Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
City Council Packet 2022 09-27-22
AGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, September 27, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville, IL Call to Order: Pledge of Allegiance: Roll Call by Clerk: WARD I WARD II WARD III WARD IV Ken Koch Arden Joe Plocher Chris Funkhouser Seaver Tarulis Dan Transier Craig Soling Matt Marek Jason Peterson Establishment of Quorum: Amendments to Agenda: Presentations: Public Hearings: Citizen Comments on Agenda Items: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the Regular City Council – September 13, 2022 2. Bill Payments for Approval $ 2,173,183.74 (vendors) $ 375,724.56 (payroll period ending 09/16/2022) $ 2,548,908.30 (total) Mayor’s Report: 1. CC 2022-39 Single Axle Dump Truck Purchase 2. CC 2022-40 Blackberry Woods – Performance Guarantee Call 3. CC 2022-41 Proposed 2023 Road to Better Roads Program 4. CC 2022-42 Resolution Authorizing Support and Permission for Inclusion of the Marge Cline Whitewater Course Access Site in the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail 5. CC 2022-43 Treasurer’s Report for August 2022 6. CC 2022-44 2022 Tax Levy Estimate 7. CC 2022-45 Resolution Approving an Amendment to the United City of Yorkville Employee Manual (Drug Free Workplace) United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, Illinois 60560 Telephone: 630-553-4350 www.yorkville.il.us City Council Agenda September 27, 2022 Page 2 Mayor’s Report (cont’d): 8. CC 2022-46 KEH Development Inducement Resolutions a. Resolution to Induce the Redevelopment of Certain Properties within the Yorkville Downtown Redevelopment Project Area (KEH Development, LLC & KEH Development Three, LLC) b. Resolution to Induce the Redevelopment of a Certain Property within the Yorkville Downtown Project Area #2 (KEH Development Two, LLC) 9. CC 2022-47 Park Board Appointment – Jorge Ayala Public Works Committee Report: Economic Development Committee Report: 1. EDC 2022-32 Ordinance Allowing Backyard Coops/Enclosures for Domesticated Hens in Certain Residential Districts as a Permitted Accessory Structure and Subject to Certain Regulations Public Safety Committee Report: Administration Committee Report: Park Board: Planning and Zoning Commission: City Council Report: City Clerk’s Report: Community and Liaison Report: Staff Report: Mayor’s Report (cont’d): 10. CC 2021-04 City Buildings Updates a. Resolution Approving Change Orders Relating to 651 Prairie Pointe Drive, Yorkville, Illinois (Fifth Set of Change Orders) 11. CC 2021-38 Water Study Update Additional Business: Citizen Comments: Executive Session: Adjournment: City Council Agenda September 27, 2022 Page 3 COMMITTEES, MEMBERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ADMINISTRATION: October 19, 2022 – 6:00 p.m. – City Hall Conference Room Committee Departments Liaisons Chairman: Alderman Soling Finance Library Vice-Chairman: Alderman Funkhouser Administration Committee: Alderman Transier Committee: Alderman Tarulis ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: October 4, 2022 – 6:00 p.m. – City Hall Conference Room Committee Departments Liaisons Chairman: Alderman Peterson Community Development Planning & Zoning Commission Vice-Chairman: Alderman Koch Building Safety & Zoning Kendall Co. Plan Commission Committee: Alderman Plocher Committee: Alderman Funkhouser PUBLIC SAFETY: November 3, 2022 – 6:00 p.m. – City Hall Conference Room Committee Departments Liaisons Chairman: Alderman Transier Police School District Vice-Chairman: Alderman Tarulis Committee: Alderman Soling Committee: Alderman Marek PUBLIC WORKS: October 18, 2022 – 6:00 p.m. – City Hall Conference Room Committee Departments Liaisons Chairman: Alderman Marek Public Works Park Board Vice-Chairman: Alderman Plocher Engineering YBSD Committee: Alderman Koch Parks and Recreation Committee: Alderman Peterson UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE WORKSHEET CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, September 27, 2022 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONSENT AGENDA: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Minutes of the Regular City Council – September 13, 2022 □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Bill Payments for Approval □ Approved ________ □ As presented □ As amended □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR’S REPORT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CC 2022-39 Single Axle Dump Truck Purchase □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. CC 2022-40 Blackberry Woods – Performance Guarantee Call □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. CC 2022-41 Proposed 2023 Road to Better Roads Program □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. CC 2022-42 Resolution Authorizing Support and Permission for Inclusion of the Marge Cline Whitewater Course Access Site in the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. CC 2022-43 Treasurer’s Report for August 2022 □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. CC 2022-44 2022 Tax Levy Estimate □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. CC 2022-45 Resolution Approving an Amendment to the United City of Yorkville Employee Manual (Drug Free Workplace) □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. CC 2022-46 KEH Development Inducement Resolutions a. Resolution to Induce the Redevelopment of Certain Properties within the Yorkville Downtown Redevelopment Project Area (KEH Development, LLC & KEH Development Three, LLC) □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ b. Resolution to Induce the Redevelopment of a Certain Property within the Yorkville Downtown Redevelopment Project Area #2 (KEH Development Two, LLC) □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. CC 2022-47 Park Board Appointment – Jorge Ayala □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. EDC 2022-32 Ordinance Allowing Backyard Coops/Enclosures for Domesticated Hens in Certain Residential Districts as a Permitted Accessory Structure and Subject to Certain Regulations □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR’S REPORT (CONT’D): ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. CC 2021-04 City Buildings Updates a. Resolution Approving Change Orders Relating to 651 Prairie Pointe Drive, Yorkville, Illinois (Fifth Set of Change Orders) □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. CC 2021-38 Water Study Update □ Approved: Y ______ N ______ □ Subject to __________________________________________ □ Removed ________________________________________________________________________ □ Notes _____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITIZEN COMMENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Consent Agenda #1 Tracking Number Minutes of the Regular City Council – September 13, 2022 City Council – September 27, 2022 Majority Approval Approval of Minutes Jori Behland Administration Name Department DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 800 GAME FARM ROAD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 Mayor Purcell called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Purcell stated that he has determined that under the Governor’s orders the meeting can be held with electronic attendance for the safety of the council members and the public and to help prevent the spread of the coronavirus. ROLL CALL City Clerk Behland called the roll. Ward I Koch Present (electronic attendance) Transier Present Ward II Plocher Present Soling Present Ward III Funkhouser Present Marek Present Ward IV Tarulis Present Peterson Present Staff in attendance at City Hall: City Clerk Behland, City Administrator Olson, Chief of Police Jensen, Attorney Orr, Public Works Director Dhuse, Community Development Director Barksdale-Noble, Finance Director Fredrickson, Parks and Recreation Director Evans, Assistant City Administrator Willrett, Facilities Manager Raasch, and EEI Engineer Sanderson. Clerk’s Note: Due to COVID-19, in accordance with Public Act 101-0640 and Gubernatorial Disaster Proclamation issued by Governor Pritzker pursuant to the powers vested in the Governor under the Illinois Emergency Management Act, the United City of Yorkville encouraged social distancing by allowing remote attendance to the City Council meeting. Members of the public were able to attend this meeting in person while practicing social distancing as well as being able to access the meeting remotely via Zoom which allowed for video, audio, and telephonic participation. A meeting notice was posted on the City’s website on the agenda, minutes, and packets webpage with instructions regarding remote meeting access and a link was included for the public to participate in the meeting remotely: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86493344140?pwd=YXk0WVl1S0MvVmJjcUZLbkFicnpJUT09. The Zoom meeting ID was 864 9334 4140. QUORUM A quorum was established. AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA None. PRESENTATIONS Sale of Old Post Office – 201 W. Hydraulic Street RFP Opening Mayor Purcell reported that the City did not receive any requests for proposals for the sale of the old post office. Mayor Purcell shared the City will continue to use the building as is. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. CITIZEN COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS None. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of the Regular City Council – August 9, 2022 2. Minutes of the Regular City Council – August 23, 2022 3. Bill Payments for Approval The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council – September 13, 2022 – Page 2 of 4 $ 1,225,748.45 (vendors) $ 151,981.12 (wire payments) $ 420,994.25 (payroll period ending 08/19/2022) $ 351,061.95 (payroll period ending 09/02/2022) $ 2,149,785.77 (total) 4. Ordinance 2022-36 Approving a Redevelopment Agreement by and between the United City of Yorkville and the Williams Group, LLC (Fox Republic Brewing) – authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute (EDC 2022-58) Mayor Purcell entertained a motion to approve the consent agenda. So moved by Alderman Funkhouser; seconded by Alderman Plocher. Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-8 Nays-0 Koch-aye, Plocher-aye, Funkhouser-aye, Tarulis-aye, Transier-aye, Soling-aye, Marek-aye, Peterson-aye REPORTS MAYOR’S REPORT Sale of Old Post Office – 201 W. Hydraulic Street (ARC Building) Request for Proposals (CC 2022-22) Mayor Purcell stated again that there were no proposals to open. Alderman Funkhouser asked if there was anyone interested. Mayor Purcell shared that Lynn Dubjaic had reached out to many people who had an interest in the building in the past, but no one had submitted a proposal. National Suicide Prevention + Action Month Proclamation (CC 2022-36) Mayor Purcell proclaimed the month of September as National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month in the United City of Yorkville (see attached). Constitution Week Proclamation (CC 2022-37) Mayor Purcell proclaimed September 17 - 23, 2022, as Constitution Week in the United City of Yorkville (see attached). IL Rt 47 and Van Emmon Intersection Traffic Signal Repair (CC 2022-38) Mayor Purcell entertained a motion to approve the quote from Meade Electric in the amount not to exceed $42,646 for the repair of damage done to the conduit under Rt. 47 at Van Emmon Street traffic signal. So moved by Alderman Marek; seconded by Alderman Tarulis. Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-8 Nays-0 Plocher-aye, Funkhouser-aye, Tarulis-aye, Transier-aye, Soling-aye, Marek-aye, Peterson-aye, Koch-aye PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE REPORT No report. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPORT No report. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE REPORT No report. ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE REPORT No report. PARK BOARD Preschool Partnership Parks and Recreation Director Evans reported the preschool partnership started this week. Yorkville StoryWalk The StoryWalk unveiling is scheduled for September 27th from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Heartland Park. The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council – September 13, 2022 – Page 3 of 4 Pickleball Court The pickleball court may be open later this week. Yorktoberfest Yorktoberfest will be on Friday, September 30th and Saturday, October 1st at the east side of Riverfront Park. This event will have multiple bands and food. The Parks and Recreation Department will be hosting family activities. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION No report. CITY COUNCIL REPORT No report. CITY CLERK’S REPORT No report. COMMUNITY & LIAISON REPORT Yorkville Bristol Sanitary District Alderman Soling reported there had been no monkeypox detected during their testing. He also shared the smoke testing should start in the next few weeks. Aurora Area Convention and Visitors Bureau Alderman Funkhouser reported that the AACVB wrapped up their annual budget and is ahead of what they anticipated. They have also noticed tourism numbers are going back up. KenCom Alderman Funkhouser reported the KenCom cameras are scheduled to start going live, and locations have been determined. There are ten cameras, but not all are active at this time. Kiwanis Club of Yorkville Alderman Funkhouser shared Kiwanis Club of Yorkville awarded $10,000 scholarships to six students from Yorkville. As a reminder, Yorktoberfest proceeds will go to the Kiwanis Club of Yorkville Illinois Foundation. STAFF REPORT No report. MAYOR’S REPORT (cont’d) City Building Updates Resolution 2022-35 Approving Change Orders Relating to 651 Prairie Pointe Drive, Yorkville, Illinois (Fourth Set of Change Orders) (CC 2021-04) Mayor Purcell entertained a motion to approve a Resolution Approving Change Orders Relating to 651 Prairie Pointe Drive, Yorkville, Illinois (Fourth Set of Change Orders) and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute. So moved by Alderman Peterson; seconded by Alderman Plocher. Motion approved by a roll call vote. Ayes-8 Nays-0 Funkhouser-aye, Tarulis-aye, Transier-aye, Soling-aye, Marek-aye, Peterson-aye, Koch-aye, Plocher-aye Water Study Update (CC 2021-38) City Administrator Olson reported the preliminary engineering items and location discussions have been taking place. The formal hearing is scheduled via zoom for October 10th. The property for the public works facility is set to close sometime in October. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS None. CITIZEN COMMENTS Darrin Peterson, Molly Krempski, Mike Krempski, Fred Dusell, and David Nigel addressed the Council separately to share their concerns about restaurants within the City holding drag shows. They believe these performances should be considered adult entertainment businesses and should be held to those regulations. The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the City Council – September 13, 2022 – Page 4 of 4 EXECUTIVE SESSION None. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Purcell entertained a motion to adjourn the City Council meeting. So moved by Alderman Peterson; seconded by Alderman Transier. Motion unanimously approved by a viva voce vote. Meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m. Minutes submitted by: Jori Behland, City Clerk, City of Yorkville, Illinois Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Consent Agenda #2 Tracking Number Bills for Payment City Council – September 27, 2022 Majority Approval Amy Simmons Finance Name Department 01-110 ADMINISTRATION01-120 FINANCE01-210 POLICE01-220 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT01-410 STREETS OPERATION01-640 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES01-111 FOX HILL SSA 01-112 SUNFLOWER ESTATES 15-155 MOTOR FUEL TAX23-216 MUNICIPAL BUILDING23-230 CITY-WIDE CAPITAL 24-216 BUILDING & GROUNDS25-205 POLICE CAPITAL25-215 PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL 25-225 PARK & REC CAPITAL 42-420 DEBT SERVICE51-510 WATER OPERATIONS52-520 SEWER OPERATIONS72-720 LAND CASH79-790 PARKS DEPARTMENT 79-795 RECREATION DEPARTMENT 82-820 LIBRARY OPERATIONS 84-840 LIBRARAY CAPITAL 87-870 COUNTRYSIDE TIF88-880 DOWNTOWN TIF89-890 DOWNTOWN TIF II90-XXX DEVELOPER ESCROW950-XXX ESCROW DEPOSITDATE: 09/13/22UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLETIME: 10:52:34MANUAL CHECK REGISTERID: AP225000.WOWCHECK # VENDOR # INVOICE ITEMCHECKINVOICE #DATE# DESCRIPTIONDATE ACCOUNT #ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------131204 KCR KENDALL COUNTY RECORDER'S 09/02/2213497509/02/22 01 ORDINANCE APPROVING AN01-220-54-00-546267.0002 AMENDMENT TO THE YORKVILLE** COMMENT **03 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:67.00 *CHECK TOTAL:67.00TOTAL AMOUNT PAID:67.00Page 1 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537297 AACVB AURORA AREA CONVENTION05/22-HOLIDAY 08/31/22 01 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL TAX-MAY 2022 01-640-54-00-5481 5,402.48INVOICE TOTAL: 5,402.48 *06/22-HOLIDAY 08/31/22 01 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL TAX-JUN 2022 01-640-54-00-5481 6,045.68INVOICE TOTAL: 6,045.68 *07/22-HOLIDAY 08/31/22 01 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL TAX-JUL 2022 01-640-54-00-5481 7,709.61INVOICE TOTAL: 7,709.61 *08/22-ALL 09/07/22 01 ALL SEASON HOTEL TAX-AUG 2022 01-640-54-00-5481 85.23INVOICE TOTAL: 85.23 *CHECK TOTAL: 19,243.00537298 ALLNUISA ALL NUISANCE TRAPPING CO.279208/31/22 01 REC OFFICE BAT REMOVAL79-795-54-00-5495450.00INVOICE TOTAL:450.00 *CHECK TOTAL:450.00537299 ALLREDP PARKER ALLREDAUG 27-SEPT 1009/14/22 01 UMPIRE79-795-54-00-546250.00INVOICE TOTAL:50.00 *CHECK TOTAL:50.00D002661 ANTPLACE ANTHONY PLACE YORKVILLE LPOCT 202209/10/22 01 CITY OF YORKVILLE HOUSING 01-640-54-00-5427835.0002 ASSISTANCE PROGRAM RENT** COMMENT **03 REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE MONTH OF ** COMMENT **04 OCT 2022** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:835.00 *DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL:835.00Page 2 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537300 ASHMOREE EARL ASHMORE091022 09/10/22 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 70.00INVOICE TOTAL: 70.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 70.00537301 ATLAS ATLAS BOBCATBW492208/20/22 01 CHAIN TRANSPORTS01-410-56-00-5628169.98INVOICE TOTAL:169.98 *CHECK TOTAL:169.98537302 ATTAT&T6305536805-082208/25/22 01 08/25-09/24 RIVERFRONT PARK 79-795-54-00-5440245.58INVOICE TOTAL:245.58 *CHECK TOTAL:245.58537303 BARONA ALEXANDER JAMES BARONAUG 27-SEPT 1009/14/22 01 UMPIRE79-795-54-00-5462100.00INVOICE TOTAL:100.00 *CHECK TOTAL:100.00537304 BEEBED DAVID BEEBEAUG 27-SEPT 1009/14/22 01 UMPIRE79-795-54-00-5462130.00INVOICE TOTAL:130.00 *CHECK TOTAL:130.00537305 BEYERD DWAYNE F BEYERPage 3 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537305 BEYERD DWAYNE F BEYER082522 08/25/22 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 160.00INVOICE TOTAL: 160.00 *090822 09/08/22 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 160.00INVOICE TOTAL: 160.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 320.00537306 BFCONSTR B&F CONSTRUCTION CODE SERVICES16408 09/08/22 01 JUNE 2022 INSPECTIONS 01-220-54-00-5459 9,800.00INVOICE TOTAL: 9,800.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 9,800.00537307 BLAKEW WILLIAM BLAKEAUG 27-SEPT 10 09/14/22 01 UMPIRE 79-795-54-00-5462 260.00INVOICE TOTAL: 260.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 260.00537308 BRENNANL LEO BRENNANAUG 27-SEPT 10 09/14/22 01 UMPIRE 79-795-54-00-5462 195.00INVOICE TOTAL: 195.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 195.00537309 CALLONE PEERLESS NETWORK, iNC55663709/15/22 01 09/15-10/14 ADMIN LINES01-110-54-00-54401,207.7702 09/15-10/14 POLICE LINES01-210-54-00-5440451.8603 09/15-10/14 CITY HALL FIRE 01-210-54-00-54401,465.66Page 4 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537309 CALLONEPEERLESS NETWORK, INC55663709/15/22 04 09/15-10/14 CITY HALL FIRE 01-110-54-00-54401,465.6605 09/15-10/14 PW LINES51-510-54-00-54404,220.2606 09/15-10/14 SEWER DEPT. LINES 52-520-54-00-5440431.6007 09/15-10/14 RECREATION LINES 79-795-54-00-5440395.8908 09/15-10/14 TRAFFIC SIGNAL 01-410-54-00-543567.9109 MAINTENANCE** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:9,706.61 *CHECK TOTAL:9,706.61537310 COMED COMMONWEALTH EDISON0091033126-082208/29/22 01 07/29-08/29 RT34 & AUTUMN CRK 23-230-54-00-5482124.97INVOICE TOTAL:124.97 *1647065335-082208/29/22 01 07/29-08/29 SARAVANOS PUMP 52-520-54-00-548051.06INVOICE TOTAL:51.06 *6819027011-082209/01/22 01 07/27-08/26 PR BUILDINGS79-795-54-00-5480659.54INVOICE TOTAL:659.54 *CHECK TOTAL:835.57537311 COREMAIN CORE & MAIN LPR28040808/11/22 01 LEATHER FACING, VALVE SCREWS, 51-510-56-00-5664372.6502 SHOE GASKETS, O RINGS, VALVES ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:372.65 *CHECK TOTAL:372.65537312 COXLAND COX LANDSCAPING LLC19190309/06/22 01 SUNFLOWER LANDSCAPING-AUG 2022 12-112-54-00-5495500.00INVOICE TOTAL:500.00 *Page 5 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537312 COXLAND COX LANDSCAPING LLC191904 09/06/22 01 FOX HILL LANDSCAPING -AUG 2022 11-111-54-00-5495 661.25INVOICE TOTAL: 661.25 *CHECK TOTAL: 1,161.25537313 DIRENRGY DIRECT ENERGY BUSINESS1704705-222410049873 08/29/22 01 07/27-08/24 KENNEDY & MCHUGH 23-230-54-00-5482 12.26INVOICE TOTAL: 12.26 *1704706-222450049905 09/02/22 01 08/01-08/29 RT34 & BEECHER 23-230-54-00-5482 16.04INVOICE TOTAL: 16.04 *1704708-222420049877 08/30/22 01 07/28-08/25 1850 MARKETVIEW 23-230-54-00-5482 10.76INVOICE TOTAL: 10.76 *1704709-222420049877 08/30/22 01 07/28-08/25 7 COUNTRYSIDE PKWY 23-230-54-00-5482 18.51INVOICE TOTAL: 18.51 *1704710-222410049873 08/29/22 01 07/27-08/24 VAN EMMON LOT 01-110-54-00-5480 8.07INVOICE TOTAL: 8.07 *1704714-222420049877 08/30/22 01 07/28-08/25 MCHUGH RD 23-230-54-00-5482 12.55INVOICE TOTAL: 12.55 *1704716-222420049877 08/30/22 01 07/28-08/26 1 COUNTRYSIDE PKWY 23-230-54-00-5482 37.66INVOICE TOTAL: 37.66 *1704718-222500049925 09/07/22 01 08/04-09/02 RT34 & CANNONBALL 23-230-54-00-5482 10.23INVOICE TOTAL: 10.23 *1704719-222380049857 08/26/22 01 07/25-08/23 LEASURE & SUNSET 23-230-54-00-5482 112.84INVOICE TOTAL: 112.84 *1704721-222420049877 08/30/22 01 07/28-08/25 610 TOWER WELLS 51-510-54-00-5480 3,152.46INVOICE TOTAL: 3,152.46 *Page 6 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537313 DIRENRGY DIRECT ENERGY BUSINESS1704722-222420049877 08/30/22 01 08/01-08/24 2921 BRISTOL RDGE 51-510-54-00-5480 1,767.39INVOICE TOTAL: 1,767.39 *1704723-222420049877 08/30/22 01 07/27-08/24 2224 TREMONT 51-510-54-00-5480 3,676.29INVOICE TOTAL: 3,676.29 *CHECK TOTAL: 8,835.06537314 DOORS DOORS BY RUSS, INC.223190 08/23/22 01 REPLACED CABLES ON DOOR #8 24-216-54-00-5446 125.00INVOICE TOTAL: 125.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 125.00537315 DYNEGY DYNEGY ENERGY SERVICES386643522081 08/29/22 01 06/28-07/27 420 FAIRHAVEN 52-520-54-00-5480 55.8602 06/29-07/28 6780 RT47 51-510-54-00-5480 24.8403 07/27-08/24 456 KENNEDY 51-510-54-00-5480 32.5204 07/13-08/10 4600 BRIDGE 51-510-54-00-5480 25.3905 07/26-08/23 1106 PRAIRIE CR 52-520-54-00-5480 49.5606 07/27-08/24 301 E HYDRAULIC 79-795-54-00-5480 26.4307 06/30-07/31 FOXHILL 7 LIFT 52-520-54-00-5480 37.1508 07/26-08/23 872 PRAIRIE CR 79-795-54-00-5480 26.8809 07/13-08/10 GALENA PARK 79-795-54-00-5480 25.9710 06/28-07/27 101 BRUELL ST 52-520-54-00-5480 115.4811 07/26-08/23 1908 RAINTREE 51-510-54-00-5480 62.8312 07/27-08/24 PRERSTWICK LIFT 52-520-54-00-5480 78.1813 07/27-08/24 1991 CANNONBALL TR 51-510-54-00-5480 91.2914 06/28-07/27 610 TOWER 51-510-54-00-5480 104.8515 07/27-08/24 276 WINDHAM LIFT 52-520-54-00-5480 68.3116 07/27-08/24 133 E HYDRAULIC 79-795-54-00-5480 42.8317 06/28-07/27 1975 BRIDGE LIFT 52-520-54-00-5480 90.96INVOICE TOTAL: 959.33 *CHECK TOTAL: 959.33Page 7 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537316 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.74946 08/26/22 01 UTILITY PERMIT REVIEWS 01-640-54-00-5465 1,800.00INVOICE TOTAL: 1,800.00 *74947 08/26/22 01 GRANDE RESERVE - AVANTI 01-640-54-00-5465 727.00INVOICE TOTAL: 727.00 *74948 08/26/22 01 PRESTWICK 01-640-54-00-5465 7,129.25INVOICE TOTAL: 7,129.25 *74949 08/26/22 01 BLACKBERRY WOODS-PHASE B 01-640-54-00-5465 245.50INVOICE TOTAL: 245.50 *74950 08/26/22 01 KENDALL MARKETPLACE 01-640-54-00-5465 909.7502 RESIDENTIAL ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 909.75 *74951 08/26/22 01 GRANDE RESERVE-UNIT 23 01-640-54-00-5465 2,284.75INVOICE TOTAL: 2,284.75 *74952 08/26/22 01 GRANDE RESERVE-UNIT 8 01-640-54-00-5465 2,919.50INVOICE TOTAL: 2,919.50 *74953 08/26/22 01 WINDETT RIDGE-UNIT 2 90-048-48-00-0111 3,183.45INVOICE TOTAL: 3,183.45 *74954 08/26/22 01 STORM WATER BASIN INSPECTIONS 01-640-54-00-5465 6,328.00INVOICE TOTAL: 6,328.00 *74955 08/26/22 01 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 01-640-54-00-5465 456.00INVOICE TOTAL: 456.00 *74956 08/26/22 01 GAS-N-WASH 90-144-00-00-0111 451.00INVOICE TOTAL: 451.00 *74957 08/26/22 01 GRANDE RESERVE-UNITS 26 & 27 90-147-00-00-0111 844.00INVOICE TOTAL: 844.00 *Page 8 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537316 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.74958 08/26/22 01 BEAVER ST PUMP STATION 51-510-60-00-6060 1,760.5002 IMPROVEMENTS ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 1,760.50 *74959 08/26/22 01 2021 SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT 23-230-60-00-6041 434.2502 PROGRAM ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 434.25 *74960 08/26/22 01 2021 ROAD PROGRAM 23-230-60-00-6025 1,168.25INVOICE TOTAL: 1,168.25 *74961 08/26/22 01 GRANDE RESERVE-UNITS 15 & 22 01-640-54-00-5465 3,196.00INVOICE TOTAL: 3,196.00 *74962 08/26/22 01 FOX HILL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS 23-230-54-00-5465 3,428.46INVOICE TOTAL: 3,428.46 *CHECK TOTAL: 37,265.66537317 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.74963 08/26/22 01 KENNEDY & MILL RD INTERSECTION 23-230-60-00-6088 13,154.2502 IMPROVEMENTS ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 13,154.25 *CHECK TOTAL: 13,154.25537318 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.7496408/26/22 01 YBSD SOLIDS HANDLING01-640-54-00-5465205.0002 IMPROVEMENTS** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:205.00 *7496508/26/22 01 GRANDE RESERVE-UNIT 2001-640-54-00-54655,044.75INVOICE TOTAL:5,044.75 *Page 9 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537318 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.74966 08/26/22 01 GRANDE RESERVE-UNIT 13 & 14 01-640-54-00-5465 1,619.50INVOICE TOTAL: 1,619.50 *74967 08/26/22 01 MILL RD RECONSTUCTION-PHS 111 23-230-60-00-6012 3,767.50INVOICE TOTAL: 3,767.50 *74968 08/26/22 01 BRIGHT FARMS 90-173-00-00-0111 9,164.00INVOICE TOTAL: 9,164.00 *74969 08/26/22 01 CANNONBALL TR IMPROVEMENTS 01-640-54-00-5465 114.00INVOICE TOTAL: 114.00 *74970 08/26/22 01 WELL #4 REHAB 51-510-60-00-6060 2,927.50INVOICE TOTAL: 2,927.50 *74971 08/26/22 01 E. MAIN ST IMPROVEMENTS 51-510-60-00-6025 11,570.25INVOICE TOTAL: 11,570.25 *74972 08/26/22 01 GRANDE RESERVE-TUSCANY TRAIL 01-640-54-00-5465 611.75INVOICE TOTAL: 611.75 *74973 08/26/22 01 KENDALLWOOD ESTATES-RALLY 90-174-00-00-0111 11,023.25INVOICE TOTAL: 11,023.25 *74974 08/26/22 01 WELL MONITORING DASHBOARDS 01-640-54-00-5465 2,287.50INVOICE TOTAL: 2,287.50 *74975 08/26/22 01 CHIPOTLE-444 E VETERANS PKWY 90-177-00-00-0111 734.75INVOICE TOTAL: 734.75 *74976 08/26/22 01 NORTH CENTRAL EWST REHAB 01-640-54-00-5465 729.00INVOICE TOTAL: 729.00 *74977 08/26/22 01 2022 ROAD PROGRAM 23-230-60-00-6025 2,790.75INVOICE TOTAL: 2,790.75 *Page 10 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537318 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.74978 08/26/22 01 LOT 8, YORKVILLE BUSINESS 90-176-00-00-0111 513.5002 CENTER ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 513.50 *74979 08/26/22 01 1735 MARKETVIEW-BELLE TIRE 90-175-00-00-0111 2,558.50INVOICE TOTAL: 2,558.50 *CHECK TOTAL: 55,661.50537319 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.7498008/26/22 01 CORNEILS RD INTERCEPTOR SEWER 52-520-60-00-609220,068.99INVOICE TOTAL:20,068.99 *CHECK TOTAL:20,068.99537320 EEIENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.7498108/26/22 01 CITY OF YORKVILLE-GENERAL 01-640-54-00-54652,122.50INVOICE TOTAL:2,122.50 *7498208/26/22 01 MUNICIPAL ENGINEERING SERVICES 01-640-54-00-54651,900.00INVOICE TOTAL:1,900.00 *7498308/26/22 01 BRISTOL BAY UNIT 3 RESUB90-179-00-00-01111,421.50INVOICE TOTAL:1,421.50 *7498408/26/22 01 BRISTOL BAY UNIT 1390-179-00-00-011127,156.50INVOICE TOTAL:27,156.50 *7498508/26/22 01 1789 MARKETVIEW DR SITE90-182-00-00-0111772.0002 IMPROVEMENTS** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:772.00 *7498608/26/22 01 GRAHAM C STORES90-183-00-00-01112,169.75INVOICE TOTAL:2,169.75 *Page 11 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537320 EEI ENGINEERING ENTERPRISES, INC.74987 08/26/22 01 LINCOLN PRAIRIE-JLL 90-191-00-00-0111 1,140.00INVOICE TOTAL: 1,140.00 *74988 08/26/22 01 2023 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT 51-510-60-00-6025 11,311.47INVOICE TOTAL: 11,311.47 *74989 08/26/22 01 CALEDONIA UNIT 3 90-188-00-00-0111 1,399.00INVOICE TOTAL: 1,399.00 *74990 08/26/22 01 GENERAL LAKE MICHIGAN/DWC 01-640-54-00-5465 285.0002 COORDINATION ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 285.00 *74991 08/26/22 01 BRISTOL BAY UNIT 10 90-186-00-00-0111 1,732.00INVOICE TOTAL: 1,732.00 *74992 08/26/22 01 GRANDE RESERVE UNIT 4 01-640-54-00-5465 6,781.50INVOICE TOTAL: 6,781.50 *74993 08/26/22 01 LAKE MICHIGAN 51-510-60-00-6011 10,777.0602 CONNECTION-PRELIMINARY ** COMMENT **03 ENGINEERING ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 10,777.06 *74994 08/26/22 01 2022 NPDES MS4 ANNUAL REPORT 01-640-54-00-5465 199.50INVOICE TOTAL: 199.50 *74995 08/26/22 01 RESTORE CHURCH-PARKING LOT 90-121-00-00-0111 1,788.0002 EXPANSION ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 1,788.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 70,955.78537321 EVINST W. THOMAS EVINSPage 12 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537321 EVINST W. THOMAS EVINS082722 08/27/22 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 70.00INVOICE TOTAL: 70.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 70.00537322 FIRSTNON FIRST NONPROFIT UNEMPLOYEMENT122719N-07052207/05/22 01 2022 3RD QTR UNEMPLOY INS 01-640-52-00-52303,598.7602 2022 3RD QTR UNEMPLOY INS-P 01-640-52-00-5230911.9703 2022 3RD QTR UNEMPLOY INS 82-820-52-00-5230280.6104 2022 3RD QTR UNEMPLOY INS 51-510-52-00-5230444.0605 2022 3RD QTR UNEMPLOY INS 52-520-52-00-5230233.60INVOICE TOTAL:5,469.00 *CHECK TOTAL:5,469.00537323 FLEEPRID FLEETPRIDE10179836308/23/22 01 PIGGYBACK KIT01-410-56-00-5628109.98INVOICE TOTAL:109.98 *10193537408/29/22 01 CHAMBER01-410-56-00-5628224.00INVOICE TOTAL:224.00 *CHECK TOTAL:333.98537324 FOXVALLE FOX VALLEY TROPHY & AWARDS3706508/29/22 01 2022 HTD PINEWOOD DERBY79-795-56-00-5602137.0002 TROPHIES** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:137.00 *CHECK TOTAL:137.00537325 GARDKOCH GARDINER KOCH & WEISBERGPage 13 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537325 GARDKOCH GARDINER KOCH & WEISBERGH-2364C-10670 09/10/22 01 KIMBALL HILL I MATTER 01-640-54-00-5461 9,520.55INVOICE TOTAL: 9,520.55 *CHECK TOTAL: 9,520.55537326 GENEVA GENEVA CONSTRUCTION60169 09/02/22 01 ENGINEER'S PAYMENT ESTIMATE #3 15-155-60-00-6025 942,889.5902 2022 ROAD PROGRAM ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:942,889.59 *6017809/13/22 01 ENGINEERS PAYMENT ESTIMATE #2 23-230-60-00-608886,277.2502 KENNEDY AND MILL RD** COMMENT **03 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:86,277.25 *CHECK TOTAL:1,029,166.84537327 GRIFFINC COLIN GRIFFINAUG 27-SEPT 1009/14/22 01 UMPIRE79-795-54-00-546250.00INVOICE TOTAL:50.00 *CHECK TOTAL:50.00537328 GROOT GROOT INC9360147T10209/01/22 01 AUG 2022 REFUSE SERVICE01-540-54-00-5442128,805.0002 AUG 2022 SR. REFUSE SERVICE 01-540-54-00-54413,505.75INVOICE TOTAL:132,310.75 *CHECK TOTAL:132,310.75537329 HACHHACH COMPANYPage 14 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537329 HACH HACH COMPANY13213161 08/25/22 01 HARDNESS TESTING SOLUTION 51-510-56-00-5638 71.91INVOICE TOTAL: 71.91 *13216823 08/26/22 01 BUFFER SOLUTION 51-510-56-00-5638 72.21INVOICE TOTAL: 72.21 *CHECK TOTAL: 144.12537330 HARRIS HARRIS COMPUTER SYSTEMSMSIXT0000286 08/31/22 01 MYGOVHUB FEES-AUG 2022 01-120-54-00-5462 101.1402 MYGOVHUB FEES-AUG 2022 51-510-54-00-5462 152.6403 MYGOVHUB FEES-AUG 2022 52-520-54-00-5462 44.05INVOICE TOTAL: 297.83 *CHECK TOTAL: 297.83537331 HIFIEVEN HI FI EVENTS, INC.YHD090222 09/11/22 01 HTD ADDITIONAL STAGE EQUIPMENT 79-795-56-00-5602 1,400.0002 NEEDED FOR CHRISTIAN BANDS ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 1,400.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 1,400.00537332 HUITROND DIEGO HUITRAN091022 09/10/22 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 160.00INVOICE TOTAL: 160.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 160.00537333 ILLCO ILLCO, INC.140411108/11/22 01 THERM W/WELL24-216-56-00-5656266.00INVOICE TOTAL:266.00 *CHECK TOTAL:266.00Page 15 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537334 IMPACT IMPACT NETWORKING, LLC2673956 08/31/22 01 AUG 2022 COPY CHARGES 79-795-54-00-5462 94.5002 AUG 2022 COPY CHARGES 79-790-54-00-5462 94.5003 AUG 2022 COPY CHARGES 01-110-54-00-5430 91.9104 AUG 2022 COPY CHARGES 01-120-54-00-5430 30.6405 AUG 2022 COPY CHARGES 01-220-54-00-5430 111.3506 AUG 2022 COPY CHARGES01-410-54-00-54621.8007 AUG 2022 COPY CHARGES51-510-54-00-54301.8008 AUG 2022 COPY CHARGES52-520-54-00-54301.8009 AUG 2022 COPY CHARGES01-210-54-00-543086.28INVOICE TOTAL:514.58 *CHECK TOTAL:514.58537335 INTERDEV INTERDEV, LLCMSP103498108/31/22 01 MONTHLY IT BILLING-AUG 2022 01-640-54-00-54508,302.91INVOICE TOTAL:8,302.91 *CHECK TOTAL:8,302.91537336 JIMSTRCK JIM'S TRUCK INSPECTION LLC19314308/30/22 01 TRUCK INSPECTION01-410-54-00-549037.00INVOICE TOTAL:37.00 *CHECK TOTAL:37.00537337 JOHNSONG GREGORY JOHNSONAUG 27-SEPT 1009/14/22 01 UMPIRE79-795-54-00-5462130.00INVOICE TOTAL:130.00 *CHECK TOTAL:130.00537338 KLEMMA AARON KLEMMPage 16 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537338 KLEMMA AARON KLEMMAUG 27-SEPT 10 09/14/22 01 UMPIRE 79-795-54-00-5462 210.00INVOICE TOTAL: 210.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 210.00537339 KOZIALB BENJAMIN KOZIALAUG 27-SEPT 10 09/14/22 01 UMPIRE 79-795-54-00-5462 85.00INVOICE TOTAL: 85.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 85.00537340 LOHERL LIAM LOHERAUG 27-SEPT 10 09/14/22 01 UMPIRE 79-795-54-00-5462 175.00INVOICE TOTAL: 175.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 175.00537341 MENINC MENARDS INC073122-STREBATE 09/15/22 01 MAY-JUL 2022 SALES TAX REBATE 01-640-54-00-5492 89,607.53INVOICE TOTAL: 89,607.53 *CHECK TOTAL: 89,607.53537342 MENLAND MENARDS - YORKVILLE48742 07/21/22 01 PAINT 24-216-56-00-5656 31.96INVOICE TOTAL: 31.96 *50058 08/05/22 01 BATTERIES 51-510-56-00-5665 18.74INVOICE TOTAL: 18.74 *50301 08/08/22 01 DOWNSPOUTS, ELBOWS, FUEL 24-216-56-00-5656 48.22Page 17 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537342 MENLAND MENARDS - YORKVILLE50301 08/08/22 02 PREMIX ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 48.22 *50395 08/09/22 01 PAINT BRUSHES 51-510-56-00-5640 9.98INVOICE TOTAL: 9.98 *50426 08/09/22 01 FUEL PREMIX, RATCHETS 51-510-56-00-5620 48.55INVOICE TOTAL: 48.55 *50473 08/10/22 01 COUNTERTOPS, TOILET CLEANER 24-216-56-00-5656 399.39INVOICE TOTAL: 399.39 *50480 08/10/22 01 SAW BLADE, PAINTERS TAPE 01-410-56-00-5620 22.92INVOICE TOTAL: 22.92 *50556-22 08/11/22 01 DUCT TAPE 51-510-56-00-5620 9.64INVOICE TOTAL: 9.64 *50561-22 08/11/22 01 MOD PLUGS 24-216-56-00-5656 17.93INVOICE TOTAL: 17.93 *50579 08/11/22 01 SWITCHBOX, CONNECTORS, BOX 24-216-56-00-5656 6.7902 COVER ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 6.79 *50928 08/16/22 01 PAINT CAN SPOUT, PAINT PAILS, 51-510-56-00-5640 47.8902 BRUSH ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 47.89 *51005 08/17/22 01 SAFETY PAINT 51-510-56-00-5640 45.98INVOICE TOTAL: 45.98 *51472-22 08/23/22 01 BLEACH, DIEDEL EXHAUST FLUID 52-520-56-00-5620 107.52INVOICE TOTAL: 107.52 *Page 18 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537342 MENLAND MENARDS - YORKVILLE51506 08/23/22 01 PLYWOOD 01-410-56-00-5620 30.82INVOICE TOTAL: 30.82 *51644 08/25/22 01 STRAW, LEAF RAKES 01-410-56-00-5640 83.94INVOICE TOTAL: 83.94 *51655 08/25/22 01 BLOW GUN, PLUG BRAS 51-510-56-00-5620 6.98INVOICE TOTAL: 6.98 *51656 08/25/22 01 CLEVIS, E RINGS 01-410-56-00-5620 3.06INVOICE TOTAL: 3.06 *51676 08/25/22 01 AXEL STRAPS, TOW STRAPLOOP 52-520-56-00-5620 24.84INVOICE TOTAL: 24.84 *51679 08/25/22 01 COUPLING, PVC PIPE 52-520-56-00-5620 46.20INVOICE TOTAL: 46.20 *51742 08/26/22 01 DOOR STOP, DRILL BIT SET 51-510-56-00-5630 67.98INVOICE TOTAL: 67.98 *550922 08/16/22 01 MP STARTER, SHADE SEED, STRAW 51-510-56-00-5640 102.92INVOICE TOTAL: 102.92 *CHECK TOTAL: 1,182.25537343 MIDAM MID AMERICAN WATER205702A 08/15/22 01 VALCO CLEANOUT COVERS 51-510-56-00-5640 2,500.00INVOICE TOTAL: 2,500.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 2,500.00537344 MIDWASH NATIONAL WASH AUTHORITYPage 19 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537344 MIDWASH NATIONAL WASH AUTHORITY5802 09/08/22 01 3299 LEHMAN CROSSING TOWER 51-510-54-00-5445 6,600.0002 CLEANING ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 6,600.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 6,600.00537345 MIDWSALT MIDWEST SALT0224329 07/26/22 01 BULK ROCK SALT 51-510-56-00-5638 3,069.87INVOICE TOTAL:3,069.87 *CHECK TOTAL:3,069.87537346 MODJESKM MICHAEL COLE MODJESKIAUG 27-SEPT 1009/14/22 01 UMPIRE79-795-54-00-546290.00INVOICE TOTAL:90.00 *CHECK TOTAL:90.00537347 MORASPH MORRIS SAND & GRAVEL, INC.489508/12/22 01 N-50 SURFACE23-230-60-00-6032305.62INVOICE TOTAL:305.62 *493708/23/22 01 N-50 SURFACE23-230-60-00-60321,459.07INVOICE TOTAL:1,459.07 *CHECK TOTAL:1,764.69537348 MORRISHH MORRIS HOSPITAL & HEALTHCARE00022932-0008/31/22 01 STAFF TB SKIN TESTING79-795-54-00-5462253.00INVOICE TOTAL:253.00 *CHECK TOTAL:253.00Page 20 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537349 MULLENSA ANTHONY MULLENSAUG 27-SEPT 10 09/14/22 01 UMPIRE 79-795-54-00-5462 130.00INVOICE TOTAL: 130.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 130.00537350 NEOPOST QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC092522-CITY 09/25/22 01 REFILL POSTAGE METER 01-000-14-00-1400 500.00INVOICE TOTAL: 500.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 500.00537351 NICOR NICOR GAS00-41-22-8748 4-0822 08/31/22 01 08/02-08/31 1107 PRAIRIE 01-110-54-00-5480 94.66INVOICE TOTAL: 94.66 *12-43-53-5625 3-0822 09/01/22 01 08/03-09/01 609 N BRIDGE 01-110-54-00-5480 37.24INVOICE TOTAL: 37.24 *15-41-50-1000 6-0822 09/01/22 01 08/02-08/31 804 GAME FARM RD 01-110-54-00-5480 236.07INVOICE TOTAL: 236.07 *15-64-61-3532 5-0822 08/31/22 01 08/02-08/31 1991 CANNONBALL TR 01-110-54-00-5480 58.01INVOICE TOTAL: 58.01 *20-52-56-2042 1-0822 08/29/22 01 07/29-08/29 420 FAIRHAVEN 01-110-54-00-5480 161.43INVOICE TOTAL: 161.43 *23-45-91-4862 5-0822 09/02/22 01 08/03-09/01 101 BRUELL ST 01-110-54-00-5480 167.04INVOICE TOTAL: 167.04 *31-61-67-2493 1-0822 09/09/22 01 08/10-09/09 276 WINDHAM CR 01-110-54-00-5480 109.74INVOICE TOTAL: 109.74 *Page 21 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537351 NICOR NICOR GAS37-35-53-1941 1-0822 09/07/22 01 08/08-09/07 185 WOLF ST 01-110-54-00-5480 49.65INVOICE TOTAL: 49.65 *40-52-64-8356 1-0822 09/02/22 01 08/04-09/02 102 E VAN EMMON 01-110-54-00-5480 158.58INVOICE TOTAL: 158.58 *46-69-47-6727 1-0822 09/07/22 01 08/08-09/07 1975 BRIDGE 01-110-54-00-5480 162.10INVOICE TOTAL: 162.10 *61-60-41-1000 9-0822 09/02/22 01 08/03-09/01 610 TOWER 01-110-54-00-5480 86.65INVOICE TOTAL: 86.65 *66-70-44-6942 9-0822 09/07/22 01 08/08-09/07 1908 RAINTREE 01-110-54-00-5480 325.72INVOICE TOTAL: 325.72 *80-56-05-1157 0-0822 09/07/22 01 08/08-09/07 2512 ROSEMONT 01-110-54-00-5480 59.47INVOICE TOTAL: 59.47 *83-80-00-1000 7-0822 09/02/22 01 08/03-09/01 610 TOWER UNIT B 01-110-54-00-5480 61.08INVOICE TOTAL: 61.08 *91-85-68-4012 8-0822 09/01/22 01 08/02-08/31 902 GAME FARM RD 82-820-54-00-5480 1,200.33INVOICE TOTAL: 1,200.33 *95-16-10-1000 4-0822 09/01/22 01 08/03-09/01 1 RT47 01-110-54-00-5480 49.34INVOICE TOTAL: 49.34 *CHECK TOTAL: 3,017.11537352 NUTOYS NUTOYS LEISURE PRODUCTS53176 08/04/22 01 2 6' STEEL BENCHES 25-225-60-00-6060 3,221.00INVOICE TOTAL: 3,221.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 3,221.00Page 22 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537353 OLEARYM MARTIN J. O'LEARY082822 08/28/22 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 105.00INVOICE TOTAL: 105.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 105.00D002662 ORRKKATHLEEN FIELD ORR & ASSOC.1696809/06/22 01 MISC ADMIN LEGAL MATTERS01-640-54-00-54564,114.0002 BRIGHT FARMS MATTERS90-173-00-00-00111,133.0003 BRISTOL BAY MATTERS01-640-54-00-5456165.0004 DOWNTOWN TIF MATERS88-880-54-00-5462935.0005 DOWNTOWN TIF II MATTERS89-890-54-00-5462363.0006 GREEN DOOR DEVELOPMENT MATTERS 01-640-54-00-5456495.0007 MEETINGS01-640-54-00-54561,600.00INVOICE TOTAL:8,805.00 *DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL:8,805.00537354 PAWLOWSM MARK PAWLOWSKI09082209/08/22 01 REFEREE79-795-54-00-5462160.00INVOICE TOTAL:160.00 *CHECK TOTAL:160.00537355 PEPSI PEPSI-COLA GENERAL BOTTLE3073600308/29/22 01 BEECHER CONCESSION DRINKS 79-795-56-00-5607418.83INVOICE TOTAL:418.83 *CHECK TOTAL:418.83537356 PETERSOA ALIESHA JEAN PETERSONAUG 27-SEPT 1009/14/22 01 UMPIRE79-795-54-00-5462100.00INVOICE TOTAL:100.00 *CHECK TOTAL:100.00Page 23 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537357 PFPETT P.F. PETTIBONE & CO.182543 08/02/22 01 CITY COUNCIL MINUTE BOOKS AND 01-110-56-00-5610 500.9502 MINUTE PAPER ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 500.95 *CHECK TOTAL: 500.95537358 PITSTOP PIT STOPPS47719108/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-5620210.0002 FOR TOWN SQUARE** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:210.00 *PS47719208/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-5620278.0002 FOR RIVERFRONT PARK** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:278.00 *PS47719308/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-562092.0002 FOR VAN EMMON PARK** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:92.00 *PS47719408/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-562080.0002 FOR FOX HILL PARK WEST** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:80.00 *PS47719508/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-562080.0002 FOR FOX HILL PARK EAST** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:80.00 *PS47719608/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-5620302.0002 FOR BEECHER COMMUNITY PARK** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:302.00 *PS47719708/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-5620160.0002 FOR 2775 GRANDE TR** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:160.00 *Page 24 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537358 PITSTOP PIT STOPPS477198 08/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-5620 102.0002 FOR SPLASH PAD ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 102.00 *PS477199 08/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-5620 92.0002 FOR STEVEN BRIDGE PARK ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 92.00 *PS477200 08/25/22 01 08/23-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-5620 19.7102 FOR YORKVILLE MIDDLE SCHOOL ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:19.71 *PS47720108/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-562080.0002 FOR CANNONBALL RIDGE PARK** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:80.00 *PS47720208/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-562080.0002 FOR GREEN PARK BASEBLL FIELD ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:80.00 *PS47720308/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-562080.0002 FOR BRISTOL STATION PARK** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:80.00 *PS47720408/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-562080.0002 FOR RIEMENSCHNEIDER BASEBALL ** COMMENT **03 FIELD** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:80.00 *PS47720508/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-5620540.0002 FOR SOCCER EQUIPMENT SHED** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:540.00 *PS47720608/25/22 01 07/29-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-562092.00Page 25 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537358 PITSTOP PIT STOPPS477206 08/25/22 02 FOR STEPPING STONES PARK ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 92.00 *PS477207 08/25/22 01 06/10-08/25 PORTOLET UPKEEP 79-795-56-00-5620 253.0002 FOR HIDING SPOT PARK ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 253.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 2,620.71537359 PRINTSRC LAMBERT PRINT SOURCE, LLC295508/31/22 01 2022 HTD CAR SHOW SHIRTS79-795-56-00-5602890.00INVOICE TOTAL:890.00 *295808/31/22 01 2022 HTD SIGNAGE & BANNERS 79-795-56-00-56023,465.60INVOICE TOTAL:3,465.60 *296609/02/22 01 2022 HTD BARRICADE DECALS 79-795-56-00-5602380.00INVOICE TOTAL:380.00 *CHECK TOTAL:4,735.60537360 R0000474 NEIL BORNEMAN9062209/06/22 01 REFUND LIBRARY AND CITY01-640-54-00-54911,370.3102 PORTION OF TAXES PER ORDINANCE ** COMMENT **03 2006-105** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:1,370.31 *CHECK TOTAL:1,370.31537361 R0001751 SAMANTHA LEHEW050419-LEHEW09/08/22 01 BEECHER DEPOSIT REFUND01-000-24-00-241050.00INVOICE TOTAL:50.00 *Page 26 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537361 R0001751 SAMANTHA LEHEW092819-LEHEW 09/08/22 01 BEECHER DEPOSIT REFUND 01-000-24-00-2410 50.00INVOICE TOTAL: 50.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 100.00537362 R0002208 HARI DEVELOPMENT YORKVILLE LLC073122-STREBATE09/15/22 01 MAY-JUL 2022 SALES TAX REBATE 01-640-54-00-54921,340.73INVOICE TOTAL:1,340.73 *CHECK TOTAL:1,340.73537363 R0002288 LENNAR1198 HAWK HOLLOW 09/07/22 01 SECURITY GUARANTEE REFUND 01-000-24-00-2415375.00INVOICE TOTAL:375.00 *2221 COUNTRY HILLS 09/07/22 01 SECURITY GUARANTEE REFUND 01-000-24-00-24155,000.00INVOICE TOTAL:5,000.00 *2266 RICHMOND09/07/22 01 SECURITY GUARANTEE REFUND 01-000-24-00-24155,000.00INVOICE TOTAL:5,000.00 *CHECK TOTAL:10,375.00537364 R0002525 PRIME BATHS & HOME SOLUTIONS19731109/12/22 01 REFUND OVERPAYMENT FOR 2022 79-000-48-00-4843250.0002 HTD EXHIBITOR BOOTTH** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL:250.00 *CHECK TOTAL:250.00537365 RIETZR ROBERT L. RIETZ JR.Page 27 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537365 RIETZR ROBERT L. RIETZ JR.082522 08/25/22 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 160.00INVOICE TOTAL: 160.00 *090822 09/08/22 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 160.00INVOICE TOTAL: 160.