be built, but will allow those billboard signs that are conforming to be modernized to reflect the most current technology and advertising methods. Since the proposed amendment should only affect existing billboards, it would not significantly alter the overall character of development. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; The proposed amendment will not detrimentally affect the adequacy of public facilities and available services. In fact, the amendment would improve the ability for the City to disseminate critical public safety announcements. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and The proposed amendment will have a positive effect on the value of the billboard property. The amendment should not pose a detrimental effect to any residential areas due to the existing setback requirements for billboards within the sign code. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. (Ord. Z-8-98, 9-21-1998) The proposed amendment is narrowly tailored to apply only to those billboards that were lawfully erected and are located within the tollway corridors, and as such represents a reasonable and responsible standard for the modernization of billboard signs. Recommendation: The Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Planning & Zoning Board Procedure: Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D.3 of the Zoning Code, the Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority Attachment 2 Page 12 of 21 Case #17-064-SUB – 77 Rand Road – Tentative & Final Plat of Subdivision Case #619 Howard Avenue – Tentative & Final Plast of Subdivision Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments August 22, 2017 Page 10 over the Text Amendment. Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded. Mr. Lupo asked about Page 6 regarding regular rotation. Coordinator Pruss concurred there could be different terms prior to issuance of a permit. He asked if, when 8 spots on an electric message board are filled, the City advertising could be relocated. Coordinator Pruss stated this would be under the terms of the agreement. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to recommend approval to City Council. AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Bader, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council. As Coordinator Pruss accepted a new position, Board Member Schell stated he would like to introduce a Resolution to Coordinator Pruss for all of her hard work while with the City of Des Plaines. Coordinator Pruss thanked everyone, and advised she will be going to the Village of Palos Park as Director of Community Development. ADJOURNMENT On a voice vote, Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Sincerely, Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners Attachment 2 Page 13 of 21 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES ORDINANCE Z - 21 - 17 AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF TITLE 12 AND CHAPTER 13 OF TITLE 10 OF THE CITY OF DES PLAINES CITY CODE (CASE# 17-057-TA). WHEREAS, the City is a home rule municipal corporation in accordance with Article VII, Section 6(a) of the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970; and WHEREAS, Chapter 11 of Title 12 of the City of Des Plaines City Code, as amended ("City Code"), sets forth certain standards and regulations for signs based on the sign type, including electronic message boards and billboards; and WHEREAS, Chapter 13 of Title 10 of the City Code sets forth certain permit fees for construction regulations, including signs; and WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the City Code to allow billboard signs to have digital LED panels and to add a permit fee for billboards signs with digital LED panels ("Text Amendments"); and WHEREAS, a public hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board ("PZB") to consider the Text Amendments was duly advertised in the Journal on July 7, 2017, and held on August 22, 2017; and WHEREAS, the PZB voted to recommend approval of the Text Amendments by a vote of 7-0, which recommendation the PZB forwarded in writing to the City Council on August 29, 2017; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the factors set forth in Section 12-3-7.E, titled "Standards for Amendments," of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the Text Amendments as set forth in this Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows: SECTION 1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof. Attachment 3 Page 14 of 21 2 SECTION 2. FINDING OF COMPLIANCE. The City Council finds that