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 320.00D002663 RUNYONM MARK RUNYONAUG 27-SEPT 10 09/14/22 01 UMPIRE 79-795-54-00-5462 130.00INVOICE TOTAL: 130.00 *DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL: 130.00537366 RUSHTRCK RUSH TRUCK CENTER3029019367 08/23/22 01 REPLACED BRAKES & SENSORS, 01-410-54-00-5490 6,154.5902 REPLACED THERMISTERS ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 6,154.59 *3029097490 08/29/22 01 AC REPAIR 01-410-54-00-5490 697.00INVOICE TOTAL: 697.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 6,851.59537367 SCHAFFNC CARTER SCHAFFNERAUG 27-SEPT 1009/14/22 01 UMPIRE79-795-54-00-546285.00INVOICE TOTAL:85.00 *CHECK TOTAL:85.00537368 SISLERS SISLER'S ICE, INC.Page 28 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537368 SISLERS SISLER'S ICE, INC.203004737 09/01/22 01 2022 HTD ICE 79-795-56-00-5602 587.50INVOICE TOTAL: 587.50 *CHECK TOTAL: 587.50537369 SKYHAWKS SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY, INC40116 08/30/22 01 FLAG FOOTBALL INSTRUCTION 79-795-54-00-5462 759.50INVOICE TOTAL: 759.50 *CHECK TOTAL: 759.50D002664 SLEEZERJ JOHN SLEEZERCOSTCO -91222 09/12/22 01 REIMBURSEMENT FOR SHORTS 01-410-56-00-5600 84.95INVOICE TOTAL: 84.95 *DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL: 84.95537370 SPRTFLD SPORTSFIELDS, INC.2022667 08/31/22 01 BASEBALL INFIELD MIX 79-790-56-00-5646 1,210.80INVOICE TOTAL:1,210.80 *CHECK TOTAL:1,210.80537371 STRIKED DEVYN STRIKEAUG 27-SEPT 1009/14/22 01 UMPIRE79-795-54-00-5462115.00INVOICE TOTAL:115.00 *CHECK TOTAL:115.00537372 TRAFFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL CORPORATIONPage 29 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537372 TRAFFIC TRAFFIC CONTROL CORPORATION138380 08/31/22 01 GREEN LIGHT LED & BRACKETS 01-410-54-00-5435 110.07INVOICE TOTAL: 110.07 *CHECK TOTAL: 110.07537373 TRICO TRICO MECHANICAL , INC6799 08/17/22 01 LIBRARY HVAC REPAIR 24-216-54-00-5446 1,918.00INVOICE TOTAL: 1,918.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 1,918.00537374 UMBBANK UMB BANK073122-STREBATE 09/15/22 01 MAY-JUL 2022 SALES TAX REBATE 01-640-54-00-5492 167,285.65INVOICE TOTAL: 167,285.65 *CHECK TOTAL: 167,285.65537375 VICKERYJ JUDE VICKERY27981809/06/22 01 WATER TOWER REPAIRS51-510-54-00-54452,700.00INVOICE TOTAL:2,700.00 *27981909/06/22 01 CONSTRUCTED NEW SCREEN PANELS 51-510-54-00-54451,250.00INVOICE TOTAL:1,250.00 *CHECK TOTAL:3,950.00537376 VISUALIM VISUAL IMAGING RESOURCES622007/26/22 01 PROTEUS LITE SYSTEM & TRAINING 52-520-60-00-606064,458.30INVOICE TOTAL:64,458.30 *CHECK TOTAL:64,458.30Page 30 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537377 WALDEB BRYAN WALDE082722 08/27/22 01 REFEREE 79-795-54-00-5462 160.00INVOICE TOTAL: 160.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 160.00537378 WALTJOSH JOSH WALTERSAUG 27-SEPT 10 09/14/22 01 UMPIRE 79-795-54-00-5462 130.00INVOICE TOTAL: 130.00 *CHECK TOTAL: 130.00D002665 YBSDYORKVILLE BRISTOL22-AUG09/15/22 01 AUG 2022 SANITARY FEES95-000-24-00-2450341,949.24INVOICE TOTAL:341,949.24 *DIRECT DEPOSIT TOTAL:341,949.24537379 YORKACE YORKVILLE ACE & RADIO SHACK17599208/25/22 01 E CLIPS01-410-56-00-56200.92INVOICE TOTAL:0.92 *17601908/31/22 01 CHAIN LOOP01-410-56-00-563055.98INVOICE TOTAL:55.98 *17602509/01/22 01 BOLT EYE W/NUT01-410-56-00-56207.95INVOICE TOTAL:7.95 *17605009/07/22 01 GRABBER TOOL, DOUBLE CLEVIS 01-410-56-00-562047.97INVOICE TOTAL:47.97 *17605209/09/22 01 CHAIN LOOP01-410-56-00-563074.97INVOICE TOTAL:74.97 *CHECK TOTAL:187.79Page 31 of 34 01-110ADMINISTRATION01-120FINANCE01-210POLICE01-220COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT01-410STREETSOPERATION01-640ADMINISTRATIVESERVICES01-111FOXHILLSSA01-112SUNFLOWERESTATES15-155MOTORFUELTAX23-216MUNICIPALBUILDING23-230CITY-WIDECAPITAL24-216BUILDING&GROUNDS25-205POLICECAPITAL25-215PUBLICWORKSCAPITAL25-225PARK&RECCAPITAL42-420DEBTSERVICE51-510WATEROPERATIONS52-520SEWEROPERATIONS72-720LANDCASH79-790PARKSDEPARTMENT79-795RECREATIONDEPARTMENT82-820LIBRARYOPERATIONS84-840LIBRARAYCAPITAL87-870COUNTRYSIDETIF88-880DOWNTOWNTIF89-890DOWNTOWNTIFII90-XXXDEVELOPERESCROW950-XXXESCROWDEPOSITDATE: 09/20/22TIME: 08:31:46UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE CHECK REGISTERID: AP211001.W0WINVOICES DUE ON/BEFORE 09/27/2022CHECK # VENDOR #INVOICE ITEMINVOICE #DATE # DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT # PROJECT CODE ITEM AMT------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------537380 YOUNGM MARLYS J. YOUNG081022-P&Z 08/29/22 01 08/10/22 P&Z MEETING 90-048-48-00-0011 28.3302 MINUTES-WINDETT RIDGE ** COMMENT **03 08/10/22 P&Z MEETING 90-188-00-00-0011 28.3304 MINUTES-CALEDONIA PHASE 3 ** COMMENT **05 08/10/22 P&Z MEETING 90-189-00-00-0011 28.3406 MINUTES-YORKVILLE SELF STORAGE ** COMMENT **INVOICE TOTAL: 85.00 *081722-ADMIN 09/02/22 01 08/17/22 ADMIN MEETING MINUTES 01-110-54-00-5462 85.00INVOICE TOTAL:85.00 *081822-UDO09/13/22 01 08/18/22 UDO MEETING MINUTES 01-110-54-00-546285.00INVOICE TOTAL:85.00 *CHECK TOTAL:255.001,821,312.55351,804.19TOTAL CHECKS PAID: TOTAL DIRECT DEPOSITS PAID: TOTAL AMOUNT PAID:2,173,116.74Page 32 of 34 REGULAR OVERTIME TOTAL IMRFFICA TOTALSMAYOR & LIQ. COM.908.34$ -$ 908.34$ -$ 69.49$ 977.83$ ALDERMAN3,800.00 - 3,800.00 - 290.70 4,090.70 ADMINISTRATION18,384.12 - 18,384.12 1,636.18 1,375.04 21,395.34 FINANCE12,116.47 - 12,116.47 1,078.36 896.33 14,091.16 POLICE126,702.61 9,386.63 136,089.24 563.37 10,094.26 146,746.87 COMMUNITY DEV.27,844.08 - 27,844.08 2,478.13 2,066.64 32,388.85 STREETS22,191.14 - 22,191.14 1,975.00 1,630.08 25,796.22 BUILDING & GROUNDS2,249.94 - 2,249.94 200.24 172.12 2,622.30 WATER19,959.24 153.83 20,113.07 1,790.07 1,466.60 23,369.74 SEWER16,695.79 49.22 16,745.01 1,504.26 1,265.26 19,514.53 PARKS29,991.25 3,040.34 33,031.59 2,586.31 2,460.05 38,077.95 RECREATION23,160.04 - 23,160.04 1,730.58 1,722.94 26,613.56 LIBRARY17,736.50 - 17,736.50 995.56 1,307.45 20,039.51 TOTALS321,739.52$ 12,630.02$ 334,369.54$ 16,538.06$ 24,816.96$ 375,724.56$ TOTAL PAYROLL375,724.56$ UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLEPAYROLL SUMMARYSeptember 16, 2022Page 33 of 34 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DATE Clerk's Check #131204 Kendall County Recorder (Page 1)09/02/2022 67.00$ City Check Register - FY 23 (Pages 2 - 32)09/27/2022 2,173,116.74 SUB-TOTAL:2,173,183.74$ Bi - Weekly (Page 33)09/16/2022 375,724.56$ SUB-TOTAL:375,724.56$ TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS:2,548,908.30$ UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE BILL LIST SUMMARY Tuesday, September 27, 2022 PAYROLL Page 34 of 34 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #1 Tracking Number CC 2022-39 Truck Purchase City Council – September 27, 2022 Supermajority (6 out of 9) Approval Proposed purchase of single axle dump truck for delivery in FY 24 Eric Dhuse Public Works Name Department Summary Staff is proposing the purchase of a single axle dump truck that has been budgeted in the approved FY 23 budget. In addition, there will be an update on all vehicle and equipment purchases since FY 21. Background As we all know, the supply chain issues have made it next to impossible for us to get large trucks. I have attached a spreadsheet that shows just how long we have been waiting for some vehicles and equipment to arrive. One vehicle of note was a single axle dump truck that was approved by city council and ordered in November of 2021. We are now being told that the truck will not even be built until April of 2023 with a delivery to the body builder by July of 2023 which means we should have it for the winter of 2023 a full 2 years after ordering. At this time, we have a chance to order a 2024 Mack single axle truck fully outfitted for snow with a Delivery date of September of 2023. However, there is a drawback which is the price. The quoted price is $285,970 which is approximately $60,000 over our last truck we ordered. The $60,000 is a big difference, there is no getting around it. But, at this time, Peterbilt and Kenworth will not give you build dates, let alone a delivery date or firm pricing. Finding any type of new truck these days is tough, and I am sure it comes with a premium price. Currently, we have $240,000 budgeted for this purchase. This leaves a ~$46,000 difference from the budgeted amount to the quoted price. Since this will not be ready for delivery until FY 24, we can roll the $240,000 forward and add ~$46,000 to make sure and cover the cost as quoted. This truck is sorely needed in our fleet. We have not added a truck to the fleet without trading one in since 2008. In that time, we have added roads in many subdivisions such as Raintree, Grande Reserve, Kendallwood, Caledonia, and we will soon add roads in Bristol Bay. Having another large dump truck will certainly expedite the plowing process and allow us to become more efficient. Recommendation I recommend purchasing the proposed single axle dump truck as quoted from Lindco Equipment Sales of Merrillville, Indiana at a price not to exceed $285,970 and to account for this purchase in the FY 24 budget. This is a Sourcewell contract price, there was no RFP or competitive bidding. Therefore, an affirmative supermajority vote will be needed to approve this purchase. Memorandum To: Public Works Committee From: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: September 13, 2022 Subject: Truck Purchase FY 23 Will Posess Deferred to Equipment Price in FY23 Balance FY 24 Notes $1,226,414 Carried from FY 22 Single Axle Dump Truck $223,513 $223,513 Truck will not be built until April of 23. Delivery in Sept 23 Bucket Truck $230,658 $230,658 Supposed to be done in May of 23 Wheel Loader $173,140 $167,530 $1,058,884 One Ton Dump $65,174 $65,174 $993,710 Ordered 11/9/21 due to arrive 10/1/22 One Ton Dump $65,174 $65,174 $928,536 Ordered 11/9/21 due to arrive 10/1/22 FY 23 Sealcoat Machine $60,000 $60,000 $868,536 Will order this winter to be ready for summer 2023 Striping Machine $8,000 $8,000 $860,536 Grapple Bucket $15,000 $15,000 Push to 24 to be able to purchase truck bed and spreader UTV $15,000 $12,000 Ditch Mowing Tractor $95,000 $59,326 2 snow plows for parks $16,000 $16,000 $844,536 Will order ASAP since trucks are coming in. Parks Gator $9,000 $9,000 PW bought the trade in tractor for $9000 Flatbed for Sweeper $15,000 $15,000 Push to next year, still deciding the best use Brine Rig $25,000 $25,000 Push to next year, still deciding the best use Snow plow for sewer truck $8,000 $8,000 $836,536 Will buy when we order truck Leaf Vac $110,000 $110,000 Will order in winter to be ready for fall of 23 FY 24 Director Truck $23,000 $23,000 $813,536 Will order Building and Grounds Truck $55,000 $55,000 $758,536 Will Order Single Axle Dump $240,000 $240,000 Will order this year, but will not be ready until FY 24 $859,171 Water Department Pickup Truck $43,561 $43,561 Ordered 11/9/21 Delivery by 11/1/22 Pickup Truck $43,561 $43,561 Ordered 11/9/21 Delivery by 11/1/22 Transit Van $40,000 Meter install vehicle. Will order when available Transit Van $40,000 Locator vehicle. Will order when available Director Truck 1/3 $17,000 Will Order Bucket Truck $100,000 $100,000 carry forward to pay for bucket truck Pickup Truck $56,000 Will Order Director Truck 1/3 $17,000 Will Order PW Captial Worksheet FY 23 and FY 24 TOTAL DEFERRED PREPARED FOR QUOTE INFORMATION PREPARED BY MEYE2022000122D496 MD7 42R M & K TRUCK CENTER OF GARY, LLC 3001 E 15TH PL GARY DATE IN 46403-3679 Qty: 1 8/8/2022 CUSTOMER PROPOSAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION (cont.) CUSTOMER/VEHICLE INFO DESCRIPTION S CHASSIS (BASE MODEL)MD742 - 42R MEDIUM DUTY, CLASS 7 w/ 6.7L, (MAX 33,000lbs GVWR) S ASSEMBLY PLANT FACTORY USA (RV, MACK) VEHICLE USE & BODY/TRAILER TYPE DUMP TRUCK VEHICLE VOCATION CONSTRUCTION SERVICE S CUSTOMER FLEET SIZE DEALER FLEET WITH LESS THAN 25 VEHICLES IN OWN FLEET OF ANY VEHICLE BRAND TYPE OF SERVICE MUNICIPAL S WARRANTY REGISTRATION LOCATION USA - WARRANTY REGISTRATION LOCATION EMISSION WARRANTY CERTIFICATION EPA (only) Cummins Diesel S INITIAL REGISTRATION LOCATION USA REGISTRATION S LANGUAGE-PUBS/DECAL/SIGNS ENGLISH S TERRAIN GRADE CITY, STARTING GRADES<6% S LOADING SURFACE ASPHALT LOADING AND / OR UNLOADING SURFACE OPERATING CLASS OPERATING CLASS 6 ENGINE & TRANSMISSION DESCRIPTION ENGINE / MOTOR ISB6.7-300 DIESEL CUMMINS 300HP @ 2600RPM (GOV) 660 LB-FT, US21 TRANSMISSION 2500 RDS 6 SP-ALLISON RUGGED DUTY SERIES GEN 6 (WITH PTO PROVISIONS) S FUELSENSE CALIBRATION ALLISON FUELSENSE, NEUTRAL AT STOP S TRANSM AUTO NEUTRAL ON P-BRAKE AUTO NEUTRAL SINGLE INPUT WITH SHIFT SELECTOR OVERRIDE ENGINE & TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION ENGINE BRAKE TYPE ENGINE BRAKE CRUISE CONTROL CRUISE CONTROL S ALTERNATOR DELCO 12V 160A (28SI) BRUSH-TYPE BATTERY DISCONNECT SWITCH BATTERY DISCONNECT SWITCH S STARTER MOTOR 12 VOLT MELCO STARTER (MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC) ENGINE BLOCK HEATER 120 VOLT / 0.75 KW, ENGINE BLOCK HEATER S POWER TAKE OFF CONTROL WITHOUT POWER TAKE OFF CONTROL AXLE & SUSPENSION DESCRIPTION S FRONT AXLE 12,000LB MERITOR MFS+ 5400 KG S SPRINGS - FRONT MACK TAPERLEAF 12300# (5500 KG) GROUND LOAD RATING S FRONT AXLE BRAKES MERITOR "S" CAM TYPE 16.5" x 5" Q+ REAR AXLE - SINGLE 21000# (9525 kg) MERITOR MS-21-14X, (W/ DIFF LOCK) CASING 11.0mm S REAR SUSPENSION - SINGLE 21000# (9525kg) MULTILEAF SUSPENSION LEVELLING DEVICE (CA in PC29 only)WITHOUT SUSPENSION LEVELLING DEVICE S BRAKES - REAR MERITOR "S" CAM 16.5"x7" Q+ S REAR AXLE RATIO RATIO 5.57, REAR AXLE CHASSIS EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION S IDLE EMISSION CERTIFICATION IDLE EMISSION CERTIFICATION, CARB 08 DPF DIESEL PARTICULATE FILTER CUMMINS SINGLE MODULE E.A.T.S. RH SIDE UNDER CAB US17 (7L over 271HP only!!) S EXHAUST UNDERFRAME RIGHT SIDE INBOARD MOUNTED (Diesel engines only) MD7 42R TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION PRICELIST DATE QUOTATION DATE 20220523 MEYE2022000122D496 8/8/2022 PAGE 2 of 10 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION (cont.) FRAME EQUIPMENT & FUEL TANKS DESCRIPTION WHEELBASE 150" Wheelbase (87" CA) 50" After-frame S FRAME RAILS STEEL - 260MM X 70MM X 8MM -- (10.24" X 2.75" X 0.31" ); RBM 1,580,000 LB-IN S PRIMARY FUEL FILTER FUEL FILTER & WATER SEPARATOR (Diesel engines only) S FUEL TANK - LH 50 GALLON (190 L) 22" ALUMINUM ROUND CAB INTERIOR DESCRIPTION S SPEEDOMETER -&- GAUGES - UNIT(s) OF MEASURE U.S. UNITS (PREDOMINANT) BACK-UP ALARM BACK-UP ALARM S AIR RESTRICTION INDICATOR MECHANICAL, GRADUATED, ON FILTER S DAYTIME RUNNING LIGHTS DRL WHEN ENGINE RUNNING & PARK BRAKE OFF S FIRE EXTINGUISHER HAND FIRE EXTINGUISHER 1.1 KG (2.5LB) ENGLISH DECAL, ABC S AUDIO SYSTEM RADIO, AM/FM, MP3, WEATHER BAND S AUDIO INTEGRAT. PHONE HANDSFRE AUDIO INTEGRATED HANDSFREE PHONE, BLUETOOTH S AUDIO COMMUNICATION CONNECTOR AUDIO COMMUNICATION CONNECTOR, USB AUDIO S COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT FACTORY INSTALLED GEOTAB FLEET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM S DRIVER SEAT MACK DRIVERS SEAT, AIR SUSPENDED DRIVERS SEAT UPHOLSTERY DRIVERS SEAT UPHOLSTERY, MORDURA PASSENGER SEAT FIXED BENCH SEAT SUPPORT, INTEGRATED STORAGE BOX PASSENGERS SEAT UPHOLSTRY PASSENGERS SEAT UPHOLSTERY, MORDURA SEAT BELT(S)ALL SEAT BELTS, ORANGE CAB EXTERIOR DESCRIPTION S HOOD RADIATOR GRILLE, FINISH HOOD RADIATOR GRILLE FINISH, MATTE BLACK S FRONT BUMPER FINISH FRONT BUMPER FINISH PAINTED GLOSS BLACK MIRRORS - EXTERIOR HEATED AND MOTORIZED MIRRORS BOTH SIDES, BLACK (Anthem mirror) WHEELS & TIRES DESCRIPTION TIRES BRAND/TYPE - FRONT 11R22.5 H BRIDGESTONE R268 ECOPIA (13220 lbs) (Total for QTY = 2) WHEELS - FRONT 22.5x8.25 ACCURIDE, POWDER COATED WHITE STEEL DISC (Total for QTY = 2) FRONT AXLE TIRE & WHEEL QUANTITY TWO FRONT TIRES & WHEELS TIRES BRAND/TYPE - REAR 11R22.5 G BRIDGESTONE M760 ECOPIA (23360 lbs) (DRIVE ONLY) (Total for QTY = 4) WHEELS - REAR 22.5x8.25 ACCURIDE, POWDER COATED WHITE STEEL DISC (Total for QTY = 4) REAR AXLE TIRE & WHEEL QUANTITY FOUR REAR AXLE TIRES & WHEELS PAINT DESCRIPTION S PAINT COLOR - FIRST COLOR GLACIER WHITE; P3029 BASE WARRANTY & PURCHASED COVERAGES DESCRIPTION S ENGINE TOWING WARRANTY CUMMINS ENGINES (Contact Cummins for Standard Warranty and Extended Coverage Details) S MACK ONECALL BUNDLE 12 MONTH - ASIST AND MACK ONECALL S VEHICLE WARRANTY TYPE NORMAL DUTY WARRANTY CLASSIFICATION S BASIC CHASSIS COVERAGE CHASSIS PLAN 24 MO/UNLIMITED MI NORMAL DUTY PROTECTION PLAN S ENGINE WARRANTY CUMMINS ENGINES B6.7 (Contact Cummins for Standard Warranty and Extended Coverage Details) PRICELIST DATE QUOTATION DATE 20220523 MEYE2022000122D496 8/8/2022 PAGE 3 of 10 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION (cont.) BASE WARRANTY & PURCHASED COVERAGES DESCRIPTION S EMISSION COMPONENT COVERAGE CUMMINS ENGINES (Contact Cummins for Standard Warranty and Extended Coverage Details) S TRANSMISSION WARRANTY ALLISON TRANSMISSIONS (Contact Allison Transmission for standard warranty and extended coverage data S AIR CONDITIONING WARRANTY AIR CONDITIONING STANDARD COVERAGE (Sealed System Only) 24 MONTHS UNLIMITED MILEAGE S CHASSIS TOWING WARRANTY STANDARD CHASSIS TOWING 90 DAYS OR 5,000 MILES S PARTNERED SERVICES GEOTAB FOR MACK TRUCKS - 12 MONTH ADDITIONAL OPTIONS (Non Approved)DESCRIPTION CA TRANSMISSION 3000 RDS 6 SPEED ALLISON GEN6 W/PROGNOSTICS, WITH PTO PROVISION ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING (Non Approved)DESCRIPTION CA PRICELIST DATE QUOTATION DATE 20220523 MEYE2022000122D496 8/8/2022 PAGE 4 of 10 PRICING SUMMARY $101,479.00 TAX SUMMARY AMT. SUBJECT TO TAX FET $101,479.00 $0.00 Tire Tax Credit N/A $0.00 TOTAL TAX $0.00 TOTAL SELLING PRICE (PER UNIT) USD $101,479.00 M & K TRUCK CENTER OF GARY, LLC DATE DATE MD7 42R VEHICLE PRICE PRICELIST DATE QUOTATION DATE 20220523 MEYE2022000122D496 8/8/2022 PAGE 5 of 10 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION/CALCULATED PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Description Sales Code Dwg Ref Length UOM Front Frame Extension N/A FE 0.0 INCHES Bumper to Front Axle N/A BA 40.0 INCHES Wheelbase N/A WB 150.2 INCHES Rear Overhang N/A OH 50.0 INCHES Overall Length N/A OL 240.2 INCHES Bumper to Back of Cab N/A BBC 103.0 INCHES Eff. Bumper to Back of Cab N/A EBBC 103.0 INCHES Eff. Cab to Rear Axle N/A ECA 87.2 INCHES Eff. Front Axle to Back of Cab N/A EAC 63.0 INCHES Eff. Cab to End of Frame N/A ECEF 137.2 INCHES Unladen 5th Wheel Height 001AA3 5W 0.0 INCHES Unladen Frame Height N/A FH 40.9 INCHES Cab Height N/A CH 69.1 INCHES Overall Height N/A OVH 110.0 INCHES Driver CG N/A DCG 59.1 INCHES Second Front Axle Spacing 001AA3 SFAS 0.0 INCHES PRICELIST DATE QUOTATION DATE 20220523 MEYE2022000122D496 8/8/2022 PAGE 6 of 10 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION/CALCULATED PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Description Sales Code Dwg Ref Left Value(in)Right Value(in) Wheelbase N/A WB 150.2 150.2 Available Rail Space Right N/A ARSR N/A 68.1 Available Rail Space Left N/A ARSL 58.1 N/A Eff. Front Axle to Back of Cab N/A REF 63.0 63.0 Front Axle To Fender 001AA3 N/A 30.0 30.0 Battery Box 001AA3 N/A 0.0 25.0 50 GALLON (190 L) 22" ALUMINUM ROUND / TRUCK 288AC2 / 001AA3 N/A 41.0 0.0 Ad-Blue Tank 001AA3 N/A 0.0 6.0 Drive Tire Radius 901090 N/A 21.1 21.1 Top View image is intended for illustration purposes only and is not presented to scale. Wheelbase, Axle Spacing and After frame are not shown as specified, but are a representation. Customer Adaptation (CA) options and relocated components are not represented in these images. Most CA options impact the variation of the image, thus an image may not populate. Calculations are approximate to a tolerance of ± 4 inches due to component mounting variation. Certain chassis component options are NOT represented in the Top View image, such as, but not exclusive to, Front Frame Extensions, Fuel Water Separators, Air Dryers, PTOs, Fifth Wheels, Chassis Fairings, Toolboxes, Trailer Connections. For further information on these items and their respective locations on your specification, please refer to the data sheets associated with those items in the configurator. PRICELIST DATE QUOTATION DATE 20220523 MEYE2022000122D496 8/8/2022 PAGE 7 of 10 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION/CALCULATED PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Rear Description Sales Code Dwg Ref Unladen Laden UOM Requested Fifth Wheel Height 001AA3 0.0 0.0 INCHES Tire Radius 901090 A 21.1 19.6 INCHES Suspension Height 260AA5 B 9.5 8.0 INCHES Frame Depth YBXD1X C 10.2 10.2 INCHES Closest Available Fifth Wheel Leg Height N/A D 0.0 0.0 INCHES Total Height N/A E 40.9 37.8 INCHES PRICELIST DATE QUOTATION DATE 20220523 MEYE2022000122D496 8/8/2022 PAGE 8 of 10 CALCULATED PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Tare Weights Front Axle Rear Axle (s)Total UOM Chassis 6222 3592 9813 LB Driver 122 79 201 LB Fuel 302 40 342 LB Body/Trailer -346 3848 3501 LB Total Tare 6299 7558 13857 LB Payloads First Body Payload -1200 13340 12139 LB Total - Lift Axles Down 5099 20897 25995 LB GAWR 12000 13996 25995 LB Inputs Required Inputs UOM Driver Weight 201 LB Total Body Length 16.4 FEET Body Tare Weight 3501 LB Front of Body to Body CG 96.0 INCHES Additional Clearance from Back of Exhaust to Front of Body 6.0 INCHES VEHICLE SPECIFICATION SUMMARY Description Description Dwg Ref Length UOM Bumper to Front Axle N/A BA 40.0 INCHES Wheelbase N/A WB 150.2 INCHES Rear Overhang N/A OH 50.0 INCHES Bumper to Back of Cab N/A BBC 103.0 INCHES BOC Exhaust Space 130AA9 N/A 0.0 INCHES Driver CG from Front Axle N/A DCG 59.1 INCHES First Pusher Axle Spacing 0.0 INCHES PRICELIST DATE QUOTATION DATE 20220523 MEYE2022000122D496 8/8/2022 PAGE 9 of 10 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION/CALCULATED PERFORMANCE SUMMARY Sub-Category Sales Code Sales Code Description Value UOM Front Axle 2400S0 12,000LB MERITOR MFS+ 5400 KG 12000 LB Front Suspension 2440C4 MACK TAPERLEAF 12300# (5500 KG) GROUND LOAD RATING 12000 LB Front Tires 900AT0 11R22.5 H BRIDGESTONE R268 ECOPIA (13220 lbs)13220 LB Front Wheels 5310Y1 22.5x8.25 ACCURIDE, POWDER COATED WHITE STEEL DISC 14800 LB Front GAWR 12000 LB Rear Axle 2520O2 21000# (9525 kg) MERITOR MS-21-14X, (W/ DIFF LOCK) CASING 11.0mm 21000 LB Rear Suspension 260AA5 21000# (9525kg) MULTILEAF 21000 LB Rear Tires 901090 11R22.5 G BRIDGESTONE M760 ECOPIA (23360 lbs) (DRIVE ONLY)23369 LB Rear Wheels 346176 22.5x8.25 ACCURIDE, POWDER COATED WHITE STEEL DISC 29600 LB Rear GAWR 21000 LB Truck GVWR 25995 LB Gross Combination Weight Rating 0 LB Tax Value GVWR (USA FET Only)33000 LB PRICELIST DATE QUOTATION DATE 20220523 MEYE2022000122D496 8/8/2022 PAGE 10 of 10 Two (2) Units will be Currently Available for Delivery September 2023 to Your Location with Complete Snow & Ice Equipment Package 2023 Mack MD7 42R Chassis • 33,000 GVWR • ISB6.7-300 Cummins 300 HP • 3000 RDS 6 Speed Allison with PTO provision • Air brakes • Engine Brake • 12,000LB Meritor Front Axle • 12,300 Mack Taperleaf front springs • 21,000LB Meritor Rear Axle with Diff Lock • 21,000LB Multileaf rear suspension • 150” Wheelbase with 87” Cab to Axle • Horizontal Muffler and Exhaust on Curbside • Driver Air Suspension Seat with Fixed Passenger Seat • Heated and Motorized Mirrors • 11R22.5 H Bridgestone Front Tires • 11R22.5 G Bridgestone Rear Tires Viking-Cives Equipment • Viking-Cives 10’ 6-8 Yard 3/16” Stainless Steel Dump Body with 1/4” Hardox Floor • Enclosed 1/2 Cab Shield with Six (6) Strobes in Front, One (1) Strobe in Each Side, Four (4) Strobes & One (1) Set of S/T/T/Back Up Lights in Rear • Fold Under Ladder with Grab Handles on Driver Side • Two (2) Strobes & One (1) Set of S/T/T/Back Up Lights in Each Rear Corner Post • Spreader Light on Driver Side Under Body • Poly 1/2 Fenders in Front of Rear Wheel & Swinging Removable Mud Flaps Behind Rear Wheels • Certified Power or Force America Central Hydraulics with Stainless Steel Reservoir/Valve Enclosure, Wescon Single Axle Control with Lock for Hoist, Wescon Dual Axis Control for Snowplow and Freedom 2.1 or CS5100 Spreader Control • SnoBare 10’ Wide x 40” High Poly Trip Edge Snow Plow with SQH Quick Hitch, Defelctor, Plow Markers and hood Mounted LED Heated Plow Lights CONTACT US ON A TOTAL PACKAGE PRICE Two (2) Units will be Currently Available for Delivery September 2023 to Your Location with Complete Snow & Ice Equipment Package 2023 Mack Granite 42FR Chassis • 41,360 GVWR • MP7-355C Mack 355HP • 3000 RDS 6 Speed Allison with PTO provision • Air brakes • Engine Brake • 18,000LB Mack FXL18 Front Axle • 18,000LB Mack Taperleaf front springs • 26,000LB Meritor Rear Axle with Single Reduction • 26,000LB Multileaf rear suspension with Helper • 180” Wheelbase with 92” Cab to Axle • Horizontal Muffler and Vertical Exhaust on Curbside • Driver Air Suspension Seat with Fixed Passenger Seat • Heated and Motorized Mirrors • 315/80R22.5 L Bridgestone M870 (20,000LB) Front Tires • 11R22.5 G Bridgestone M770 (23,360LB) Rear Tires Viking-Cives Equipment • Viking-Cives 11’ 6-8 Yard 3/16” Stainless Steel Dump Body with 1/4” Hardox Floor • Enclosed 1/2 Cab Shield with Six (6) Strobes in Front, One (1) Strobe in Each Side, Four (4) Strobes & One (1) Set of S/T/T/Back Up Lights in Rear • Fold Under Ladder with Grab Handles on Driver Side • Two (2) Strobes & One (1) Set of S/T/T/Back Up Lights in Each Rear Corner Post • Spreader Light on Driver Side Under Body • Poly 1/2 Fenders in Front of Rear Wheel & Swinging Removable Mud Flaps Behind Rear Wheels • Certified Power or Force America Central Hydraulics with Stainless Steel Reservoir/Valve Enclosure, Wescon Single Axle Control with Lock for Hoist, Wescon Dual Axis Control for Snowplow and Freedom 2.1 or CS5100 Spreader Control • Various Snowplows and Spreaders Available CONTACT US ON A TOTAL PACKAGE PRICE One (1) Unit will be Currently Available for Delivery June 2023 to Your Location with Complete Snow & Ice Equipment Package 2023 Mack Granite 64FR Chassis • 64,000 GVWR • MP7-425C Mack 425HP • 4500 RDS 6 Speed Allison with PTO provision • Air brakes • Engine Brake • 20,000LB Mack FXL20 Front Axle • 20,000LB Mack Taperleaf front springs • 44,000LB Mack S440 Rear Axle • 46,000LB Mack AL-461 Air Suspension • 207.5” Wheelbase with 120” Cab to Axle • Horizontal Muffler and Vertical Exhaust on Curbside • Driver Air Suspension Seat with Fixed Passenger Seat • Heated and Motorized Mirrors • 315/80R22.5 L Bridgestone M870 (20,000LB) Front Tires • 11R22.5 G Bridgestone M770 (23,360LB) Rear Tires Viking-Cives Equipment • Viking-Cives 14’ 10-12 Yard 3/16” Stainless Steel Dump Body with 1/4” Hardox Floor • Enclosed 1/2 Cab Shield with Six (6) Strobes in Front, One (1) Strobe in Each Side, Four (4) Strobes & One (1) Set of S/T/T/Back Up Lights in Rear • Fold Under Ladder with Grab Handles on Driver Side • Two (2) Strobes & One (1) Set of S/T/T/Back Up Lights in Each Rear Corner Post • Spreader Light on Driver Side Under Body • Poly Full Fenders in Front of Rear Wheel & Swinging Removable Mud Flaps Behind Rear Wheels • Certified Power or Force America Central Hydraulics with Stainless Steel Reservoir/Valve Enclosure, Wescon Single Axle Control with Lock for Hoist, Wescon Dual Axis Control for Snowplow and Freedom 2.1 or CS5100 Spreader Control • Various Snowplows and Spreaders available CONTACT US ON A TOTAL PACKAGE PRICE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt __________________________________ SOUR CE WE LL CO NTRA CT PURCHA SE: _________________________________ CO NTRA CT HOLD ER : Vi king-C iv es CO NTRA CT NUMBER:08081 8-VCM CO NTRA CT MA TURITY DAT E:10/29/2022 CO NTRA CT ITEM NUM BE RS: SWH-TK0554,SW -TK011 5,SW-S P0415, SW-S R0400 , S W-SR 0425,SW -CEO125, NJ 2500 _________________________________ MUNICIPALIT Y: _________________________________ SOUR CE WE LL MEMBER NUMBER: 992 59 MUNICIPALIT Y:City of Yo rk ville DE PARTME NT: Street Depar tm en t CO NTAC T:John Sleeze r TITLE: Street Depar tm en t F ore ma n PHON E:63 0-553 -4370 EMAIL: jslee zer@ york vi lle.il.us _________________________________ QU OTE SUMMARY: __________________________________ NU MBER OF UNI TS:One DE SCRI PTION: Sn ow &Ice control Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 1 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt equ ip me nt ins talled on 202 4 Mac k Single Axle _________________________________ EQUI PMENT DELIVERY TIME FRAM E: _________________________________ * Allow approx imate ly 24 0 d ays f or ch ass is to be in stock at Lindc o after receiving your pur cha se ord er. * Allow approx imate ly 24 0 d ays f or all equ ip me nt to be in stock at Lindco after re ceiving your pur chas e orde r. * Allow 60-90 days to complet e u nit, once all equ ip me nt and the ch ass is is at Lind co. __________________________________ PER UNIT PACKAGE PRICE: __________________________________ 1.00 ** Price f or all the below quot ed equipment ,285 ,970.0 0 285 ,970.0 0 fully installed. ** Package price does no t i nclud e the below options A and B. ** Price does not include pick up of chass is or de li very of completed unit . _________________________________ EQUI PMENT WAR RA NTY: __________________________________ * All equipment has a 12 month war rant y on Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 2 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt par ts and labor. _________________________________ CH AS SIS: _________________________________ 1.00 202 4 Mac k Granite 4 2FR * See attached spe cs _________________________________ DU MP BODY : _________________________________ 1.00 VCM1028 38SS-LES Viking 10'Dump Body;3/16"st ainless st eel sides/ends , intern al do ghous e,28 " H sides/38"H tai lgate,1/4"AR450 floor, enc losed 1/2 c ab shield w/8 ovals DI MENSION S: * 10'long * 24"high sides * 30"high tailgate * 86"wide I.D. * 96"wide O.D. * 60"high front w all MATERIAL: * 7 gauge,"2 01 2B stainles s s teel" sides , front wall and t ailgate * 10"tall x 1/4""201 2B" s tainless s teel long sills * 1/4"AR450 floor Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 3 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt FRONT W ALL: * Inter nal 13.5"dee p x 15.25"wide dog hous e SIDES: * One piece s ide that i nc orpor ates t he top ra il , sides & sloping side rail with rub rail (no welded pieces) * Dirt shed ding boxe d t op ra il is 1"x 4" 50 deg ree slop ed down x 3"flat x 5"50 degre e sloped dow n t ow ard s id e * 6.5"45 deg ree slop in g s ide rail with 3 " rub ra il * No front cor ner pos ts * Integ ral formed horizo ntal side brac e o n eac h side * 12"wide x 4.75"deep full depth rea r corner post wi th 10" re ar apro n c onne ct ing both side s and flo or of bo dy * 50 degr ee slope on top of rear co rner po st for dirt shed ding * Side board po ck ets TAILG AT E: * Three pan el sty le with two hor izont al br aces * Doub le ac ting * Dual banjo chain holders on each side Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 4 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt * Full-length st ainless st eel tailga te chains TAILG AT E LIN KA GE & HARDW ARE: * All upper and lower tailgate hardw are an d point to be stainless steel * All tailga te ro ds,li nk age , pins, etc. to be stainless s teel * All pivot points t o h ave gr ease po in ts UN DE RS TRUC TU RE : * W est ern style * 1/4"x 10"tall trape zoid st ainless st eel long sills CA B SHIELD: * 1/2 (24") x 84"cab s hield fac to ry inst alled * Fully encl os ed * Three (3 ) sealed ac ce ss pa nels in top of cab shield * Access panels with rubb er gasket * All stainles s st eel fastener s on panels * Six (6) ov als in fro nt of cab s hield * Six (6) ov als in r ear of cab s hield * One (1)oval in each s id e o f ca b s hield for total of tw o (2) RE AR OVALS IN BODY: * Three 6"ovals in eac h rear corn er pos t * One (1)6"ov al in si de of each r ear c orner pos t Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 5 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt CA B SHIELD ELECTRI CA L W IRE RUN S: * 1/2"stainles s s teel tubing down drive r si de outside front of body f rom cab s hield to f lo or * 1/2"stainles s s teel tubing unde r body f rom front to rear LIGHTING: * (6)6"ova l s tr obes ins ta ll ed in front of cab shield * (1)6"st rob e in eac h side of cab s hield * (4)strobes in re ar of cab shield * (2)S/T/T/ Back up light in rea r of cab shield * (2)strobes in each rear corn er pos t * (1)S/T/T/ Back up light in each rear corne r pos t * All wired to rea r for hook in g into junc ti on box on chas si s VIBRATOR: * Install cougar 3200 vibr ator under bo dy between long sills and w ir e to re ar * 3/4"stainles s s teel tubing unde r body f rom vibrat or t o r ear for vibr at or wire run AIR TAILGATE CY LINDER: * Air tailgate cylinder ins talled on body between long sills LADD ER : * Unde rbody slid e o ut stainles s s teel two Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 6 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt ru ng ladder on dr iv er s id e t ow ard front GR AB HA NDLE: * Stainles s st eel full-lengt h grab han dle o n dr iv er s id e t ow ard front on both sides of ladde r STEPS: * Two st ainles s st eel grip s tr ut step s mount ed on s id e a bove ladd er,same widt h as lad der RE AR QUI CK COUPLE RS : * Rear quick coupler s hos e boxe s under bod y a t rea r for both sides made of stainless s teel * Quick con nect plate o n h ydrau li c hose box below rub rail * Quick cou plers will be unde r rub rails * No quic k co uplers in ru b r ails * No remov able pane l i n rub ra il s MUD FLA P BRACKETS: * Remov able swing st yl e st ainless steel mud flap brac ke ts RE FLECTOR TAPE: * Red &White dow n e ach ru b r ail & per imeter of tailgate HO IS T: * Mailhot hois t Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 7 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt * Doub le ac ting (pow er up - pow er dow n) * Rear hinge ass embly wi th safety pin body lock * Hoist t ruc k cr adle with mountin g a ngles * Hoist dogh ouse cradle * Body guides * Hoist f act ory moun ted in dogh ouse * 1/2"stainles s s teel tube mounted unde r bod y f ro mt fr ont to rea r for hoist down * Hoist hos ed to fron t of tube * Tube cap ped at rear _________________________________ RE AR FENDERS AND FLAPS: __________________________________ 1.00 MD24 36 Du raGua rd 3/8"HD 24" x 36 " Guar d Mud Flap - Bla ck - with Lind co E quipment Sales , Inc.Logo &Merrillville,IN molded blue/white int o flap (p rice per pair) 1.00 MIN1400 BP Minimizer M IN 1400 Qua rt er Fender Kit Black with Post Mount * Mounted in front of rear wheels _________________________________ LIGHTING &ELECTRICAL ITEMS: _________________________________ RE AR JU NCTION B OXES: 2.00 PH-3 10 Phoenix 10-P ole Junc tion Box Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 8 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt * One mount ed on eac h side on back s id e of rear hing e a ss embly. * Right si de will have all S/T/T, Back up lights and bac k up alar m wired into jun ct ion box . * Left s id e w ill hav e all strobes and spr eader lights wired into juncti on bo x. * All wiring ins ta ll ed in junc ti on box mu st hav e eyelet s i ns talled. * Jun ct ion boxes will b e d i-electric greas ed WIRI NG: * All wiring will be one piec e,no bu tt connec to rs or scotch loc ks. * All con nect ions must be di-electric gr eas ed * All lighti ng will terminated in rear junc ti on box es * W ir ing from junc tion box or c omin g f ro m front to rear will run dow n midd le of fr ame on s tainles s s teel flat s tock with stainles s stee l f ast ene rs. * All wiring ran down fron t of body will b e in stainless s teel piping. * All wiring ran from fron t of body to rear, und er body w il l be in stainlness steel piping. * All wiring from juncti on box will terminate to sw it ches in cab . Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 9 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt * All circuit break ers , f use s,relays,elec tr ic valves (air ta il ga te) will be ins talled in valv e enc losure. * All wiring will hav e prot ec ti ve loo m installed. * All wire pass thro ugh holes will be gr omme ted BACK UP AL AR M: 1.00 510 Ecco back -u p a la rm, 97 dB , 12 VDC . * Install on rear hinge as sem bly * W ir ed to junc tion box wi th S/T/T an bac k up lights * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed CA B SHIELD LIGHTING 4.00 SL66A 0 Buyer s 6"ov al LED strobe light, i lluminate s amber * Installed in fron t of cab sh ie ld on ea ch side 2.00 SL66A 0 Buyer s 6"ov al LED strobe light, i lluminate s amber * Installed on each side of cab shield 2.00 SL66A 0 Buyer s 6"ov al LED strobe light, i lluminate s amber * Installed in outer ovals on rear for cab shield * Strobes w ir ed to lef t side junct ion box Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 10 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt * Strobe wiri ng from junction box to sw itch in cab * All wiring ran from cab shield throu gh stainless s teel piping to rear of veh ic le. * Any lighting wir e n ot in the stainless steel will be in prot ect ive loom * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed RE AR COR NER POST LIG HTIN G: 2.00 SL66A 0 Buyer s 6"ov al LED strobe light, i lluminate s amber * Installed in top ov al on ea ch side 2.00 562 6432 Buyer s 6"ov al LED STT/Backup/a nd Strob e combinatio n light (32 LED) * Installed in center ov al on ea ch side 2.00 SL66A 0 Buyer s 6"ov al LED strobe light, i lluminate s amber * Installed in bottom oval on each side * Strobes w ir ed to lef t side junct ion box * Strobe wiri ng from junction box to sw itch in cab * S/T/T/Back up lights wired to right si de juncti on bo x. * All lighti ng wiring will b e in pr otective loom * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 11 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt SPREADER LIGHT: 2.00 MW L-19 Maxxima LED clear w ork light * Installed on each side under bo dy * W ir ed to lef t side junct ion box * Spreade r ligh t wiring from juncti on bo x to switch in cab * All lighti ng wiring will b e in pr otective loom * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed PLOW LIGHTS: 1.00 055 2243 J.W.Spea ker LED Plow Light s;built-in amber turn signal and lens he ater. (Pair ) 1.00 PLB12SS Buyer s st ainless st eel plow light brac ket s, ex te nded f or 2 post mount lights * Hood moun ted * W ir ed to plow li gh t sw itch in cab * All weld bur ns on plow light brac kets mu st be c le aned prior to installing on hood. * All wiring ins ta ll ed in pro tective loom * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed BODY UP SWITCH & LIGHT : 1.00 B95W Buyer s Dum p Body Up I ndicator 1.00 080 0850 Imperial LED indicat or light - red * Body up sw it ch installed on hoist crad le , dr iv er s id e * Light ins talled in cont rol cons ole Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 12 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors * All wiring ins ta ll ed in pro tective loom * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed MASTER CI RCU IT BREAKER: 1.00 175 -S 0-080 -2 Ch ie f 80 amp high amp circ uit br eak er. * Mounted in valve enclos ure * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors * All wiring ins ta ll ed in pro tective loom * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed RE LAY: 1.00 140 -0379 TST 75 amp relay , 12V brac ke t. * Mounted in valve enclos ure * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors * All wiring ins ta ll ed in pro tective loom * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed AIR TAILGATE VA LVE: 1.00 320 178 Velvac 4 w ay va lv e solen oid f or air tailgate. * Air valve mounted in valv e enclos ure * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors * All wiring ins ta ll ed in pro tective loom * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed * All air line from chass is to valve to valve to cylinders at rea r. BODY VIBRATOR: * Mounted on cha nnel supp ort * Stainles s st eel safet y ch ain a tt ac hed Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 13 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt * All wiring ran under bo dy in stainless pipiing * All vibr ators s olenoids/f us es,etc. moun ted in valve enclou sre _________________________________ PINTLE HO OK: _________________________________ 1.00 Lindco 5/8"Pintl e hoo k plat e * Back side of pintle hitch reinforc ed with 1" x 1" x 3/8"an gle * Pintle hook is wra pped with 1 1/4"x 3/16" flat s tock * 5/8"gus se ts installed on each s id e o f pintle hitch to frame * Chas si s S/T/T lights rec ess ed into pintle hitch * Trailer plug installed in pintle hitch 2.00 B46 Buyer s 3/4"dr op for ged D-ri ng w/we ld br ack et 4-1/2"x 4-1/2"O.D. * W elded on for chains 1.00 PH30 Buyer s 30 to n r igid mou nt pintle hook 1.00 054 002 Velvac 7-W ay Bla de Type Soc ket * Installed in pintle hitch * W ir ed to right s id e jun ct ion box * All wiring ins ta ll ed in pro tective loom * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 14 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed 1.00 491 22 Gr ote Super Nov a thin-line LED red bar lamps. 1.00 603 21 Gr ote license l amp w/st ainles s st eel bra ck et . * Installed on pintle hitch * W ir ed to right s id e jun ct ion box * All wiring ins ta ll ed in pro tective loom * All con nect ions to hav e eyelet conne ct ors * Conn ect ions to be di-elec tr ic grea sed _________________________________ HY DR AU LIC SYSTEM: _________________________________ PTO & PU MP: 1.00 107 5942 For ce A me ri ca w et spline PTO, 12V elec tr ic hyd raulic. 1.00 106 3355 For ce A me ri ca Loa d Sens e direct m ount ed pump,CFG-999182 , T XV 92-R-KIT-CFG RE SERVOIR & VA LVES : 1.00 109 7338 For ce A me ri ca VT35G2-B-SS - st ainless,30 gallon re ser voi r/valve co mb o tank with sl os h shield 1.00 118 0811 For ce A me ri ca 600 0 p si fi lter - 25 mic ron microglass, 435 psi Delts )-s ingle end open - nitrile seals , dua l #16 or 1-1/2"SF port s, 102 ps i b ypas s valve 1.00 108 4357 For ce A me ri ca Full Por t 2" NPT Bras s B all Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 15 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt Valve 600 PSI 1.00 103 9496 For ce A me ri ca Temp/level Senso r 158 De gree F 30 Gal With Slos h Shield Vt-35 1.00 109 0588 For ce A me ri ca Valve A ss embly; AAF1 2LS -4(5 00B)-10 -4-4 -CB 4(5 00B)-2(7)-2 (2 1)-2 (7)-BO , M ain at 300 0 p si, AAF-VD M-GE N2-CFG 1.00 109 5633 For ce A me ri ca c ros sov er relief w/pres su re re le ase. CO NTROLS : 1.00 102 2417-Yorkville For ce A me ri ca Co mm an dall, SPJC-6100-gen5-si ngle-york viille, spjc-6 100-g en5-s ingle-c fg PRE-WET: 2.00 LI SC SG0608001 5 Ce rt if ied Power 240 gallon behind the cab pr ewet ting sys te m.Includes (2) 120 gallon tank s,st ainless mount in g f ra me , hold dow n straps and moun ti ng har dwa re. 1.00 LI SC SG0607005 6-3 Ce rt if ied Power prew et, valv e instack w/flow meter with st ainless brac ket 1.00 LI SC SG0609002 8 Ce rt if ied Power prew et plumbing kit, behind cab,1 line,2 nozzles 1.00 ELCA SG0707012 1 Ce rt if ied Power stainless float with BH Co rded Plug 1.00 CC PP PP M-HC Ce rt if ied Power Prewet Pump Mod-Hyd closed LP Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 16 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt 1.00 000 02 332 39 Swen son V -box fl us h kit 1.00 000 02 332 09 Swen son 1-1/2"female q uick fill kit STAINLE SS STEEL HY DRA ULIC TUB ES FOR DUMP HO IS T: 1.00 8-049 304W /FJX-10 8"Mid-S tate 1/2"x9 ' 304 S/S Line with f ittings * One (1)line mounted t o the un derne ath of the body f or hoist pow er dow n. * One (1)line mounted dow n frame for hoist pow er dow n. 3.00 A2-12 .7-A PCI HD Se ri es Clamps for 1/2"tu bing STAINLE SS STEEL HY DRA ULIC TUB ES FOR SALT SPREADER: 2.00 8-049 304W /FJX-10 8"Mid-S tate 1/2"x9 ' 304 S/S Line with f ittings * One (1)line mounted dow n frame for spinner pr ess ure * One (1)line mounted dow n frame for aug er pres su re 6.00 A2-12 .7-A PCI HD Se ri es Clamps for 1/2"tu bing 1.00 12-065 304W /FJX -1 08"Mid-S tate 3/4"x9 ' 304 S/S Line with f ittings * One (1)line mounted dow n frame for re turn for spinner and auger 3.00 A3-19 -A PCI HD Se ri es Clamps for 3/4"tu bing STAINLE SS STEEL HY DRA ULIC TUB ES FOR SNOW PLOW : 4.00 8-049 304W /FJX-72 "Mid-S tate 1/2"x6 ' 304 S/S Line with f ittings * One (1)line mounted und er cab on dr iver Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 17 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt side for plow angle right * One (1)line mounted und er cab on dr iver side for plow angle left * One (1)line mounted und er cab on dr iver side for plow up * One (1)line mounted und er cab on dr iver side for plow down 12.00 A2-12 .7-A PCI HD Se ri es Clamps for 1/2"tu bing HO SE S/ADAPTORS/FITTINGS: 1.00 Ho se adap tors, Hos e e nds and Other Fittings 1.00 Hy draulic ho ses * No hos e length is to ex ceed 6'in leng th * Hos e prot ec ti on at all wear points SNOW PL OW HYDR AU LI C COUPLE R: 1.00 10-932-2101 CE JN Mu lt i-X Duo 12.5 female plate,2 por ts , 1/2". 1.00 10-932-2051 CE JN Mu lt i-X Duo 12.5 Male p la te, 2 port s, 1/2". 4.00 14-727-0812 CE JN Mu lt i-X adapter 1/2"WEO to male JIC 3/4"-16 4.00 14-727-1212 CE JN WE O Nipple DN 20 + 3/4" -1 6 U NF male JIC 37 * Female coup le r mount ed to und ers id e o f front bumper on dr iver side * Male coupler mounte d t o plow ho ses Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 18 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt * Coup le r dock ing station mounted on plow SPREADER HY DR AU LIC COUP LERS : 2.00 10-932-2101 CE JN Mu lt i-X Duo 12.5 female plate,2 por ts , 1/2". 2.00 10-932-2051 CE JN Mu lt i-X Duo 12.5 Male p la te, 2 port s, 1/2". 8.00 14-727-0812 CE JN Mu lt i-X adapter 1/2"WEO to male JIC 3/4"-16 8.00 14-727-1212 CE JN WE O Nipple DN 20 + 3/4" -1 6 U NF male JIC 37 * One (1)coupler mounte d u nder bod y o n pas se nger s id e for au ger pre ss ure &retu rn * One (1)coupler mounte d u nder bod y o n dr iv er s id e f or spinner pr ess ure & ret urn * Coup le rs i ns talled on spread er spinn er and au ger sh ort hoses 4.00 4H F4-S Dixon 1/2"female stainless steel coup le r 4.00 H4 F4-S Dixon 1/2"male stainless st eel nipple 8.00 4H DP -H4D C Dixon 1/2"Du st Cap/Pl ug * Stainles s st eel couplers for lift cy li nd er _________________________________ SNOW PL OW : _________________________________ 1.00 42R 11-R MB-ECT-CPF He nke Road W arrior Reve rsi ble Snow Plow:11 ' wi de x 42 " high,in tegral shield, mailbox cut out, dul compre ss io n s pring trip Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 19 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt moldboa rd,UQH quick hitch. * 11'wide * 42"high * 10 gauge steel moldbo ard * Mailbox cu t out on cur bside * W in ter Equipmen t cu rb guar d o n c urb si de * Doub le 5/8"thick t op punc h cutting edges * Plow ja ck stand * Plow angle cylinde r cus hion valve * UQH quic k hitch sw iv el plate with stop s * Deflector hardw are 1.00 371 2144 "Lindco"Snow Defl ec tor 12" 270 .00 Misc.Snow de fl ec to r installation ha rdw are 1.00 130 8110 S.A.M.36"blade guides __________________________________ SNOW PL OW TRUCK HITC H: __________________________________ 1.00 623 6060 He nke Plow Hi tch,UQH univer sal quick hitch t ruc k por ti on low prof ile design,fold dow n and t elescoping lift arm * 62369 03 - 4 x 10"do uble acting lift cylinder 2.00 W4P03596 Schmidt "Z " brac ke t-conn ect fr ame t o plow 3.25"x 5.5"x 1/2" thick (E ac h) 1.00 Lindco cus tom Peterbilt side plates * Lindco w ill re use Pet erbilt factor y bumper _________________________________ Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 20 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt SALT SPREADER: _________________________________ 1.00 000 02 463 84 Swen son S AD S t ailgate s pre ader w / 18" poly spinner,direct drive, 6" auge r,stainless stee l c onst ru ct ion,no pa in t,si des of spread er 8"high er,sens or m otor. * 304 2B stainless steel * 6"au ger * Direc t drive auge r motor * Stand ard side he ig ht * Stainles s st eel quick det ac h mou nting har dwa re 1.00 Short Hos e Kit 1.00 Stainless steel pr e-w et spray ba r installed in aug er trough 1.00 ** Yor kv ille designs spre ader stainless s teel side spill shields _________________________________ CA MERA SYSTEM: _________________________________ 1.00 A4693 Brigade color camera kit complete with VBV-770D-000N 7"LCD c olor monitor, VBV-701C co lo r camer a a nd 66' c able 1.00 MSF5001 Camer a Ca me ra sys tem box w/ram adjusta ble br ack et , s tainless s teel. 1.00 MSF847003 7000-LR-A Ca me ra W ash (1 ) nozz le for s in gle camera . Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 21 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt Do es not in cl ude tubing k it . Less rese rvo ir 1.00 MSF5010A Ca me ra W ash 30'tubing kit complete w ith air and wash er (Re v.A 05151 7) 1.00 MSF847003 8000A Ca me ra W ash noz zl e kit * Camer a mou nting will be determine dur ing cust omer pr e-built meeting * Monitor mo untin g w ill be det er mi ne du ring cust omer pr e-built meeting _________________________________ PAINT & UNDERC OATING: _________________________________ 1.00 PAINT PINTLE HI TCH Paint Pintle Hitch 1.00 PAINT HOIST & SU BF RA Prime Wh ere need ed and Paint Hoist & Subf rame t o b la ck 1.00 PAINT PLOW HITCH Paint Plow Hi tch,Incl uding lift arm, side plates , bumper and lift cylinder black 1.00 PAINT-MI SCEL Paint Miscel 1.00 Un der Coa t Un der co at dump bod y _________________________________ MISC., FREIGH T & LABOR: _________________________________ 3,249.00 Misc.Miscellaneous Ma terial -inc ludes an y o r all of the following : wiring, elec tr ical connec to rs,ti e dow ns , cl amps , nut, bolts, washe rs,st eel,oil, greas e,etc. 4,024.00 FREIGHT FREIGHT Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 22 TOTAL Cont in ue d Sales Tax Co ntinu ed Subt ot al Co ntinu ed Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE QUOTATION Quant it y Item De scription Unit Price Amo unt 260 .00 INSTALL AT ION Lindco Installation La bor Hou rs Quo te Nu mb er:220 839 Quo te Da te:Aug 29,2022 Sales Rep Quot ed To: City of York vi lle 610 Tower Lane York vi lle,IL 60560 US A Good Thru 9/28/22 Customer ID Payme nt Te rms Page: York vi lle-01 Ne t 30 Day s 309 70 23 TOTAL 285 ,970.0 0 Sales Tax Subt ot al 285 ,970.0 0 Voice: Fax : (2 19)79 5-144 8 (2 19)73 6-089 2 25%Res tock Fee on All Cance ll ed an d R et urned Or ders 216 8 E as t 88t h Dr iv e Merr illv ille,In diana 46410 Viking-Cive s #0808 18-V CM > Quot es are on ly valid for 30 da ys f rom dat e o f quote. > Quot es pas t 30 day s m ust be requoted. > 25% res tock ing fee on all cancelled and retu rned or ders . TERMS & COND IT IONS OF Q UOTE Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #2 Tracking Number CC 2022-40 Blackberry Woods (Phase B) – Development Status City Council – September 27, 2022 Majority Consideration of Default Issuance Consideration of Default Issuance Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department This memo is to provide an update as to the status of the completion of the improvements for the Blackberry Woods (Phase B) development. The City accepted the public improvements on February 25, 2020 and a maintenance bond of $16,450 was placed on file. A punchlist of work remaining was developed prior to the end of the one-year maintenance period. Some work was completed, but several items remain as noted in the attached updated punchlist. The developer has been non-responsive in the completion of the remainder of the work. Based on the amount of outstanding work and the lack of progress from the developer, staff is recommending that a letter of default be prepared and issued to the developer. This would be the first step in officially calling the bond and afford the developer an additional sixty (60) days to complete the required improvements, or until November 2022 before the City moves to call the security. At this time, we are requesting direction from the City Council as to whether a letter of default should be issued. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI CC: Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works Krysti Barksdale-Noble, Community Dev. Dir. Jori, Behland, City Clerk Date: September 1, 2022 Subject: Blackberry Woods (Phase B) CarlyCannonballPurcellIndependenceC o d y BeecherPatrickCornellEngineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700 / www.eeiweb.conBLACKBERRY WOODSLOCATION MAPDATE:JANUARY 2017United City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560(630) 553-4350http://www.yorkville.il.usPHASE BUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOISCONSULTING ENGINEERSNO. DATEREVISIONSPROJECT NO.:YO1217PATH:H:/GIS/PUBLIC/YORKVILLE/2016/YO1603- BLACKBERRY WOODS .MXDFILE:fffääNORTHPhase Boundary4000400200FeetPhase BPhase A Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/gov_officials.php Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #3 Tracking Number CC 2022-41 Pavement Management Program Update City Council – September 27, 2022 Majority Approval of 3-Year Plan Consideration of 3-Year Plan Brad Sanderson Engineering Name Department Background In the recent past, the City has selected streets for its upcoming RTBR program in the September timeframe. The timing allows us to move forward with the design in the fall and to receive IDOT approvals in early winter. We are then able to take advantage of bidding in February/March, which has historically been a prime bidding environment. Discussion A brief presentation has been prepared to provide an overview of the Pavement Management Plan. The presentation also provides recommendations and presents the new 3-year plan. A preliminary budget of $1,500,000 per year has been recommended by staff and will be re- evaluated on an annual basis. It should be noted that the Baseline Road project is addressed separately as the design contract has already been approved. We are recommending that the streets be reevaluated in 2025. Action Requested: 1. General concurrence from City Council on the proposed 2023 RTBR program. 2. General concurrence from the City Council on the proposed 3-year RTBR program. Note that this will be reevaluated in September 2023. Memorandum To: Bart Olson, City Administrator From: Brad Sanderson, EEI Eric Dhuse, Director of Public Works CC: Jori Behland, City Clerk Rob Fredrickson, Finance Director Date: September 12, 2022 Subject: Pavement Management Update / Roads to Better Roads Program PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE United City of Yorkville / September 20, 2022 1. Recap 2018 Pavement Management Report 2. Paving History Review 3. Recommendations and Draft 3-Year Plan 4. Questions Agenda RECAP 2018 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT REPORT Pavement Management Project Goals • Assign a Rating to Each Roadway and Inventory Each Street in the City • Develop Maintenance Strategies and Costs • Review Budget Needs and Impacts • Apply Budget and Develop 5-Year Plan What is a Pavement Management Program? • It is a decision-making process that helps municipalities make cost-effective decisions concerning the maintenance and rehabilitation of their jurisdiction’s pavements What is a Pavement Management Program?Overall Pavement ConditionAge (Years) Example Deterioration Curve Roadway Inspections Overall Pavement Condition Index (PCI) Quality Rank Surface Distress Index (SDI) Roughness Index (RI) Structural Index (SI) Road Surface Tester Subsurface Tester • Pros • Cons • Estimated Cost Roadway Inspections Cannonball Trail - Very Good Alice Avenue - Poor Heartland Drive - Good McHugh Road - Excellent Baseline Road - Very Poor Fairhaven Drive - Fair Roadway Inspections • 113.5 Miles of Roadway in the City were Tested • 7.5 Miles of Roadway are Binder Only (Not- Accepted) • Overall Surface Rating of 76 • 74% of Roadways “Good or Better”, 26% “Fair or Worse” 6.6% 35.7% 32.1% 17.3% 7.3% 1.0%Surface Condition EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR % of Total System Mileage 2013 & 2018 COMPARISON 2013 2018 18.0% 32.0% 25.3% 10.3% 13.8% 0.6%Surface Condition EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR % of Total System Mileage 25% Fair or Worse 6.6% 35.7% 32.1% 17.3% 7.3% 1.0%Surface Condition EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD FAIR POOR VERY POOR % of Total System Mileage 26% Fair or Worse Report Recommendations • 2018 Pavement Management Report recommended spending $2.1M per year to maintain the City’s streets • This would result in resurfacing your streets approximately every 20 years • Spending $1.0M per year would result in the City streets being resurfaced approximately every 40 years PAVING HISTORY AND IMPROVEMENTS REVIEW • Total of 69.8 Miles of resurfacing or 6.8 Miles/Year • 29.7 Miles from Developers for completion of Subdivision Streets • 23.4 Miles from RTBR • 3.4 Miles from Bonds (Countryside) • 3.4 Miles from Federal Grants • 9.9 Miles from Other Sources (ComEd, County, Rebuild & Water) ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS RECAP (2013-2022) • Pros • Cons • Estimated Cost *Includes REBUILD Ill inois Roadw ays • Pros • Cons • Estimated Cost • Pros • Cons • Estimated Cost RECOMMENDATIONS AND DRAFT 3-YEAR PLAN • Recommend new Pavement Management Study in 2025 • Industry Practice is to Inspect the Streets every 5-7 years • First inspection completed in 2012 • Second inspection completed in 2018 • Next inspection targeted for 2025 • Proposed Schedule • Roadway Inspection and Processing - 2025 • Analysis and Draft Program - Winter 2025/2026 • Council Presentation/Approval - Spring 2026 Pavement Management Next Steps • Need to adopt a new plan for 2023-2025 • Plans are re-evaluated every September for upcoming year • Proposed Schedule • Approval of 3-Year Plan – September 27, 2022 • Engineering Agreement Approvals (2023 Streets) – October 25, 2022 • Bidding/Letting – February 2023 • Construction Begins – May 2023 Draft 3-Year Plan • Pros • Cons • Estimated Cost • Pros • Cons • Estimated Cost • Pros • Cons • Estimated Cost 2026 REHABILITATION OPTIONS AND BEYOND Note: All the above subdivisions are at a point on the deterioration curve where resurfacing would be recommended. There are additional subdivisions that are beyond these that are slightly behind. • Pros • Cons • Estimated Cost • Pros • Cons • Estimated Cost Questions or Comments? IllinoisRailwayRRB N S F R R Rob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekF o x R iv e r Rob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekBlackberry CreekBlackberry CreekF o x R i v e r Middle Aux Sable Creek Rob Roy CreekBlackberry C reek Blackberry CreekFox RiverB la c k b e r r y C r e e k Blackberry Creek Fox RiverBig Rock CreekBlackberry CreekMorgan CreekMidd le Aux Sable Creek F o x R iverFox RiverGALENA FOX AME NT R I V E R ROUTE 71ROUTE 30 ROUTE 34CORN EI LS MILL C A N N O N B A L L MINKLERKENNEDYBRIDGEASHLEYROUTE 126 ROUTE 47LEGIONVAN EMMON MCHUGHBASELINE MAIN HIGHPOINTDICKSONELDAMAINSPRING BLOCKVETERANS TUMA FIELDS IMMANUELGORDONFAXON POPLARP A V I L L I ON STATIONSUNDOWNBRISTOL RIDGE G R A N D EASHE T USCANY S TA G E C O A C HBEECHER RESERVATIONCOUNTRYJOHN GATES EMERALD PENMANERICA FAIRFAXFOLI ADAM C E N T E R PARK EXIT HILLTOP AUDREYALICE RICKARDCOUNTRYSIDE SCHOOLHOUSE BRIS T O L B AY KRI STENTROON EDWARDMCLELLANA L A N D A L E OMAHAPA RK SI DE WRENSIMONS O M O N A U KGAME FARMSTATEMORGANPRESCOTTORANGE BERRYWOOD KENDALL TERILISBONFOSTER KLATT WINDETT RIDGE HAYDENKATE TIMBER OAKDEERO A K ALDENBERTRAM FREEMONTBOOMBAHCONCORDOAK CREEK MAYFIELDSUMACHAMPTONH O F F M A N ROSENWINKELHEARTLAND LAKEWOOD CREEKA UTU M N C R EE K BIG B EN D KINGMAPLECRIMSONS C H A E F E R LILLIA N ELM ORCHIDMANCH ESTER WALNUT LEWIS D R I V E WA Y ENTRANCE PR O VI D E NCE PARKWAY PE C O S HEUSTISAVA L ON MATLOCKHILLSIDE SUTTONWACKERLIBERTY KIN G M O O R WASHINGTON GILLESPIE F ORDQ U IN S E Y JULI E W I N D I N G C R E E KHARTFIELD R A I N T R E E RIVA RIDGECOUNTRY HILLS COACHBARBERRYFAIRFIELD JETERISABELWESTERN PATT E R S O N JACKSON RAVINEWI N GMAYRYANKELLY RONHILLF A I R H A V E N LILA C CORALOLD GLORYPATRONMARKETVIEWBLACKBERRY SHORE B E AV E R MADISON COLTONHIGHVIEW RILEY MILLER JUSTICESE CR ETARIAT GRAPE VINECREEKPR A I R I E CR O S S I N G REBECCAPRIVATE DRIVE OSBRONKINGSMILLWHITE ROSEHOMESTEADFOXTAILBRISTOLCALIENDOSUNSETSTACYDOBBINS NAWAKWAP IN E R ID G E CARLY JASONMADELINEBRUELLT A MP A ELDENG R E E N B R I A R ROBERTBLUESTEMLAURENTIMBERCREEKVENETIAN CHURCHW A T E R P A R K BAILEYADRIANMCMURTRIECHADWA L S H PLUMGRACEHIGH RIDGENORTHLANDMAR G A R ET DEERPOINTROODSAVO Y LAKE SIDEWEST IDENTA TALLGRASSSEELEY PENNMANJACOB SYCAMOREMILLBROOKHIG HL AND HUNT PLEASURE DANIELLEWHI TE OAKHOLLY T W IN L E A F EMILY EMMAWHITEKIRK COLONIAL BASE LINE LEISURE R E D B U D LANDMARK SHAUNA CRYDERRI CHMONDDILLON BRIAN SCHMIDTTHUNDER GULCHTITUSSIENNAJENNA CAREY FARMTHOMASCYPRESSLARKSPURCREEK SIDEALEXISIROQUOISPRAIRIEBURRCANYONH E AT H ER BLAINE GRIFFENWESTONOAKMONT PURCELL H A N B U R Y E D YT H E KELLERB E R N A D E T T E SLATEWI NDHAMROYAL OAKS PONDEROSA G E N E V A OLIVE BANBURYBIRCHWOODA NN A M A R I A CLUB HOUSE SEARLW O O D V I E W ROXBURYEL I Z A BET H KENTSHIREROSE HILLWHIRLAWAY ANDREWCROOKED CREEKBISCAYNE LAVENDER HEATHERWOODCLEARWATER CHARLESLEHMANCROSSCONOVER G A R D EN HILLCREST ARTESIANACORNLINDENMILLRACELYM AN ADAMSWILLIAM TAUS LYNNWOLFBADGERNORWAYRIVER BIRCH C L A RID G E JAMESTOWN ILLINI NORTH MITCHELLDEERE CROSSING ASPEN G ARD I NE R WI LD I NDI GORUBYBOOMERL E X I N G T O N GILDASPOKANEEVERGREENSQUIREHUN T I NG TON ASTERSARASOT ABONNIEAMERICAN C O M M E RC I AL TANGLEWOOD TRAILSARROWHEAD JUANITA BISSELFRANCES SAGE LONG GROVETIMBER VIEWRIV E RW O O D GAYL O R D BRADYPENSAC OLA KATHLEEN TIMBER RIDGECRANSTONDEERPATH YELLOWSTONE HEARTHSTONEBAR RETT SOUTH ELLSWORTHWILLOWASTOR G O L D E N R O D YORKVILLE MUIRFIELD BURNETT ASHC U M M I N S HENNING LOTUS RIDGEDOGWOOD B U D D WARBLERPRAIRIE GRASSFOXBOROM O N T C L AIR GAWNE CONSTITUTIONRIDGE FERDINANDCHALLYGOLDFINCHRENARIVERSIDEDIVISION CANARYCALEDONIA INDEPENDENCE OAKLAWNIN G E M U N S O NMIDNIGHT W YTH E KENDALL FARMS MARKETPLACEREDHORSEGEORGEANNA HOBBSFISHMONARCHOSD E A M E S M IL B R O O K F R E E D O M TURNERC O T T O N W O O D PRAI RI E ROSEOLSEN COLUMBIAASHWORTHGROVET H O R N HILL RACOON COUNTRYVIEWGARRITANODIEHL FARMW IN T E R B E R R Y CATALPAC LO V E R BROOKSIDEHAWK HOLLOWG R E E N FI E L D T U R NWOOD SAGEDOVERT IMB AL I E R CHRISTY SHETLANDCOLE PRESTON MARQUETTE CEDAR VI L L AGE V I EWRED TAIL MARTIN WALTER S A R A V A N O S O V E R H I L LBUC HANANLYNCLIFFSTRAWBERRY WI LSONHICKORYBIRCH CALLANDER SIR BARTONCOTSWOLDTIMBERLAKEVIEW H I G H P O I N T PINEPRAIRIE POINTE WOODWORTHPORTAGE CAMDENDOLPH GALLANT FOX B R I G H T O N O A K S ANDREAP AT RI CI AHYDRAULIC AUBURNBEHRENS HILLSBOROWOODLANDNADEN CHERRYVIOLETAMANDAHOOVERSANDERSOV E RL OOKCARDINALFOX HILLS H A D O W C R E E K WE S T W I N D PALMERSWIMMINGGAINS MENARD CEN TR ALJ UL I USN O R T H R I V E R C O DY C L A R E MO N T B U R N IN G B U S H ETHELPIERPONT R E H B E H N OBRIENDUNKINSPRUCEMEADOWLARKFIR C O L O N Y DENISE SAVANNAINDIAN CLIFFSALDERMEADOWVIEW MUL HE RN KELLOGG NEOLA SILVER CITY GLEN NELSONLAUREL RIVER OAKS ARCADIAF A R M S T E A D GOULD NORTON BLACKBERRYPATRIOTWATERMAN REGAL OAK OWEN D R A Y T O N CTA DAVID CONSERVATIONR O YAL CAROLYNG L O R IA APPLETREE SHOEGERP O S S U M BIG ROCKPHELPSCANDLEBERRYCOBALTABERDEENMADDENQUANTOCKS U T H E R L A N D WELLSCORNELLJUNIPER B U C K T H O R N T Y L E R C R E E K JEFFERSONHERITAGE RIVERSIDEDRIVEWAYW ASHINGTONPRIVATE DRIVE VETERANS D R I V E W A Y DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY CRIMSONPRIVATE DRIVESTATEROUTE 34DRIVEWAY PARKMILLDRIVEWAY DRIV E WAY ROUTE 34 RIDGE WA L N U T DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY BERT RA M CENTER D R IV E W A Y V E T E R A N S D R IV E W A Y SCHOOLHOUSE DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY D RIV E W AYFOX D R I V E WAY DRIVEWAYROUTE 71HYDRAULICPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAY PRIVATE DRIVEDRI VEWAYD R IV E W A Y DIVISIONPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAY LISBON TROON PARKR O U T E 7 1 DRIVEWAY S T A G E C O A C HDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY KATEDRIVEWAY D RIV E WAY DRIVEWAY BEECHERPRIVATE DRIVEPRIVATE DRIVE DRIV E WAY PRIVATE DRIVESUNSETDRI VEWAYRIV E R SID E PRIVATE DRIVE P R I VAT E D R I V E ROUTE 34 R O U T E 4 7 PRI VATE DRI VEPINECOLEDRI VEWAYPRIVATE DRIVECALEDONIADRIVEWAY B RID G E M A P L E B U D D PRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAYJOHN PARKPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAY PRI VATE DRI VEPRAIRIE CROSSINGMAI NPRIVATE DRIVE DRIVEWAYBRIDGEPRIVATE DRIVE P R I V A T E D R I V E D R I V E W AY A N D R E W BRI DGEMAINS O M O N A U KSCHMIDT CANYONROUTE 126 D R I V E W AYBRIDGEDRIVEWAY PRIVATE DRIVEASHLEY D E E R P OIN T R O U T E 71DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYPRIVATE DRIVEELDAMAINTIMBERBUDD PRIVATE DRIVEHYDRAULIC PRIVATE DRIVE B E E C H E R HARTFIELDR E B E C C A DRIVEWAY M A P L E WILLOWDEERWESTD R I V E W A Y PRIVATE DRIVE BEECHER FAXON PRI VATE DRI VEDRI V E WAY ROUTE 47L EW IS DRIVEWAYD R I V E W A YPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAYD RIV E W A Y DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY PRI VATE DRI VES T A G E C O A C H PRIVATE DRIVEPAVING HISTORY 2012-2022 DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: AUG 2022 YO2238 YO2238 PAVING HISTORY 2012-2022.MXD MJT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENTSYSTEM UPDATE 2022UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2022\YO2238 United City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560 N O R T H° Legend Year of Improvement 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 IllinoisRailwayRRB N S F R R Rob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekF o x R iv e r Rob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekBlackberry CreekBlackberry CreekF o x R i v e r Middle Aux Sable Creek Rob Roy CreekBlackberry C reek Blackberry CreekFox RiverB l a c k b e r r y C r e e k Blackberry Creek Fox RiverBig Rock CreekBlackberry CreekM organ CreekMiddle Aux Sable Creek F o x R iverFox RiverGALENA FOX AM ENT R I V E R ROUTE 71ROUTE 30 ROUTE 34CORN EIL S MILL C A N N O N B A L L MINKLERKENNEDYBRIDGEASHLEYROUTE 126 ROUTE 47LEGIONVAN EMMON MCHUGHBASELINE MAIN HIGHPOINTDICKSONELDAMAINSPRING BLOCKVETERANS TUMA FIELDS IMMANUELGORDONFAXON POPLARP A V I L L I ON STATIONSUNDOWNBRISTOL RIDGE G R A N D EASHE TUSCANY S TA G E C O A C HBEECHER RESERVATIONCOUNTRYJOHN GATES EMERALD PENMANERICA FAIRFAXFOLI ADAM C E N T E R PARK EXIT HILLTOP AUDREYALICE RICKARDCOUNTRYSIDE SCHOOLHOUSE BRI STOL BAY KRI STENTROON EDWARDMCLELLANA L A N D A L E OMAHAPA RK S I D E WRENSIMONS O M O N A U KGAME FARMSTATEMORGANPRESCOTTORANGE BERRYWOOD KENDALL TERILISBONFOSTER KLATT WINDETT RIDGE HAYDENKATE TIMBER OAKDEERO A K ALDENBERTRAM FREEMONTBOOMBAHCONCORDOAK CREEK MAYFIELDSUMACHAMPTONH O F F M A N ROSENWINKELHEARTLAND LAKEWOOD CREEKA UTU M N C R E E K B I G BEND KINGMAPLECRIMSONSC H A EF E R LILLIA N ELM ORCHIDMANCHEST ER WALNUT LEWI S D R I V E WA Y ENTRANCE PR O V I DENCE PARKWAY PE CO S HEUSTISAVA L ON MATLOCKHILLSIDE SUTTONWACKERLIBERTY KIN G M O O R WASHINGTON GILLESPIE FORDQ U IN S E Y JUL IE W I N D I N G C R E E KHARTFIELD R A I N T R E E RIVA RIDGECOUNTRY HILLS COACHBARBERRYFAIRFIELD JETERISABELWESTERN PATT ER SO N JACKSON RAVINEWI N GMAYRYANKELLY RONHILLF A I R H A V E N LIL A C CORALOLD GLORYPATRONMARKETVIEWBLACKBERRY SHORE B E AV E R MADISON COLTONHIGHVIEW RILEY MIL LER JUSTICESECRETARIAT GRAPE VINECREEKPR A I R IE C R O S S I NG REBECCAPRIVATE DRIVE OSBRONKINGSMILLWHITE ROSEHOMESTEADFOXTAILBRISTOLCALIENDOSUNSETSTACYDOBBINS NAWAKWAP IN E R ID G E CARLY JASONMADELINEBRUELLT A MP A ELDENG R E E N B R I A R ROBERTBLUESTEMLAURENTIMBERCREEKVENETIAN CHURCHW A T E R P A R K BAILEYADRIANMCMURTRI ECHADWA L S H PLUMGRACEHIGH RIDGENORTHLANDMA RG A R E T DEERPOINTROODSAVOY LAKE SIDEWEST IDENTA TALLGRASSSEELEY PENNMANJACOB SYCAMOREMILLBROOKH I G H L AN D HUNT PLEASURE DANIELLEWHI TE OAKHOLLY T W IN L E A F EMILY EMMAWHITEKIRK COLONIAL BASE LINE LEISURE R E D B U D LANDMARK SHAUNA CRYDERRI CHMONDDILLON BRIAN SCHMIDTTHUNDER GULCHTITUSSIENNAJENNA CAREY FARMTHOMASCYPRESSLARKSPURCREEK SIDEALEXISIROQUOISPRAIRIEBURRCANYONHE AT HE R BLAINE GRIFFENWESTONOAKMONT PURCELL H A N B U R Y ED YT H E KELLERB E R N A D E T T E SLATEWI NDHAMROYAL OAKS PONDEROSA G E N E V A OLIVE BANBURYBIRCHWOODA NN A M AR I A CLUB HOUSE SEARLW O O D V I E W ROXBURYELI Z AB ET H KENTSHIREROSE HILLWHIRLAWAY ANDREWCROOKED CREEKBISCAYNE LAVENDER HEATHERWOODCLEARWATER CHARLESLEHMANCROSSCONOVER G A R D E N HILLCREST ARTESIANACORNLINDENMILLRACELYM AN ADAMSWILLIA M TAUS LYNNWOLFBADGERNORWAYRIVER BIRCH C L A RID G E JAMESTOWN ILLINI NORTH MITCHELLDEERE CROSSING ASPEN GAR D INE R WI LD I NDI GORUBYBOOMERL E X I N G T O N GILDASPOKANEEVERGREENSQUIREH UN TIN GTON ASTERSARAS OT ABONNIEAMERICAN COM ME R CIA L TANGLEWOOD TRAILSARROWHEAD JUANITA BISSELFRANCES SAGE LONG GROVETIMBER VIEWRIV E RW O OD G AYL ORD BRADYPENSA COLA KATHLEEN TIMBER RIDGECRANSTONDEERPATH YELLOWSTONE HEARTHSTONEBARRETT SOUTH ELLSWORTHWILLOWASTOR G O L D E N R O D YORKVILLE MUIRFIELD BURNETT ASHC U M M I N S HENNING LOTUS RIDGEDOG W OOD B U D D WARBLERPRAIRIE GRASSFOXBOROM O N T C L AIR GAWNE CONSTITUTIONRIDGE FERDINANDCHALLYGOLDFINCHRENARIVERSIDEDIVISION CANARYCALEDONIA INDEPENDENCE OAKLAWNIN G E M U N S O NMIDNIGHT W YTH E KENDALL FARMS MARKETPLACEREDHORSEGEORGEANNA HOBBSFISHMONARCHOSD E A M E S M IL B R O O K F R E E D O M TURNERC O T T O N W O O D PRAI RI E ROSEOLSEN COLUMBIAASHWORTHGROVET H O R N HILL RACOON COUNTRYVIEWGARRITANODIEHL FARMW IN T E R B E R R Y CATALPAC LO V E R BROOKSIDEHAWK HOLLOWG R E E N FI E L D T U R NWOOD SAGEDOVERTIM BAL IER CHRISTY SHETLANDCOLE PRESTON MARQUETTE CEDAR VI L L AGE VI EWRED TAIL MARTIN WALTER S A R A V A N O S O V E R H I L LBUC HANANLYNCLIFFSTRAWBERRY WI LSONHICKORYBIRCH CALLANDER SIR BARTONCOTSWOLDTIMBERLAKEVIEW H I G H P O I N T PINEPRAIRIE POINTE WOODWORTHPORTAGE CAMDENDOLPH GALLANT FOX B R I G H T O N O A K S ANDREAP AT RI CI AHYDRAULIC AUBURNBEHRENS HILLSBOROWOODLANDNADEN CHERRYVIOLETAMANDAHOOVERSANDERSOV E RL OOKCARDINALFOX HILLS H A D OW C R E E K W ES T W I N D PALMERSWIMMINGGAINS MENARD CEN TR ALJ UL I USN O R T H R I V E R C O DY C L A R E MO N T B U R N IN G B U S H ETHELPIERPONT R E H B E H N OBRIENDUNKINSPRUCEMEADOWLARKFIR C O L O N Y DENISE SAVANNAINDIAN CLIFFSALDERME AD OWVIEW MU L HERN KELLOGG NEOLA SILVER CITY GLEN NELSONLAUR EL RIVER OAKS ARCADIAF A R M S T E A D GOULD NORTON BLACKBERRYPATRIOTWATERMAN REGAL OAK OWEN D R A Y T O N CTA DAVID CONSERVATIONR O YAL CAROLYNG L O R IA APPLETREE SHOEGERP O S S U M BIG ROCKPHELPSCANDLEBERRYCOBALTABERDEENMADDENQUANTOCKS U T H E R L A N D WELLSCORNELLJUNIPER B U C K T H O R N T Y L E R C R E E K JEFFERSONHERITAGE RIVERSIDEDRIVEWAYW ASHINGTONPRIVATE DRIVE VETERANS D R I V E W A Y DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY CRIMSONPRIVATE DRIVESTATEROUTE 34DRIVEWAY PARKMILLDRIVEWAY DRI VE WAY ROUTE 34 RIDGE WA L N U T DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY BERTR AM CENTER D R IV E W A Y V E T E R A N S D R IV E W A Y SCHOOLHOUSE DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY D RIV E W AYFOX D R I V E WAY DRIVEWAYROUTE 71HYDRAULICPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAY PRIVATE DRIVEDRI VEWAYD R IV E W A Y DIVISIONPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAY LISBON TROON PARKR O U T E 7 1 DRIVEWAY S T A G E C O A C HDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY KATEDRIVEWAY D RI VE WAY DRIVEWAY BEECHERPRIVATE DRIVEPRIVATE DRIVE DRIVE WAY PRIVATE DRIVESUNSETDRI VEWAYRIV E R SID E PRIVATE DRIVE P R I VAT E D R I V E ROUTE 34 R O U T E 4 7 PRI VATE DRI VEPINECOLEDRI VEWAYPRIVATE DRIVECALEDONIADRIVEWAY B RID G E M A P L E B U D D PRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAYJOHN PARKPRIVATE DRIVEDRI VEWAY PRI VATE DRI VEPRAIRIE CROSSINGMAI NPRIVATE DRIVE DRIVEWAYBRIDGEPRIVATE DRIVE P R I V A T E D R I V E D R I V E WAY A N D R E W BRI DGEMAINS O M O N A U KSCHMIDT CANYONROUTE 126 D R I V E W AYBRIDGEDRIVEWAY PRIVATE DRIVEASHLEY D E E R P OIN T R O U TE 71DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYPRIVATE DRIVEELDAMAINTIMBERBUDD PRIVATE DRIVEHYDRAULIC PRIVATE DRIVE B E E C H E R HARTFIELDR E B E C C A DRIVEWAY M A P L E WILLOWDEERWESTD R I V E W A Y PRIVATE DRIVE BEECHER FAXON PRI VATE DRI VEDRI VE WAY ROUTE 47L EW I S DRIVEWAYD R I V E W A YPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAYD RIV E W A Y DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY PRI VATE DRI VES T A G E C O A C H PRIVATE DRIVEDRAFT 3-YEAR PLAN DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: SEPTEMBER 2022 YO2238 MJT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENTSYSTEM UPDATE 2022UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2022\YO2238 United City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560 N O R T H° Legend Year of Improvement 2023 2024 2025 YO2238 Paving 3 Year Plan IllinoisRailwayRRB N S F R R Rob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekF o x R iv e r Rob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekBlackberry CreekBlackberry CreekF o x R i v e r Middle Aux Sable Creek Rob Roy CreekBlackberry C reek Blackberry CreekFox RiverB la c k b e r r y C r e e k Blackberry Creek Fox RiverBig Rock CreekBlackberry CreekMorgan CreekMidd le Aux Sable Creek F o x R iverFox RiverGALENA FOX AME NT R I V E R ROUTE 71ROUTE 30 ROUTE 34CORN EI LS MILL C A N N O N B A L L MINKLERKENNEDYBRIDGEASHLEYROUTE 126 ROUTE 47LEGIONVAN EMMON MCHUGHBASELINE MAIN HIGHPOINTDICKSONELDAMAINSPRING BLOCKVETERANS TUMA FIELDS IMMANUELGORDONFAXON POPLARP A V I L L I ON STATIONSUNDOWNBRISTOL RIDGE G R A N D EASHE T USCANY S TA G E C O A C HBEECHER RESERVATIONCOUNTRYJOHN GATES EMERALD PENMANERICA FAIRFAXFOLI ADAM C E N T E R PARK EXIT HILLTOP AUDREYALICE RICKARDCOUNTRYSIDE SCHOOLHOUSE BRIS T O L B AY KRI STENTROON EDWARDMCLELLANA L A N D A L E OMAHAPA RK SI DE WRENSIMONS O M O N A U KGAME FARMSTATEMORGANPRESCOTTORANGE BERRYWOOD KENDALL TERILISBONFOSTER KLATT WINDETT RIDGE HAYDENKATE TIMBER OAKDEERO A K ALDENBERTRAM FREEMONTBOOMBAHCONCORDOAK CREEK MAYFIELDSUMACHAMPTONH O F F M A N ROSENWINKELHEARTLAND LAKEWOOD CREEKA UTU M N C R EE K BIG B EN D KINGMAPLECRIMSONS C H A E F E R LILLIA N ELM ORCHIDMANCH ESTER WALNUT LEWIS D R I V E WA Y ENTRANCE PR O VI D E NCE PARKWAY PE C O S HEUSTISAVA L ON MATLOCKHILLSIDE SUTTONWACKERLIBERTY KIN G M O O R WASHINGTON GILLESPIE F ORDQ U IN S E Y JULI E W I N D I N G C R E E KHARTFIELD R A I N T R E E RIVA RIDGECOUNTRY HILLS COACHBARBERRYFAIRFIELD JETERISABELWESTERN PATT E R S O N JACKSON RAVINEWI N GMAYRYANKELLY RONHILLF A I R H A V E N LILA C CORALOLD GLORYPATRONMARKETVIEWBLACKBERRY SHORE B E AV E R MADISON COLTONHIGHVIEW RILEY MILLER JUSTICESE CR ETARIAT GRAPE VINECREEKPR A I R I E CR O S S I N G REBECCAPRIVATE DRIVE OSBRONKINGSMILLWHITE ROSEHOMESTEADFOXTAILBRISTOLCALIENDOSUNSETSTACYDOBBINS NAWAKWAP IN E R ID G E CARLY JASONMADELINEBRUELLT A MP A ELDENG R E E N B R I A R ROBERTBLUESTEMLAURENTIMBERCREEKVENETIAN CHURCHW A T E R P A R K BAILEYADRIANMCMURTRIECHADWA L S H PLUMGRACEHIGH RIDGENORTHLANDMAR G A R ET DEERPOINTROODSAVO Y LAKE SIDEWEST IDENTA TALLGRASSSEELEY PENNMANJACOB SYCAMOREMILLBROOKHIG HL AND HUNT PLEASURE DANIELLEWHI TE OAKHOLLY T W IN L E A F EMILY EMMAWHITEKIRK COLONIAL BASE LINE LEISURE R E D B U D LANDMARK SHAUNA CRYDERRI CHMONDDILLON BRIAN SCHMIDTTHUNDER GULCHTITUSSIENNAJENNA CAREY FARMTHOMASCYPRESSLARKSPURCREEK SIDEALEXISIROQUOISPRAIRIEBURRCANYONH E AT H ER BLAINE GRIFFENWESTONOAKMONT PURCELL H A N B U R Y E D YT H E KELLERB E R N A D E T T E SLATEWI NDHAMROYAL OAKS PONDEROSA G E N E V A OLIVE BANBURYBIRCHWOODA NN A M A R I A CLUB HOUSE SEARLW O O D V I E W ROXBURYEL I Z A BET H KENTSHIREROSE HILLWHIRLAWAY ANDREWCROOKED CREEKBISCAYNE LAVENDER HEATHERWOODCLEARWATER CHARLESLEHMANCROSSCONOVER G A R D EN HILLCREST ARTESIANACORNLINDENMILLRACELYM AN ADAMSWILLIAM TAUS LYNNWOLFBADGERNORWAYRIVER BIRCH C L A RID G E JAMESTOWN ILLINI NORTH MITCHELLDEERE CROSSING ASPEN G ARD I NE R WI LD I NDI GORUBYBOOMERL E X I N G T O N GILDASPOKANEEVERGREENSQUIREHUN T I NG TON ASTERSARASOT ABONNIEAMERICAN C O M M E RC I AL TANGLEWOOD TRAILSARROWHEAD JUANITA BISSELFRANCES SAGE LONG GROVETIMBER VIEWRIV E RW O O D GAYL O R D BRADYPENSAC OLA KATHLEEN TIMBER RIDGECRANSTONDEERPATH YELLOWSTONE HEARTHSTONEBAR RETT SOUTH ELLSWORTHWILLOWASTOR G O L D E N R O D YORKVILLE MUIRFIELD BURNETT ASHC U M M I N S HENNING LOTUS RIDGEDOGWOOD B U D D WARBLERPRAIRIE GRASSFOXBOROM O N T C L AIR GAWNE CONSTITUTIONRIDGE FERDINANDCHALLYGOLDFINCHRENARIVERSIDEDIVISION CANARYCALEDONIA INDEPENDENCE OAKLAWNIN G E M U N S O NMIDNIGHT W YTH E KENDALL FARMS MARKETPLACEREDHORSEGEORGEANNA HOBBSFISHMONARCHOSD E A M E S M IL B R O O K F R E E D O M TURNERC O T T O N W O O D PRAI RI E ROSEOLSEN COLUMBIAASHWORTHGROVET H O R N HILL RACOON COUNTRYVIEWGARRITANODIEHL FARMW IN T E R B E R R Y CATALPAC LO V E R BROOKSIDEHAWK HOLLOWG R E E N FI E L D T U R NWOOD SAGEDOVERT IMB AL I E R CHRISTY SHETLANDCOLE PRESTON MARQUETTE CEDAR VI L L AGE V I EWRED TAIL MARTIN WALTER S A R A V A N O S O V E R H I L LBUC HANANLYNCLIFFSTRAWBERRY WI LSONHICKORYBIRCH CALLANDER SIR BARTONCOTSWOLDTIMBERLAKEVIEW H I G H P O I N T PINEPRAIRIE POINTE WOODWORTHPORTAGE CAMDENDOLPH GALLANT FOX B R I G H T O N O A K S ANDREAP AT RI CI AHYDRAULIC AUBURNBEHRENS HILLSBOROWOODLANDNADEN CHERRYVIOLETAMANDAHOOVERSANDERSOV E RL OOKCARDINALFOX HILLS H A D O W C R E E K WE S T W I N D PALMERSWIMMINGGAINS MENARD CEN TR ALJ UL I USN O R T H R I V E R C O DY C L A R E MO N T B U R N IN G B U S H ETHELPIERPONT R E H B E H N OBRIENDUNKINSPRUCEMEADOWLARKFIR C O L O N Y DENISE SAVANNAINDIAN CLIFFSALDERMEADOWVIEW MUL HE RN KELLOGG NEOLA SILVER CITY GLEN NELSONLAUREL RIVER OAKS ARCADIAF A R M S T E A D GOULD NORTON BLACKBERRYPATRIOTWATERMAN REGAL OAK OWEN D R A Y T O N CTA DAVID CONSERVATIONR O YAL CAROLYNG L O R IA APPLETREE SHOEGERP O S S U M BIG ROCKPHELPSCANDLEBERRYCOBALTABERDEENMADDENQUANTOCKS U T H E R L A N D WELLSCORNELLJUNIPER B U C K T H O R N T Y L E R C R E E K JEFFERSONHERITAGE RIVERSIDEDRIVEWAYW ASHINGTONPRIVATE DRIVE VETERANS D R I V E W A Y DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY CRIMSONPRIVATE DRIVESTATEROUTE 34DRIVEWAY PARKMILLDRIVEWAY DRIV E WAY ROUTE 34 RIDGE WA L N U T DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY BERT RA M CENTER D R IV E W A Y V E T E R A N S D R IV E W A Y SCHOOLHOUSE DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY D RIV E W AYFOX D R I V E WAY DRIVEWAYROUTE 71HYDRAULICPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAY PRIVATE DRIVEDRI VEWAYD R IV E W A Y DIVISIONPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAY LISBON TROON PARKR O U T E 7 1 DRIVEWAY S T A G E C O A C HDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY KATEDRIVEWAY D RIV E WAY DRIVEWAY BEECHERPRIVATE DRIVEPRIVATE DRIVE DRIV E WAY PRIVATE DRIVESUNSETDRI VEWAYRIV E R SID E PRIVATE DRIVE P R I VAT E D R I V E ROUTE 34 R O U T E 4 7 PRI VATE DRI VEPINECOLEDRI VEWAYPRIVATE DRIVECALEDONIADRIVEWAY B RID G E M A P L E B U D D PRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAYJOHN PARKPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAY PRI VATE DRI VEPRAIRIE CROSSINGMAI NPRIVATE DRIVE DRIVEWAYBRIDGEPRIVATE DRIVE P R I V A T E D R I V E D R I V E W AY A N D R E W BRI DGEMAINS O M O N A U KSCHMIDT CANYONROUTE 126 D R I V E W AYBRIDGEDRIVEWAY PRIVATE DRIVEASHLEY D E E R P OIN T R O U T E 71DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYPRIVATE DRIVEELDAMAINTIMBERBUDD PRIVATE DRIVEHYDRAULIC PRIVATE DRIVE B E E C H E R HARTFIELDR E B E C C A DRIVEWAY M A P L E WILLOWDEERWESTD R I V E W A Y PRIVATE DRIVE BEECHER FAXON PRI VATE DRI VEDRI V E WAY ROUTE 47L EW IS DRIVEWAYD R I V E W A YPRIVATE DRIVEDRIVEWAYD RIV E W A Y DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY PRI VATE DRI VES T A G E C O A C H PRIVATE DRIVE2026 SUBDIVISION PAVING NEEDS DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: SEPTEMBER 2022 YO2238 MJT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENTSYSTEM UPDATE 2022UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2022\YO2238 United City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560 N O R T H° Legend RESURFACING YO2238 Paving Immediate Future Paving Needs Best FOX HIGHLANDS RAINTREE VILLAGE RAINTREE VILLAGE RIVERS EDGE HEARTLAND CIRCLE KYLYNS RIDGE PRAIRIE MEADOWS AUTUMN CREEK BRISTOL BAY HEARTLAND RTBR PROGRAM UPDATEUnited City of YorkvilleSEPTEMBER 2022PROPOSED RTBR PROGRAM FUNDINGSTREET FROM TO STRATEGY LENGTH AREADEFLECTION CONDITIONDYNAMIC CONDITIONSURFACE CONDITIONCURRENT RANKCOSTALICE AVENUE FAXON ROAD CANNONBALL TRAILVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"2,377 9,500 100 91 54 78 220,900$ ALLEY STATE STREET MAIN STREETMILL 4", OVERLAY 4"310 650 N/A N/A N/A N/A 31,100$ BRISTOL RIDGE ROAD KENNEDY ROAD CITY LIMITSVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,015 3,710 100 100 58 84 83,400$ COMMERCIAL DRIVE WEST END BOOMBAH BOULEVARDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,578 6,770 100 94 72 87 159,500$ DALTON AVENUE LANDMARK AVENUE FREEMONT STREETVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"670 2,200 100 86 64 83 64,800$ E CENTER STREET IL ROUTE 47 LIBERTY STREETVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"754 1,820 100 90 71 86 53,500$ FREEMONT STREET WALNUT STREET LANDMARK AVENUEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"605 2,195 100 88 82 84 65,700$ KING ST W RIVER STREET W SOMONAUK STREETMILL 4", OVERLAY 4"1,185 3,440 100 84 56 69 192,200$ LANDMARK AVENUE IL ROUTE 47 MARKETPLACE DRIVEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,440 4,640 100 90 69 85 138,600$ LIBERTY STREET E PARK STREET E MAIN STREETVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,315 3,440 100 82 71 81 96,700$ MARKETPLACE DRIVE US ROUTE 34 MCHUGH ROADVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,170 4,370 100 99 60 85 128,400$ W CENTER STREET WEST END IL ROUTE 47MILL 4", OVERLAY 4"1,850 3,800 100 86 64 73 86,500$ MILL 4", OVERLAY 4"N/A 1,320 N/A N/A N/A N/A 38,200$ W MAIN STREET WEST END IL ROUTE 47MILL 4", OVERLAY 4"910 2,890 100 83 62 80 109,100$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35,000$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 62,000$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 115,000$ 1,680,600$ PROPOSED CITY-WIDE CAPITAL FUNDINGBASELINE ROAD IL ROUTE 47 CITY LIMITSGRIND 5", OVERLAY 5"7,450 18220 100 69 38 40 654,000.00$ 654,000.00$ 2023 (FY24) STREET REHABILITATION LISTTOTAL:PAVEMENT REJUVENATION (2022 RESURFACING STREETS)TOTAL:W. CENTER STREET PARKING LOTMISCELLANEOUS CITY WIDE CRACK SEALINGMISCELLANEOUS CITY WIDE STRIPING RTBR PROGRAM UPDATEUnited City of YorkvilleSEPTEMBER 2022PROPOSED RTBR PROGRAM FUNDINGSTREET FROM TO STRATEGY LENGTH AREADEFLECTION CONDITIONDYNAMIC CONDITIONSURFACE CONDITIONCURRENT RANKCOSTBELL STREET E FOX STREET NORTH ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"188 585 100 93 36 71 13,750$ CLOVER COURT COUNTRY HILLS DRIVE DEAD ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"666 2,120 100 82 69 82 58,648$ COUNTRY HILLS DRIVE IL ROUTE 71 HAMPTON LANEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"2,020 6,960 100 93 68 84 192,541$ E HYDRAULIC AVENUE IL ROUTE 47 MILL STREETVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"836 3,044 100 80 70 84 78,827$ E VAN EMMON STREET IL ROUTE 47 CITY LIMITVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"2,734 10,160 100 95 72 85 281,066$ FAWN RIDGE COURT COUNTRY HILLS DRIVE DEAD ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"505 2,340 100 87 71 84 64,734$ GARDEN CIRCLE GARDEN STREET GARDEN STREETVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,573 5,350 100 89 66 84 148,002$ GARDEN STREET IL ROUTE 47 GARDEN CIRCLEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"935 3,365 100 94 66 85 93,089$ GREENFIELD TURN COUNTRY HILLS DRIVE COUNTRY HILLS DRIVEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"3,195 9,175 100 87 68 81 253,817$ HARVEST TRAIL COUNTRY HILLS DRIVE DEAD ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"330 1,180 100 96 69 87 32,644$ MEADOWLARK COURT MEADOWLARK LANE DEAD ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"161 1,010 100 66 73 78 27,941$ MEADOWLARK LANE GREENFIELD TURN GREENFIELD TURNVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,306 4,280 100 80 65 84 118,402$ MILL STREET E VAN EMMON STREET E HYDRAULIC AVENUEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"367 800 100 92 69 85 16,973$ SUNNY DELL COURT GREENFIELD TURN DEAD ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"564 2,125 100 90 66 84 58,786$ SUNNY DELL LANE GREENFIELD TURN RAINTREE ROADVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"290 920 100 84 66 80 25,451$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35,000$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 62,000$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 74,000$ 1,635,671$ 2024 (FY25) STREET REHABILITATION LISTPAVEMENT REJUVENATION (2023 RESURFACING STREETS)TOTAL:MISCELLANEOUS CITY WIDE CRACK SEALINGMISCELLANEOUS CITY WIDE STRIPING RTBR PROGRAM UPDATEUnited City of YorkvilleSEPTEMBER 2022PROPOSED RTBR PROGRAM FUNDINGSTREET FROM TO STRATEGY LENGTH AREADEFLECTION CONDITIONDYNAMIC CONDITIONSURFACE CONDITIONCURRENT RANKCOSTALAN DALE LANE ALICE AVE RED TAIL COURTVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,013 3,130 100 86 65 81 84,297$ ANDREA COURT OVERLOOK COURT EAST ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"587 2,300 100 91 72 86 66,172$ BEECHER ROAD US ROUTE 34 JOHN STREETVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"880 4,640 100 92 69 84 113,421$ BLACKBERRY SHORE LANE NORTHLAND LANE CANNONBALL TRAILMILL 3", OVERLAY 3"863 4,790 100 95 72 87 117,088$ BOOMER LANE CANNONBALL TRAIL SOUTH ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"950 2,125 100 91 68 83 51,944$ CHESHIRE COURT FAIRHAVEN DRIVE WEST ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"305 1,310 100 87 64 82 37,689$ CORNEILS ROAD IL ROUTE 47 CITY LIMITVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,320 3,100 100 95 58 83 68,400$ DENISE COURT ALAN DALE LANE WEST ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"400 1,640 100 88 73 85 47,184$ DOVER COURT (N) NORTH END FAIRHAVEN DRIVEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"384 1,660 100 81 66 80 47,759$ DOVER COURT (S) FAIRHAVEN DRIVE SOUTH ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"213 1,120 100 68 66 73 32,223$ ESSEX COURT FAIRHAVEN DRIVE NORTH ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"279 1,250 100 80 69 81 35,963$ FAIRHAVEN DRIVE BOOMER LANE CANNONBALL TRAILVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"2,752 7,460 100 87 66 83 200,912$ MEADOWVIEW LANE YELLOWSTONE LANE RED TAIL LANEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"879 2,980 100 80 61 78 85,736$ NEWBURY COURT FAIRHAVEN DRIVE NORTH ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"292 1,280 100 75 71 80 36,826$ NORTHLAND LANE BLACKBERRY SHORE LANE YELLOWSTONE LANEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,992 6,310 100 79 70 78 169,940$ NORTON LANE MEADOWVIEW LANE CANNONBALL TRAILVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"312 760 100 88 69 84 21,866$ OVERLOOK COURT CANNONBALL TRAIL SOUTH ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"669 2,630 100 79 72 82 75,667$ RED TAIL COURT ALAN DALE LANE WEST ENDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"282 1,470 100 78 71 81 42,293$ RED TAIL LANE RED TAIL COURT MEADOWVIEW LANEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"407 1,550 100 75 61 75 44,594$ YELLOWSTONE LANE NORTHLAND LANE MEADOWVIEW LANEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1,312 3,910 100 71 66 76 105,303$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 35,000$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 62,000$ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 59,500$ 1,641,777$ 2025 (FY26) STREET REHABILITATION LISTPAVEMENT REJUVENTATION (2024 RESURFACING)TOTAL:MISCELLANEOUS CITY WIDE CRACK SEALING MISCELLANEOUS CITY WIDE STRIPING RTBR PROGRAM UPDATEUnited City of YorkvilleSEPTEMBER 2022PROPOSED RTBR PROGRAM FUNDINGSUBDIVISION STRATEGY LENGTH AREAWEIGHTED AVERAGE DEFLECTION CONDITIONWEIGHTED AVERAGE DYNAMIC CONDITIONWEIGHTED AVERAGE SURFACE CONDITIONWEIGHTED AVERAGE RANKTOTAL COSTBRISTOL BAYVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"4.02 61,840 100 82.9 71.0 82.1 1,782,634$ PRAIRIE MEADOWSVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1.76 27,400 100 87.4 67.3 82.9 819,846$ HEARTLAND CIRCLEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"3.13 49,120 100 85.3 74.3 83.9 1,469,738$ HEARTLANDVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"2.02 33,945 100 88.6 70.0 84.1 1,015,681$ RIVERS EDGEVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"2.07 33,235 100 88.5 71.4 84.5 994,437$ FOX HIGHLANDS/RAINTREE UNITS 1, 2 & 3VARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"4.42 73,010 100 91.5 70.4 84.6 2,184,560$ KYLYN'SVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"1.64 25,230 100 89.6 72.6 84.7 754,916$ AUTUMN CREEK UNITS 1, 1A, 2, 2A, & 2BVARIABLE DEPTH MILL, OVERLAY 3"4.21 66,810 100 89.1 75.3 85.4 1,999,060$ 11,020,873$ 2026 (FY27) STREET REHABILITATION OPTIONSTOTAL: Illin o is R a ilw a y R R B N S F R R Rob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekF o x R i v e r Rob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekRob Roy CreekBlackberry CreekBlackberry CreekF o x R i v e r Mid dle A u x S a ble C ree k Rob Roy CreekBlackberry C reek B la ck b e rry C reek Fox RiverB l a c k b e r r y C r e e k Blackberry Creek Fox RiverBig Rock CreekB ig R ock C reekBlackberry CreekM organ C reekMiddle Aux Sable Cree F o x R iv e r Fox RiverBridgeF o x Galena River Veterans AmentEldamainCorneils Ke n n e d y AshleyMill MinklerLegion Baseline Van Emmon BlockConcord Spring DicksonHighpointMain Cannonball FieldsGordon Popl arTuma McHughImmanuelPav illi o nFaxon Troon MitchelG ra n d e SundownBudd AsheSchoolhouseBeecherJohnKlatt Bristol Ridge Gates Hoffman Foli Schaefer PrescottKellerCenter St a g e c o a c h Hilltop Park CountryPenmanTuscany AudreyJeterAdam Alice RickardSomonauk Bertram R eservation Bristol Bay Erica EdwardMcLel l anA la n D ale Countryside BenjaminKristenWrenFoster Parkside Orange WillowStateUS Route #34 TeriOmahaKendall SimonDeerLisbonAldenGame FarmManchester Heartland Ha y d e n FreemontLillia nRosenwinkel Berrywood BoombahCarey Lakewood CreekWalnut MapleRiverside Or chi d Autumn Creek H a mp t o n CrimsonSumac Elm KingAndrew MatlockFor dBig Bend Oak Creek Providence HillsideAvalon HartfieldLibertyWackerKe l l y Bar ber r ySutton Parkway HeustisFairfieldWashington Country Hills Julie R a i n t r e e Coral Cummins Patterson RonhillWestWestern CoachWinding CreekIsabelOld GloryJackson Lilac PatronRavineMargaret StacyRyanWi n g Riva RidgeBristolFairhaven Secretariat Blackberry Shore BruellBeaver MarketviewBrian Green Briar Whitekirk Riley MayUS Route 34 OsbronCarly Prairie CrossingC a lie n d o JusticeRobertKi n g s mi llQui nsey MorganPratt L y n n El denJenna SunsetDobbins Highview NorthlandLaurenGrape VineChurchWalsh White RoseMcMurtrie JasonWat er par k Homestead AdrianMa d e lin e Lewis B lu e s t e m FairfaxKa t e RebeccaGraceRoodVenetian Pleasure Colonial Madison NawakwaDanielleDillon Savoy PlumWoodview Thunder GulchJacob BurrCryderEi leen Hunt SycamoreTwi nl eafCaledonia ColtonHighland High RidgeOak Pecos I dent aPurcell BaileyLarkspurBanburyLeisure Whi te OakSeeley Redbud IroquoisLandmark Titus Cypress SearlBlaine EmilyAlexisHeather RichmondCanyonSchmidtWest onS ie n n a Bernadette Ponderosa FarmS la t e Windett RidgeMi ll B r o o k H a n b ur y Clearwater Timber CreekC h a r le s Olive ThomasM unson Rose HillCrossHillcrest Conover KentshireCrooked CreekWi ndhamHaz el t i ne Wolf L e g n er F o x t a ilMillraceL a v e n d e r Whirlaway Fox Gl en Elizabeth Anna Maria G e n e v a Shauna BadgerAcornGarden ArtesianCl a r id g e Cottonwood BirchwoodNorth H id e a wa y CotswoldGr eenf iel d Blake GardinerRoyal Oa ks E m erald AsterHarris River WoodNo r way Pine RidgeLi nden Deere Crossing GroveSouth Gilda Taus Ru b y EllsworthBarrett Squi r e EvergreenArrowhead Lexington Wild IndigoHuntington Timber RidgeTanglewood TrailsAspenGaylord Lyman Gawne Frances Astor Boyer Y or k ville BisselCranston Shadow Creek BradyAmerican Commercial WarblerLong GroveBonnie Pensacola G oldenrod BurnettJuanita Sage L e n o x KathleenChally Deerpath Prairie Grass ConstitutionTremontJonathanGeorgeanna MarketplaceC a n a r y He n n i n g T h orn hill Wythe Oaklawn W Kendall Dr M o ntclaire Cl ov e r D e erp ointWooden BridgeRena Ridge IlliniPinewoodOlsenGarritano Inge m unson HobbsLyncli ffDivisionMonarchosIndependence Prai ri e RoseFreedomHarrison Christy Col eColumbiaWalter Preston LongviewMui r f i el dBr ooksi de Honeysuckle Deames Hawk HollowC o n s e r v a t io n C all a n d e r Shetland Country Vie wMartin Wood Sage Strawberry S u n n y D e llS ara v a n o s Sir BartonGillespie Vi l l age Vi ewWilsonBirch Red Tail HickoryBuchanan WoodworthDolph HillsboroPrairie Pointe