consideration of the Text Amendment has complied with the provisions of Section 12-3-7 of the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 3. SIGNS. A. Section 5, titled “Sign Standards by Sign Type,” of Chapter 11, titled "Signs," of Title 12, titled “Zoning,” of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “12-11-5: SIGN STANDARDS BY SIGN TYPE: * * * G. Electronic Message Boards: 1. Electronic Message Board Requirements And Limitations: Electronic message boards shall be permitted only when incorporated within a new or existing pole sign or monument sign (this shall not include billboards except as permitted in accordance with subsection 12-11-5.H of this chapter). The overall sign must comply with all existing standards and regulations as set forth in this chapter regarding pole signs and monument signs. Electronic message boards incorporated into an approved sign shall be subject to the standards and regulations as set forth in section 12- 11-6 of this chapter. * * * H. Electronic Message Board Billboard: The static billboard panels of a qualified billboard may be converted to electronic message board panels only pursuant to an electronic message board billboard permit issued by the city, and subject to the standards and regulations for electronic message board billboards set forth in section 12-11-6 of this chapter. For the purposes of this subsection, a qualified billboard must meet the following criteria: 1. The billboard was erected prior to the effective date of this ordinance. If the billboard is relocated in accordance with section 12-11-10.C this chapter, the date the billboard was originally erected, prior to relocation, will be determinative. 2. The billboard must be a legally conforming billboard. For the purposes of this section only, an applicant for an electronic message board billboard permit may establish that the existing billboard is legally conforming by either: a. providing proof that the existing billboard was erected pursuant to a valid permit issued by the city; or Attachment 3 Page 15 of 21 3 b. providing documentation to show that the existing billboard conforms with all of the standards and regulations as set forth for billboards in section 12-11-6 of this chapter except for the permit requirement. c. Notwithstanding section 12-11-10 of this chapter, if a billboard is not legally conforming in accordance with Subsections H.2.a or H.2.b of this section, the removal and replacement of the sign in the same location for the sole purpose of converting the static panels to electronic message board panels is permitted only as a conditional use pursuant to section 12-3-4 of this title, and subject to the standards and regulations for electronic message board billboards as set forth in section 12-11-6 of this chapter. 3. The billboard must have a valid IDOT sign permit; 4. The billboard must be located within 660 feet of I-90 or I-294.” B. Section 6, titled “Regulation by District Classification,” of Chapter 11, titled "Signs," of Title 12, titled “Zoning,” of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “12-11-6: REGULATION BY DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION * * * B. Commercial, Manufacturing And Institutional Districts: It shall be unlawful for any person to construct or maintain a sign in any commercial district, manufacturing district, or the I-1 institutional district, except as follows. For the purposes of providing sign uniformity, a property may incorporate both wall and monument signs or wall and pole signs; however, the use of monument signs in conjunction with pole signs is prohibited. Monument or pole signs containing electronic message boards shall be subject to the same standards as set forth in this subsection, except that only one electronic message board will be permitted per lot. In the event that a single business exists on multiple lots or in the case of a business park or retail center, only one electronic message board will be permitted overall. (Ord. Z-32-14, 12-15-2014) Sign Type Number, Area, Height, And Other Limitations * * * * * * Billboards Billboards shall be permitted only within the C-1, C-2, C-3, M-1, M-2 and I-1 districts and located within 660 feet of I-90 and I-294 toll roads. Structure must be in compliance with the Illinois department of transportation regulations and a valid current IDOT permit Attachment 3 Page 16 of 21 4 must be presented with the application for city permits. The city shall cause to be permitted no more than 12 permits for outdoor advertising structures (billboards) under subsection 12-11- 3C3, "Billboard