WorsleySummerwindRiver Birch Hydraulic A n d r e a WoodlandAuburnP i n e ColumbinePat r i ci aBrighton Oaks CardinalPo p e OakwoodCe n t r a l Ti mb e r Vi e w TowerDydyna Naden VeronicaSprucePalmerAmanda Et helJul i usCl a r e mo n tWestwind DoverCedar Cody Coral berryGains BellColony Ke n d a l l Ci r R e h b e h n JohnsonMulhern Indian CliffsBat or Tomasik Evans Laurel River Oaks PhelpsWinchesterN orton SavannaDrayton Powers Wint er t hur PatriotF ar m ste a d Fl i nt Cr ee Regal Oak Appletree CobaltAllegianceShoegerCandleberryOwen Silver City Austin Cotter WellsQuantockBig RockMaddenAar on TimberBuck t hor n Prairie CrossingWillowS c h o ol h o u s eStateColeDicksonBeecherJohn ParkHartfieldBri stol MainRebecca Crimson Oa k Rebecca JeterBaileyCanyon F a i r f a x Faxon SchmidtMainWa l n u t Hydraulic AndrewBeecher St agecoach St a g e c o a c h F o x MillP a r k Highpoint Faxon AshleyEmerald MitchelSchoolhouse Park Center S t a g e c o a ch MorganPenman Mapl e McHughRidge CURRENT SURFACE CONDITION DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: BY: OCTOBER 2018 YO1815-C YO1815 CURRENT SURFACE RANK.MXD CJO PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM UPDATE 2018 UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS Engineering Enterprises, Inc. 52 Wheeler Road Sugar Grove, Illinois 60554 (630) 466-6700 www.eeiweb.com PATH:H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2018\YO1815 United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Road Yorkville, IL 60560 NORTH ° Legend SURFACE CONDITION Gravel Road Binder Only 10-39 Very Poor 40-59 Poor 60-69 Fair 70-79 Good 80-89 Very Good 90-100 Excellent H ollenback C reek Hol l enback CreekMi l l br ookSleepy HollowWalker HelmarStagecoach HollenbackWalker Walker GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF W River St W Main St King StChurch StN Bridge StS Bridge StCopyright nearmap 2015 Engineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700 KING STREET MODIFICATIONSwww.eeiweb.com DATE DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: PATH: BY: SEPTEMBER 2022 YO2239 YO2245_King Street Sight Distance Modifications H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2022\ MJT NO.REVISIONS ³United City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560630-553-4350www.yorkville.il.us 200 0100 Feet Legend GF HYD RANT PRIVATE DRIVE PRIVATE DRIVE TURN AROUND KING ST TO BE REMOVED _ ALTERNATIVE ACCESSTO NEIGHBORHOODFROM CHURCH ST CURRENT SIGHT DISTANCE TO WESTFROM KING STREET CURRENT SIGHT DISTANCE TO EASTFROM KING STREET TURN-OUT FOR HYDRANT FLUSHINGTO REMAIN KING STREET CURB MAIN CENTER KINGBRIDGECOLTONCHURCHSPRING RIVER WESTS O M O N A U K GAME FARM TOWERS O M O N A U K Copyright nearmap 2015 Engineering Enterprises, Inc.52 Wheeler RoadSugar Grove, Illinois 60554(630) 466-6700 2023 RTBRFULL CURB REPLACEMENT EXHIBITwww.eeiweb.com DATE DATE: PROJECT NO.: FILE: PATH: BY: SEPTEMBER 2022 YO2239 YO2245_King Street Sight Distance Modifications H:\GIS\PUBLIC\YORKVILLE\2022\ MJT NO.REVISIONS ³United City of Yorkville800 Game Farm RoadYorkville, IL 60560630-553-4350www.yorkville.il.us 300 0150 Feet Legend CURB REPLACEMENT Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #4 Tracking Number CC 2022-42 Riverfront Park & Marge Cline Whitewater Fox River Trail Request City Council – September 27, 2022 Majority Approval Tim Evans Parks and Recreation Name Department Subject Riverfront Park & Marge Cline Whitewater Fox River Trail Request Background Recently, the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail (FF!WT) organization, which Wisconsin and Illinois have partnered with the National Park Service to create the Fabulous Fox River Water Trail, contacted staff requesting permission to include Riverfront Park and the Marge Cline Whitewater Course in Fabulous Fox! Water Trail. This organization’s mission is to develop and support a sustainable, 200-mile water trail on the Fox River. Their brochure and map are attached. The Fabulous Fox Water Trail from Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin to the confluence with the Illinois River in Ottawa, Illinois provides suitable access for the public to enjoy quiet and active recreation, scenic beauty, abundant wildlife with historical and cultural features. The idea is that communities along the Fox River will embrace stewardship and public engagement to create and maintain a defined sense of place. The FF!WT goals include the following: a) Education: recognize the geologic and human history, cultural and natural resources, and abundant wildlife making homes in and along the river. b) Protection: advocate for the environment and water quality. c) Engagement: invite communities to join in preserving, protecting, and promoting the river. As part of being included with the FFWT, Riverfront Park and Marge Whitewater Course will also be included in their application to the National Park Service for designation into their National Water Trails System. While there is no cost to the City to be a part of this map and application, the FF!WT is asking the City to assist with a sign, attached, within the park highlighting the water trail, Riverfront Park and Marge Cline Whitewater Course. Staff supports this request as any information to the public potentially draws visitors to Riverfront Park, Marge Cline Whitewater Course and the City of Yorkville. Their draft letter and resolution are attached. Recommendation Staff seeks City Council approval of Riverfront Park and Marge Whitewater Course being included in the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail (FF!WT). Memorandum To: Yorkville City Council From: Tim Evans, Director of Parks and Recreation CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: 9/21/2022 Subject: Riverfront Park & Marge Cline Whitewater Fox River Trail Request Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 1 Resolution No. 2022-___ AUTHORIZING SUPPORT AND PERMISSION FOR INCLUSION OF THE MARGE CLINE WHITEWATER COURSE ACCESS SITE IN THE FABULOUS FOX! WATER TRAIL WHEREAS, the Fox River is recognized as a major natural resource corridor with potential for recreation, scenic and historic trails and for economic development of river communities; and WHEREAS, the National Park Service’s National Water Trails System is a collaborative effort administered by the National Park Service; and WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville enjoys the beautiful and scenic Fox River as part of their community and as a clean, drinkable water source; and WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville has an outstanding open space system and is engaged in development of river access and diverse recreational opportunities along the Fox River to serve the needs of residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville encourages and supports efforts to enhance economic development along the riverfront and revitalization of river communities; and WHEREAS, the mission of the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail is to establish and interpret a Fox River Water Trail along the 200 + mile river course from the headwaters in Waukesha County, Wisconsin to the confluence with the Illinois River in Ottawa, Illinois to provide access for all to the natural resources, recreational opportunities, scenic beauty, and historic and cultural assets of the Fox River Valley; and WHEREAS, the objectives of the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail includes promoting ecotourism and recreational opportunities throughout the River corridor, enhancing community recognition of the unique assets of the Fox River and supporting economic development and revitalization of river communities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. That the United City of Yorkville hereby supports inclusion of the Marge Cline Whitewater Course access site in the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail seeking designation as a National Water Trail as part of the National Water Trail System. Section 2. Each section, clause, and provision of this Resolution shall be considered as separable, and the invalidity of one or more shall not have any effect upon the validity of other sections, clauses, or provisions of this Resolution Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 2 Section 3. That this resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Marge ClineWhitewater Course 36.3River Mile TITLE SIGN: 2 signs. Same for both Land and River sides of Access Point Dimensions: 12”x18” w/(2) 3/8” holes at 2.0” Yorkville Dam Farnsworth House 36.331.2 36.2 Marge ClineWhitewater Course • Visit Safety at fabulousfoxwatertrail.org for current river conditions • Respect private property and the environment • Wear a proper tting Life Jacket • Carry a map and locational device • Tell someone your plans • Wear clothing appropriate for conditions • Bring emergency and rescue gear Visit fabulousfoxwatertrail.org for maps and trip planning MAP SIGN: 1 sign. Land side of Access Point Dimensions: 12”x18” w/(2) 3/8” holes at 2.0” Mile YOU ARE HERE Date Karen Ann Miller, AICP Illinois Co-Chair, Fabulous Fox! Water Trail c/o Kane County Development Dept. 719 S. Batavia Ave. Geneva, IL 60134 Dear Ms. Miller: On behalf of the United City of Yorkville Parks and Recreation, I am pleased to provide support for as well as permission for the Marge Cline Whitewater Course access site to be included in the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail (FF!WT) with the ultimate goal of designation in the National Park Service’s National Water Trail System. The Board and staff recognize the importance of this project to emphasize the opportunity the Fox River provides to enhance quality of life, economic development, conservation, community support, education, health and recreation. A unified and coordinated regional approach benefits the communities along the Fox River. We support the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail and are interested in coordinating recreational, economic and natural resource planning for this region. In addition to acknowledging the benefits the Fabulous Fox! Water Trail website and brochure provides to paddlers and communities along the Fox River, we intend to work with the FF!WT Team to plan installation of signage at each access site to educate the paddler about location, safety and other important information. Sincerely, Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #5 Tracking Number CC 2022-43 Treasurer’s Reports for August 2022 City Council – September 27, 2022 Majority Approval Rob Fredrickson Finance Name Department Beginning Fund Balance August Revenues YTD Revenues Revenue Budget % of Budget August Expenses YTD Expenses Expense Budget % of Budget Projected Ending Fund Balance General Fund01 - General 10,627,100$ 1,875,824$ 8,832,179$ 22,339,736$ 40%1,594,615$ 6,620,656$ 22,339,736$ 30%12,838,623$ Special Revenue Funds15 - Motor Fuel Tax269,412 70,468 271,709 1,176,560 23%18,449 209,799 1,277,045 16%331,322 79 - Parks and Recreation - 237,220 1,114,840 3,123,472 36% 302,065 976,866 3,123,472 31% 137,974 87 - Countryside TIF (1,182,815) 40,558 111,555 232,133 48% 1,317 51,575 227,291 23% (1,122,835) 88 - Downtown TIF (1,639,928) 3,430 65,531 96,000 68% 3,491 14,183 87,612 16% (1,588,581) 89 - Downtown TIF II (6,626) 8,356 61,732 99,353 0% - 352 30,500 1% 54,754 11 - Fox Hill SSA 21,577 657 12,186 21,500 57% 397 3,412 59,200 6% 30,351 12 - Sunflower SSA 2,385 81 10,940 21,000 52% 375 6,755 17,200 39% 6,570 Debt Service Fund42 - Debt Service - 27,465 109,408 330,075 33% - 4,800 330,075 1% 104,608 Capital Project Funds25 - Vehicle & Equipment 1,391,623 74,751 319,511 1,105,870 29% 361,682 539,830 2,235,223 24% 1,171,303 23 - City-Wide Capital 2,165,600 152,460 569,111 3,995,222 14% 148,952 305,033 5,592,073 5% 2,429,678 24 - Buildings & Grounds 10,002,255 89,192 342,571 1,007,229 34% 847,148 2,144,966 10,871,560 20%Enterprise Funds *51 - Water3,791,199 1,026,191 1,716,495 5,779,003 30%580,036 1,557,509 7,693,103 20%3,950,185 *52 - Sewer1,001,490 433,004 1,200,038 6,604,721 18%64,209 283,785 5,995,546 5%1,917,743 Library Funds82 - Library Operations746,898 94,263 1,010,347 877,541 115%64,557 314,931 1,763,820 18%1,442,315 84 - Library Capital176,662 11,166 29,386 50,350 58%5,006 10,821 85,500 13%195,227 Total Funds27,366,832$ 4,145,085$ 15,777,538$ 46,859,765$ 34%3,992,299$ 13,045,274$ 61,728,956$ 21%21,899,237$ * Fund Balance EquivalencyRob Fredrickson, Finance Director/TreasurerUNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE TREASURER'S REPORT - for the month ended August 31, 2022Cash BasisAs Treasurer of the United City of Yorkville, I hereby attest, to the best of my knowledge, that the information contained in this Treasurer's Report is accurate as of the date detailed herein. Further information is available in the Finance Department. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Human Resources Community Development Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #6 Tracking Number CC 2022-44 Tax Levy Estimate City Council – September 27, 2022 None Informational Please see attached memo. Rob Fredrickson Finance Name Department Summary A review of the 2022 tax levy estimate, for the purposes of publishing a public notice for an upcoming public hearing. Background Each year, the first step of the tax levy process involves adopting a tax levy estimate for purposes of holding a public hearing (if required). The estimated tax levy for the City and Library operations (capped taxes or PTELL) is $4,786,846, as shown on Exhibit A. The City’s levy request totals $3,744,925 and includes increment generated from new construction only. The Library operations levy is set at the max rate of $0.15 per $100 of EAV; however, due to the property tax extension limitation law (PTELL), staff would expect the actual Library tax levy to be lower. 2017 Tax Levy (FY 19) thru 2021 Tax Levy (FY 23 - current fiscal year) Beginning with the 2017 levy process, the City Council began to ease back into its past practice of marginally increasing the levy each year as allowed under PTELL. Pursuant to PTELL, two factors determine how much the City, as a non-home rule municipality, can increase its levy by each year: the equalized assessed valuation (EAV) of new construction and the year-over-year change in inflation (as measured by the Consumer Price Index or CPI). For the 2019 (collected in FY 21) and 2020 (collected in FY 22 – last fiscal year) levies the City Council chose to increase the levy by new construction only, thus foregoing the inflationary increment. For the 2021 levy (currently being collected in FY 22) the City Council decided to continue this practice, once again increasing the levy by estimated new construction ($128,428) only; and again, forfeiting the inflationary increment of $47,970. As a result, most residents over the last five levy cycles should have seen the City portion of their property tax bill stay relatively the same or even decrease slightly, assuming that the change in EAV of their homes was less than the overall increase in EAV for all taxable property in the City. 2022 Tax Levy (FY 24 – next fiscal year) For this year’s levy new construction EAV is currently estimated by Kendall County at $30,610,342, which would generate additional property tax proceeds of $172,367 for the City. As shown on Exhibit D, after two consecutive years of low inflation (levy years 2015-2016), CPI returned to more of a historical norm in 2017 of 2.1%. After holding right around 2.0% in levy years 2018 through 2020, CPI fell to 1.4% in 2021, before skyrocketing to 7% (capped at 5% - lessor of 5% or CPI) in 2022; ostensibly the result of pent-up consumer demand stemming from the pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine. This inflationary portion of the levy equates to a projected increment of $178,037, for an estimated grand total of $350,404 in additional property taxes that could be levied under PTELL. Memorandum To: Administration Committee From: Rob Fredrickson, Finance Director Date: September 14, 2022 Subject: 2022 Tax Levy Estimate Based on the information presented above, it is the recommendation of staff that the City increase its levy only by the amount of incremental property taxes generated from new construction, which is currently estimated at $172,367 (as shown on Exhibit C). While this will result in the City not levying approximately $178,037 (CPI portion) under PTELL (which means this amount is lost for subsequent levy years), staff believes that this is a balanced approach as it allows the City to marginally expand its tax base with minimal impact on homeowners. Depending on how the City Council decides to levy, either including incremental property taxes from both CPI and new construction (Exhibit B) or new construction only (Exhibit C), will result in the City’s portion of the levy either increasing by approximately 9.8% (Exhibit B) or 4.8% (Exhibit C). For the upcoming 2022 levy year, the City’s contribution to the Police Pension Fund is currently being determined by the City’s actuary, MWM Consulting Group. For the time being, a placeholder of $1.43 million is being used, which is based off the actual increase from two years ago. However, the actual contribution amount may be higher due to several factor including: • A shrinking amortization period (i.e., as we get closer to the year 2040, there is less time to spread out the remaining costs associated with the unfunded liability). • Normal costs continue to increase, as each year of additional service by current employees generates additional pension benefits. • Changes in actuarial assumptions pertaining to mortality, retirement and termination rates. After an unprecedented rate of return in fiscal year 2021 of +26.9%, the Fund yielded a net money- weighted investment return of negative 4.8% (the Fund benchmark is +7.0%) in fiscal year 2022– as a result of equity market volatility and the low interest rate environment. However, due to the long-term nature of funding requirements for pension funds, it remains to be seen how much of an impact this negative return will have on the City’s funding requirement for 2022. The City’s current contribution estimate of $1.43 million will be updated in October, once the current year’s actuarial valuation is completed. Looking back at the last six levy cycles, you may recall that a reoccurring policy question has been whether the City and Library levies should be combined or levied separately. In an effort to “level the playing field” by applying the same rules of property tax growth (lesser of CPI or 5%, plus new construction) to both entities, the City Council has chosen to levy the two entities separately since in 2016. Last year the 2021 Library Operations tax rate was capped at $0.131 per $100 of EAV, resulting in a property tax extension of $819,781 for library operations. This was an increase of $43,047 (5.5%) over the 2020 extended amount of $776,734. For the 2022 levy staff recommends that Council continue with the practice of levying separately for the City and the Library, which is currently estimated to yield property taxes for library operations in the amount of $903,410. This amount includes both CPI ($41,123) and new construction ($39,824) increments. Based on current EAV figures the library operations tax rate is estimated to be at $0.130 per $100 of EAV (max amount is $0.15 per $100 EAV) for the 2022 levy year, which is an increase of 10.2% ($83,629) over the 2021 extension. The levy amount for the Library is expected to be formally approved by the Board at their upcoming October 10th meeting. In addition, the fiscal year 2023 (2021 levy) certifications from the County Clerk are attached as Exhibit E. The first page contains all City (non-Library) taxes, and the second page contains Library taxes (operations and debt service for the 2006 & 2013 Refunding bonds). Of note, the 2021 levy was the first year that a new State law went into effect (P.A. 102-0519) requiring the County to adjust the City’s and Library’s extension amounts in order to recapture prior year property tax amounts lost to Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB) reductions, Circuit Court orders in assessment cases and error certificates resulting from assessment mistakes. These revenue recapture amounts are itemized in Exhibit E for both the City and Library, in the amounts of $5,612 and $2,681, respectively. As in past levy years, all City debt service amounts are expected to be fully abated for the 2022 levy year. Materials regarding the City’s bond abatements will be presented at a future committee meeting, before being presented to the City Council for approval in either November or December. Homeowner Impact The property tax bill lists the City and the Library as two distinct itemized charges. Assuming the City levies for the new construction increment only (Exhibit C), the City’s (capped and uncapped) estimated levy extension is projected to increase by 4.8% for the 2022 levy year (payable in 2023). The Library (capped and uncapped) levy is projected to be 10.2% higher (Exhibit B) than the 2021 levy year extension (payable currently in 2022). Overall EAV for the City is currently estimated at $694.6 million, which is a $71.0 million (11.4%) increase over the prior year amount of $623.6 million. However, approximately 40% of this increase is attributable to new construction, which is currently estimated at $30.6 million. When adjusting for new construction, EAV of existing property is projected to increase by ~6.5%; however, this inflationary increase in EAV should be mitigated by a similar reduction in the City’s estimated property tax rate which is currently expected to decline by 5.9%, from $0.57 per $100 of EAV to $0.54 per $100 of EAV. Based on the information presented above, the amount that each property owner pays to the City and the Library should be approximately the same as the prior year’s tax bill, assuming that their individual property’s EAV increases at a rate similar to overall EAV, adjusted for new construction. Recommendation The preliminary staff recommendations for aggregate levy amounts are below. City Tax Levy 2021 Levy Extension 2022 Maximum Levy (Estimate) 2022 Levy Recommended Amount City Levy (Capped) $3,560,742 $3,911,146 $3,733,109 City Bonds (Uncapped) N / A N / A N / A Totals $3,560,742 $3,911,146 $3,733,109 Library Tax Levy 2021 Levy Extension 2022 Maximum Levy (Estimate) 2022 Levy Recommended Amount Library Operations (Capped) $822,462 $1,041,921 $1,041,921 Library Bonds (Uncapped) 847,344 866,750 866,750 Totals $1,669,807 $1,908,671 $1,908,671 Regarding the setting of a tax levy estimate, staff recommends the approval of Exhibit A, which shows the City’s levy increasing by an augmented new construction only amount and sets the Library’s levy at their ceiling rate of $0.15 per $100 of EAV, for the purposes of setting a maximum levy amount for the public hearing. In order to capture every dollar possible generated from the new construction increment, staff has increased the County’s current new construction EAV estimate ($30,610,342) by approximately 10% ($32,610,342); which would increase projected new construction incremental property tax amounts by $11,816, from $172,367 to $184,183. Since the estimated amount of new construction is likely to be updated by the County between now and December, this would allow Council maximum flexibility to adjust the levy accordingly to ensure that the entire new construction component of the levy could be utilized, if desired. As a reminder, the tax levy estimate sets the maximum amount that the City and Library could levy, with the understanding that Council and the Library Board reserve the right to levy less than that amount should they desire to do so. Exhibit B is an estimate of how much the City could levy under PTELL (includes increases for both new construction & CPI) for a total of $350,404 in additional property tax proceeds. Exhibit C shows the new construction increment only, for both the City ($172,367) and Library ($39,824); hence foregoing the CPI increments of $178,037 (City) and $41,123 (Library), respectively, in subsequent tax years. Furthermore, staff recommends that the City instruct the County Clerk to levy separately once again for the City and the Library, so that both entities are held to the same rules when it comes to growth. A tentative timeline for the 2022 tax levy process is presented below: • September 21st (Administration Committee) - Preliminary Tax Levy Estimate • September 27th (City Council) - Preliminary Tax Levy Estimate • October 11th & 25th (City Council) - Tax Levy Estimate review and approval o Tax Levy Estimate must be adopted 20 days prior to City Council approval of levy • November 9th (City Council) – Tax Levy Public Hearing o Public Hearing Notice will be published on October 31st o Per State Statute, the Public Hearing Notice must be published in a local paper between 14 and 7 days prior to the hearing • November 22nd or December 13th (City Council) - Approval of the Tax Levy Ordinance o Must be filed with Kendall County before the last Tuesday in December (December 27th) 2020 Rate Setting EAV % Change over Prior Yr EAV 2021 Rate Setting EAV % Change over Prior Yr EAV 2022 Estimated EAV % Change over Prior Yr EAV $ Change Farm 3,360,133$ 3.08%Farm 3,524,082$ 4.88%Farm 3,907,936$ 10.89%383,854$ Residential 484,024,398 7.38%Residential 524,668,429 8.40%Residential 592,367,328 12.90%67,698,899 Commercial 79,649,698 -5.15%Commercial 79,815,145 0.21%Commercial 82,317,911 3.14%2,502,766 Industrial 15,586,411 0.49%Industrial 15,512,284 -0.48%Industrial 15,943,391 2.78%431,107 State Railroad 75,859 -14.77%State Railroad 77,628 2.33%State Railroad 77,628 0.00%- Total 582,696,499$ 5.26%Total 623,597,568$ 7.02%Total 694,614,194$ 11.39%71,016,626$ 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 % Change over $ Change over Rate Levy Request Levy Extension Rate Levy Request Levy Extension Rate Levy Request Prior Yr Ext.Prior Yr Ext. Corporate 0.16937 986,912$ 986,913$ 0.15791 984,681$ 984,723$ 0.14177 984,723$ 0.00%0$ Bonds & Interest 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - - IMRF Pension 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - - Police Protection 0.14838 864,563 864,605 0.15963 995,406 995,449 0.15626 1,085,431 9.04%89,982 Police Pension 0.22907 1,334,771 1,334,783 0.21405 1,334,771 1,334,811 0.20656 1,434,771 7.49%99,960 Audit 0.00515 30,000 30,009 0.00482 30,000 30,057 0.00432 30,000 -0.19%(57) Liability Insurance 0.00687 40,000 40,031 0.00642 40,000 40,035 0.00576 40,000 -0.09%(35) Social Security 0.02575 150,000 150,044 0.02406 150,000 150,038 0.02159 150,000 -0.03%(38) School Crossing Guard 0.00344 20,000 20,045 0.00321 20,000 20,017 0.00288 20,000 - (17) Revenue Recapture 0.00000 - - 0.00090 5,590 5,612 0.00000 - - (5,612) Unemployment Insurance 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - - Subtotal City 0.58803 3,426,246$ 3,426,430$ 0.57100 3,560,448$ 3,560,742$ 0.53914 3,744,925$ 5.17%184,183 Library Operations 0.13330 875,782$ 776,734$ 0.13146 934,994$ 819,781$ 0.15000 1,041,921$ 27.10%222,140$ Revenue Recapture 0.00000 - - 0.00043 2,637 2,681 0.00000 - - (2,681)$ Library Bonds & Interest 0.14420 840,225 840,248 0.13588 847,313 847,344 0.12478 866,750 2.29%19,406 Subtotal Library 0.27750 1,716,007$ 1,616,983$ 0.26777 1,784,944$ 1,669,807$ 0.27478 1,908,671$ 14.30%238,864 Total City (PTELL & Non-PTELL)0.86553 5,142,253$ 5,043,413$ 0.83877 5,345,392$ 5,230,549$ 0.81392 5,653,596$ 8.09%423,047$ less Bonds & Interest 0.14420 840,225 840,248 0.13588 847,313 847,344 0.12478 866,750 2.29%19,406 P-TELL Totals 0.72133 4,302,028$ 4,203,165$ 0.70289 4,498,079$ 4,383,205$ 0.68914 4,786,846$ 9.21%403,641$ 2022 Tax Levy - Public Hearing ** (Based on new construction EAV estimate of $32,610,342) ** (Limiting Rate Applied to City & Library) 1 2022 % Change over $ Change over 2020 Requested 2020 Extended 2021 Requested 2021 Extended Levy Request Prior Yr Ext.Prior Yr Ext. City 2,091,475$ 2,091,647$ City 2,220,087$ 2,220,319$ City 2,310,154$ 10.45%218,507$ Library 875,782 776,734 Library 934,994 819,781 Library 1,041,921 34.14%265,187 Police Pension 1,334,771 1,334,783 Police Pension 1,334,771 1,334,811 Police Pension 1,434,771 7.49%99,988 City Debt Service - - City Debt Service - - City Debt Service - - - Library Debt Service 840,225 840,248 Library Debt Service 847,313 847,344 Library Debt Service 866,750 3.15%26,502 Total 5,142,253$ 5,043,413$ Total 5,337,165$ 5,222,255$ Total 5,653,596$ 12.10%610,183$ less Bonds & Interest 840,225 840,248 less Bonds & Interest 847,313 847,344 less Bonds & Interest 866,750 3.15%26,502 PTELL Subtotal 4,302,028$ 4,203,165$ PTELL Subtotal 4,489,852$ 4,374,911$ PTELL Subtotal 4,786,846$ 13.89%583,682$ City 3,426,246$ 3,426,430$ City 3,554,858$ 3,555,130$ City 3,744,925$ 9.30%318,495$ Lib (excluding Debt Service)875,782 776,734 Lib (excluding Debt Service)934,994 819,781 Lib (excluding Debt Service)1,041,921 34.14%265,187 2022 Tax Levy - Public Hearing (Limiting Rate Applied to City & Library) 2 2020 Rate Setting EAV % Change over Prior Yr EAV 2021 Rate Setting EAV % Change over Prior Yr EAV 2022 Estimated EAV % Change over Prior Yr EAV $ Change Farm 3,360,133$ 3.08%Farm 3,524,082$ 4.88%Farm 3,907,936$ 10.89%383,854$ Residential 484,024,398 7.38%Residential 524,668,429 8.40%Residential 592,367,328 12.90%67,698,899 Commercial 79,649,698 -5.15%Commercial 79,815,145 0.21%Commercial 82,317,911 3.14%2,502,766 Industrial 15,586,411 0.49%Industrial 15,512,284 -0.48%Industrial 15,943,391 2.78%431,107 State Railroad 75,859 -14.77%State Railroad 77,628 2.33%State Railroad 77,628 0.00%- Total 582,696,499$ 5.26%Total 623,597,568$ 7.02%Total 694,614,194$ 11.39%71,016,626$ 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 % Change over $ Change over Rate Levy Request Levy Extension Rate Levy Request Levy Extension Rate Levy Request Prior Yr Ext.Prior Yr Ext. Corporate 0.16937 986,912$ 986,913$ 0.15791 984,681$ 984,723$ 0.14177 984,723$ 0.00%0$ Bonds & Interest 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - - IMRF Pension 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - - Police Protection 0.14838 864,563 864,605 0.15963 995,406 995,449 0.18019 1,251,652 25.74%256,203 Police Pension 0.22907 1,334,771 1,334,783 0.21405 1,334,771 1,334,811 0.20656 1,434,771 7.49%99,960 Audit 0.00515 30,000 30,009 0.00482 30,000 30,057 0.00432 30,000 -0.19%(57) Liability Insurance 0.00687 40,000 40,031 0.00642 40,000 40,035 0.00576 40,000 -0.09%(35) Social Security 0.02575 150,000 150,044 0.02406 150,000 150,038 0.02159 150,000 -0.03%(38) School Crossing Guard 0.00344 20,000 20,045 0.00321 20,000 20,017 0.00288 20,000 - (17) Revenue Recapture 0.00000 - - 0.00090 5,590 5,612 0.00000 - - (5,612) Unemployment Insurance 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - - Subtotal City 0.58803 3,426,246$ 3,426,430$ 0.57100 3,560,448$ 3,560,742$ 0.56307 3,911,146$ 9.84%350,404 Library Operations 0.13330 875,782$ 776,734$ 0.13146 934,994$ 819,781$ 0.13006 903,410$ 10.20%83,629$ Revenue Recapture 0.00000 - - 0.00043 2,637 2,681 0.00000 - - (2,681)$ Library Bonds & Interest 0.14420 840,225 840,248 0.13588 847,313 847,344 0.12478 866,750 2.29%19,406 Subtotal Library 0.27750 1,716,007$ 1,616,983$ 0.26777 1,784,944$ 1,669,807$ 0.25484 1,770,160$ 6.01%100,353 Total City (PTELL & Non-PTELL)0.86553 5,142,253$ 5,043,413$ 0.83877 5,345,392$ 5,230,549$ 0.81791 5,681,306$ 8.62%450,757$ less Bonds & Interest 0.14420 840,225 840,248 0.13588 847,313 847,344 0.12478 866,750 2.29%19,406 P-TELL Totals 0.72133 4,302,028$ 4,203,165$ 0.70289 4,498,079$ 4,383,205$ 0.69313 4,814,556$ 9.84%431,351$ 2022 Tax Levy - Estimated CPI and New Construction Increments (Limiting Rate Applied to City & Library) ** (Based on original new construction EAV estimate of $30,610,342 as of August 15, 2022) ** 1 2022 % Change over $ Change over 2020 Requested 2020 Extended 2021 Requested 2021 Extended Levy Request Prior Yr Ext.Prior Yr Ext. City 2,091,475$ 2,091,647$ City 2,220,087$ 2,220,319$ City 2,476,375$ 18.39%384,728$ Library 875,782 776,734 Library 934,994 819,781 Library 903,410 16.31%126,676 Police Pension 1,334,771 1,334,783 Police Pension 1,334,771 1,334,811 Police Pension 1,434,771 7.49%99,988 City Debt Service - - City Debt Service - - City Debt Service - - - Library Debt Service 840,225 840,248 Library Debt Service 847,313 847,344 Library Debt Service 866,750 3.15%26,502 Total 5,142,253$ 5,043,413$ Total 5,337,165$ 5,222,255$ Total 5,681,306$ 12.65%637,893$ less Bonds & Interest 840,225 840,248 less Bonds & Interest 847,313 847,344 less Bonds & Interest 866,750 3.15%26,502 PTELL Subtotal 4,302,028$ 4,203,165$ PTELL Subtotal 4,489,852$ 4,374,911$ PTELL Subtotal 4,814,556$ 14.55%611,391$ City 3,426,246$ 3,426,430$ City 3,554,858$ 3,555,130$ City 3,911,146$ 14.15%484,716$ Lib (excluding Debt Service)875,782 776,734 Lib (excluding Debt Service)934,994 819,781 Lib (excluding Debt Service)903,410 16.31%126,676 2022 Tax Levy - Estimated CPI and New Construction Increments (Limiting Rate Applied to City & Library) 2 2020 Rate Setting EAV % Change over Prior Yr EAV 2021 Rate Setting EAV % Change over Prior Yr EAV 2022 Estimated EAV % Change over Prior Yr EAV $ Change Farm 3,360,133$ 3.08%Farm 3,524,082$ 4.88%Farm 3,907,936$10.89%383,854$ Residential 484,024,398 7.38%Residential 524,668,429 8.40%Residential 592,367,328 12.90%67,698,899 Commercial 79,649,698 -5.15%Commercial 79,815,145 0.21%Commercial 82,317,911 3.14%2,502,766 Industrial 15,586,411 0.49%Industrial 15,512,284 -0.48%Industrial 15,943,391 2.78%431,107 State Railroad 75,859 -14.77%State Railroad 77,628 2.33%State Railroad 77,628 0.00%- Total 582,696,499$ 5.26%Total 623,597,568$ 7.02%Total 694,614,194$ 11.39%71,016,626$ 2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2022 2022 % Change over $ Change over Rate Levy Request Levy Extension Rate Levy Request Levy Extension Rate Levy Request Prior Yr Ext.Prior Yr Ext. Corporate 0.16937 986,912$ 986,913$ 0.15791 984,681$ 984,723$ 0.14177 984,723$ 0.00%0$ Bonds & Interest 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - - IMRF Pension 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - - Police Protection 0.14838 864,563 864,605 0.15963 995,406 995,449 0.15456 1,073,615 7.85%78,166 Police Pension 0.22907 1,334,771 1,334,783 0.21405 1,334,771 1,334,811 0.20656 1,434,771 7.49%99,960 Audit 0.00515 30,000 30,009 0.00482 30,000 30,057 0.00432 30,000 -0.19%(57) Liability Insurance 0.00687 40,000 40,031 0.00642 40,000 40,035 0.00576 40,000 -0.09%(35) Social Security 0.02575 150,000 150,044 0.02406 150,000 150,038 0.02159 150,000 -0.03%(38) School Crossing Guard 0.00344 20,000 20,045 0.00321 20,000 20,017 0.00288 20,000 - (17) Revenue Recapture 0.00000 - - 0.00090 5,590 5,612 0.00000 - - (5,612) Unemployment Insurance 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - 0.00000 - - - Subtotal City 0.58803 3,426,246$ 3,426,430$ 0.57100 3,560,448$ 3,560,742$ 0.53744 3,733,109$ 4.84%172,367 Library Operations 0.13330 875,782$ 776,734$ 0.13146 934,994$ 819,781$ 0.12414 862,287$ 5.18%42,506$ Revenue Recapture 0.00000 - - 0.00043 2,637 2,681 0.00000 - - (2,681)$ Library Bonds & Interest 0.14420 840,225 840,248 0.13588 847,313 847,344 0.12478 866,750 2.29%19,406 Subtotal Library 0.27750 1,716,007$ 1,616,983$ 0.26777 1,784,944$ 1,669,807$ 0.24892 1,729,037$ 3.55%59,230 Total City (PTELL & Non-PTELL)0.86553 5,142,253$ 5,043,413$ 0.83877 5,345,392$ 5,230,549$ 0.78636 5,462,146$ 4.43%231,597$ less Bonds & Interest 0.14420 840,225 840,248 0.13588 847,313 847,344 0.12478 866,750 2.29%19,406 P-TELL Totals 0.72133 4,302,028$ 4,203,165$ 0.70289 4,498,079$ 4,383,205$ 0.66158 4,595,396$ 4.84%212,191$ 2022 Tax Levy - Estimated New Construction Increment Only ** (Based on original new construction EAV estimate of $30,610,342 as of August 15, 2022) ** (Limiting Rate Applied to City & Library) 1 2022 % Change over $ Change over 2020 Requested 2020 Extended 2021 Requested 2021 Extended Levy Request Prior Yr Ext.Prior Yr Ext. City 2,091,475$ 2,091,647$ City 2,220,087$ 2,220,319$ City 2,298,338$ 9.88%206,691$ Library 875,782 776,734 Library 934,994 819,781 Library 862,287 11.01%85,553 Police Pension 1,334,771 1,334,783 Police Pension 1,334,771 1,334,811 Police Pension 1,434,771 7.49%99,988 City Debt Service - - City Debt Service - - City Debt Service - - - Library Debt Service 840,225 840,248 Library Debt Service 847,313 847,344 Library Debt Service 866,750 3.15%26,502 Total 5,142,253$ 5,043,413$ Total 5,337,165$ 5,222,255$ Total 5,462,146$ 8.30%418,733$ less Bonds & Interest 840,225 840,248 less Bonds & Interest 847,313 847,344 less Bonds & Interest 866,750 3.15%26,502 PTELL Subtotal 4,302,028$ 4,203,165$ PTELL Subtotal 4,489,852$ 4,374,911$ PTELL Subtotal 4,595,396$ 9.33%392,231$ City 3,426,246$ 3,426,430$ City 3,554,858$ 3,555,130$ City 3,733,109$ 8.95%306,679$ Lib (excluding Debt Service)875,782 776,734 Lib (excluding Debt Service)934,994 819,781 Lib (excluding Debt Service)862,287 11.01%85,553 2022 Tax Levy - Estimated New Construction Increment Only (Limiting Rate Applied to City & Library) 2 Illinois Dept. of Revenue History of CPI's Used for the PTELL 01/12/2022 % Change From December Previous % Use for Years Taxes Year CPI-U December PTELL Comments Levy Year Paid 1991 137.900 -- 1992 141.900 2.9%2.9%1993 1994 1993 145.800 2.7%2.7%(5 % for Cook)1994 1995 1994 149.700 2.7%2.7%1995 1996 1995 153.500 2.5%2.5%1996 1997 1996 158.960 3.6%3.6%1997 1998 1997 161.300 1.5%1.5%1998 1999 1998 163.900 1.6%1.6%1999 2000 1999 168.300 2.7%2.7%2000 2001 2000 174.000 3.4%3.4%2001 2002 2001 176.700 1.6%1.6%2002 2003 2002 180.900 2.4%2.4%2003 2004 2003 184.300 1.9%1.9%2004 2005 2004 190.300 3.3%3.3%2005 2006 2005 196.800 3.4%3.4%2006 2007 2006 201.800 2.5%2.5%2007 2008 2007 210.036 4.08%4.1%2008 2009 2008 210.228 0.1%0.1%2009 2010 2009 215.949 2.7%2.7%2010 2011 2010 219.179 1.5%1.5%2011 2012 2011 225.672 3.0%3.0%2012 2013 2012 229.601 1.7%1.7%2013 2014 2013 233.049 1.5%1.5%2014 2015 2014 234.812 0.8%0.8%2015 2016 2015 236.525 0.7%0.7%2016 2017 2016 241.432 2.1%2.1%2017 2018 2017 246.524 2.1%2.1%2018 2019 2018 251.233 1.9%1.9%2019 2020 2019 256.974 2.3%2.3%2020 2021 2020 260.474 1.4%1.4%2021 2022 2021 278.802 7.0%5.0%2022 2023 Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #7 Tracking Number CC 2022-45 Employee Manual Amendment – Drug Free Workplace City Council – September 27, 2022 Majority Approval Erin Willrett Administration Name Department Summary Revising Section 2.7 Drug Free Workplace Policy of the City of Yorkville Employee Manual to include the specific expectations of the DOT drivers. Background Section 2.7 outlines the drug free workplace policy for all employees, including Non-Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Transportation (DOT) employees was last updated in 2019. While scheduling the annual reasonable suspicion training for DOT employees, it was recommended that the City adopt language specific to this grouping of employees. The attached new language is reflected in red as new section 2.7.1 of the Employee Manual. The 2019 language stated that DOT drivers must comply with the DOT requirements. The new language outlines the specific expectations of U.S. DOT driving employees regarding substance use. To promote public safety and to help prevent accidents and injuries the U.S. DOT instituted regulations that establish a zero-tolerance level for the presence of alcohol or controlled substances in the system of any individual who operates or maintains a commercial class vehicle. The regulations establish testing requirements to help ensure compliance with the alcohol and controlled substance prohibitions. These are all outlined within the new language. Recommendation Staff recommends amending Section 2.7 Drug Free Workplace Policy of the City of Yorkville Employee Manual to include the specific expectations of the DOT drivers. Memorandum To: City Council From: Erin Willrett, City Administrator CC: Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: September 21, 2022 Subject: Revising Section 2.7 Drug Free Workplace Policy, City of Yorkville Employee Manual Resolution No. 2022-___ Page 1 Resolution No. 2022-_____ A RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE EMPLOYEE MANUAL WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of this State; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to amend the portion of its Employee Manual which addresses the U.S. Department of Transportation instituted regulations that establish a zero- tolerance level for the presence of alcohol or controlled substances in the system of any individual who operates or maintains a commercial class vehicle license; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined to be in the best interests of the City to amend Section 2.7 of the Employee Manual, in the form attached hereto in Exhibit “A”. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois that Section 2.7 of the United City of Yorkville Employee Manual in the form set forth on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein are hereby adopted. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ Resolution No. 2022-___ Page 2 APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Attest: ______________________________ CITY CLERK Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 2.7 Alcohol and Drug-Free Workplace Policy & Program (“Policy”) a. Purpose of the Policy: United City of Yorkville has a strong commitment to its employees to provide a safe workplace and to establish health care programs that promote employee health and well- being. Consistent with the spirit and intent of this commitment, the City has established this policy regarding drug and alcohol abuse. Quite simply, the City’s goal will continue to be one of establishing and maintaining a work environment that is free from the effects of alcohol and drug abuse. While the City has no intention of intruding into the private lives of its employees, the City does expect employees to report for work in condition to perform their duties. The City recognizes that alcohol and drugs can have an impact on the work place and our ability to accomplish our goal of an alcohol and drug-free work environment. b. Preliminary Information: 1. Be assured that we respect the rights of our employees who are registered patients with debilitating medical conditions who are engaging in the medical use of marijuana in compliance with the law. Therefore, this Policy will be construed in a manner consistent with our rights and obligations under the Illinois Medical Cannabis Program, including any applicable interpretative rules that may apply. While the City will not penalize an employee solely for his or her status as a registered qualifying patient under the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Program Act, any employee who is a registered qualifying patient is nevertheless required to comply with this Policy and is subject to discipline up to and including discharge for violations of this Policy and Program. 2. We encourage any employee with a drug or alcohol abuse problem to voluntarily submit to available treatment, including through the City’s Employee Assistance Program. In an effort to maintain the high standards of health and safety to which we are committed, we have defined our policy and rules of acceptable conduct in this sensitive area, consistent with the federal Drug-Free Workplace Act, 41 U.S.C. §701 and the Illinois Drug Free Workplace Act, 30 ILCS 580, to the extent applicable. 3. Employees who hold safety sensitive positions and/or jobs that are covered by the Department of Transportation drug and alcohol guidelines (“DOT”) will be required to adhere to all applicable laws and regulations related to drug and alcohol use, abuse and testing, etc. In the event of a conflict between a provision of this Policy and the DOT regulations, the DOT regulations will govern in all cases. 4. Employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) are required to comply with this Policy and the applicable terms of the CBA. In the event of a conflict between this Policy and the terms of the CBA, the CBA will govern for applicable employees. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 c. “Drugs” defined: The term “drug” as used in this Policy refers to both legal and illegal controlled substances unless the legal use is pursuant to the instruction of a medical professional licensed to prescribe or advise individuals on the use of drugs who has been informed of the employee’s job duties and has advised that the substance does not adversely affect the employee’s ability to safely perform his or her job. The term “drug” also includes, but is not limited to, cannabis, cocaine, PCP, heroin, morphine, amphetamines and barbiturates. d. Forms/Receipt/Other: Appendices A, B, and C are attached and have been incorporated into this Policy by reference for use by the City when applicable pursuant to this Policy and/or when otherwise required and consistent with our legal obligations. e. Policy Prohibitions (not an all-inclusive list): 1. The use, sale, purchase, manufacture, distribution, dispensation, transfer, or possession of any drug (as defined earlier) and/or alcohol, is prohibited on City premises, and is cause for immediate discharge. The phrase “City premises” includes (without limitation) all job sites, land, property, buildings, structures, installations, parking lots, machinery, vehicles or other means of transportation owned or managed by or leased to City or otherwise being utilized for the City business, and private vehicles while parked or operated on the City premises. Any illegal substances found on City premises will be turned over to the appropriate law enforcement agency and may result in criminal prosecution. 2. Employees are prohibited from working with a detectable amount of alcohol or drugs in their system. Employees are also prohibited from consuming any amount of alcohol or drugs during working time, on-call periods, or during breaks. Any employee violating this prohibition will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate discharge. (Consequently, employees are not allowed to consume alcohol or cannabis during meals or breaks.) 3. Employees must not perform safety-sensitive duties, such as operating a motorized vehicle, if they are aware of any medical condition or have used alcohol or a drug (including prescribed medicine or cannabis) that may adversely affect their ability to perform such duties or that may affect safety, employees, or the public. Such an employee should notify his or her supervisor of the situation as soon as the employee becomes aware of the situation to determine if a reasonable accommodation may be necessary. Any employee violating this prohibition will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate discharge. 4. Under no circumstances may an employee operate an automobile (private, rental or City owned) for business purposes while intoxicated or under the influence of or impaired by alcohol or cannabis, even if outside of working hours. Any employee violating this prohibition will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate discharge. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 5. The City reserves the right to inspect packages, bags, briefcases, desks, lockers, automobiles, etc., where there is a reasonable belief that illegal drugs or alcohol may be present on City property. An employee’s failure to cooperate with an investigation may result in disciplinary action, including but not limited to immediate discharge. 6. An employee suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or a drug due to specific articulable symptoms (e.g., symptoms of the employee’s speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery, disregard for the safety of the employee or others, disruption of a production or manufacturing process, or carelessness that results in any injury to the employee or others), or an employee who is involved in an on-the-job accident which results in property damage or which requires medical treatment, may be required to take a medically approved test(s), to be given by authorized medical personnel, to determine whether this Policy and Program has been violated. e. Request to Submit to Testing for Alcohol and/or Drug Use or Abuse 1. The City reserves the right to consider any employee suspected of being impaired by or under the influence of cannabis during working hours or any on-call period to be in violation of this Policy. This determination will be determined based on when the employee manifests specific, articulable symptoms while working of decreased or lessened performance of the duties or tasks of the employee’s job position, including (without limitation) symptoms of the employee’s speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, or negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery; disregard for the safety of the employee or others, or involvement in any accident that results in damage to equipment or property or medical treatment of someone involved; disruption of a production or manufacturing process; or carelessness that results in any injury to the employee or others. 2. The City also may require an employee to submit to a drug test if the City has a good faith belief that an employee is or may be under the influence of cannabis or impaired by cannabis during working time based on articulable symptoms such as those set forth in the preceding subsection of this Policy. Employees who are required to submit to a drug test pursuant to this subsection will be afforded a reasonable opportunity to contest drug test request or results. 3. The City also may require an employee to submit to a drug or alcohol test for other reasons where it has a reasonable suspicion that an Employee is or may be in violation of this Policy, including (without limitation) after an employee is involved in an incident or accident that results in damage to property or equipment in excess of $1500 and/or that is sufficiently serious to require medical treatment to an employee or third party. These issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis based on the circumstances involved to determine if a test is justified. 4. An employee’s refusal to submit to a drug and/or alcohol test upon request may result in disciplinary action, up to and including immediate discharge. Refusal includes refusing to report immediately to the testing location upon request, refusal to sign a Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 medical test authorization form as required by the City, refusal to provide specimens unless medically incapable of doing so, and/or attempts to falsify or interfere with the testing process, including failure to comply with instructions or attempting to substitute, dilute, or otherwise change specimens to be tested. Employee consent to testing under this Policy will not act as a waiver of disciplinary action, up to and including discharge for a Policy violation. 5. While the City awaits the results of a drug and/or alcohol test, the employee may be suspended without pay. In this situation, if the results of the test are negative, the employee normally will be reimbursed for regular working time lost due to taking the test(s). e. Convictions for Drug Related Activity Employees who are convicted for off-the-job drug-related activity may be considered to be in violation of this Policy and Program. Employees shall notify the City of any criminal drug statute conviction no later than five (5) days after such conviction. In deciding what action to take, the City will conduct an individualized assessment of the situation and consider the nature of the charges, the nature of the employee’s present job assignment, the employee’s record with the City, the impact of the employee’s conviction on the City and any other factor the City may deem relevant. The City will only take employment actions related to convictions which are job related. Alternatively, and in keeping with the City’s desire to encourage treatment and rehabilitation where possible, the City may require a convicted employee to successfully complete an approved drug rehabilitation program in lieu of other disciplinary action. f. Return to Work Testing An employee who returns to work after a leave of absence for any reason lasting longer than 365 consecutive work days, may be required to submit to a return to work drug screen evaluation to ensure the employee can safely perform his essential job functions either with or without a reasonable accommodation if medically necessary. g. EAP or Other Reasonable Accommodations: Employees with an alcohol or drug use or abuse problem are encouraged to contact the City’s Employee Assistant Program for possible referral for treatment. The City will not discipline an employee who voluntarily seeks treatment for a substance abuse problem if the employee is not in violation of this Policy and Program or other rules of conduct. The cost of such treatment is at the employee’s expense (subject to possible coverage, if any, by group health insurance). Seeking such assistance will not be a defense for violating this Policy and Program nor will it excuse or limit the employee’s obligation to meet the City’s policies, rules of conduct, and standards, including but not limited to those regarding attendance, job performance, and safe and sober behavior on the job. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 h. Assurances against Retaliation Be assured that no employee who reports a possible Policy violation and/or who seeks a reasonable accommodation to deal with alcohol or drug use or abuse will not be subject to retaliation for that purpose. Of course, an employee who submits an intentionally false report of a possible policy violation will be subject to disciplinary action including immediate dismissal. Note: A report that is unsubstantiated but reported in good faith is not in violation of this Policy. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 Appendix A Acknowledgement of Receipt of Drug Free Workplace Policy and Agreement to Abide by Policy I, , hereby acknowledge that I have received a copy of the United City of Yorkville's ("City") Drug Free Workplace Policy ("Policy"). In conjunction with my receiving a copy of the Policy, I further acknowledge the following: 1. I have read the Policy and fully understand the terms contained therein and the consequences for violating any term of the Policy. 2. I understand that my compliance with all terms of the Policy is a condition of my employment with the City, and I agree to abide by all terms of the Policy. 3. As applicable, if a post-accident drug and/or alcohol (if job related) test is required under this Policy and I am seriously injured and unable to provide a specimen at the time of the accident, then this Acknowledgement shall be considered my authorization for the City to obtain hospital reports and other documents which would indicate whether there were any controlled substances and/or alcohol in my system. 4. I authorize the collection site, laboratory and/or medical review officer retained by the City to perform any and all functions which those entities and/or individuals may be required to perform pursuant to this Policy or applicable regulations. Such authorization shall include, but is not limited to, the release of test result information to the City, verification of the use of prescribed medications, obtaining information from the employee's physician, hospital, dentist or pharmacist and the reporting of negative test results with a qualifying statement in cases wherein an employee may be taking a legally prescribed drug. 5. I hereby release and hold harmless the City and its employees and agents from any liability whatsoever arising from the Policy. 6. The City reserves the right to amend or modify this Policy at any time. Employee's Signature Date Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 Appendix B Drug Free Workplace Consent to Testing (Current Employee) I, , acknowledge receiving written notice of the existence of the United City of Yorkville (the "City") Drug Free Workplace Policy (the "Policy"). As a condition of continued employment or service to the City, I understand and agree that I must not use, buy, sell, accept as a gift, experiment with, traffic in or be otherwise involved with illicit or inappropriate drugs or alcohol when it could affect the safe performance of my job. I understand that the Policy does not apply to medication properly taken as prescribed by a licensed physician, except as provided by the Policy. I further understand and agree that I may be required to submit to testing for the detection of prohibited substances or alcohol based upon suspicion, following an on-the-job accident or injury, or following a violation of this policy. I understand, further, that refusal to submit to testing when requested to do so by a supervisor will result in discipline up to and including termination. My signature below indicates my understanding of this Policy and what is expected of me, my consent to be tested and my authorization to release to any collection site personnel, medical review officer or City representative the information necessary to comply with this Policy. Employee's Signature Date Witness’ Signature Date Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 Appendix C Drug Free Workplace Post-Offer Consent to Testing (Applicant) I, , understand and acknowledge the following: After an offer of employment has been extended by the United City of Yorkville ("the City"), I must undergo a drug screen designed to identify whether or not I use illegal drugs. This drug screen will be administered by a clinic or lab selected by the City. All offers of employment with the United City of Yorkville are contingent on a negative drug test. Should a positive test result exist, my offer of employment will be automatically rescinded by the City, unless I submit documentation supporting the legitimate use for a specific drug or the specific drug that resulted in a positive determination. This documentation must be made either prior to or within 24 hours after the positive drug result is communicated to me. If I test positive, I may re- apply for employment with the City after a time period of twelve (12) months. I also understand and agree that should I refuse to consent to a test or test positive for the use of an illegal controlled substance, I will not commence work for the City and the job offer will be automatically rescinded. My employment is expressly conditioned on the successful passage of the pre- employment drug screen. In recognition of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City will not discriminate against any applicant who has successfully completed a drug or alcohol rehabilitation program. However, the ADA does not prevent the City from refusing to hire any applicant who tests positive for illicit drug use prior to employment. I authorize the collection site, laboratory and/or medical review officer retained by the City to perform any and all functions which those entities and/or individuals may be required to perform pursuant to this Policy or applicable regulations. Such authorization shall include, but is not limited to, the release of test result information to the City, verification of the use of prescribed medications, obtaining information from the applicant's physician, hospital, dentist or pharmacist and the reporting of negative test results with a qualifying statement in cases wherein an applicant may be taking a legally prescribed drug. I understand and agree my employment with the City, if any, is for no definite period of time and that the City may elect to discontinue my employment relationship for whatever reason it considers proper and at any time. I, likewise, may leave the City for whatever reason I consider proper and at any time. I hereby release and hold harmless the United City of Yorkville and its employees and agents from any liability whatsoever arising from this Policy. Employee's Signature Date Witness’ Signature Date Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 2.7.1 DRUG AND ALCOHOL PROCEDURES FOR CDL EEMPLOYEES Introduction To promote public safety and to help prevent accidents and injuries the U.S. Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) instituted regulations that establish a zero-tolerance level for the presence of alcohol or controlled substances in the system of any individual who operates or maintains a commercial class vehicle. The regulations establish testing requirements to help ensure compliance with the alcohol and controlled substance prohibitions. The controlled substances prohibited by the D.O.T. regulations are: Marijuana, Cocaine, Opiates, Amphetamines, and Phencyclidine (PCP). The following procedures have been developed to implement the D.O.T. regulations which can be found in 49 CFR Parts 40 and 382. The numbers inside the parentheses appearing in many of the sections refer to 49 CFR Part 40 or 382 sections relevant to the procedure. Employees who violate this policy are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. Adverse Effects of Alcohol and Drug Use Unlawful use of drugs and alcohol poses several risks. Alcohol and drug abuse can lead to several health problems, such as lung cancer, obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic respiratory infections, liver disease, high blood pressure, cardiac disease, and seizures. Drug abusers are at an increased risk for AIDS and hepatitis. The impairments drugs cause mean users (and their nearby co-workers) suffer more accidental injuries and motor vehicle accidents. Drugs can also rob the user of his or her ability to place for and reach long-term goals, to deal constructively with stress and anxiety, or to have successful and satisfying friendships and family relationships. Because drug use is unlawful, lives can be ruined when users are arrested, jailed or injured by drug-related violence. Affected Employees The following employees are subject to these alcohol and drug procedures, restrictions, and requirements: All employees who are required to have a valid CDL driver’s license as a condition of employment and operate a commercial vehicle for the City. This includes full-time and part-time employees. The above employees are always subject to these procedures and regulations while on duty including all overtime and call back time. An exception may be made by Management to exempt an employee from alcohol use restrictions if the employee is attending off site training and is not expected to return to duty for the remainder of the day. Employee Requirements (382.201 to .215): Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 To meet the D.O.T. regulations, the following requirements are placed upon affected employees. Exceptions to these requirements may be made by Human Resources in making temporary work assignments for employees. Affected employees will not consume any product containing alcohol or controlled substances while on duty. Affected employees will not report for duty while there is any alcohol or controlled substance in their system (unless the use is pursuant to the instruction of a physician who has been informed of the affected employee’s job duties and has advised the affected employee that the substance does not adversely affect his/her ability to safely perform his/her job). Affected employees will not possess any product containing alcohol or controlled substances while on duty. Affected employees cannot report for duty within four hours of having consumed alcohol and may not perform safety-sensitive functions (this includes but is not limited to operating motor vehicles or equipment) within four hours after using alcohol. Affected employees must immediately report for testing when so ordered and must cooperate with testing personnel and procedures. Affected employees must agree to release testing results to the City and to the substance abuse professional (S.A.P.), and to release the substance abuse professional’s report to the City. Affected employees cannot consume alcohol for eight hours following an accident involving a death or an accident for which the employee received a moving violation for their operation of a commercial class vehicle which contributed to the accident or until the employee undergoes a post-accident or controlled substance test, whichever occurs first. The employee must remain available for testing for a period of eight hours for an alcohol test or 72 hours for a controlled substance test. Tests Performed Detailed descriptions of the testing procedures are contained in 49 CFR Part 40 and Part 382 of the Federal Regulations. A brief description of the testing procedure follows. Alcohol Test Employee immediately reports to the designated testing facility, shows a photo identification card, and signs testing form. Employee blows into alcohol testing device. If employee cannot exhale enough quality of air through the machine for a complete test a medical exam will be performed. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 If test results are negative the employee returns to work. Results will be reported to Human Resources. If test results are positive, another test will be performed after a 15-minute wait but before 20 minutes. The employee may not eat or drink anything nor belch during the waiting period for the retest. If retest results are negative, test is reported to Human Resources as negative. If retest results are positive, the test results are immediately reported to Human Resources. Controlled Substances Test Testing will only be performed for the five controlled substances prohibited by the D.O.T. regs - Marijuana, Cocaine, Opiates, Amphetamines, and Phencyclidine. Employee immediately reports to the designated testing facility, shows a photo identification card, and signs the testing form. Employee provides a urine sample. If unable to provide enough quantity for testing, the employee will be asked to drink water (up to 24 oz. in two hours) and attempted again. Hospital personnel will perform required testing to verify that the specimen sample has not been tampered with. The employee returns to work. Sample is sent to Lab where it is split in half. A screening test is performed on a portion of one of the sample splits. If negative results are obtained the testing is reported as negative to the medical review officer (M.R.O.) who in turn reports negative results to Human Resources. If screening tests are positive, sophisticated confirmation testing is performed on the rest of the split sample. Results are reported to the M.R.O. If negative the M.R.O. reports a negative result to Human Resources. If the results are positive, confirming the presence of one of the five controlled substances, the M.R.O. will contact the employee to talk over the results of the test to determine if there is a legitimate clinical reason for the presence of the drug, and will decide if test results are negative or positive. If the employee cannot be reached by the M.R.O., Human Resources will be contacted to tell the employee to contact the M.R.O. If contact is not made in 72 hours the M.R.O. will determine the test results as positive. The M.R.O. reports to Human Resources test results as positive or negative. If test results are positive, the employee will be removed from duties of operating or maintaining a commercial class vehicle. The employee has 72 hours in which to request a retest of the second split sample and can request that the split sample be tested at a second lab. A negative retest of the split sample will cancel the first positive results. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 Six circumstances under which testing will be performed: 1. Pre-employment Testing (382.301, 413) Before a new employee is hired or before an existing employee may be transferred to a position in which operating or maintaining a commercial class vehicle is required, both alcohol and controlled substance testing is required. If an employee has not been in a random testing pool for one month, then alcohol and controlled substance testing must be performed before the employee may operate or maintain a commercial class vehicle. Alcohol test results must be below 0.04 and controlled substances negative or the employee cannot be hired to the position without a substance abuse professional evaluation. There is no requirement that the prospective employee be hired or that they see the M.R.O. or S.A.P., but an attempt must be made to inform the prospective employee of the test results and to seek an evaluation. In addition to submitting to testing, the prospective employee must supply the City with the names of all firms for which they have been employed in the previous two years operating or maintaining commercial class vehicles. Additionally, the City will conduct a pre-employment query of the D.OT.’s database containing records of drug and alcohol program violations (referred to as the “Clearinghouse”) about whether the prospective employee has: (1) a verified positive, adulterated or substituted controlled substances test result; (2) an alcohol confirmation test of 0.04 or higher; (3) refused to submit to a test in violation of 382.211; or (4) an employer has reported actual knowledge that the prospective employee used alcohol on duty or before duty or following an accident; or (5) used a controlled substance. The City will report these categories of information to the Clearinghouse when it collects it. In addition, the City will report to the Clearinghouse a S.A.P.’s report of the successful completion of the return-to-duty process, a negative return-to-duty test, and reports of completing follow-up testing in accordance with FMCSA requirements. Thereafter, the City will conduct an annual query of the Clearinghouse. The prospective employee must cooperate fully with the City in obtaining from each of the previous employer’s results of any positive test, S.A.P.’S reports, and any refusals to test. The City will retain records of queries, consents and results for at least three (3) years. 2. Random Testing (382.305) All affected employees will be placed in pool from which random selections for testing will be made. Random testing will be for both alcohol and controlled substances. The annual rate of testing for the entire pool will be as directed by the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, currently 10% per year for alcohol and 50% per year for illegal drugs. Every employee in the selection pool has an equal chance of being selected each time a drawing is made. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 Selection for testing will be performed on a sufficiently random basis. Employees will not know when testing is complete for the year nor when to anticipate the next selection. A surplus of names will be generated so that another selection may be made in place of an employee who is temporarily on leave. The City will report or cause to be reported positive test results based on random testing to the Clearinghouse when required by law. Refusals to test or failure to cooperate with testing may be subject to reporting to the Clearinghouse, as required by law. 3. Reasonable Suspicion Testing (382.307) When a supervisor has reason to believe that an employee has alcohol or controlled substances in their system, they contact another supervisor or management official trained in the signs and symptoms of drug and/or alcohol misuse who will also observe the employee. If both supervisors agree, the employee will be driven the designated testing facility for alcohol or controlled substances testing as appropriate. The supervisor’s determination must be based upon specific, describable, current observations of the employee’s appearance, behavior, speech or body odor. Possession alone is not enough cause to require the employee to submit to testing. When a reasonable suspicion determination has been made, the employee must immediately stop operation or maintenance of a commercial class vehicle. (For 24 hours or until a negative test result whichever comes first). The employee will be informed of his or her right to consent or refuse testing, and the consequences of refusing testing or failing an alcohol or drug test. The employee will be asked to review and sign a Consent/Refusal Form. The supervisor calls the designated testing facility to advise that the employee will be reporting for the testing. The employee under suspicion must be accompanied to the testing facility, preferably by a supervisor. If an employee refuses to submit to a test, he or she will be required to call someone to drive him or her home. If unable to find someone, a cab/rideshare will be called. The City will pay for the cab/rideshare cost with reimbursement by the employee when he returns to work. If the employee insists on driving himself or herself, the local Police Department will be called and notified. Testing for alcohol reasonable suspicion should be performed within two hours but cannot be conducted if eight hours have passed since the determination was made. A written report must be submitted to Human Resources for the file explaining why testing was not performed within two hours. Controlled substances testing should be performed as soon as possible but not after 32 hours since the determination was made. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 The supervisor(s) making the determination must submit a signed written description citing the specific observations which led to the reasonable suspicion testing. The written description should be submitted before the test results have been received. The City will report or cause to be reported positive test results based on reasonable suspicion testing to the Clearinghouse when required by law. Refusals to test or failure to cooperate with testing may be subject to reporting to the Clearinghouse, as required by law. 4. Post-Accident Testing (382.303) a. A surviving driver of a commercial class vehicle involved in an accident in which a death occurred or for which the driver received a ticket for the operation of their commercial vehicle having contributed to the accident, will be tested for both alcohol and controlled substances. b. The driver will remain readily available for testing after an accident until 32 hours have passed or earlier if a supervisor advises that testing will not be necessary. c. A driver cannot consume any alcohol within eight hours following an accident unless a supervisor advises that no testing will be required, or testing has already been performed. d. If a death occurs or a driving citation is issued, alcohol testing will be performed within two hours but no testing after eight hours, and controlled substance testing within 32 hours. A written record must be submitted to file explaining why alcohol testing could not be performed within two hours if such is the case and a record if either testing could not be performed. e. The City will report or cause to be reported positive test results based on post-accident testing to the Clearinghouse when required by law. Refusals to test or failure to cooperate with testing may be subject to reporting to the Clearinghouse, as required by law. 5. Return to Duty Testing (382.309): Alcohol and controlled substances testing will be performed with negative test results (less than 0.02 alcohol) on all affected employees who: a. Have been removed from duty of operating or maintaining a commercial class vehicle for refusing to test or testing positive for controlled substances or alcohol greater than 0.04. Employee will be responsible for all costs associated with this classification of return to duty testing or Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 b. Have not been in a random testing pool for more than 30 days. (Employees who have been on extended leave). 6. Follow-up Testing (382.311,.605) a. Any affected employee who has refused to test or who has tested positive for controlled substances or greater than 0.04 alcohol content and has been determined by a substance abuse professional to require help in dealing with their substance abusers’ problem will be subject to follow up testing. b. Human Resources will order the affected employee to immediately report for surprise alcohol or controlled substance (or both) testing at the frequency prescribed by the substance abuse professional. Human Resources will advise the S.A.P. of the test results. The duration of surprise testing will continue if required by the S.A.P. to a maximum of five years. c. At a minimum, six unannounced tests will be required within the first 12 months of return to duty. This minimum must be conducted regardless of whether the S.A.P. deems no more testing is required. d. Employee is responsible for all costs associated with follow-up testing. e. The City will report negative test results to the Clearinghouse, when required by law. 7. Consequences of failed or refused tests (382.605) a. An employee will be immediately removed from duty upon the employee’s refusal to cooperate with testing procedures or upon receipt of positive test results. The City will report such information to the Clearinghouse, as required by law. Employees who refuse to submit to testing or fail an alcohol or drug test are subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. b. The employee selects a substance abuse professional (S.A.P.). The employee is responsible for payment to the substance abuse professional and subsequent counseling and rehabilitation. The employee’s medical insurance may be used to help pay for these services. A list of S.A.P.’s will be provided the employee; however, the employee is free to choose any certified S.A.P. c. The employee signs a release allowing the City to release the test results to the S.A.P. and signs a release for the S.A.P. to report back to Human Resources. The City will report an employee’s completion of the S.A.P return-to-duty process to the Clearinghouse, when required by law. The S.A.P. will report back to Human Resources that the employee: Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 a. Does not require any help in dealing with a substance abuse problem - in which case the employee may be returned to full duty. b. That the employee requires and is cooperating with continued counseling and rehabilitation and may return to full duty or may not return to full duty yet. c. That the employee requires but is not cooperating with counseling and rehabilitation and may not return to duty. The employee is responsible for obtaining any counseling or rehabilitation prescribed the S.A.P. and must provide appropriate releases for counseling and rehabilitation professionals to report back to the S.A.P. Employees are advised that the U.S. D.O.T. regs require that the additional counseling and rehabilitation not be performed by any business entity in which the S.A.P. has a financial interest. 8. When the S.A.P. reports to Human Resources that the employee may return to full duty of operating and maintaining commercial class vehicles the employee must: a. Test negative in return to duty alcohol or controlled substances testing (or both tests if so, indicated by the S.A.P.). b. Continue with any rehabilitation therapy if so, prescribed by the S.A.P. c. Test negative in unannounced follow up testing as prescribed by the S.A.P. or at a minimum, six tests in the first 12 months of returning to duty as ordered by Human Resources. d. Information regarding the employee’s completion of the S.A.P.’s return to duty steps may be reported to the Clearinghouse, as may be required by law. Required Training 1. All affected employees will be informed of any new D.O.T. regulations and these policies and procedures to implement the regulations. 2. All supervisory personnel will receive training in recognizing physical signs of alcohol misuse and controlled substance use prior to any employee being ordered to submit to reasonable suspicion testing by that supervisor. Sixty minutes of training for alcohol misuse recognition and 60 minutes of training for controlled substance use recognition is required. 3. All new employees and newly transferred employees to affected positions will receive training prior to operating or maintaining a commercial class vehicle. All newly hired supervisory personnel will receive 60 minutes of alcohol misuse recognition training and 60 minutes of controlled substances use training prior to their requiring any employee to submit to reasonable suspicion testing. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 4. All employees will sign a receipt that they attended the training. The receipt will be kept in City records. NEITHER THIS POLICY NOR ANY OF ITS TERMS ARE INTENDED TO CREATE A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT OR CONTAIN THE TERMS OF ANY CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT. THE CITY RETAINS THE SOLE RIGHT TO CHANGE, AMEND, OR MODIFY ANY TERM OR PROVISION OF THIS POLICY, AND WILL PROVIDE NOTICE WHEN IT DOES SO. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (“FMCSA”) SETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR TESTING OF SAFETY SENSITIVE EMPLOYEES. THE CITY’S POLICY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES MAY BE MORE OR LESS STRINGENT FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES. Documents\4888-9622-6350.v1-8/15/22 Appendix D Receipt of Reading Section 2.7.1 Drug and Alcohol Procedures for CDL Employees I have received a copy of the City’s DOT Controlled Substances and Alcohol Procedures for CDL Employees ____________________ Date _________________________________ Driver's Signature ________________________________ Driver's Name (printed) _________________________________ Driver Identification Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #8 Tracking Number CC 2022-46 KEH Development Inducement Resolutions City Council – September 27, 2022 Majority Approval Bart Olson Administration Name Department Summary Consideration of two inducement resolutions covering three properties in Downtown TIF 1 and Downtown TIF 2 with KEH Development, represented by Pat Harbour and Attorney Boyd Ingemunson. Background Within the past few weeks, KEH Development has come to terms with the property owners of the FS property and the grain silos to purchase those properties in anticipation of a future downtown development project. During their own due diligence period, KEH determined that they were also interested in pursuing acquisition of and redevelopment of the City’s downtown bank property or Van Emmon Activity Center (VEAC). The developers have no current development proposal nor purchase offer to the City but are working towards a public presentation in the next several weeks. We do anticipate that Mr. Harbour and Attorney Ingemunson will be present at this City Council meeting to simply introduce themselves to the City Council. In order to move their internal due diligence along on all properties, they requested a public vote by the City Council to engage them with the City’s VEAC property. They have let us know that they anticipate a TIF assistance request on all three properties, and so the most natural first City Council discussion would have to involve an inducement resolution. Attorney Orr has drafted two inducement resolutions (one resolution for TIF 1, one for TIF 2) on all three properties, for our consideration. As a general reminder, the inducement resolutions commit the City to nothing; they simply state that the developer has requested TIF assistance, that the City has acknowledged that request, and that we’ve protected the developers ability to receive TIF assistance for items in the future should the City approve a TIF agreement later. Should the City Council proceed with the inducement resolutions, we would anticipate the following process for all three properties: 1) KEH Development will refine their VEAC purchase offer to the City and development plans and proposals over the next few weeks 2) KEH Development will present concept plans and development requests to City staff and the Mayor, similar to every other development proposal that comes in front of City Council Memorandum To: City Council From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: Date: September 22, 2022 Subject: KEH Development Inducement Resolutions 3) City staff and the Mayor will provide some early feedback to the developer for consideration 4) KEH Development will present to the City Council or a committee, as determined at the time of their completed proposal and based on the actual contents of their proposals. The process will then move through the various City committees for review and consideration. Regarding the City’s ownership of the VEAC building, we have wide flexibility under TIF law to directly negotiate with the developer and enter into a purchase/development agreement with them. Given the City’s lack of success in selling the old post office via RFP and the direct interest and wide experience that the KEH Development team holds, the City staff and Mayor felt comfortable proposing to the City Council a direct sale of the building (rather than another RFP). Again, the inducement resolution doesn’t commit the City to sale of the property to KEH, but it would serve as appropriate acknowledgement that the City Council wants the staff to negotiate with the developer directly. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of both inducement resolutions with KEH Development. Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 1 Resolution No. 2022-_______ A RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, TO INDUCE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THE YORKVILLE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (KEH Development, LLC & KEH Development Three, LLC) WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois (the "City") is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to its powers and in accordance with the requirements of the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act of the State of Illinois, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1, et seq., as from time to time amended (the "TIF Act"), the Mayor and City Council (collectively, the "Corporate Authorities"), pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 2006-46, 2006-47, and 2006-48, respectively, adopted on June 13, 2006, approved a redevelopment plan and project (the "Redevelopment Plan") setting forth a plan for the development, redevelopment and revitalization of the redevelopment project area; designated a redevelopment project area known as the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area (the "Redevelopment Project Area"); and adopted tax increment allocation financing for the Redevelopment Project Area; and, WHEREAS, KEH Development , LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (the "Developer") has submitted a proposal to the City to acquire certain properties located within the Redevelopment Project Area and commonly known as 102 East Van Emmon Street, identified by parcel number 02-33-157-014, and KEH Development Three, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (the "Developer") has submitted a proposal to the City to acquire certain properties located within the Redevelopment Project Area and commonly known the Grainery/Silos, Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 2 identified as parcel number 02-33-155-003 (the "Subject Properties"), and has informed the City that it intends to assemble the Subject Properties with additional properties in the City’s downtown district and substantially redevelop and repurpose the existing structures and construct additional structures thereon (collectively, the "Project"); and, WHEREAS, the Developer has also informed the City that the ability to proceed with the Project on the Subject Properties requires financial assistance from the City for certain costs that would be incurred in connection with the Project, which costs would constitute "Redevelopment Project Costs" as such term is defined in the TIF Act; and, WHEREAS, the Developer would like to incur certain costs in connection with the Project prior to the adoption of any ordinance authorizing the execution of a redevelopment agreement between the City and the Developer pertaining to the Subject Properties, wherein which reimbursement for such costs may be considered between the parties subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Developer desires such costs related to the Project be able to qualify for consideration as Redevelopment Project Costs that can be reimbursed utilizing tax increment financing, provided that such costs constitute Redevelopment Project Costs under the TIF Act; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution is intended to allow the Developer to incur certain costs relating to the Project that may be considered Redevelopment Project Costs under the TIF Act, prior to the adoption of any ordinance authorizing the execution of a redevelopment agreement between the City and the Developer, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 3 of this Resolution. Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. Section 2. That the City Council may consider expenditures that are "Redevelopment Project Costs", as such term is defined in the TIF Act, in connection with the proposal of the Developer, or the Developer’s assignees, to undertake the Project, incurred prior to the adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the execution of a redevelopment agreement with the Developer, or a successor or assignee of the Developer, to be expenditures that are eligible for reimbursement through the TIF Act to the extent the Project is in furtherance of the Redevelopment Plan for the overall Redevelopment Project Area. Section 3. That all undertakings of the City set forth in this Resolution are specifically contingent upon the City approving and executing a redevelopment agreement with the Developer, or a successor or assignee of the Developer, which provides for the redevelopment of the Subject Properties in accordance with the terms and conditions to be negotiated by the parties. Section 4. That any financial assistance rendered to the Developer by the City shall be contingent upon the authority, restrictions, terms and conditions imposed by the TIF Act. Section 5. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 4 KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Attest: ______________________________ CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 1 Resolution No. 2022-_______ A RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, TO INDUCE THE REDEVELOPMENT OF A CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN THE YORKVILLE DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA #2 (KEH Development Two, LLC) WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois (the "City") is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to its powers and in accordance with the requirements of the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act of the State of Illinois, 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1, et seq., as from time to time amended (the "TIF Act"), the Mayor and City Council (collectively, the "Corporate Authorities"), pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 2018-23, 2018-24, and 2018-25, respectively, adopted on March 27, 2018, approved a redevelopment plan and project (the "Redevelopment Plan") setting forth a plan for the development, redevelopment and revitalization of the redevelopment project area; designated a redevelopment project area known as the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area #2 (the "Redevelopment Project Area"); and adopted tax increment allocation financing for the Redevelopment Project Area; and, WHEREAS, KEH Development Two, LLC, an Illinois limited liability company (the "Developer") has submitted a proposal to the City to acquire a certain property located within the Redevelopment Project Area and commonly known as 121 East Van Emmon Street and identified by parcel numbers 02-33-154-013, -014 and -018, and has informed the City that it intends to substantially redevelop and repurpose the Subject Property and the structures thereon (the "Project"); and, Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 2 WHEREAS, the Developer has also informed the City that the ability to proceed with the Project on the Subject Property requires financial assistance from the City for certain costs that would be incurred in connection with the Project, which costs would constitute "Redevelopment Project Costs" as such term is defined in the TIF Act; and, WHEREAS, the Developer would like to incur certain costs in connection with the Project prior to the adoption of any ordinance authorizing the execution of a redevelopment agreement between the City and the Developer, or the Developer’s assignees, pertaining to the Subject Property, wherein which reimbursement for such costs may be considered between the parties subject to certain conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Developer desires such costs related to the Project be able to qualify for consideration as Redevelopment Project Costs that can be reimbursed utilizing tax increment financing, provided that such costs constitute Redevelopment Project Costs under the TIF Act; and, WHEREAS, this Resolution is intended to allow the Developer, or the Developer’s assignees, to incur certain costs relating to the Project that may be considered Redevelopment Project Costs under the TIF Act, prior to the adoption of any ordinance authorizing the execution of a redevelopment agreement between the City and the Developer, subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth in this Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. That the above recitals are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. Section 2. That the City Council may consider expenditures that are "Redevelopment Project Costs", as such term is defined in the TIF Act, in connection with the proposal of the Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 3 Developer, or the Developer’s assignees, to undertake the Project, incurred prior to the adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the execution of a redevelopment agreement with the Developer, or a successor or assignee of the Developer, to be expenditures that are eligible for reimbursement through the TIF Act to the extent the Project is in furtherance of the Redevelopment Plan for the overall Redevelopment Project Area. Section 3. That Resolution No. 2019-07 passed by the City Council on March 12, 2018, including the Subject Property is hereby amended to delete the Subject Project as listed on Exhibit A attached hereto. Section 4. That all undertakings of the City set forth in this Resolution are specifically contingent upon the City approving and executing a redevelopment agreement with the Developer, or a successor or assignee of the Developer, which provides for the redevelopment of the Subject Property in accordance with the terms and conditions to be negotiated by the parties. Section 5. That any financial assistance rendered to the Developer or the Developer’s assignees by the City shall be contingent upon the authority, restrictions, terms and conditions imposed by the TIF Act. Section 6. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 4 KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Attest: ______________________________ CITY CLERK Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #9 Tracking Number CC 2022-47 Appointment to Park Board City Council – August 23, 2022 Majority Approval Mayor John Purcell Name Department Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: See attached memo. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Manager Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Economic Development Committee #1 Tracking Number EDC 2020-32 Urban (Domesticated) Chickens City Council – September 27, 2022 EDC – 09/06/22 Moved forward to City Council agenda. EDC 2020-32 Majority Direction Ordinance regarding permitting and regulating urban (domesticated) chickens in residentially zoned districts. Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, AICP Community Development Name Department Proposal Summary: Per the direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) at the September 6th meeting, the attached draft ordinance and following table are proposed regulations permitting urban (domesticated) chickens for single-family residentially zoned parcels. The sticking point during the EDC discussion was the requirement of a four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid perimeter yard fence (indicated in red below). CURRENTLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS (BASED ON 8-2-22 EDC COMMENTS) PERMITTED ZONING (see attached map) Lots only zoned E-1, R-1 and R-2 and used for single-family detached residential purposes are permitted: E-1 (2 parcels) R-1 (135 parcels) R-2 (4,935 parcels) Total 5,072 parcels MIN. LOT SIZE 11,000 sq. ft. MAX. NUMBER OF CHICKENS Max. of 6 domestic hens LOCATION/SETBACK Rear Yard only. Enclosures and fenced areas shall be set back thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than that of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. SANITATION All structures shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation. All feed shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid. ENCLOSURE/COOP Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside area shall be no less than 32 square feet. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. Four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid yard fence required along the perimeter of the lot. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited, except for humane or religious reasons. ROOSTERS Prohibited PERMIT REQUIRED Required w/o Inspection Does not require HOA approval to issue permit ($25.00 one-time fee) Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Peter Ratos, Building Code Official Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: September 12, 2022 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Staff Comments: As presented, the proposed regulations are consistent with the Oswego Zoning Ordinance to allow chickens on certain residential properties, apart from the perimeter fence requirement. Oswego’s ordinance requires a coop structure and outside fence area where the chickens must remain at all times but does not require the perimeter yard to be fenced. For perspective, there are certain permit applications that requires the installation of a fence per the building ordinance regulations, such as a pool permit and the previously approved beekeeping accessory use. For pools, fences are required either around the pool perimeter or the perimeter of the lot, unless a lockable pool cover is provided. In the case of beekeeping, a six foot (6’) tall solid fence, wall or dense vegetative barrier is required when the bee colony Is located within 30 feet of public or private property line. Attachments 1. Map of Urban Chickens on Residential Parcels =/> 11,000 square feet 2. Current Draft Ordinance 3. September 6, 2022 - EDC Packet Materials 34 126 47 71 47 71 34 Walker Rd Galena R d Bridge StHelmar Rd River Rd Ashley RdRoute 47 Fox Rd Route 71 Eldamain RdAment Rd Caton Farm RdLisbon RdImmanuel RdRoute 30 Budd Rd Corneils Rd Kennedy Rd Church RdMinkler RdFox St Cannonball Trl Faxon Rd Baseline Rd Hollenback RdLegion Rd Sears Rd Mill Rd Hughes Rd Route 34 Concord Dr Mchugh RdMain St Stagecoa c h Trl Highpoint RdSpring St Dickson RdW Veterans Pkwy Needham RdPenman RdLew S t Hillto p R dFields DrTuma R d Van Em m o n R d Rout e 1 2 6 Gordon RdWalsh DrMill StMiller Rd Pavil l ion Rd B r i s t o l R i d g e R d Mitchell DrE South S t Schaefer Rd Grande Tr l Sundo wn Ln Country Rd Hale Rd Klatt St Hoffman St Reservati o n R d Tuscany Trl E m e r a l d L nBeecher RdJohn StKeller StAshe RdCountryside Pkwy Gates Ln Sleepy Hollow RdErica Ln Park St Somonauk St Foli St Rickard DrBristol Bay Dr E Veterans Pkwy Bertram D r Abe St Fairfax WayPoplar DrHa l e S t Lee St Jeter RdPrescott DrBlock Rd 2005-33841Hoover D r Audrey AveAlan Dale LnTroon Dr Kristen StEdward LnBerrywood Ln Cente r S t Center PkwyVan Emmon St Parkside LnDrivewayMorgan StOrange St Adam Ave Foster Dr Poplar RdClark RdState StRock Creek RdHeart l a n d D r Ke n d a l l D r Willow LnFreemont StLakewood Creek DrOmaha DrPrairie St Henn i n g R d Oak Creek D r Wren RdMaple St Hayden DrExit Dr L i l l i a n L n Big Bend Dr Ent r a n c e D rTeri LnDeer StHampton LnJustice DrOrchid St Andrew St Blackhawk RdWashington St Liberty StSu t t o n S t Hil l s i d e D r Ki n g m o o r L n Bailey StSumac DrMaple LnP a r kw a y D rAlden AveOak St Boombah Bl v d Wacker DrAvalon Ln Winding C r e e k R dBurr StDearborn S t King StBlackberry Shore Ln Sweetbriar Pl Elm St Patterson Rd Rain t ree Rd Western Ln Alyssa S t Marketview DrQuinsey Ln Prairie Crossing DrFairfield AveIsabel DrGame Farm RdRonhill RdFairhaven Dr Julie Ln Colton StLake Side Bruell StCoach RdBeaver St Ravine CtGreenbriar Rd Foxtail LnRoute 126 S t a c y C i r Kingsm i l l S t Bluest e m Dr Brian Ln Madeline DrSunset AveDeerpoint DrDerby Dr Kelly AvePratt StCreek L n Nawakwa LnLauren DrWoodview St Polo Club DrLynn Dr Wing RdEast S t May StHighland Dr Carly Cir Elden DrDanielle LnRiley R d Ryan DrWhiteki r k L n Sch o o l h o u s e R d Griffin DrJenna Cir Grace DrSouth St Thunder Gulch RdLarkspur LnDillon St Bailey RdSycamore RdKate DrEileen St Fo x C t Walsh Cir Bernadette Ln Iroquois Ln West StCryder WayKensey Ct Prairie LnHeatherwood DrFoxbor o DrAlexis StHillt o p Heather Ln Redbud Dr Blaine StChr is tophe r S tEsta D r Banbury Ave Charles St Searl StTitus DrE m i l y C t Canyon Trl Millrace LnPark Dr Churchill Dr Andrew Tr l Fox Glen Dr Deere C r o s s i n g D r Farm C t River Birch Dr Garden St Weston Ave Elizabeth St Acorn LnHuntington Ln Evergreen LnO l i v e L n Barrett Dr Allen StEllsworth DrL a v e n d a r W a y Lexington Cir Harris Ln Greenfield Turn Pensacola St Lewis St York v i l l e R d Riverwood DrLong Grove RdBrady StAspen LnBonnie LnEdgelawn D r Ruby Dr Ca r l y D r Lotus Ridge RdRedhorse LnPinewood DrWyt h e P l Brookside LnE Kenda l l D r Clover Ct Ridge St Walnu t D r Deames St Dickson Ct Wilson CtCole CtBirch C t Rebecca Ct Dolph St Jete r C t Slate CtCardinal LnOak Ln Sanders CtHa l e R d Cannonball TrlFaxon R d Route 71 Route 34 Hale S t DrivewayDriveway Driveway Main St Driveway Route 71 DrivewayTroon Dr Be e c h e r R d John StDriveway E Veterans PkwyUnited City of Yorkville, Illinois URBAN CHICKEN >11,000 Square Foot Residential Parcels ADDRESS: 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville Illinois DATA: All permit data and geographic data are property of the United City of Yorkville LOCATION: (I:)//Community Development/Urban Chickens/Chicken Map DATE: August 9, 2022 Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 1 Ordinance No. 2022-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED HENS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, domesticated chickens are of benefit to mankind by providing fresh eggs, garden fertilizer services, and companionship to their owners; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 11-5-3, 11-5-6, and 11-20-9 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as amended, (65 ILCS 5/11-5-3, 5/11-5-6, and 5/11-20-9) the City has the power and authority to regulate the licensing, treatment and prevention of nuisances regarding animals in the City. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council deem it necessary to allow and regulate domesticated hens in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: That Title 8 of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 DOMESTICATED HENS 8-19-1: Definitions As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning: A. “Coop” means an enclosure constructed with a covered roof. B. “Domesticated Hen” means all life stages of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in this Title. C. “Rooster” means an adult male chicken of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus. D. “Slaughtering” means the killing of an animal for food or other reason, with the exception for humane or religious reasons. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated hens in the City is prohibited except in compliance with this Chapter or upon any property zoned for agricultural uses. B. The purpose of this article is to establish certain requirements of sound domesticated hen practices, which are intended to avoid problems that may otherwise be associated with the keeping of chickens in populated areas. C. Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any persons to keep any domesticated hens in such a manner or of such disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal enjoyment of human or animal life of others, or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 8-19-2: Restrictions A. Domesticated hens shall be permitted on lots used for single-family detached residential purposes of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet or greater in area and zoned within the E-1 Estate, R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence and R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence districts. B. A maximum of six (6) domesticated hens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited in the City limits. D. Domesticated hens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within the rear yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. E. Slaughtering of domesticated hens shall be prohibited in City limits, except for humane or religious reasons. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. A. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. B. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. C. Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 3 D. A minimum four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid yard fence shall be required along the perimeter of the subject property lot in accordance with Chapter 17 Fencing and Screening of Title 10 Zoning of the Yorkville City Code. 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated hens shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation, kept clean and sanitary at all times. Any dirt or refuse resulting from the fowl or livestock shall be disposed in a clean and sanitary fashion. B. All feed and other items that are associated with the keeping of domesticated hens that likely to attract or become infested with rodents shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid so as to prevent rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. C. All areas where hens are kept shall be free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. D. No person shall allow domesticated hens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity. 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated hens shall be obtained from and submitted to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. At the time of permit application, the applicant shall: 1. Submit proof of authorization from the property owner to allow domesticated hens if the property is not owner occupied; and 2. Pay a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) nonrefundable application fee. B. Permit approval shall allow the Community Development Director or designees to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Where practicable, prior notice shall be given to the permittee. 8-19-6: Compliance. Upon receipt of information that any domesticated chicken enclosure or coop situated within the City is not being kept in compliance with this article, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause an investigation to be conducted. If grounds are found to exist to believe that one or more violations have occurred notices of violation for administrative adjudication pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 1 may be issued or a complaint filed in the circuit court of Kendall County. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 4 Section 2: That Subsection 5-2-1: Definitions of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED HENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Section 3: That Subsection 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated hens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 5 APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR 1 Draft 08/08/22 Ordinance No. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED HENS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, domesticated chickens are of benefit to mankind by providing fresh eggs, garden fertilizer services, and companionship to their owners; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 11-5-3, 11-5-6, and 11-20-9 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as amended, (65 ILCS 5/11-5-3, 5/11-5-6, and 5/11-20-9) the City has the power and authority to regulate the licensing, treatment and prevention of nuisances regarding animals in the City. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council deem it necessary to allow and regulate domesticated hens in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: That Title 8 of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 DOMESTICATED HENS 8-19-1: Definitions As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning: A. “Coop” means an enclosure constructed with a covered roof. B. “Domesticated Hen” means all life stages of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in this Title. C. “Rooster” means an adult male chicken of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus. D. “Slaughtering” means the killing of an animal for food or other reason, with the exception for humane or religious reasons. 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated hens in the City is prohibited except in compliance with this Chapter or upon any property zoned for agricultural uses. B. The purpose of this article is to establish certain requirements of sound domesticated hen practices, which are intended to avoid problems that may otherwise be associated with the keeping of chickens in populated areas. C. Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any persons to keep any domesticated hens in such a manner or of such disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal enjoyment of human or animal life of others, or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 8-19-2: Restrictions A. Domesticated hens shall be permitted on lots used for single-family detached residential purposes of twelve eleven thousand (12,00011,000) square feet or greater in area and zoned within the E-1 Estate, R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence and R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence districts. B. A maximum of six (6) domesticated hens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited in the City limits. D. Domesticated hens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within the rear yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. E. Slaughtering of domesticated hens shall be prohibited in City limits, except for humane or religious reasons. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. A. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. B. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. C. Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, No bullets or numbering 3 C.D. A minimum four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid yard fence shall be required along the perimeter of the subject property lot in accordance with Chapter 17 Fencing and Screening of Title 10 Zoning of the Yorkville City Code. 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated hens shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation, kept clean and sanitary at all times. Any dirt or refuse resulting from the fowl or livestock shall be disposed in a clean and sanitary fashion. B. All feed and other items that are associated with the keeping of domesticated hens that likely to attract or become infested with rodents shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid so as to prevent rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. C. All areas where hens are kept shall be free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. D. No person shall allow domesticated hens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity. 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated hens shall be obtained from and submitted to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. At the time of permit application, the applicant shall: 1. Submit proof of authorization from the property owner to allow domesticated hens if the property is not owner occupied; 2.1.Submit proof of authorization from the applicable homeowner’s association; and 3.2.Pay a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) nonrefundable application fee. B. Permit approval shall allow the Community Development Director or designees to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Where practicable, prior notice shall be given to the permittee. 8-19-6: Compliance. Upon receipt of information that any domesticated chicken enclosure or coop situated within the City is not being kept in compliance with this article, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause an investigation to be conducted. If grounds are found to exist to believe that one or more violations have occurred notices of violation for administrative adjudication pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 1 may be issued or a complaint filed in the circuit court of Kendall County. 4 Section 2: That Subsection 5-2-1: Definitions of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED HENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Section 3: That Subsection 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated hens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ________ day of ________, 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH ________ DAN TRANSIER ________ MATT MAREK ________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER ________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER ________ CRAIG SOLING ________ SEAVER TARULIS ________ JASON PETERSON ________ Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this _____ day of _______________ 2022. ______________________________ 5 MAYOR Summary: Per the most recent direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) at the August 2, 2022 meeting, please see the proposed changes to the draft regulations permitting urban (domesticated) chickens for single-family residentially zoned parcels. The attached draft ordinance has also been revised to reflect the proposed changes enumerated in red in the table below: PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS (BASED ON OSWEGO ORDINANCE) CURRENTLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS (BASED ON 8-2-22 EDC COMMENTS) PERMITTED ZONING (see attached map) R-1 Zoning District (Oswego) Lots must be used for residential purposes Oswego’s R-1 District is similar to Yorkville’s R-2 District. Yorkville is proposing permitting urban chickens in the following districts: E-1 (2 parcels) R-1 (121 parcels) R-2 (4,294 parcels) Total 4,417 parcels Lots only zoned E-1, R-1 and R-2 and used for single-family detached residential purposes are permitted E-1 (2 parcels) R-1 (135 parcels) R-2 (4,935 parcels) Total 5,072 parcels MIN. LOT SIZE 12,000 sq. ft. 11,000 sq. ft. MAX. NUMBER OF CHICKENS Max. of 6 domestic hens Max. of 6 domestic hens LOCATION/SETBACK Rear Yard only. Enclosures and fenced areas shall be set back thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than that of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. Rear Yard only. Enclosures and fenced areas shall be set back thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than that of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. SANITATION All structures shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation. All feed shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid. All structures shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation. All feed shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid. ENCLOSURE/COOP Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside area shall be no less than 32 square feet. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside area shall be no less than 32 square feet. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. Four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid yard fence required along the perimeter of the lot. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited, except for humane or religious reasons. Prohibited, except for humane or religious reasons. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Peter Ratos, Building Code Official Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: August 8, 2022 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens ROOSTERS Prohibited Prohibited PERMIT REQUIRED Required, must have HOA approval Required w/o Inspection Does not require HOA approval to issue permit ($25.00 one-time fee) Staff Comments: Staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) on the proposed revised draft ordinance based on the feedback received at the August 2, 2022 meeting. If it is the concurrence of the Committee to adopt the regulations for urban chickens as presented, staff recommends forwarding the ordinance to the next City Council for final consideration. Attachments 1. Map of Urban Chickens on Residential Parcels =/> 11,000 square feet 2. Current Draft Ordinance 3. August 2, 2022 EDC Packet Materials 34 126 47 71 47 71 34 Walker Rd Galena R d Bridge StHelmar Rd River Rd Ashley RdRoute 47 Fox Rd Route 71 Eldamain RdAment Rd Caton Farm RdLisbon RdImmanuel RdRoute 30 Budd Rd Corneils Rd Kennedy Rd Church RdMinkler RdFox St Cannonball Trl Faxon Rd Baseline Rd Hollenback RdLegion Rd Sears Rd Mill Rd Hughes Rd Route 34 Concord Dr Mchugh RdMain St Stagecoa c h Trl Highpoint RdSpring St Dickson RdW Veterans Pkwy Needham RdPenman RdLew S t Hillto p R dFields DrTuma R d Van Em m o n R d Rout e 1 2 6 Gordon RdWalsh DrMill StMiller Rd Pavil l ion Rd B r i s t o l R i d g e R d Mitchell DrE South S t Schaefer Rd Grande Tr l Sundo wn Ln Country Rd Hale Rd Klatt St Hoffman St Reservati o n R d Tuscany Trl E m e r a l d L nBeecher RdJohn StKeller StAshe RdCountryside Pkwy Gates Ln Sleepy Hollow RdErica Ln Park St Somonauk St Foli St Rickard DrBristol Bay Dr E Veterans Pkwy Bertram D r Abe St Fairfax WayPoplar DrHa l e S t Lee St Jeter RdPrescott DrBlock Rd 2005-33841Hoover D r Audrey AveAlan Dale LnTroon Dr Kristen StEdward LnBerrywood Ln Cente r S t Center PkwyVan Emmon St Parkside LnDrivewayMorgan StOrange St Adam Ave Foster Dr Poplar RdClark RdState StRock Creek RdHeart l a n d D r Ke n d a l l D r Willow LnFreemont StLakewood Creek DrOmaha DrPrairie St Henn i n g R d Oak Creek D r Wren RdMaple St Hayden DrExit Dr L i l l i a n L n Big Bend Dr Ent r a n c e D rTeri LnDeer StHampton LnJustice DrOrchid St Andrew St Blackhawk RdWashington St Liberty StSu t t o n S t Hil l s i d e D r Ki n g m o o r L n Bailey StSumac DrMaple LnP a r kw a y D rAlden AveOak St Boombah Bl v d Wacker DrAvalon Ln Winding C r e e k R dBurr StDearborn S t King StBlackberry Shore Ln Sweetbriar Pl Elm St Patterson Rd Rain t ree Rd Western Ln Alyssa S t Marketview DrQuinsey Ln Prairie Crossing DrFairfield AveIsabel DrGame Farm RdRonhill RdFairhaven Dr Julie Ln Colton StLake Side Bruell StCoach RdBeaver St Ravine CtGreenbriar Rd Foxtail LnRoute 126 S t a c y C i r Kingsm i l l S t Bluest e m Dr Brian Ln Madeline DrSunset AveDeerpoint DrDerby Dr Kelly AvePratt StCreek L n Nawakwa LnLauren DrWoodview St Polo Club DrLynn Dr Wing RdEast S t May StHighland Dr Carly Cir Elden DrDanielle LnRiley R d Ryan DrWhiteki r k L n Sch o o l h o u s e R d Griffin DrJenna Cir Grace DrSouth St Thunder Gulch RdLarkspur LnDillon St Bailey RdSycamore RdKate DrEileen St Fo x C t Walsh Cir Bernadette Ln Iroquois Ln West StCryder WayKensey Ct Prairie LnHeatherwood DrFoxbor o DrAlexis StHillt o p Heather Ln Redbud Dr Blaine StChr is tophe r S tEsta D r Banbury Ave Charles St Searl StTitus DrE m i l y C t Canyon Trl Millrace LnPark Dr Churchill Dr Andrew Tr l Fox Glen Dr Deere C r o s s i n g D r Farm C t River Birch Dr Garden St Weston Ave Elizabeth St Acorn LnHuntington Ln Evergreen LnO l i v e L n Barrett Dr Allen StEllsworth DrL a v e n d a r W a y Lexington Cir Harris Ln Greenfield Turn Pensacola St Lewis St York v i l l e R d Riverwood DrLong Grove RdBrady StAspen LnBonnie LnEdgelawn D r Ruby Dr Ca r l y D r Lotus Ridge RdRedhorse LnPinewood DrWyt h e P l Brookside LnE Kenda l l D r Clover Ct Ridge St Walnu t D r Deames St Dickson Ct Wilson CtCole CtBirch C t Rebecca Ct Dolph St Jete r C t Slate CtCardinal LnOak Ln Sanders CtHa l e R d Cannonball TrlFaxon R d Route 71 Route 34 Hale S t DrivewayDriveway Driveway Main St Driveway Route 71 DrivewayTroon Dr Be e c h e r R d John StDriveway E Veterans PkwyUnited City of Yorkville, Illinois URBAN CHICKEN >11,000 Square Foot Residential Parcels ADDRESS: 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville Illinois DATA: All permit data and geographic data are property of the United City of Yorkville LOCATION: (I:)//Community Development/Urban Chickens/Chicken Map DATE: August 9, 2022 Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 1 Draft 08/08/22 Ordinance No. 2022-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED HENS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, domesticated chickens are of benefit to mankind by providing fresh eggs, garden fertilizer services, and companionship to their owners; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 11-5-3, 11-5-6, and 11-20-9 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as amended, (65 ILCS 5/11-5-3, 5/11-5-6, and 5/11-20-9) the City has the power and authority to regulate the licensing, treatment and prevention of nuisances regarding animals in the City. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council deem it necessary to allow and regulate domesticated hens in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: That Title 8 of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 DOMESTICATED HENS 8-19-1: Definitions As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning: A. “Coop” means an enclosure constructed with a covered roof. B. “Domesticated Hen” means all life stages of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in this Title. C. “Rooster” means an adult male chicken of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus. D. “Slaughtering” means the killing of an animal for food or other reason, with the exception for humane or religious reasons. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated hens in the City is prohibited except in compliance with this Chapter or upon any property zoned for agricultural uses. B. The purpose of this article is to establish certain requirements of sound domesticated hen practices, which are intended to avoid problems that may otherwise be associated with the keeping of chickens in populated areas. C. Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any persons to keep any domesticated hens in such a manner or of such disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal enjoyment of human or animal life of others, or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 8-19-2: Restrictions A. Domesticated hens shall be permitted on lots used for single-family detached residential purposes of twelve eleven thousand (12,00011,000) square feet or greater in area and zoned within the E-1 Estate, R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence and R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence districts. B. A maximum of six (6) domesticated hens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited in the City limits. D. Domesticated hens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within the rear yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. E. Slaughtering of domesticated hens shall be prohibited in City limits, except for humane or religious reasons. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. A. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. B. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. C. Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. Formatted: List Paragraph, Left, No bullets or numbering Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 3 C.D. A minimum four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid yard fence shall be required along the perimeter of the subject property lot in accordance with Chapter 17 Fencing and Screening of Title 10 Zoning of the Yorkville City Code. 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated hens shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation, kept clean and sanitary at all times. Any dirt or refuse resulting from the fowl or livestock shall be disposed in a clean and sanitary fashion. B. All feed and other items that are associated with the keeping of domesticated hens that likely to attract or become infested with rodents shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid so as to prevent rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. C. All areas where hens are kept shall be free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. D. No person shall allow domesticated hens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity. 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated hens shall be obtained from and submitted to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. At the time of permit application, the applicant shall: 1. Submit proof of authorization from the property owner to allow domesticated hens if the property is not owner occupied; 2.1.Submit proof of authorization from the applicable homeowner’s association; and 3.2.Pay a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) nonrefundable application fee. B. Permit approval shall allow the Community Development Director or designees to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Where practicable, prior notice shall be given to the permittee. 8-19-6: Compliance. Upon receipt of information that any domesticated chicken enclosure or coop situated within the City is not being kept in compliance with this article, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause an investigation to be conducted. If grounds are found to exist to believe that one or more violations have occurred notices of violation for administrative adjudication pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 1 may be issued or a complaint filed in the circuit court of Kendall County. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 4 Section 2: That Subsection 5-2-1: Definitions of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED HENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Section 3: That Subsection 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated hens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 5 APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 1 Ordinance No. 2022-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED HENS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, domesticated chickens are of benefit to mankind by providing fresh eggs, garden fertilizer services, and companionship to their owners; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 11-5-3, 11-5-6, and 11-20-9 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as amended, (65 ILCS 5/11-5-3, 5/11-5-6, and 5/11-20-9) the City has the power and authority to regulate the licensing, treatment and prevention of nuisances regarding animals in the City. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council deem it necessary to allow and regulate domesticated hens in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: That Title 8 of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 DOMESTICATED HENS 8-19-1: Definitions As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning: A. “Coop” means an enclosure constructed with a covered roof. B. “Domesticated Hen” means all life stages of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in this Title. C. “Rooster” means an adult male chicken of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus. D. “Slaughtering” means the killing of an animal for food or other reason, with the exception for humane or religious reasons. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated hens in the City is prohibited except in compliance with this Chapter or upon any property zoned for agricultural uses. B. The purpose of this article is to establish certain requirements of sound domesticated hen practices, which are intended to avoid problems that may otherwise be associated with the keeping of chickens in populated areas. C. Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any persons to keep any domesticated hens in such a manner or of such disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal enjoyment of human or animal life of others, or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 8-19-2: Restrictions A. Domesticated hens shall be permitted on lots used for single-family detached residential purposes of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet or greater in area and zoned within the E-1 Estate, R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence and R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence districts. B. A maximum of six (6) domesticated hens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited in the City limits. D. Domesticated hens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within the rear yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. E. Slaughtering of domesticated hens shall be prohibited in City limits, except for humane or religious reasons. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. A. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. B. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. C. Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 3 D. A minimum four foot (4’) tall privacy or solid yard fence shall be required along the perimeter of the subject property lot in accordance with Chapter 17 Fencing and Screening of Title 10 Zoning of the Yorkville City Code. 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated hens shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation, kept clean and sanitary at all times. Any dirt or refuse resulting from the fowl or livestock shall be disposed in a clean and sanitary fashion. B. All feed and other items that are associated with the keeping of domesticated hens that likely to attract or become infested with rodents shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid so as to prevent rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. C. All areas where hens are kept shall be free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. D. No person shall allow domesticated hens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity. 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated hens shall be obtained from and submitted to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. At the time of permit application, the applicant shall: 1. Submit proof of authorization from the property owner to allow domesticated hens if the property is not owner occupied; and 2. Pay a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) nonrefundable application fee. B. Permit approval shall allow the Community Development Director or designees to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Where practicable, prior notice shall be given to the permittee. 8-19-6: Compliance. Upon receipt of information that any domesticated chicken enclosure or coop situated within the City is not being kept in compliance with this article, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause an investigation to be conducted. If grounds are found to exist to believe that one or more violations have occurred notices of violation for administrative adjudication pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 1 may be issued or a complaint filed in the circuit court of Kendall County. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 4 Section 2: That Subsection 5-2-1: Definitions of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED HENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Section 3: That Subsection 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated hens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 5 APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Summary: At the July 5th Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting, staff was given direction to draft an ordinance permitting urban (domesticated) chickens for single-family residentially zoned parcels mirroring the Village of Oswego’s Ordinance No. 17-26 adopted by their board in May 2017. The attached draft ordinance has been prepared for the consideration of the EDC. The following is a comparison of staff’s most recently proposed regulations presented in July and the currently proposed regulations of the Oswego ordinance: PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS CURRENTLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS (OSWEGO ORDINANCE) PERMITTED ZONING (see attached map) Lot must be used for residential purposes • E-1 (2 parcels) • R-1 (38 parcels) • R-2 (305 parcels) Total 345 parcels R-1 Zoning District (Oswego) Lots must be used for residential purposes Oswego’s R-1 District is similar to Yorkville’s R-2 District. Yorkville is proposing permitting urban chickens in the following districts: E-1 (2 parcels) R-1 (121 parcels) R-2 (4,294 parcels) Total 4,417 parcels MIN. LOT SIZE 20,000 sq. ft. 12,000 sq. ft. MAX. NUMBER OF CHICKENS Max. of 5 chickens Max. of 6 domestic hens LOCATION/SETBACK Rear/Side Yard 15 ft. setback from property lines Rear Yard only. Enclosures and fenced areas shall be set back thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than that of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. SANITATION Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground. All structures shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation. All feed shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid. ENCLOSURE/COOP Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Privacy or solid yard fence required. Chicken-run optional. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside area shall be no less than 32 square feet. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited Prohibited, except for humane or religious reasons. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Peter Ratos, Building Code Official Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: July 13, 2022 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens ROOSTERS Permitted up to 4 months of age Prohibited PERMIT REQUIRED Required w/o Inspection ($25.00 one-time fee) Required, must have HOA approval Additional Required Code Amendments: As in the Village of Oswego ordinance, the regulations permitting domesticated chickens are proposed as an allowed accessory use/structure. This will require an amendment to Title 8: Building Regulations, similar to the ordinance approving beekeeping on residential properties. Additional amendments to Title 5: Police Regulations will also be required. The following are areas in each aforementioned section which would require amending, text in red is proposed to be added: Title 8: Building Regulations Creation of a new chapter, Chapter 19: Domesticated Hens, providing all regulatory requirements for permitting chickens in designated residential districts. Title 5: Police Regulations, Chapter 2: Animals “Agricultural Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “Domestic Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” Creation of a new definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions for “domesticated chickens” to read as follows: “DOMESTICATED HENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Title 5: Police Regulations, Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals will need to be amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated hens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Proposed Enforcement & Concerns: Reiterating the discussion of the EDC at the July meeting regarding sanitation concerns, existing enforcement regulations for public health and safety would apply to properties permitted to have domesticated chickens: 1. Property Maintenance Code – existing provisions within the 2018 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) allows for the enforcement of public nuisances such as rodent harborage, maintenance of accessory structures, and proper rubbish and garbage containment, all which may result from unkept chicken coops. 2. Animals At Large – existing provisions within 5-2-4: Domestic Animals, prohibits domestic animals from running at large, with or without a tag fastened to its collar, within the corporate limits of the city. When any domestic animal is found on any public street, sidewalk, alley or any unenclosed place it is deemed to be running at large unless firmly held on a leash or is in an enclosed vehicle. This can be an issue if chickens are let loose in a backyard without secure fencing. 3. Performance Standards – located in the Zoning Ordinance, performance standards regulate noise (also regulated in Public Health and Safety ordinance the City Code) and odor which are also concerns related to permitting domestic chickens in residential districts. 4. Permit Revocation – the Building Code Official has the ability to revoke any valid permit if a violation is found and not corrected. Additionally, the draft ordinance provides that approval of a permit would allow building staff to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with prior notice to the permittee, when practical. 5. Administration Adjudication - All of the above provisions would require processing through the City’s Administration Adjudication procedures which, in addition to compel compliance, but may also issue fines and/or fees to violators. 