Permits", of this chapter. As of amendatory ordinance Z-24-05, all 12 permits have been allocated to permittees. Total surface area of the signs shall not exceed 1,200 square feet per face and 2,400 total square feet for a double faced sign. Height of the sign shall not exceed 99 feet from the base of the pole to the top of the structure or 65 feet from the surface of the pavement of the lane closest to the structure, except as otherwise provided by a limited variation ordinance adopted by council. All billboards must meet the spacing requirements as required by the Illinois advertising control act. No portion of a billboard shall be allowed within 300 feet of a residential property line. This distance shall be measured at ground level from a line perpendicular to the closest part of the billboard to the residential property line. A billboard for which a permit record does not exist but otherwise meets all of development standards for billboards as set forth in this 12-11-6.B is a legally conforming billboard for the purposes of this chapter. * * * * * * Electronic message board billboards The electronic message board panel must not exceed the square footage of the static panel replaced by the electronic message board panel or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less. The electronic message board panel must face away from and may not direct light Attachment 3 Page 17 of 21 5 onto any residentially zoned lot or lot improved with residential structure. The electronic message board must be adequately screened from any residential zoning district. The electronic message board panel may only face the I-90 or I-294 rights of way. The applicant must submit an affidavit stating that all required permits or approvals from IDOT, the FAA, or any other government or regulatory agency or body with proper jurisdiction, have been obtained for the proposed electronic message board billboard. The images and text displayed on the electronic message board may be changed no more frequently than once every 10 seconds or as established by federal or state guidelines for digital signage along an interstate, whichever is greater. Each change must be completed in one second or less. Sounds, animation, moving video, flashing, blinking, spinning, or any other appearance of movement are prohibited. The sign must possess an ambient light sensor and utilize automatic dimming capabilities so that the maximum luminescence level is not more than 0.3 foot candles over ambient light levels measured as close to perpendicular to the sign face as possible and measured from the appropriate distance as set forth in the table below: Sign Face Size Distance from which to Measure Under 300 square feet 150 feet 300-385 square feet 200 feet 386-680 square feet 250 feet Attachment 3 Page 18 of 21 6 681-1200 square feet 350 feet The applicant, with written permission from the landowner, must apply for and obtain the following permits from the city prior to performing any alterations to the existing billboard: (a) a building permit for the electronic message board panels and support structure; and (b) an electronic message board billboard sign permit. Plans prepared by a licensed structural engineer are must be submitted with the permit application. City sponsored messages must be made available for display on the electronic message board on a regular rotation, as determined by agreement between the City and the applicant. City sponsored messages include without limitation Amber Alerts, FBI wanted messages, weather alerts, and messages promoting City sponsored events. The City sponsored messages will be displayed at no cost to the City. * * * * * *” C. Section 10, titled “Fees for Permits,” of Chapter 13, titled "Construction Regulations Fee Schedule," of Title 10, titled “Construction Regulations,” of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “10-13-2 Fees for Permits: For any permit issued in compliance with this code, a fee shall be paid in accordance with the following schedules: PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE * * * Signs * * * Billboard and Electronic Message Board Billboard Signs $250.007 * * * * * * Attachment 3 Page 19 of 21 7 Notes: * * * 7. Additional fees for electrical and/or structural permits may apply. The fee for the structural permit shall be 1.5% of the value of the alteration or $500.00, whichever is greater. The code enforcement officer may, at his discretion, require a third-party inspection of the billboard or electronic message board billboard. The applicant is responsible for the cost of any third-party inspection.” SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any paragraph, section, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect without affecting the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form according to law. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] Attachment 3 Page 20 of 21 8 PASSED this day of , 2017 APPROVED this day of , 2017 VOTE: Ayes Nays Absent MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Published in pamphlet form this Approved as to form: ____ day of _______________, 2017 CITY CLERK Peter M. Friedman, General Counsel [NOTE: New Language is Bolded and Double Underlined.] DP-Ordinance Amending Zoning Code re Billboard Signs and LED Panels Add Permit Fee Attachment 3 Page 21 of 21 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org Date: May 30, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager From: Michael McMahon, Community and Economic Development Director Lauren Pruss, Economic Development Coordinator Subject: Business Assistance Program Approval, Multi Unit Retail Grant Program 554 – 570 E. Algonquin Road (3rd Ward) Issue: The Business Assistance Program requires City Council approval on all applications with a project award amount over $10,000.00. Analysis: The new owner of the retail building at 554-570 East Algonquin Road has filed a business assistance application requesting approval for a multi-unit retail grant. The applicant intends to renovate the façade of the existing 8,400 square foot retail building. The façade improvements include a new dryvit parapet, lighting, and rubber roofing for the parapet. The total cost of work for grant eligible facade improvements is $42,275 according to quotes provided from the selected contractors for the project. The Multi-Unit Retail Grant Program is a sliding scale 50% matching grant for eligible expenses. Based upon the size of the building and cost of the project, the property qualifies for a grant in the amount of $20,000. If this request is approved, a negative balance of $7,090 will result in the City-Wide Business Assistance Incentive account. The Program Guidelines require applicants to wait until the grant is approved to begin work. Although aware of this requirement, the applicant wishes to begin the renovation work without waiting for approval and is requesting a waiver of the timing requirements of the program. Recommendation: I recommend that the City Council adopt Resolution R-156-17 to approve the Business Assistance Program application. Attachments: Attachment 1: Application Attachment 2: Contractor’s Quote and Plans Attachment 3: Resolution R-156-17 MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 9 Attachment 1 Page 2 of 9 Attachment 1 Page 3 of 9 Attachment 2 Page 4 of 9 Attachment 2 Page 5 of 9 Attachment 2 Page 6 of 9 Attachment 2 Page 7 of 9 1 CITY OF DES PLAINES RESOLUTION R - 156 - 17 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT FOR FAÇADE IMPROVEMENTS AT 554- 570 E. ALGONQUIN ROAD, DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS. WHEREAS, the City has appropriated funds for use by the Community and Economic Development Department during the 2017 fiscal year for the disbursement of grants through the Business Assistance Program ("Program"), which offers grants to reimburse property owners for 50 percent of the cost of rehabilitating eligible multi-tenant commercial shopping centers in the City, up to a maximum amount of $50,000, based on the size of the property ("Multi-Unit Retail Grant"); and WHEREAS, Vitold Stawierej ("Applicant") owns the multi-tenant property commonly known as 554 – 570 East Algonquin Road in the City ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, Applicant has applied for a Multi-Unit Retail Grant to renovate the façade of the existing 8,400 square foot retail building ("Improvements"); and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the Improvements is $42,275; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to approve and authorize the Multi-Unit Retail Grant to reimburse the Applicant for 50 percent of the cost of the Improvements at the Subject Property, in an amount not to exceed $20,000; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois, in the exercise of its home rule powers, as follows: SECTION 1: RECITALS. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution as findings of the City Council. SECTION 2: APPROVAL OF GRANT. The City Council hereby approves the Multi- Unit Retail Grant to reimburse the Applicant for the Improvements at the Subject Property in accordance with the Program guidelines and in an amount not to exceed $20,000. SECTION 3: AUTHORIZATION TO DISBURSE GRANTS. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager or his designee to take all necessary and appropriate action to reimburse the Applicant for 50 percent of the cost of the Improvements in an amount not to exceed $20,000. SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval according to law. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] Attachment 3 Page 8 of 9 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 Approving the Business Assistance Program Application for 554 – 570 E Algonquin Rd Attachment 3 Page 9 of 9 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5380 desplaines.org Date: August 10, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, MCP, LEED-AP, City Manager From: Michael McMahon, Community and Economic Development Director Subject: Text Amendment to Allow the Keeping of Chickens (Citywide) Issue: The keeping of chickens as a household pet is currently prohibited by the municipal code. Staff was directed to prepare an ordinance to allow the keeping of chickens through a three-year pilot program. Analysis: The municipal code regulates the keeping of animals and restricts the keeping of fowl throughout the City, except for educational purposes. In recent years, there has been a growing trend in keeping chickens for personal production and consumption of eggs. Several area municipalities provide regulations for the keeping of chickens in residential neighborhoods (see attached survey). On August 6, 2017, the City Council met and in the Building Code Committee discussed a request by a number of Des Plaines residents to allow the keeping of chickens. After a lengthy debate, the issue was deferred for future discussion. Staff has since been directed to prepare an ordinance creating a pilot program to allow the keeping of chickens. Ordinance M-19-17 was prepared that amends Municipal Code 6-1-1 setting forth regulations for a three- year pilot program. In addition, staff recommends the Zoning Ordinance be amended in the near future to allow chicken coops and enclosures as accessory structures. The new ordinance states: “6-1-1: ANIMALS RESTRICTED WITHIN CITY: A. Fowl: Fowl: It shall be unlawful and it is hereby declared to be a nuisance to raise, maintain or have upon any property within the city any chickens, ducks, geese, guinea hens, pigeons or other similar fowl except as provided in section 6-1-1.D; provided, however, that it is not unlawful to keep, for educational purposes, up to six (6) chicken hens on any property located within the city that is greater than fifteen (15) acres and is listed on the national register of historic places * * * 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 1420 Miner Street Des Plaines, IL 60016 P: 847.391.5400 desplaines.org Date: September 7, 2017 To: Michael G. Bartholomew, City Manager From: William R. Kushner, Chief of Police Subject: Photo Red Light Enforcement Program Issue: Based on a request of the City Council, the following memo provides information over the Red Light Running (RLR) Photo Enforcement System at the intersection on Golf and Rand. Analysis: Staff was asked to prepare an overview of the City of Des Plaines’ photo traffic enforcement system. Included in this document are the average daily traffic counts and traffic crash statistics as gleaned from the Illinois Department of Transportation, statistics regarding percentages of violations issued to Des Plaines residents, as well as financial revenue information. In looking through historical information, it appears that the review of a possible red light camera began in 2009. Originally, there were 20 locations identified as possible sites and crash data was obtained on each of the locations in an effort to narrow down to a final location. The following chart indicates the final 3 locations selected: Location 2008 Crashes 2005-2007 IDOT Crash Data Notes Rear End Angle Turning Total Injuries Mt. Prospect & Touhy 26 83 7 38 128 26 1st choice/Elk Grove Village Jurisdiction Elmhurst & Oakton 18 44 8 34 86 34 1st choice/Mt prospect Jurisdiction Golf & Rand 16 54 4 22 80 35 1st Choice/May require letter from CC Forest Preserve Red Light Running (RLR) Photo Enforcement System was installed at the intersection of IL Rte. 58 (Golf Rd.) at US Rte. 12 (Rand Rd.) on October 27, 2010 after finding limited success with other attempted measures to promote safer driving and improve compliance with traffic laws. Red Light Camera Enforcement Process: In reviewing a photo traffic enforcement system, it is imperative