6. Enforcement Concerns - the Police Department previously expressed concern regarding nuisance and noise complaints, as well as conflicts between this ordinance and HOA regulations. While the existing enforcement City regulations address the noise and nuisance complaints, the City has no authority to enforce HOA regulations. Staff Comments: Staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) on the proposed revised draft ordinance based on the Oswego residential chicken regulations. If it is the concurrence of the Committee to adopt the regulations for urban chickens as presented, staff recommends forwarding the ordinance to the next City Council for final consideration. Attachments 1. Current Draft Ordinance 2. Village of Oswego Ordinance 17-26 3. Village of Oswego Chicken Coop Permit Form 4. July 5, 2022 EDC Packet Materials 34 126 47 71 47 71 34 Walker Rd Galena R d Bridge StHelmar Rd River Rd Ashley RdRoute 47 Fox Rd Route 71 Eldamain RdAment Rd Caton Farm RdLisbon RdImmanuel RdRoute 30 Budd Rd Corneils Rd Kennedy Rd Church RdMinkler RdFox St Cannonball Trl Faxon Rd Baseline Rd Hollenback RdLegion Rd Sears Rd Mill Rd Hughes Rd Route 34 Concord Dr Mchugh RdMain St Stagecoa c h Trl Highpoint RdSpring St Dickson RdW Veterans Pkwy Needham RdPenman RdLew S t Hillto p R dFields DrTuma R d Van Em m o n R d Rout e 1 2 6 Gordon RdWalsh DrMill StMiller Rd Pavil l ion Rd B r i s t o l R i d g e R d Mitchell DrE South S t Schaefer Rd Grande Tr l Sundo wn Ln Country Rd Hale Rd Klatt St Hoffman St Reservati o n R d Tuscany Trl E m e r a l d L nBeecher RdJohn StKeller StAshe RdCountryside Pkwy Gates Ln Sleepy Hollow RdErica Ln Park St Somonauk St Foli St Rickard DrBristol Bay Dr E Veterans Pkwy Bertram D r Abe St Fairfax WayPoplar DrHa l e S t Lee St Jeter RdPrescott DrBlock Rd 2005-33841Hoover D r Audrey AveAlan Dale LnTroon Dr Kristen StEdward LnBerrywood Ln Cente r S t Center PkwyVan Emmon St Parkside LnDrivewayMorgan StOrange St Adam Ave Foster Dr Poplar RdClark RdState StRock Creek RdHeart l a n d D r Ke n d a l l D r Willow LnFreemont StLakewood Creek DrOmaha DrPrairie St Henn i n g R d Oak Creek D r Wren RdMaple St Hayden DrExit Dr L i l l i a n L n Big Bend Dr Ent r a n c e D rTeri LnDeer StHampton LnJustice DrOrchid St Andrew St Blackhawk RdWashington St Liberty StSu t t o n S t Hil l s i d e D r Ki n g m o o r L n Bailey StSumac DrMaple LnP a r kw a y D rAlden AveOak St Boombah Bl v d Wacker DrAvalon Ln Winding C r e e k R dBurr StDearborn S t King StBlackberry Shore Ln Sweetbriar Pl Elm St Patterson Rd Rain t ree Rd Western Ln Alyssa S t Marketview DrQuinsey Ln Prairie Crossing DrFairfield AveIsabel DrGame Farm RdRonhill RdFairhaven Dr Julie Ln Colton StLake Side Bruell StCoach RdBeaver St Ravine CtGreenbriar Rd Foxtail LnRoute 126 S t a c y C i r Kingsm i l l S t Bluest e m Dr Brian Ln Madeline DrSunset AveDeerpoint DrDerby Dr Kelly AvePratt StCreek L n Nawakwa LnLauren DrWoodview St Polo Club DrLynn Dr Wing RdEast S t May StHighland Dr Carly Cir Elden DrDanielle LnRiley R d Ryan DrWhiteki r k L n Sch o o l h o u s e R d Griffin DrJenna Cir Grace DrSouth St Thunder Gulch RdLarkspur LnDillon St Bailey RdSycamore RdKate DrEileen St Fo x C t Walsh Cir Bernadette Ln Iroquois Ln West StCryder WayKensey Ct Prairie LnHeatherwood DrFoxbor o DrAlexis StHillt o p Heather Ln Redbud Dr Blaine StChr is tophe r S tEsta D r Banbury Ave Charles St Searl StTitus DrE m i l y C t Canyon Trl Millrace LnPark Dr Churchill Dr Andrew Tr l Fox Glen Dr Deere C r o s s i n g D r Farm C t River Birch Dr Garden St Weston Ave Elizabeth St Acorn LnHuntington Ln Evergreen LnO l i v e L n Barrett Dr Allen StEllsworth DrL a v e n d a r W a y Lexington Cir Harris Ln Greenfield Turn Pensacola St Lewis St York v i l l e R d Riverwood DrLong Grove RdBrady StAspen LnBonnie LnEdgelawn D r Ruby Dr Ca r l y D r Lotus Ridge RdRedhorse LnPinewood DrWyt h e P l Brookside LnE Kenda l l D r Clover Ct Ridge St Walnu t D r Deames St Dickson Ct Wilson CtCole CtBirch C t Rebecca Ct Dolph St Jete r C t Slate CtCardinal LnOak Ln Sanders CtHa l e R d Cannonball TrlFaxon R d Route 71 Route 34 Hale S t DrivewayDriveway Driveway Main St Driveway Route 71 DrivewayTroon Dr Be e c h e r R d John StDriveway E Veterans PkwyUnited City of Yorkville, Illinois URBAN CHICKEN >12,000 Square Foot Residential Parcels ADDRESS: 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville Illinois DATA: All permit data and geographic data are property of the United City of Yorkville LOCATION: (I:)//Community Development/Urban Chickens/Chicken Map DATE: July 28, 2022 Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 1 Draft 07/13/22 Ordinance No. 2022-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED HENS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, domesticated chickens are of benefit to mankind by providing fresh eggs, garden fertilizer services, and companionship to their owners; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 11-5-3, 11-5-6, and 11-20-9 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as amended, (65 ILCS 5/11-5-3, 5/11-5-6, and 5/11-20-9) the City has the power and authority to regulate the licensing, treatment and prevention of nuisances regarding animals in the City. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council deem it necessary to allow and regulate domesticated hens in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: That Title 8 of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 DOMESTICATED HENS 8-19-1: Definitions As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning: A. “Coop” means an enclosure constructed with a covered roof. B. “Domesticated Hen” means all life stages of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in this Title. C. “Rooster” means an adult male chicken of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus. D. “Slaughtering” means the killing of an animal for food or other reason, with the exception for humane or religious reasons. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated hens in the City is prohibited except in compliance with this Chapter or upon any property zoned for agricultural uses. B. The purpose of this article is to establish certain requirements of sound domesticated hen practices, which are intended to avoid problems that may otherwise be associated with the keeping of chickens in populated areas. C. Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any persons to keep any domesticated hens in such a manner or of such disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal enjoyment of human or animal life of others, or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 8-19-2: Restrictions A. Domesticated hens shall be permitted on lots used for single-family detached residential purposes of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet or greater in area and zoned within the E-1 Estate, R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence and R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence districts. B. A maximum of six (6) domesticated hens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited in the City limits. D. Domesticated hens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within the rear yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of thirty (30) feet from any occupied residential structure, other than of the owner, but not less than the minimum setback required for accessory structures in the zoning district. E. Slaughtering of domesticated hens shall be prohibited in City limits, except for humane or religious reasons. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. A. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure up to 144 square feet and an adjacent outside fenced area. The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. B. Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord. C. Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 3 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated hens shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation, kept clean and sanitary at all times. Any dirt or refuse resulting from the fowl or livestock shall be disposed in a clean and sanitary fashion. B. All feed and other items that are associated with the keeping of domesticated hens that likely to attract or become infested with rodents shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid so as to prevent rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. C. All areas where hens are kept shall be free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. D. No person shall allow domesticated hens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity. 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated hens shall be obtained from and submitted to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. At the time of permit application, the applicant shall: 1. Submit proof of authorization from the property owner to allow domesticated hens if the property is not owner occupied; 2. Submit proof of authorization from the applicable homeowner’s association; and 3. Pay a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) nonrefundable application fee. B. Permit approval shall allow the Community Development Director or designees to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Where practicable, prior notice shall be given to the permittee. 8-19-6: Compliance. Upon receipt of information that any domesticated chicken enclosure or coop situated within the City is not being kept in compliance with this article, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause an investigation to be conducted. If grounds are found to exist to believe that one or more violations have occurred notices of violation for administrative adjudication pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 1 may be issued or a complaint filed in the circuit court of Kendall County. Section 2: That Subsection 5-2-1: Definitions of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Ordinance No. 2022-____ Page 4 “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated hens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED HENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Section 3: That Subsection 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated hens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ________ day of ________, 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this _____ day of _______________ 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Summary: At the May 3rd Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting, staff was given direction to draft an ordinance permitting urban (domesticated) chickens for single-family residentially zoned parcels on smaller lot sizes than the previously proposed one (1) acre lot minimum and slightly less restrictive setbacks than the minimum 25 ft proposed in January 2021. The EDC also requested regulations related to privacy or solid fencing, required enclosures and a maximum of 4-6 chickens per lot. However, no specific direction given regarding enforcement criteria. Policy Proposals: Based on the feedback provided to staff from the EDC, the following regulations have been revised (in red) from the January 2021 proposal and incorporated into the attached draft ordinance: PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS CURRENTLY PROPOSED REGULATIONS PERMITTED ZONING (see attached map) Lot must be used for residential purposes • E-1 (2 parcels) • R-1 (24 parcels) • R-2 (39 parcels) Total 65 parcels Lot must be used for residential purposes • E-1 (2 parcels) • R-1 (38 parcels) • R-2 (305 parcels) Total 345 parcels MIN. LOT SIZE One (1) acre 20,000 sq. ft. MAX. NUMBER OF CHICKENS Max. of 8 chickens Max. of 5 chickens LOCATION/SETBACK Rear/Side Yard 25 ft. setback from property lines Rear/Side Yard 15 ft. setback from property lines SANITATION Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground. Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground. ENCLOSURE/COOP Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Chicken-run and/or yard fence required. Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Privacy or solid yard fence required. Chicken-run optional. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited Prohibited ROOSTERS Permitted up to 4 months of age Permitted up to 4 months of age PERMIT REQUIRED Required w/o Inspection ($25.00 one-time fee) Required w/o Inspection ($25.00 one-time fee) Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Peter Ratos, Building Code Official Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: June 2, 2022 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Proposed Code Amendments: The regulations permitting domesticated chickens are proposed as an amendment to Title 8: Building Regulations as an allowed accessory use/structure, similar to the ordinance approving beekeeping on residential properties. Additional amendments to Title 5: Police Regulations will also be required. The following are areas in each aforementioned section which would require amending, text in red is proposed to be added: Title 8: Building Regulations Creation of a new chapter, Chapter 19: Domesticated Chickens, providing all regulatory requirements for permitting chickens in designated residential districts. Title 5: Police Regulations, Chapter 2: Animals “Agricultural Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “Domestic Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” Creation of a new definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions for “domesticated chickens” to read as follows: “DOMESTICATED CHICKENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Title 5: Police Regulations, Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals will need to be amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated chickens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Proposed Enforcement & Concerns: Although not discussed at the May 2022 meeting, existing enforcement regulations for public health and safety would apply to properties permitted to have domesticated chickens: 1. Property Maintenance Code – existing provisions within the 2018 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) allows for the enforcement of public nuisances such as rodent harborage, maintenance of accessory structures, and proper rubbish and garbage containment, all which may result from unkept chicken coops. 2. Animals At Large – existing provisions within 5-2-4: Domestic Animals, prohibits domestic animals from running at large, with or without a tag fastened to its collar, within the corporate limits of the city. When any domestic animal is found on any public street, sidewalk, alley or any unenclosed place it is deemed to be running at large unless firmly held on a leash or is in an enclosed vehicle. This can be an issue if chickens are let loose in a backyard without secure fencing. 3. Performance Standards – located in the Zoning Ordinance, performance standards regulate noise (also regulated in Public Health and Safety ordinance the City Code) and odor which are also concerns related to permitting domestic chickens in residential districts. 4. Permit Revocation – the Building Code Official has the ability to revoke any valid permit if a violation is found and not corrected. Additionally, the draft ordinance provides that approval of a permit would allow building staff to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with prior notice to the permittee, when practical. 5. Administration Adjudication - All of the above provisions would require processing through the City’s Administration Adjudication procedures which, in addition to compel compliance, but may also issue fines and/or fees to violators. 6. Enforcement Concerns - the Police Department previously expressed concern regarding nuisance and noise complaints, as well as conflicts between this ordinance and HOA regulations. While the existing enforcement City regulations address the noise and nuisance complaints, the City has no authority to enforce HOA regulations. Staff Comments: Staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) on the proposed draft ordinance. If it is the concurrence of the Committee to adopt the regulations for urban chickens as presented, staff recommends forwarding the ordinance to the next City Council for final consideration. Attachments 1. Map of Residential Parcels Permitted by Current Draft Ordinance 2. Revised Proposed Draft Ordinance 3. 12-1-20 EDC Packet Materials 34 126 47 71 47 71 34 Walker Rd Galena R d Bridge StHelmar Rd River Rd Ashley RdRoute 47 Fox Rd Route 71 Eldamain RdAment Rd Caton Farm RdLisbon RdImmanuel RdRoute 30 Budd Rd Corneils Rd Kennedy Rd Church RdMinkler RdFox St Cannonball Trl Faxon Rd Baseline Rd Hollenback RdLegion Rd Sears Rd Mill Rd Hughes Rd Route 34 Concord Dr Mchugh RdMain St Stagecoa c h Trl Highpoint RdSpring St Dickson RdW Veterans Pkwy Needham RdPenman RdLew S t Hillto p R dFields DrTuma R d Van Em m o n R d Rout e 1 2 6 Gordon RdWalsh DrMill StMiller Rd Pavil l ion Rd B r i s t o l R i d g e R d Mitchell DrE South S t Schaefer Rd Grande Tr l Sundo wn Ln Country Rd Hale Rd Klatt St Hoffman St Reservati o n R d Tuscany Trl E m e r a l d L nBeecher RdJohn StKeller StAshe RdCountryside Pkwy Gates Ln Sleepy Hollow RdErica Ln Park St Somonauk St Foli St Rickard DrBristol Bay Dr E Veterans Pkwy Bertram D r Abe St Fairfax WayPoplar DrHa l e S t Lee St Jeter RdPrescott DrBlock Rd 2005-33841Hoover D r Audrey AveAlan Dale LnTroon Dr Kristen StEdward LnBerrywood Ln Cente r S t Center PkwyVan Emmon St Parkside LnDrivewayMorgan StOrange St Adam Ave Foster Dr Poplar RdClark RdState StRock Creek RdHeart l a n d D r Ke n d a l l D r Willow LnFreemont StLakewood Creek DrOmaha DrPrairie St Henn i n g R d Oak Creek D r Wren RdMaple St Hayden DrExit Dr L i l l i a n L n Big Bend Dr Ent r a n c e D rTeri LnDeer StHampton LnJustice DrOrchid St Andrew St Blackhawk RdWashington St Liberty StSu t t o n S t Hil l s i d e D r Ki n g m o o r L n Bailey StSumac DrMaple LnP a r kw a y D rAlden AveOak St Boombah Bl v d Wacker DrAvalon Ln Winding C r e e k R dBurr StDearborn S t King StBlackberry Shore Ln Sweetbriar Pl Elm St Patterson Rd Rain t ree Rd Western Ln Alyssa S t Marketview DrQuinsey Ln Prairie Crossing DrFairfield AveIsabel DrGame Farm RdRonhill RdFairhaven Dr Julie Ln Colton StLake Side Bruell StCoach RdBeaver St Ravine CtGreenbriar Rd Foxtail LnRoute 126 S t a c y C i r Kingsm i l l S t Bluest e m Dr Brian Ln Madeline DrSunset AveDeerpoint DrDerby Dr Kelly AvePratt StCreek L n Nawakwa LnLauren DrWoodview St Polo Club DrLynn Dr Wing RdEast S t May StHighland Dr Carly Cir Elden DrDanielle LnRiley R d Ryan DrWhiteki r k L n Sch o o l h o u s e R d Griffin DrJenna Cir Grace DrSouth St Thunder Gulch RdLarkspur LnDillon St Bailey RdSycamore RdKate DrEileen St Fo x C t Walsh Cir Bernadette Ln Iroquois Ln West StCryder WayKensey Ct Prairie LnHeatherwood DrFoxbor o DrAlexis StHillt o p Heather Ln Redbud Dr Blaine StChr is tophe r S tEsta D r Banbury Ave Charles St Searl StTitus DrE m i l y C t Canyon Trl Millrace LnPark Dr Churchill Dr Andrew Tr l Fox Glen Dr Deere C r o s s i n g D r Farm C t River Birch Dr Garden St Weston Ave Elizabeth St Acorn LnHuntington Ln Evergreen LnO l i v e L n Barrett Dr Allen StEllsworth DrL a v e n d a r W a y Lexington Cir Harris Ln Greenfield Turn Pensacola St Lewis St York v i l l e R d Riverwood DrLong Grove RdBrady StAspen LnBonnie LnEdgelawn D r Ruby Dr Ca r l y D r Lotus Ridge RdRedhorse LnPinewood DrWyt h e P l Brookside LnE Kenda l l D r Clover Ct Ridge St Walnu t D r Deames St Dickson Ct Wilson CtCole CtBirch C t Rebecca Ct Dolph St Jete r C t Slate CtCardinal LnOak Ln Sanders CtHa l e R d Cannonball TrlFaxon R d Route 71 Route 34 Hale S t DrivewayDriveway Driveway Main St Driveway Route 71 DrivewayTroon Dr Be e c h e r R d John StDriveway E Veterans PkwyUnited City of Yorkville, Illinois URBAN CHICKEN LOT SIZE COMPARISON ADDRESS: 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville Illinois DATA: All permit data and geographic data are property of the United City of Yorkville LOCATION: (I:)//Community Development/Urban Chickens/Chicken Heat Map DATE: June 2, 2022 34 126 47 71 47 71 34 Walker Rd Galena R d Bridge StHelmar Rd River Rd Ashley RdRoute 47 Fox Rd Route 71 Eldamain RdAment Rd Caton Farm RdLisbon RdImmanuel RdRoute 30 Budd Rd Corneils Rd Kennedy Rd Church RdMinkler RdFox St Cannonball Trl Faxon Rd Baseline Rd Hollenback RdLegion Rd Sears Rd Mill Rd Hughes Rd Route 34 Concord Dr Mchugh RdMain St Stagecoa c h Trl Highpoint RdSpring St Dickson RdW Veterans Pkwy Needham RdPenman RdLew S t Hillto p R dFields DrTuma R d Van Em m o n R d Rout e 1 2 6 Gordon RdWalsh DrMill StMiller Rd Pavil l ion Rd B r i s t o l R i d g e R d Mitchell DrE South S t Schaefer Rd Grande Tr l Sundo wn Ln Country Rd Hale Rd Klatt St Hoffman St Reservati o n R d Tuscany Trl E m e r a l d L nBeecher RdJohn StKeller StAshe RdCountryside Pkwy Gates Ln Sleepy Hollow RdErica Ln Park St Somonauk St Foli St Rickard DrBristol Bay Dr E Veterans Pkwy Bertram D r Abe St Fairfax WayPoplar DrHa l e S t Lee St Jeter RdPrescott DrBlock Rd 2005-33841Hoover D r Audrey AveAlan Dale LnTroon Dr Kristen StEdward LnBerrywood Ln Cente r S t Center PkwyVan Emmon St Parkside LnDrivewayMorgan StOrange St Adam Ave Foster Dr Poplar RdClark RdState StRock Creek RdHeart l a n d D r Ke n d a l l D r Willow LnFreemont StLakewood Creek DrOmaha DrPrairie St Henn i n g R d Oak Creek D r Wren RdMaple St Hayden DrExit Dr L i l l i a n L n Big Bend Dr Ent r a n c e D rTeri LnDeer StHampton LnJustice DrOrchid St Andrew St Blackhawk RdWashington St Liberty StSu t t o n S t Hil l s i d e D r Ki n g m o o r L n Bailey StSumac DrMaple LnP a r kw a y D rAlden AveOak St Boombah Bl v d Wacker DrAvalon Ln Winding C r e e k R dBurr StDearborn S t King StBlackberry Shore Ln Sweetbriar Pl Elm St Patterson Rd Rain t ree Rd Western Ln Alyssa S t Marketview DrQuinsey Ln Prairie Crossing DrFairfield AveIsabel DrGame Farm RdRonhill RdFairhaven Dr Julie Ln Colton StLake Side Bruell StCoach RdBeaver St Ravine CtGreenbriar Rd Foxtail LnRoute 126 S t a c y C i r Kingsm i l l S t Bluest e m Dr Brian Ln Madeline DrSunset AveDeerpoint DrDerby Dr Kelly AvePratt StCreek L n Nawakwa LnLauren DrWoodview St Polo Club DrLynn Dr Wing RdEast S t May StHighland Dr Carly Cir Elden DrDanielle LnRiley R d Ryan DrWhiteki r k L n Sch o o l h o u s e R d Griffin DrJenna Cir Grace DrSouth St Thunder Gulch RdLarkspur LnDillon St Bailey RdSycamore RdKate DrEileen St Fo x C t Walsh Cir Bernadette Ln Iroquois Ln West StCryder WayKensey Ct Prairie LnHeatherwood DrFoxbor o DrAlexis StHillt o p Heather Ln Redbud Dr Blaine StChr is tophe r S tEsta D r Banbury Ave Charles St Searl StTitus DrE m i l y C t Canyon Trl Millrace LnPark Dr Churchill Dr Andrew Tr l Fox Glen Dr Deere C r o s s i n g D r Farm C t River Birch Dr Garden St Weston Ave Elizabeth St Acorn LnHuntington Ln Evergreen LnO l i v e L n Barrett Dr Allen StEllsworth DrL a v e n d a r W a y Lexington Cir Harris Ln Greenfield Turn Pensacola St Lewis St York v i l l e R d Riverwood DrLong Grove RdBrady StAspen LnBonnie LnEdgelawn D r Ruby Dr Ca r l y D r Lotus Ridge RdRedhorse LnPinewood DrWyt h e P l Brookside LnE Kenda l l D r Clover Ct Ridge St Walnu t D r Deames St Dickson Ct Wilson CtCole CtBirch C t Rebecca Ct Dolph St Jete r C t Slate CtCardinal LnOak Ln Sanders CtHa l e R d Cannonball TrlFaxon R d Route 71 Route 34 Hale S t DrivewayDriveway Driveway Main St Driveway Route 71 DrivewayTroon Dr Be e c h e r R d John StDriveway E Veterans PkwyUnited City of Yorkville, Illinois URBAN CHICKEN PERMITTED LOCATIONS (Lots over 20,000 square feet) ADDRESS: 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville Illinois DATA: All permit data and geographic data are property of the United City of Yorkville LOCATION: (I:)//Community Development/Urban Chickens/Complete Chicken Places 6-2-22 DATE: June 2, 2022 E-1 Estate Residence District R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence District R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence District TOTAL Autumn Creek --13 Blackberry Creek North --25 Blackberry Woods --5 Briarwood --1 Bristol Bay --2 Caledonia --2 Cannonball Estates --11 Country Hills --6 Countryside --25 Grande Reserve --3 Greenbriar --13 Heartland --2 Kendall Marketplace --1 Kylyn's Ridge --3 None 2 38 106 Prairie Meadows --3 Prestwick --3 Raintree Village --20 River's Edge --5 Sunflower Estates --11 Timber Ridge Estates --16 Whispering Meadows --3 White Oak Estates --95 Wildwood --39 Windett Ridge --22 TOTALS:2 38 435 475 TOTAL PARCELS HOA APPROVED 2 38 305 345 TOTAL PARCELS HOA PROHIBITTED 0 0 130 130 NUMBER OF PARCELS 1 Draft 12/02/2006/02/22 Ordinance No. _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED CHICKENS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, domesticated chickens are of benefit to mankind by providing fresh eggs, garden fertilizer services, and companionship to their owners; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 11-5-3, 11-5-6, and 11-20-9 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as amended, (65 ILCS 5/11-5-3, 5/11-5-6, and 5/11-20-9) the City has the power and authority to regulate the licensing, treatment and prevention of nuisances regarding animals in the City. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council deem it necessary to allow and regulate domesticated chickens in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: That Title 8 of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 DOMESTICATED CHICKENS 8-19-1: Definitions As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning: A. “Coop” means an enclosure constructed with a covered roof. B. “Domesticated Chicken” means all life stages of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in this Title. C. “Rooster” means an adult male chicken of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus. D. “Slaughtering” means the killing of an animal for food or other reason. 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated chickens in the City is prohibited except in compliance with this Chapter or upon any property zoned for agricultural uses. B. The purpose of this article is to establish certain requirements of sound domesticated chicken practices, which are intended to avoid problems that may otherwise be associated with the keeping of chickens in populated areas. C. Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any persons to keep any domesticated chickens in such a manner or of such disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal enjoyment of human or animal life of others, or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 8-19-2: Restrictions A. Domesticated chickens shall be permitted on lots used for residential purposes of one (1) acretwenty thousand (20,000) square feet or greater in area and zoned within the E-1 Estate, R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence and R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence districts. B. A maximum of eight (8)five (5) chickens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited. D. Domesticated chickens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within rear or side yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of twenty-five (25) fifteen (15) feet from any property line. E. Slaughtering of domesticated chickens shall be prohibited. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. All domesticated chicken enclosures or coops shall be constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for a minimum of two (2) square feet per chicken. A chicken run or yard privacy or solid fence shall be required. A chicken run is optional. 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated chickens shall be kept clean and sanitary at all times. Any dirt or refuse resulting from the fowl or livestock shall be disposed in a clean and sanitary fashion. 3 B. All feed for domesticated chickens shall be kept in containers that are rodent proof until put out for consumption in appropriate feeding vessel. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated chickens shall be obtained from and submitted to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. At the time of permit application, the applicant shall: 1. Submit proof of authorization from the property owner to allow domesticated chickens if the property is not owner occupied; and 2. Pay a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) nonrefundable application fee. B. Permit approval shall allow the Community Development Director or designees to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:004:30 p.m. Where practicable, prior notice shall be given to the permittee. 8-19-6: Compliance. Upon receipt of information that any domesticated chicken enclosure or coop situated within the City is not being kept in compliance with this article, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause an investigation to be conducted. If grounds are found to exist to believe that one or more violations have occurred notices of violation for administrative adjudication pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 1 may be issued or a complaint filed in the circuit court of Kendall County. Section 2: That Subsection 5-2-1: Definitions of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED CHICKENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Section 3: That Subsection 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated chickens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure 4 on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ________ day of ________, 20212022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH ________ DAN TRANSIER ________ JACKIE MILSCHEWSKICRAIG SOLING ________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER ________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER ________ JOEL FRIEDERS MATT MAREK ________ SEAVER TARULIS ________ JASON PETERSON ________ Approved by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, this _____ day of _______________ 20212022. ______________________________ MAYOR Summary: At the December 2020 Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting staff was given direction to draft an ordinance permitting urban (domesticated) chickens for single-family residentially zoned parcels one (1) acre or larger in size. The EDC also recommended the proposed regulations be modeled after the moderate scope of regulations presented in staff’s memo dated July 20, 2020 and include specific language regarding enforcement. Policy Proposals: Based on the feedback provided to staff from the EDC, the following regulations have been incorporated into the attached draft ordinance: PROPOSED REGULATIONS PERMITTED ZONING (see attached map) Lot must be used for residential purposes E-1 (2 parcels) R-1 (24 parcels) R-2 (39 parcels) Total 65 parcels MIN. LOT SIZE One (1) acre MAX. NUMBER OF CHICKENS Max. of 8 chickens LOCATION/SETBACK Rear/Side Yard 25 ft. setback from property lines SANITATION Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground. ENCLOSURE/COOP Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Chicken run and/or yard fence required. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited ROOSTERS Permitted up to 4 months of age PERMIT REQUIRED Required w/o Inspection ($25.00 one-time fee) Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Peter Ratos, Building Code Official Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: December 8, 2020 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Proposed Code Amendments: The regulations permitting domesticated chickens are proposed as an amendment to Title 8: Building Regulations as an allowed accessory use/structure, similar to the ordinance approving beekeeping on residential properties. Additional amendments to Title 5: Police Regulations will also be required. The following are areas in each aforementioned section which would require amending, text in red is proposed to be added: Title 8: Building Regulations Creation of a new chapter, Chapter 19: Domesticated Chickens, providing all regulatory requirements for permitting chickens in designated residential districts. Title 5: Police Regulations, Chapter 2: Animals “Agricultural Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “Domestic Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” Creation of a new definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions for “domesticated chickens” to read as follows: “DOMESTICATED CHICKENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Title 5: Police Regulations, Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals will need to be amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated chickens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Proposed Enforcement & Concerns: In regard to proposed enforcement, the following exist regulations would apply: 1. Property Maintenance Code – existing provisions within the 2018 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) allows for the enforcement of public nuisances such as rodent harborage, maintenance of accessory structures, and proper rubbish and garbage containment, all which may result from unkept chicken coops. 2. Animals At Large – existing provisions within 5-2-4: Domestic Animals, prohibits domestic animals from running at large, with or without a tag fastened to its collar, within the corporate limits of the city. When any domestic animal is found on any public street, sidewalk, alley or any unenclosed place it is deemed to be running at large unless firmly held on a leash or is in an enclosed vehicle. This can be an issue if chickens are let loose in a backyard without secure fencing. 3. Performance Standards – located in the Zoning Ordinance, performance standards regulate noise (also regulated in Public Health and Safety ordinance the City Code) and odor which are also concerns related to permitting domestic chickens in residential districts. 4. Permit Revocation – the Building Code Official has the ability to revoke any valid permit if a violation is found and not corrected. Additionally, the draft ordinance provides that approval of a permit would allow building staff to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. with prior notice to the permittee, when practical. 5. Administration Adjudication - All of the above provisions would require processing through the City’s Administration Adjudication procedures which, in addition to compel compliance, but may also issue fines and/or fees to violators. 6. Enforcement Concerns - the Police Department has expressed concern regarding nuisance and noise complaints, as well as conflicts between this ordinance and HOA regulations. While the proposed enforcement options address the noise and nuisance complaints, the City has no authority to enforce HOA regulations. Chief Jensen will be in attendance at the EDC meeting to discuss their concerns in detail. Staff Comments: Staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) on the proposed draft ordinance. If it is the concurrence of the Committee to adopt the regulations for urban chickens as presented, staff recommends forwarding the ordinance to the next City Council for final consideration. Attachments 1. Proposed Draft Ordinance 2. 12-1-20 EDC Packet Materials 34 126 47 71 47 71 34 Walker Rd Galena R d Bridge StHelmar Rd River Rd Ashley RdRoute 47 Fox Rd Route 71 Eldamain RdAment Rd Caton Farm RdLisbon RdImmanuel RdRoute 30 Budd Rd Corneils Rd Kennedy Rd Church RdMinkler RdFox St Cannonball Trl Faxon Rd Baseline Rd Hollenback RdLegion Rd Sears Rd Mill Rd Hughes Rd Route 34 Concord Dr Mchugh RdMain St Stagecoa c h Trl Highpoint RdSpring St Dickson RdW Veterans Pkwy Needham RdPenman RdLew S t Hillto p R dFields DrTuma R d Van Em m o n R d Rout e 1 2 6 Gordon RdWalsh DrMill StMiller Rd Pavil l ion Rd B r i s t o l R i d g e R d Mitchell DrE South S t Schaefer Rd Grande Tr l Sundo wn Ln Country Rd Hale Rd Klatt St Hoffman St Reservati o n R d Tuscany Trl E m e r a l d L nBeecher RdJohn StKeller StAshe RdCountryside Pkwy Gates Ln Sleepy Hollow RdErica Ln Park St Somonauk St Foli St Rickard DrBristol Bay Dr E Veterans Pkwy Bertram D r Abe St Fairfax WayPoplar DrHa l e S t Lee St Jeter RdPrescott DrBlock Rd 2005-33841Hoover D r Audrey AveAlan Dale LnTroon Dr Kristen StEdward LnBerrywood Ln Cente r S t Center PkwyVan Emmon St Parkside LnDrivewayMorgan StOrange St Adam Ave Foster Dr Poplar RdClark RdState StRock Creek RdHeart l a n d D r Ke n d a l l D r Willow LnFreemont StLakewood Creek DrOmaha DrPrairie St Henn i n g R d Oak Creek D r Wren RdMaple St Hayden DrExit Dr L i l l i a n L n Big Bend Dr Ent r a n c e D rTeri LnDeer StHampton LnJustice DrOrchid St Andrew St Blackhawk RdWashington St Liberty StSu t t o n S t Hil l s i d e D r Ki n g m o o r L n Bailey StSumac DrMaple LnP a r kw a y D rAlden AveOak St Boombah Bl v d Wacker DrAvalon Ln Winding C r e e k R dBurr StDearborn S t King StBlackberry Shore Ln Sweetbriar Pl Elm St Patterson Rd Rain t ree Rd Western Ln Alyssa S t Marketview DrQuinsey Ln Prairie Crossing DrFairfield AveIsabel DrGame Farm RdRonhill RdFairhaven Dr Julie Ln Colton StLake Side Bruell StCoach RdBeaver St Ravine CtGreenbriar Rd Foxtail LnRoute 126 S t a c y C i r Kingsm i l l S t Bluest e m Dr Brian Ln Madeline DrSunset AveDeerpoint DrDerby Dr Kelly AvePratt StCreek L n Nawakwa LnLauren DrWoodview St Polo Club DrLynn Dr Wing RdEast S t May StHighland Dr Carly Cir Elden DrDanielle LnRiley R d Ryan DrWhiteki r k L n Sch o o l h o u s e R d Griffin DrJenna Cir Grace DrSouth St Thunder Gulch RdLarkspur LnDillon St Bailey RdSycamore RdKate DrEileen St Fo x C t Walsh Cir Bernadette Ln Iroquois Ln West StCryder WayKensey Ct Prairie LnHeatherwood DrFoxbor o DrAlexis StHillt o p Heather Ln Redbud Dr Blaine StChr is tophe r S tEsta D r Banbury Ave Charles St Searl StTitus DrE m i l y C t Canyon Trl Millrace LnPark Dr Churchill Dr Andrew Tr l Fox Glen Dr Deere C r o s s i n g D r Farm C t River Birch Dr Garden St Weston Ave Elizabeth St Acorn LnHuntington Ln Evergreen LnO l i v e L n Barrett Dr Allen StEllsworth DrL a v e n d a r W a y Lexington Cir Harris Ln Greenfield Turn Pensacola St Lewis St York v i l l e R d Riverwood DrLong Grove RdBrady StAspen LnBonnie LnEdgelawn D r Ruby Dr Ca r l y D r Lotus Ridge RdRedhorse LnPinewood DrWyt h e P l Brookside LnE Kenda l l D r Clover Ct Ridge St Walnu t D r Deames St Dickson Ct Wilson CtCole CtBirch C t Rebecca Ct Dolph St Jete r C t Slate CtCardinal LnOak Ln Sanders CtHa l e R d Cannonball TrlFaxon R d Route 71 Route 34 Hale S t DrivewayDriveway Driveway Main St Driveway Route 71 DrivewayTroon Dr Be e c h e r R d John StDriveway E Veterans PkwyUnited City of Yorkville, Illinois URBAN CHICKEN PERMITTED LOCATIONS ADDRESS: 800 Game Farm Road, Yorkville Illinois DATA: All permit data and geographic data are property of the United City of Yorkville LOCATION: (I:)//Community Development/Urban Chickens DATE: December 8, 2020 Ordinance No. 2021-____ Page 1 Draft 12/02/20 Ordinance No. 2021- _____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE UNITED CITY OF YORKVILLE, KENDALL COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ALLOWING BACKYARD COOPS/ENCLOSURES FOR DOMESTICATED CHICKENS IN CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AS A PERMITTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REGULATIONS WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non home-rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, domesticated chickens are of benefit to mankind by providing fresh eggs, garden fertilizer services, and companionship to their owners; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 11-5-3, 11-5-6, and 11-20-9 of the Illinois Municipal Code, as amended, (65 ILCS 5/11-5-3, 5/11-5-6, and 5/11-20-9) the City has the power and authority to regulate the licensing, treatment and prevention of nuisances regarding animals in the City. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council deem it necessary to allow and regulate domesticated chickens in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1: That Title 8 of the United City of Yorkville Code of Ordinances is hereby amended by adding Chapter 19 to read as follows: CHAPTER 19 DOMESTICATED CHICKENS 8-19-1: Definitions As used in this chapter, the following words and terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage clearly indicates another meaning: A. “Coop” means an enclosure constructed with a covered roof. B. “Domesticated Chicken” means all life stages of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in this Title. C. “Rooster” means an adult male chicken of the subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus. D. “Slaughtering” means the killing of an animal for food or other reason. Ordinance No. 2021-____ Page 2 8-19-2: Certain conduct declared unlawful. A. The keeping by any person of domesticated chickens in the City is prohibited except in compliance with this Chapter or upon any property zoned for agricultural uses. B. The purpose of this article is to establish certain requirements of sound domesticated chicken practices, which are intended to avoid problems that may otherwise be associated with the keeping of chickens in populated areas. C. Notwithstanding compliance with the various requirements of this Chapter, it shall be unlawful for any persons to keep any domesticated chickens in such a manner or of such disposition as to cause any unhealthy condition, interfere with the normal enjoyment of human or animal life of others, or interfere with the normal use and enjoyment of any public property or property of others. 8-19-2: Restrictions A. Domesticated chickens shall be permitted on lots used for residential purposes of one (1) acre or greater in area and zoned within the E-1 Estate, R-1 Single-Family Suburban Residence and R-2 Single-Family Traditional Residence districts. B. A maximum of eight (8) chickens shall be permitted on any lot. C. Roosters shall be prohibited. D. Domesticated chickens and associated enclosures, coops and fencing shall be located within rear or side yard of any lot and must maintain a minimum setback of twenty-five (25) feet from any property line. E. Slaughtering of domesticated chickens shall be prohibited. 8-19-3: Coop and fence type. All domesticated chicken enclosures or coops shall be constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for a minimum of two (2) square feet per chicken. A chicken run or yard fence shall be required. 8-19-4: Sanitation A. Enclosures or coops for domesticated chickens shall be kept clean and sanitary at all times. Any dirt or refuse resulting from the fowl or livestock shall be disposed in a clean and sanitary fashion. B. All feed for domesticated chickens shall be kept in containers that are rodent proof until put out for consumption in appropriate feeding vessel. No feed shall be scattered on the ground. Ordinance No. 2021-____ Page 3 8-19-5: Permit. A. Permit applications for domesticated chickens shall be obtained from and submitted to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. At the time of permit application, the applicant shall: 1. Submit proof of authorization from the property owner to allow domesticated chickens if the property is not owner occupied; and 2. Pay a twenty-five dollar ($25.00) nonrefundable application fee. B. Permit approval shall allow the Community Development Director or designees to have the right to inspect any enclosure or coop between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Where practicable, prior notice shall be given to the permittee. 8-19-6: Compliance. Upon receipt of information that any domesticated chicken enclosure or coop situated within the City is not being kept in compliance with this article, the Community Development Director or designee shall cause an investigation to be conducted. If grounds are found to exist to believe that one or more violations have occurred notices of violation for administrative adjudication pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 1 may be issued or a complaint filed in the circuit court of Kendall County. Section 2: That Subsection 5-2-1: Definitions of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, and other farm animals.” “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated chickens as regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19, normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” “DOMESTICATED CHICKENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19.” Section 3: That Subsection 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals of the United City of Yorkville Police Regulations of the Yorkville City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated chickens regulated in Title 8 Chapter 19 or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Ordinance No. 2021-____ Page 4 Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval, and publication as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, 2021. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ JACKIE MILSCHEWSKI _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ JOEL FRIEDERS _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, 2021. ______________________________ MAYOR Summary: At the September 1st Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting, it was recommended that staff research the existing residential subdivision’s homeowners’ association (HOA) declarations to determine if there are any restrictions in place prohibiting “urban/backyard” chickens which would make the proposed zoning amendment to permit chickens in residential districts moot. This is due to a significant portion of Yorkville’s residentially zoned land is part of a master planned development. Additionally, staff was tasked with creating a brief web survey presented to the community about the topic of allowing chickens in residential districts. Subdivision Homeowner’s Association Research: Staff researched all residential subdivision homeowners’ associations (HOA) declarations on file with the Kendall County Recorder’s Office to determine if there were any restrictions to allowing backyard chickens in the City’s master-planned developments. Below is a chart of the findings: Name of Current Development Unit Type(s) Covenant Record Doc. # Date of Covenant Restrictions/ Prohibits Chickens (Y/N) Covenant Section & Language 1 Autumn Creek #20060008954 3/27/2006 Y Sec. 8.5 pg. 18: "No animals, livestock or poultry…" Single Family Town Homes 2 Blackberry Woods #201000012125 7/14/2010 Y Sec. 6 Animals: "No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on Lot, except that dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purpose." Single Family 3 Briarwood #200700000625 1/5/2007 Y Sec. 3.2 (j) pg. 7 "No animals, livestock or poultry…" Single Family 4 Bristol Bay #200600003313 1/31/2006 Y Article VIII Sec. 1 (f) pg. 13 "No animals, reptiles, rabbits, livestock, fowl or poultry…" Single Family Duplex Town Homes Condominiums 5 Caledonia Single Family #200600026078 8/21/2006 N No language specific to pets Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Peter Ratos, Building Code Official Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: September 30, 2020 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens 6 Not Recorded N/A N N/A Cannonball Estates Single Family 7 Cimarron Ridge #199200921219 2/10/1992 Y Article III Sec. 1 pg. 2 "No poultry…" Single Family Duplex 8 Country Hills #199509501815 3/17/1995 Y Article III Sec. 16 (g) pg. 8 "No animals other than household pets such as cats and dogs." Single Family Duplex 9 Fox Highlands #200100012188 7/10/2001 Y Article V Sec. 6 pg. 14 "No animals except cats or dogs…" Single Family Town Homes Duplex 10 Fox Hill #199509500419 #199509507391 #200700032452 01/18/1995 09/13/1995 11/02/2007 Y Article III Sec. 3.9 pg. 6 "No chickens…" Article 7 Sec. 7.6 pg 18 "No animals except cats and dogs…" Article 3 Section 3.10 (f) pg 18 "No animals or any kind shall be raised, bred or kept in any Unit or in the Common Elements except for those animals assisting disabled persons or animals that are being examined or treated by a certified veterinarian who is maintaining a veterinary medicine practice in any of the Units." Single Family Town Homes Duplex 11 Grande Reserve #200500002378 1/25/2005 Y Article X Sec. 10.02 pg 42 "No poultry..." Single Family Duplex Town Homes Apartments 12 Greenbriar Single Family Duplex #199709707331 7/28/1997 N No language specific to pets 13 Heartland Circle Single Family #2004000002598 1/30/2004 Y Sec. 5.03 (a) pg. 9 "No poultry..." 