that the entire process is understood. In the case of the system used by the City, two sensors per lane of traffic are implanted in the pavement; one triggers the system to be alert; the second, placed beyond the broad white painted stop line, triggers the camera to record for a violation. The camera stores the violations electronically, and each day, typically in the early morning hours, the data is uploaded to the vendors’ website. Prior to Page 1 of 6 sending the violations to the City, an employee of the vendor reviews the images and discards those “violations” that are statutorily allowable: i.e., funeral procession, emergency vehicles, snow plows, etc. The remaining “violations” are forwarded electronically to the Des Plaines Police Department, where a sworn officer reviews each violation individually. The direction given to the officer and the criteria used by the officer in determining whether or not a violation occurred is quite simple: “If the officer had witnessed the violation first hand, would he have issued a citation?” If the officer affirms the violation, the affirmed file is sent back to the vendor for the issuance of a notice of violation. Once a violation is received by the registered owner of the offending vehicle, the registered owner can view the video of the alleged violation via the internet, and then exercise one of three options: 1. They may pay the fine specified on the notice of violation; 2. They may contest the violation by mail, or 3. They may contest in person. Contesting by mail causes the video to be reviewed by the hearing officer in the local adjudication court, and then making a determination as to whether or not a violation occurred (finding of liability). Contesting in person means that the owner of the vehicle is requesting a court date with the local hearing officer. Citations Analysis: Table 1 below shows the historical percentage of citations approved by the vendor versus those approved by the reviewing police officer. Table 1 Invoice Month Total # Captured Total Red Speed Approved Total PD Approved % PD Approved Total PD Approved over Total # Captured November-10 10,951 1,578 854 54% 8% December-10 10,199 1,719 832 48% 8% January-11 11,406 1,486 778 52% 7% February-11 9,229 920 537 58% 6% March-11 11,216 1,650 1,027 62% 9% April-11 10,943 1,326 780 59% 7% May-11 11,707 969 654 67% 6% June-11 10,843 1,087 712 66% 7% July-11 10,373 1,049 594 57% 6% August-11 11,108 1,286 739 57% 7% September-11 10,553 1,155 656 57% 6% October-11 11,026 1,087 595 55% 5% November-11 10,892 1,513 809 53% 7% December-11 10,626 1,381 1,006 73% 9% January-12 10,643 1,357 935 69% 9% February-12 9,921 1,062 811 76% 8% March-12 10,047 1,102 671 61% 7% April-12 9,902 1,052 591 56% 6% May-12 9,276 884 367 42% 4% June-12 10,295 964 461 48% 4% July-12 8,956 951 424 45% 5% August-12 9,175 964 416 43% 5% September-12 7,251 872 301 35% 4% October-12 9,483 1,350 544 40% 6% November-12 10,217 1,297 553 43% 5% Page 2 of 6 December-12 10,389 1,047 513 49% 5% January-13 9,701 1,461 667 46% 7% February-13 8,465 1,020 427 42% 5% March-13 10,691 1,069 391 37% 4% April-13 14,330 1,100 365 33% 3% May-13 15,478 1,586 758 48% 5% June-13 14,534 1,572 747 48% 5% July-13 15,140 1,772 1,193 67% 8% August-13 15,513 2,001 1,482 74% 10% September-13 13,889 1,598 1,282 80% 9% October-13 14,326 1,817 1,336 74% 9% November-13 12,792 1,578 1,094 69% 9% December-13 12,814 1,652 1,125 68% 9% January-14 10,878 1,309 881 67% 8% February-14 9,710 821 533 65% 5% March-14 13,138 1,352 828 61% 6% April-14 12,081 1,476 1,010 68% 8% May-14 11,106 1,460 949 65% 9% June-14 13,896 1,451 896 62% 6% July-14 10,948 1,289 719 56% 7% August-14 13,534 1,205 686 57% 5% September-14 11,857 1,173 614 52% 5% October-14 12,252 1,151 608 53% 5% November-14 11,556 1,129 545 48% 5% December-14 12,368 1,566 743 47% 6% January-15 11,959 1,217 747 61% 6% February-15 9,541 1,004 454 45% 5% March-15 8,555 1,372 696 51% 8% April-15 9,446 1,885 843 45% 9% May-15 8,382 1,606 833 52% 10% June-15 8,086 1,703 943 55% 12% July-15 10,429 2,239 1,108 49% 11% August-15 8,703 2,732 1,326 49% 15% September-15 8,241 1,859 909 49% 11% October-15 9,025 1,776 871 49% 10% November-15 7,948 1,526 646 42% 8% December-15 8,530 1,697 590 35% 7% January-16 6,254 1,298 519 40% 8% February-16 8,085 1,442 551 38% 7% March-16 9,239 1,763 797 45% 9% April-16 8,299 1,781 751 42% 9% May-16 8,815 1,564 744 48% 8% June-16 9,229 1,844 1,051 57% 11% July-16 8,782 1,647 966 59% 11% August-16 8,338 2,034 1,204 59% 14% September-16 8,422 1,531 1,102 72% 13% Page 3 of 6 October-16 7,596 1,049 841 80% 11% November-16 7,490 1,434 964 67% 13% December-16 8,185 1,236 662 54% 8% January-17 8,260 1,358 789 58% 10% February-17 7,571 1,123 660 59% 9% March-17 8,146 1,260 618 49% 8% April-17 7,775 1,230 666 54% 9% May-17 8,306 1,339 800 60% 10% June-17 8,613 2,159 1,131 52% 13% July-17 8,577 1,609 1,036 64% 12% August-17 9,015 1,906 997 52% 11% Average 2010 to 2017 10,262 1,414 779 55% 8% As you will note in Table 1 above, approximately 55% of the citations forwarded to the City from the vendor are approved by the reviewing police officer. In terms of total violations approved from the overall number captured, approximately 8% are submitted as violations. Additionally, in reviewing the total number of citations issued to Des Plaines residents, the current percentage is 17%. When comparing straight through violations vs. right turn violations, approximately 6% to 10% of the violations recorded and approved are straight through violations and the remainder are right turn violations. Statistical Analysis: The following statistical analysis was performed through 2015. Calendar year 2016 was not included as the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has not yet completed collecting all data. The statistical analysis will be updated annually, as collected data becomes available from IDOT. Average Daily Traffic: Data was obtained from the Illinois Department of Transportation’s website IL Rte. 58 (Golf Rd.) at US Rte. 12 (Rand Rd.) (Northbound/Southbound)  24,500 (2005)  22,800 (2007)  23,600 (2009)  20,600 (2011)  19,000 (2013) IL Rte. 58 (Golf Rd.) at US Rte. 12 (Rand Rd.) (Eastbound/Westbound)  28,700 (2005)  28,900 (2007)  28,300 (2009)  23,700 (2011)  26,000 (2013) Crash History and Analysis: Table 2 below includes crash data obtained from the Illinois Department of Transportation, detailing angle, turning, rear-end, and other type crashes occurring at the intersection pre/post RLR Photo Enforcement System installation. Page 4 of 6 ALL INTERSECTION APPROACHES Table 2 Crashes Rear-End (% of Total) Angle (% of T otal) Turning (% of Total) Other (% of Total) Total 2007 14 58.3% 1 4.2% 6 25.0% 3 12.5% 24 2008 15 75.0% 1 5.0% 4 20.0% 0 0.0% 20 2009 9 81.8% 0 0.0% 2 18.2% 0 0.0% 11 Total: 38 69.1% 2 3.6% 12 21.8% 3 5.5% 55 2007-2009 Average: 12.7 0.7 4.0 1.0 18.3 Table 2 (cont.) RLR Camera Installation 10/27/2010 Crashes Rear-End (% of Total) Angle (% of T otal) Turning (% of Total) Other (% of Total) Total 2010 10 76.9% 0 0.0% 3 23.1% 0 0.0% 13 2011 7 50.0% 0 0.0% 7 50.0% 0 0.0% 14 2012 4 80.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 5 2013 12 60.0% 0 0.0% 8 40.0% 0 0.0% 20 2014 7 58.3% 1 8.3% 4 33.3% 0 0.0% 12 2015 6 42.9% 0 0.0% 6 42.9% 2 14.2% 14 Total: 36 55.4% 1 1.5% 26 40.0% 2 3.1% 65 2011-2015 Average: 7.2 0.2 5.2 0.4 13.0 Table 3 below includes crash data obtained from the Illinois Department of Transportation, detailing angle, turning, rear-end, and other-type crashes occurring at the intersection involving the eastbound and westbound approaches only, pre/post RLR Photo Enforcement System installation. EASTBOUND/WESTBOUND APPROACHES ONLY (PHOTO ENFORCED APPROACHES) Table 3 Crashes Rear-End (% of Total) Angle (% of T otal) Turning (% of Total) Other (% of Total) Total 2007 7 58.3% 1 8.3% 4 33.3% 0 0.0% 12 2008 6 85.7% 0 0.0% 1 14.3% 0 0.0% 7 2009 6 75.0% 0 0.0% 2 25.0% 0 0.0% 8 Total: 19 70.4% 1 3.7% 7 25.9% 0 0.0% 27 2007-2009 Average: 6.3 0.3 2.3 0.0 9.0 RLR Camera Installation 10/27/2010 Crashes Rear-End (% of Total) Angle (% of T otal) Turning (% of Total) Other (% of Total) Total 2010 4 80.0% 0 0.0% 1 20.0% 0 0.0% 5 2011 5 83.3% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0% 6 2012 3 75.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 0 0.0% 4 Page 5 of 6 2013 5 62.5% 0 0.0% 3 37.5% 0 0.0% 8 2014 6 75.0% 1 12.5% 1 12.5% 0 0.0% 8 2015 3 33.3% 0 0.0% 4 44.4% 2 22.2% 9 Total: 22 62.8% 1 2.9% 10 28.6% 2 5.7% 35 2011-2015 Average: 4.4 0.2 2.0 0.4 7.0 Comparison of annual averages shows the total number of crashes decreasing by 29.0% at the intersection for all approaches and by 22.2% on the eastbound and westbound (photo enforced) approaches post-camera installation. Financial Analysis: Table 4 below provides total revenue that has been received by the City from the fines generated by the Red Light Camera. The 2017 data is through August 2017. Table 4 Year City Revenue 2010 28,546.50 2011 416,873.80 2012 372,755.01 2013 494,996.12 2014 613,432.80 2015 673,662.00 2016 695,409.35 2017 439,050.93 Total 3,734,726.51 Recommendation: This information is being provided for discussion purposes only. Page 6 of 6