14 Heartland Subdivision #200100006495 4/19/2001 Y Sec. 5.03 (a) pg. 11 "No poultry..." Single Family 15 Heartland Meadows Not Recorded N/A N/A N/A Single Family 16 Kendall Marketplace Not Recorded N/A N/A N/A Single Family Town Homes 17 Kylyn's Ridge 200300036916 30‐Sep‐03 N No language specific to pets Single Family 18 Longford Lakes 200400000827 12‐Jan‐04 N No language specific to pets Townhomes 19 Prairie Gardens 200400006116 15‐Mar‐04 N No language specific to pets Age Restricted 20 Prairie Meadows 200500003507 3‐Feb‐05 N No language specific to pets Single Family Multi‐Family 21 Prestwick of Yorkville Single Family 200700014390 2‐May‐07 Y 4.3.11 Dogs and Cats: No more than a total of two (2) dogs or two (2) cats or one (1) dog and one (1) cat can be maintained, kept or housed in any residential unit whether or not such animal is the property of the owner of such residential unit. No such animal shall be allowed outside of a residential unit unless accompanied and attended at all times by an occupant of such residential unit and no dogs shall be allowed to bark as to create any type of nuisance to neighbors. 22 Raintree Village 201900008500 26‐Jun‐19 Y Section 8.04 Pets: No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept in the Community Area. The Board may from time to time adopt rules and regulations governing (a) the keeping of pets in Detached Home or Duplex Home, which may include prohibiting certain species of pets from being kept in a Detached Home or Duplex Home and (b) the use of the Community Area by pets. Single Family Duplex Town Homes 23 River's Edge Single Family 200100025428 31‐Dec‐01 N No language specific to pets 24 Sunflower Estates 200700019804 27‐Jun‐07 N HOA Rescinded Single Family 25 Whispering Meadows 200500011560 25‐Apr‐05 N No language specific to pets Single Family 26 White Oak Estates Single Family 198900895534 27‐Sep‐89 Y Article VII, Section 7: No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot except that dogs, cats, or other household pets may be kept provided that they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purpose. 27 Wildwood 198900891588 27‐Mar‐89 N No language specific to pets Single Family 28 Windett Ridge 200300034331 22‐Mar‐03 N No language specific to pets Single Family From the information in the above table, 14 of the 28 developments (50.0%) have regulations that specifically do not allow chickens within their HOA covenants. Of the remaining 14 (indicated in red in the table), 10 of the developments (35.7%) have no language specific to any pets and 4 (14.3%) have no HOA covenants recorded. Urban Chicken Public Survey Results: In regard to the public survey, the following summarizes the questions asked and the responses provided as of the date of this memo: From the preliminary results of the survey, respondents are split (37% Yes to 37% No) to interest in raising chickens in their backyards, but an overwhelming percentage of respondents (68%) are okay with their neighbor having the right to raise backyard chickens if it was clean and regulated by the City. As far as respondents in support of backyard chickens, 87% would want them for their fresh eggs, while those opposed cited the impact to appearance (78%), the noise (75%) and disease and/or predators has major concerns. Finally, respondents preferred very large rural lots (53%) and typical subdivision lots of 12,000 square feet (50%) to raise backyard chickens and overwhelming thought a small flock of 3-4 chickens was appropriate (37%). Staff Comments: Based upon the research of the City’s HOA covenants, only 50% have specific language restricting the raising of backyard chickens. This is consistent with the resident survey responses with 50% supporting backyard chickens in residential subdivisions and 50% opposed. Therefore, staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) regarding the request to permit, define and regulate urban/domestic chickens within the city, and to what degree. If it is the concurrence of the Committee to amend the City’s Code, staff and the City Attorney will prepare the appropriate ordinance language per your direction and present it to the appropriate committees and/or commission at a future meeting with a recommendation to the City Council for final approval. Attachments 1. Memorandum to Economic Development Committee (EDC) from staff dated July 20, 2020 with attachments presented at the September 9, 2020 meeting. Summary: At the July Economic Development Committee (EDC) meeting, it was recommended that staff move forward with preparing policy options for permitting “urban/domesticated” chickens in single-family residentially zoned districts within the city. Since the communities’ staff researched regulate urban/domesticated chickens to varying degrees, we are offering three (3) policy options: (1) permitted with limited regulation; (2) permitted with moderate regulation; and (3) permitted with substantial regulations. Research: In staff’s research of the decades old movement toward bringing agricultural practices into city/suburban lifestyles, the raising of non-traditional domesticated animals, such as chickens, has risen in popularity. Cities have generally responded to this trend by either banning such practices outright or permitting the practice with a wide range of regulations. Those municipalities that chose to permit the practice of raising chickens in non-agriculturally zoned districts typically focused on the following regulations: Regulation Best Practice Reasoning Permitted Zoning Districts Single-Family Zoning Districts x Generally, single-family dwelling units are located on larger lots, able to accommodate needed setbacks to house a coop. x Multi-family dwelling units are limited in lot size to permit every unit to have the opportunity to keep a chicken coop. Maximum number of chickens Typically permits a maximum of six (6) chickens. x Chickens are stock animals which do not thrive alone, so most owners have a minimum of four (4) to maintain a proper “social order”. x Allows for owners to have hens that still produce eggs and keep those hens that are still valued by the owner but can no longer lay eggs. x Capping the number of hens to less than six (6) may lead owners who raise chickens for eggs to limit their flock to only egg producers and burden animal shelters with cast-off older hens. Minimum lot size requirement If specified, varies depending on Zoning Ordinance requirements (typically 2,500 - 8,000 sq. ft.). x Generally, the requirement of a minimum lot size reduces the number of residentially zoning districts allowable for urban/backyard chickens (i.e., only permit in E-1 and R-1 districts and not in R-2) x Needlessly creates obstacles to raising chickens in residential districts otherwise suited for the use. Memorandum To: Economic Development Committee From: Krysti J. Barksdale-Noble, Community Development Director CC: Jason Engberg, Senior Planner Peter Ratos, Building Code Official Bart Olson, City Administrator Date: July 20, 2020 Subject: Urban (Domesticated) Chickens Location and/or Setback Requirements Located only in rear yards. Minimum of 25 ft. from any side/rear property line. x Typically seen as an “accessory use” to the primary residential land use, the location is most appropriate in rear yards. x Minimum 25 ft. setback is far enough to reduces nuisance of noise and odor, but also allows smaller properties to meet the standard. Sanitation Requirements (i.e. Performance Standards) Requires coop and outdoor enclosure must be kept in a sanitary condition and free from offensive odors and accumulation of waste. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground and requiring chickens to be fed from a trough. x Typically, can be enforced through existing performance standards in Zoning Ordinance and Property Maintenance Code. x Goal is to reduce odor, rodent and accumulation of waste without implementing stringent cleaning requirements which would be impossible to enforce. Enclosure/Coop Construction Constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Some ordinances provide sample construction diagram of wall/roof section and allowed materials. Typically requires a fenced “chicken run” area or located in a fenced yard. x Ensures adequate protection from natural predators (e.g. foxes, dogs, coyotes, etc.) and designed for easy access for cleaning. x Proposed size of 2 sq. ft. per hen provides adequate space for movement but small enough to keep birds warm in winter. x Fencing is required to allow birds to roam during cleaning but precludes chickens from running at large. Slaughtering Prohibited x Intent of ordinance is for chickens as pets or for raising of hens for eggs, not for meat. x Addresses concerns of health/hygiene concerns related to backyard slaughtering/butchering of chickens. Roosters Prohibited or only permitted under four (4) months of age. x Addresses concerns of noise (crowing) and are not needed for hens to produce eggs for feeding. Permit Required Varies by community. Those that require a permit ($0 - $50), city inspection and an annual renewal requirement. Recommended not to permit, but establish regulations, similar to regulating home occupations. x Inefficient use of City staff time to require a permit/license, review plans and maintain records. x Permit fees, especially if annual, could prove cost prohibitive for chicken owner. x Enforcement of regulations can still occur through the property maintenance process on a complaint basis. Policy Proposals: In consideration of a policy permitting urban/domesticated chickens, staff took into account the above referenced best practices from research gathered in planning related studies, model ordinances and surrounding community zoning codes to create a tier of three (3) options with varying degrees of regulations: LIMITED REGULATION MODERATE REGULATION SUBSTANTIAL REGULATION PERMITTED ZONING x E-1 (4 parcels) x R-1 (264 parcels) Total 268 parcels x E-1 (4 parcels) x R-1 (264 parcels) x R-2 (6,358 parcels) Total 6,626 parcels x E-1 (4 parcels) x R-1 (264 parcels) x R-2 (6,358 parcels) x R-2D (207 parcels) Total 6,833 parcels MAX. NUMBER Max. 8 chickens Max. 6 chickens Max. 4 chickens MIN. LOT SIZE N/A 12,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. LOCATION/SETBACK Rear/Side Yard Rear/Side Yard 25 ft. setback Rear Yard Only 25 ft. setback SANITATION Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies. Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground. Performance Standards & Property Maintenance Code applies Prohibit feed from being scattered on the ground and requiring chickens to be fed from a trough. ENCLOSURE/COOP Enclosure Required. No specifications. Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator- proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Chicken run and/or yard fence required. Enclosure constructed with a covered, predator-proof roof which allows for two (2) square feet per hen. Built per sample construction diagram of wall/roof section and allowed materials. Chicken run and/or yard fence required. SLAUGHTERING Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited ROOSTERS Permitted Permitted up to 4 months of age Prohibited PERMIT REQUIRED Not Required Required w/o Inspection ($25.00 one-time fee) Required w/Inspection ($50.00 one-time fee) Examples of a “Limited Regulation”, “Moderate Regulation” and ‘Substantial Regulation” ordinances are attached to this memo. Potential Code Amendments: Current sections of the City Code would be impacted and require amending if any measure permitting domesticated chickens and backyard coops/enclosures are allowed as accessory uses/structure. These include Chapter 2: Animals of Title 5: Police Regulations; Chapter 3: General Zoning Provisions of Title 10: Zoning; and Title 8: Building Regulations. However, staff recommends amending the Zoning Ordinance only if the City Council decides to implement the “Limited Regulations” which does not require a building permit for approval. Otherwise, we recommend amendments only to the Police and Building titles of the City Code if the “moderate” and “substantial” regulations are adopted, as this in consistent with how the Beekeeping Regulations were approved. The following are areas in each aforementioned section which would require amending, text in red is proposed to be added: Title 5: Police Regulations, Chapter 2: Animals “Agricultural Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “AGRICULTURAL ANIMAL: Livestock, poultry with the exception of domesticated chickens as regulated in (insert section), and other farm animals.” “Domestic Animal” definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions will need to be amended to read as follows: “DOMESTIC ANIMAL: Dogs, cats and any other types of animals or fowl, including domesticated chickens as regulated in (insert section), normally maintained as a household pet or guardian.” Creation of a new definition in Section 5-2-1: Definitions for “domesticated chickens” to read as follows: “DOMESTICATED CHICKENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in (insert section).” Title 5: Police Regulations, Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals Section 5-2-5: Agricultural Animals will need to be amended to read as follows: “Agricultural animals are prohibited within the corporate limits of the city, unless they are domesticated chickens regulated in (insert section) or are confined within an enclosure on land zoned A-1 agricultural zoning district, in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code.” Title 8: Building Regulations Should the City Council pursue the moderate or substantial regulations, staff recommends creating a new chapter, Chapter 19: Domesticated Chickens, which will provide all regulatory requirements for permitting chickens in designated residential districts. Title 10: Zoning, Chapter 3: General Zoning Provisions Should the City Council pursue the limited regulations, staff recommends creating a new section in the General Zoning Provisions, Section 10-3-15: Domesticated Chickens, which will provide all regulatory requirements for permitting chickens in designated residential districts. Creation of a new definition in Section 10-2-3: Definitions for “domesticated chickens” to read as follows: “DOMESTICATED CHICKENS: A subspecies of the species Gallus Domesticus which are kept in an enclosure in the rear or side yard of a residentially zoned property as permitted and regulated in (insert section).” Potential Enforcement Options: In regard to potential enforcement options, the following options exist: 1. Property Maintenance Code – existing provisions within the 2018 International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC) allows for the enforcement of public nuisances such as rodent harborage, maintenance of accessory structures, and proper rubbish and garbage containment, all which may result from unkept chicken coops. 2. Animals At Large – existing provisions within 5-2-4: Domestic Animals, prohibits domestic animals from running at large, with or without a tag fastened to its collar, within the corporate limits of the city. When any domestic animal is found on any public street, sidewalk, alley or any unenclosed place it is deemed to be running at large unless firmly held on a leash or is in an enclosed vehicle. This can be an issue if chickens are let loose in a backyard without secure fencing. 3. Performance Standards – located in the Zoning Ordinance, performance standards regulate noise (also regulated in Public Health and Safety ordinance the City Code) and odor which are also concerns related to permitting domestic chickens in residential districts. 4. Permit Revocation – the Building Code Official has the ability to revoke any valid permit if a violation is found and not corrected. All of the above provisions would require processing through the City’s Administration Adjudication procedures which, in addition, can lead to forced compliance, but fines and/or fees. Additionally, staff has received feedback from the Police Department which expressed concerned regarding nuisance and noise complaints, as well as conflicts between this ordinance and HOA regulations. While the proposed enforcement options address the noise and nuisance complaints, the City has no authority to enforce HOA regulations. To ensure communication between residents and their homeowners association is made prior to application submittal, staff can require a letter or approval from the HOA board as part of the permitting process. The attached permit example from the City of Batavia is provided for reference. Municipalities with Similar Ordinance Feedback Staff has reached out to four (4) area municipalities with existing urban (domesticated) chicken ordinances to seek their experiences administering and enforcing those regulations to share with the committee. Those communities were the cities of Naperville, Evanston, Batavia and the Village of Plainfield. Most of the communities adopted their regulations within the last 10 years and on average have had approximately twelve (12) applications during that time. None have reported any major complaints and administration of the regulations a non-issue. Staff Comments: Staff is seeking formal direction from the Economic Development Committee (EDC) to permit, define and regulate urban/domestic chickens within the city, and to what degree. If it is the concurrence of the Committee to amend, staff and the City Attorney will prepare the appropriate ordinance language per your direction and present it to the appropriate committees and/or commission at a future meeting with a recommendation to the City Council for final approval. Attachments 1. Illegal Fowl: A Survey of Municipal Laws Relating to Backyard Poultry and a Model Ordinance for Regulating City Chickens, Jamie Bouvier, Environmental Law Institute, 2012. 2. Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens, Patricia Salkin, Zoning and Planning Law report, Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 1, March 2011. 3. City of Batavia – Chicken and Coop Requirements (Permit Application example) 4. Village of Plainfield – Keeping of Chickens regulations (Limited Regulation example) 5. City of Naperville – Urban Livestock Ordinance (Moderate Regulation example) 6. City of Evanston – Urban Livestock Ordinance (Substantial Regulation example) 7. Emails from residents regarding chickens 42 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 9-2012 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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 . Chickens, 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 Necessar y 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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 the 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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 allow- 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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 . Finally, 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 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 the 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. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119494 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 Legal Studies Research Paper Series Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens Zoning and Planning Law Report, Vol. 34, No. 3, p. 1, March 2011 Patricia Salkin Dean and Professor of Law Copyright © 2009. Posted with permission of the author. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens Patricia E. Salkin Patricia E. Salkin is the Raymond & Ella Smith Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School, where she also serves as Associate Dean and Director of the Government Law Center. The author appreciates the research assistance of Albany Law School students Laura Bomyea (‘13) and Katie Valder (‘13), and the assistance of Amy Lavine, staff attorney at the Government Law Center. 41048326 MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 “A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard.” Village of Euclid, Ohio v Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388, 47 S.Ct. 114, 118 (1926). I. Introduction The clucking sound of chickens, once only heard on farms across the rural countryside, is becoming more commonplace in suburban and urban backyards as lo- cavores1 search for more “green living” and a diet of fresh, locally grown and raised food.2 In addition to producing eggs and meat, chickens provide the valu- able service of eating garden pests and kitchen scraps.3 They are relatively inexpensive, and do not need a particularly large area of space.4 Some people have also started to welcome chickens into their homes and yards as domesticated pets.5 Longmont, Colorado of- fers a good illustration of the growing interest in rais- ing backyard chickens, as the municipality has issued 72 permits to keep them, and maintains a waiting list of 100 more requests.6 Hundreds of other cities across the country, including Austin, Nashville, St. Louis, Tulsa, New York, Seattle, Portland, Houston and San Francisco, as well as smaller towns and villages, have permitted the keeping of chickens in residential neighborhoods,7 and changes have been proposed in other cities, including Lafayette, Colorado;8 Batavia, Illinois;9 Albany, New York;10 and North Salt Lake, Utah.11 Although some communities have welcomed backyard chickens, others have expressed overwhelm- ing opposition.12 People who criticize efforts to allow chickens in neighborhoods worry that property values will plummet,13 that chickens will create foul odors and noise, and that they will attract coyotes, foxes, and other pests.14 Efforts to allow chickens have re- cently been defeated in Springville, Utah,15 and Grand Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1774023 MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 2 © 2011 Thomson Reuters Rapids, Michigan,16 and in February of this year, of- ficials in Ludlow, Kentucky have bucked the trend as they announced efforts to amend their local laws to effectively prohibit the keeping of backyard chick- ens.17 Although some communities have welcomed backyard chickens, others have expressed overwhelming opposition. Favoring locally grown foods, while popular to- day, is not new. Early settlers were self-sustaining farmers, and while the era of industrialization may have altered farming patterns, Americans tried to re- claim some self-sufficiency during both World War I and World War II, with the implementation of vic- tory gardens.18 The federal government encouraged these efforts to reduce food shortages, and by 1943 the country’s 20 million victory gardens reportedly produced eight million tons of food.19 Food gardens surged in popularity again in the 1960s and 1970s through the “back to the land” movement, as envi- ronmentally conscientious consumers became aware of the pesticides, fertilizers, and other potentially dangerous chemicals used for industrial agricultural production.20 Economic, environmental, and philo- sophical issues have recently renewed the public’s interest in home-based food production, commu- nity gardens, and local sourcing.21 With respect to chickens, the zoning ordinance of Cherokee County, Georgia explains that “[t]he keeping of hens sup- ports a local, sustainable food system by providing an affordable, nutritious food source of fresh eggs. The keeping of hens also provides free nitrogen-rich fertilizer; chemical-free pest control; animal com- panionship and pleasure; and weed control, among other notable benefits.”22 While it is true that the im- petus for the growing backyard chicken movement is owing primarily to the local and regional foodshed movement, the internet and the newspapers boast stories and posts about urban dwellers who simply enjoy keeping chickens as pets, and others who have taken an interest in raising chickens specifically for 4-H showings and other agricultural competitions. Editorial Director Tim Thomas, Esq. Contributing Editors Patricia E. Salkin, Esq. Lora Lucero, Esq. Publishing Specialist Robert Schantz Electronic Composition Specialty Composition/Rochester Desktop Publishing Zoning and Planning Law Report (USPS# pending) is issued monthly, ex- cept in August, 11 times per year; published and copyrighted by Thomson Reuters, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul, MN 55164-0526. Application to mail at Periodical rate is pending at St. Paul, MN. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Zoning and Planning Law Report, 610 Opperman Drive, P.O. Box 64526, St. Paul MN 55164-0526. © 2011 Thomson Reuters ISSN 0161-8113 Editorial Offices: 50 Broad Street East, Rochester, NY 14694 Tel.: 585-546-5530 Fax: 585-258-3774 Customer Service: 610 Opperman Drive, Eagan, MN 55123 Tel.: 800-328-4880 Fax: 612-340-9378 This publication was created to provide you with accurate and authoritative information concerning the subject matter covered; however, this publication was not necessarily prepared by persons licensed to practice law in a particular jurisdiction. The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional. Feeding the Locavores, One Chicken at a Time: Regulating Backyard Chickens .................................1 I. Introduction ...................................................................1 II. Federal and State Government Regulation ......................3 III. Nuisance Law and Restrictive Covenants .......................3 IV. Using Zoning and Other Local Controls to Regulate Backyard Chickens.............................................................4 V. Conclusion ....................................................................7 Of Related Interest .................................................12 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters This is no “Chicken Little” story; if chicken lovers are not present in your community today, chances are they are coming soon. II. Federal and State Government Regulation Although backyard chickens are primarily regu- lated at the local level, a number of federal and state health and food safety laws apply to egg and poultry production. For example, the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture (USDA) takes an active role in disease prevention23 and regulates various aspects re- garding the sale, transport and slaughter of chicken and egg products under the Poultry Products Inspec- tion Act24 and the Egg Products Inspection Act.25 Although most people who own only a few birds are exempt from the regulations,26 these laws still prohibit the adulteration and misbranding of poul- try and egg products, regardless of exemption sta- tus.27 Therefore, those who raise chickens in order to sell eggs and poultry at local farmers’ markets must comply with the federal regulations. Additionally, while the Center for Disease Control has no direct regulatory authority over backyard chicken farmers, the agency provides safety tips to prevent exposure to salmonella or campylobacter, bacteria that cause mild to severe gastrointestinal illness in humans and are associated with chickens.28 People who own chickens for personal use are often exempted from state licensing and inspec- tion requirements as well.29 However, state regula- tions regarding avian diseases usually apply to all chicken owners, regardless of the size of their flocks and whether the birds are kept for food or as pets.30 Additionally, health and safety statutes often apply to egg sales and may cover people who own small flocks and wish to sell eggs at farmers’ markets or to local restaurants. In Texas, for example, “A vendor must obtain a permit . . . to sell yard eggs at a farm- ers market. The eggs must be stored at a temperature of 45º Fahrenheit or less. The egg cartons or other containers must be labeled as ‘ungraded’ and provide the producer’s . . . name and address.”31 Kentucky requires retail and wholesale egg sellers to obtain a license, but exempts producers who sell directly to consumers and sell no more than 60 dozen eggs per week.32 Chicken owners in Alabama who sell eggs from their homes or farms are not required to obtain a license, but if they transport their eggs to farmers’ markets, then they must follow the Alabama Shell Egg Law.33 Other states exempt small-scale egg sell- ers from licensing regulations and handling require- ments. In Michigan, for example, the egg law does not apply to people who sell eggs of their own pro- duction directly to consumers or first receivers,34 and in Oregon, “eggs may be sold at farmers’ markets or roadside stands without an egg handler’s license and without labeling.”35 Sales of poultry from small-scale producers may also be subject to health and safety regulations re- garding slaughter and handling. In Michigan, poul- try producers who sell fewer than 20,000 poultry per year must have their birds processed at a plant inspected by either the USDA or the state department of agriculture,36 while in Oregon, all poultry must be USDA inspected and slaughtered at a USDA plant. The Oregon Department of Agriculture also licens- es custom slaughter and processing operations, but these licenses do not allow retail sales and are pri- marily intended to allow persons to consume home- raised meat.37 Various other regulations may affect backyard chicken owners. In New York, it is illegal to keep chickens and other livestock on apartment building premises unless the use is specifically permitting by local regulations.38 A similar law in Michigan pro- hibits the keeping of chickens on any dwelling lot, except under appropriate regulations, in cities and villages with more than 10,000 residents.39 Addition- ally, all states prohibit or criminalize chicken fight- ing,40 and some prohibit chicken owners from using dye to change the birds’ colors,41 a practice that is apparently popular to produce multi-colored chicks for Easter.42 III. Nuisance Law and Restrictive Covenants Over the years, courts have had the opportunity to determine whether various impacts associated with the keeping of chickens can constitute a nui- sance. In an early case decided in Louisiana, it was held that rooster crowing is not a nuisance per se.43 The neighbor in the case cited a loss of sleep and physical discomfort caused by early morning crow- ing, which produced nervousness and potential MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters physical and mental disorders. In applying the rea- sonable person test, the court asked whether “such a condition . . . in the judgment of reasonable men is naturally producing of actual physical discomfort to normal persons of ordinary sensibilities and of ordi- nary tastes and habits,” and found that the crowing was not a nuisance, but rather a symbol of “good cheer and happiness.”44 However, keeping an exces- sive number of chickens may be deemed a nuisance if the noise or odors would offend persons of ordi- nary sensibility.45 Where neighbors were inundated by noise from a rooster farm, an Ohio appeals court remarked that the noise—which disrupted the plain- tiffs’ sleep, forced them to keep their windows sealed at all times, and prevented them from inviting guests to their home—could be distinguished from “typi- cal sounds of the country[.]”46 The court concluded that the amount of noise created by the roosters was greater than that which is reasonably anticipated in the countryside and ordered the defendants to keep less than six roosters.47 Even a small number of chickens or roosters may be considered a nuisance, depending on the character of the neighborhood and the amount of noise they produce. Even a small number of chickens or roosters may be considered a nuisance, depending on the char- acter of the neighborhood and the amount of noise they produce. St. Louis, Missouri, has designated the keeping of more than four chickens within city limits a public nuisance.48 Roosters are especially likely to create nuisances. In a Minnesota case, a woman liv- ing in St. Paul was convicted for keeping a rooster in her house without the requisite municipal permit. The court found that the health officer was justified in denying her permit request and upheld the convic- tion, as the numerous complaints from neighbors re- garding the bird’s frequent crowing at inconvenient hours demonstrated that it was a nuisance.49 The same woman was cited again several years later for keeping her rooster in a St. Paul suburb. The ordi- nance under which she was charged prohibited the “raising or handling of livestock or animals causing a nuisance,” but the court reversed her conviction because it determined that a rooster was not live- stock.50 In a Hawaii case, the court reversed on pro- cedural grounds three convictions sustained by the defendant for keeping a rooster in violation of an animal nuisance ordinance.51 Because chickens tend to create odors and noise, even if these do not rise to the level of a nuisance, the keeping of chickens is often prohibited by restric- tive covenants and homeowners’ associations. In one case, homeowners who raised chickens on their property were found to be in violation of covenants prohibiting poultry and poultry houses. Because the covenant clearly prohibited “poultry of any kind,” the court rejected the homeowners’ contention that their birds were “pets” and not “poultry.”52 In a similar case, it was explained that “the clear intent expressed in the covenants as a whole is to create a desirable, pleasant residential area. It is clear that the exception as to pets was intended to limit the ownership of animals upon the property to that nor- mally associated with residential, family living. We do not consider it in character with a planned resi- dential community for a person to maintain a flock of 21 assorted poultry on his property.”53 The city of Homewood, Alabama recently amended its code to provide, “It shall be unlawful for any person to keep, harbor, or possess any chicken, duck, goose, turkey, guineas or other fowl within the city, except . . . [u] nder circumstances where no noise, odor, or pollu- tion violation or nuisance is occasioned thereby,”54 perhaps leaving it open to interpretation as to what exactly would constitute a nuisance with backyard chickens. IV. Using Zoning and Other Local Controls to Regulate Backyard Chickens State and federal statutes regulating chicken rais- ing focus mainly on food safety and disease preven- tion, leaving local governments the ability to regulate the location and intensity of residential chicken rais- ing, as well as the physical aspects of chicken coops. Many communities across the country have enacted zoning and land use measures to effectively balance the desire to maintain small numbers of poultry for food or pets against concerns relating to noise and odors. Some of the common issues covered by local ordinances include limits on the number of birds, set- backs for coops and pens, requirements for neighbor consent, restrictions against roosters, requirements for proper feed storage, and pest control provisions. 5 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters Structures constructed for the housing of chickens, such as coops or fences, are also subject to zoning rules pertaining to cage size, height, and materials. Local laws may also include requirements for inspec- tions by code enforcement officers, especially in the event of a complaint, as well as penalties for viola- tions. Because of their noisy habits, roosters are prohibited under many residential chicken laws. Because of their noisy habits, roosters are prohib- ited under some residential chicken laws.55 In Stam- ford, Connecticut, residents may keep roosters, but only so long as their crowing is not “annoying to any person occupying premises in the vicinity.” It is clear that local ordinances vary widely in approach to meet the particular challenges of a given commu- nity. What follows are examples of specific existing local approaches to regulating urban chickens. A. Permits It is not uncommon for municipalities to regulate residential chicken raising through licensing and per- mitting laws. An ordinance in Ann Arbor, Michigan, allows residents to apply for a permit to keep up to four “backyard chickens.” The permit costs $20 and requires proof of consent by adjacent neighbors.56 Similarly, residents of Charlotte, North Carolina, may apply for a permit to have “chickens, turkeys, ducks, guineas, geese, pheasants, pigeons or other do- mestic fowl[.]” Before a permit may be issued, a city employee must inspect the premises and determine that keeping the desired fowl will not “endanger the health, safety, peace, quiet, comfort, enjoyment of or otherwise become a public nuisance to nearby resi- dents or occupants or places of business.”57 In Knox- ville, Tennessee, city residents may apply for an an- nual permit to keep up to six hens on their property. They must also obtain a building permit for any hen- house or chicken pen.58 In Salem, Oregon, residents are required to obtain a license, valid for up to three years, at a cost of $50 per year.59 The City of Adair Village, Oregon, which charges $10 for a permit, re- quires applicants to initial on the application that the space intended to house backyard chickens is cur- rently in accordance with sight-obscuring fence and setback requirements, and that the chicken coop and fenced chicken area enclosure is in accordance with the square footage size and sanitation maintenance standards associated with backyard chickens. Appli- cants also have to acknowledge the requirement that chickens must be shut into their coops from sunset to sunrise, and otherwise remain protected from natu- ral predators, and they must attest to having read the backyard chicken information sheet provided by the city.60 B. Neighbor Consent A number of municipalities require consent of neighbors before permits will be issued for backyard chickens. For example, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, neighbors are asked to complete the Adjacent Neigh- bor Consent Form, and “[n]o permit shall be issued . . . and no chickens shall be allowed to be kept unless the owners of all residentially zoned adjacent proper- ties . . . consent in writing to the permit.”61 Similar consent requirements have been enacted in Brainerd, Minnesota.62 In Mankato, Minnesota, consent is re- quired not only from abutting owners, but also from three-fourths of the residents living within 300 feet of the proposed chicken coop.63 Under the regulations enacted in Durham, North Carolina, a neighbor’s objection can warrant an administrative review.64 And in Longmont, Colorado, nonconforming coops located six feet from the property line must obtain the neighbors’ approval. Longmont also requires neighbors’ consent for free-ranging chickens.65 C. Keeping Chickens for Personal Use Backyard chicken ordinances often limit residents to keeping chickens for personal use, and prohibit them from selling eggs or poultry on-site. For exam- ple, the zoning regulation in Portland, Maine, pro- vides that its purpose is “to enable residents to keep a small number of female chickens on a non-com- mercial basis while creating standards and require- ments that ensure that domesticated chickens do not adversely impact the neighborhood surrounding the property on which the chickens are kept.”66 In San Francisco, residents are also prohibited from raising or breeding chickens for commercial purposes, and chicken operations that qualify as commercial are subject to different regulations.67 In addition to al- MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters lowing up to seven backyard chickens for personal egg consumption, Houston allows residents to keep show chickens intended purely for public exhibi- tion.68 In Windsor Heights, Iowa, no more than two chickens are allowed and they must be kept in a pen or coop at all times.69 D. Backyard Chickens Permitted as Accessory Uses In Larimer County, Colorado, up to six backyard chickens are permitted as a residential accessory use. They must be provided with appropriate shelter and have access to a fenced outdoor enclosure no larg- er than 120 square feet.70 Seattle, Washington also allows chickens in residential districts as accessory uses.71 If chickens are not specifically permitted in a residential district, a homeowner can also try to receive approval for them as an accessory use.72 This tactic has been successful in some cases involving farm animals and agricultural structures,73 but the courts have not tended to accept chickens as residen- tial accessory uses.74 As backyard chickens become more commonplace, however, they may be more likely to be treated as a use customarily found in con- nection with residential uses. E. Minimum Lot Size and Setback Requirements Rather than setting a limit on the number of chick- ens allowed, a number of municipalities set mini- mum lot size and setback requirements for keeping chickens in the backyard. This approach can serve a number of purposes: it can bar chickens from partic- ularly dense neighborhoods, prevent residents from keeping large flocks, and ensure that chickens have enough space to live comfortably. However, if such requirements are too restrictive, they may create ob- stacles to chicken raising in neighborhoods otherwise suited for that use. The 150-foot setback required in Concord, New Hampshire, for example, effective- ly limits backyard chicken raising to single-family homes on large lots.75 Minimum lot size require- ments for chickens vary. In Grand Rapids, Minne- sota, only one chicken is permitted per 2,500 square feet of lot size,76 while in Pima County, Arizona, 24 chickens may be kept per 8,000 square feet of lot space in single-family zones.77 In Hayden, Idaho, up to ten chickens “may be kept on premises contain- ing a minimum of three-fourths (3/4) acre of securely fenced, irrigated open space, exclusive of a homesite, and containing at least one acre in total[.]”78 Setbacks also vary. Little Rock, Arkansas has a 25-foot setback requirement,79 while Topeka, Kan- sas,80 and Stamford, Connecticut,81 have 50-foot setback requirements. Setbacks are often measured from other residential uses or districts, or uses that could be sensitive to nearby chickens. In Sacramen- to, for example, a chicken coop may not be located “nearer than seventy-five (75) feet to any building or structure on adjacent property used for dwelling pur- poses, food preparation, food service, school, hotel or as a place of public assembly.”82 In Lenexa, Kan- sas, chickens are subject to minimum lot size require- ments and coops must also be set back at least 100 feet from any adjacent building (except the owner’s), 100 feet from any front lot line, and 25 feet from any side or rear lot line.83 Chicken coops in Atlanta, in addition to being set back at least 50 feet from any neighboring residence or business, must also be set back at least five feet from the owner’s residence.84 F. Chicken Coop Design, Site Placement, Materials and Maintenance Local laws permitting backyard chickens of- ten regulate the size, height, and site placement of chicken coops and pens, as well as requiring them to be adequately cleaned and safeguarded from preda- tors. For example, the city of Knoxville, Tennessee, requires that hens be kept inside a fenced enclosure at all times during the day and secured inside a coop during non-daylight hours. If the fenced enclosure is not covered, then it must be at least 42 inches high and the hens’ wings must be clipped. A building per- mit is required for construction of a coop, which must be made of uniform materials, have a roof and doors that can be tightly secured, be properly ventilated, and have adequate sunlight.85 In Atlanta, Georgia, chicken coops must have solid floors made out of cement or another washable material, unless the enclosure is more than 75 feet away from the nearest neighbor’s residence or business.86 The size of coops and fenced enclosures is often determined by the number of hens kept in the flock. In Knoxville87 and Atlanta,88 coops must give each chicken at least two square feet of space. Mobile, Alabama, requires four feet of space per chicken in chicken houses,89 7 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters while at least six square feet of space per chicken is required in Concord, New Hampshire coops.90 Maintenance laws are also common. In Baton Rouge, for example, “[a]ll enclosures shall be cleaned regularly to prevent an accumulation of food, fecal matter, or nesting material from creating a nuisance or unsanitary condition due to odor, vermin, debris, or decay.”91 The New York City Health Code re- quires coops to be “whitewashed or otherwise treat- ed in a manner approved by the Department at least once a year . . . in order to keep them clean.”92 G. Special Use Permits Some communities allow for the keeping of ur- ban chickens subject to a special use permit. This permits the municipality to assess the particular im- pacts of a given application on the character of the neighborhood. The zoning ordinance for Overland Park, Kansas requires that people wishing to keep chickens on less than three acres must apply for a special use permit.93 Recently, in Jamestown, New York, the zoning board of appeals approved a spe- cial use permit based on the following conditions and restrictions: No more than ten hens would be housed on the property at any one time; no roosters would be housed on the property; a fence would be placed around the border on the property line; no slaughtering of chickens would be permitted; chick- ens would be in the coops from approximately dusk to dawn; and no storage of chicken manure would occur within 20 feet of the property line.94 The per- mit was granted for one year, at the end of which time the property owners would be required to ap- pear before the board for review and potential re- newal of the permit.95 In Leadville, Colorado, the Council recently issued a conditional use permit for the keeping of six chickens on residential property with the following conditions imposed: the special use shall not run with the land, but will sunset when the applicant no longer occupies the premises; that fresh water will be available for the chickens at all times; and that all representations made by the ap- plicant and relied upon by the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or the City Council in evaluating the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed a part of the application and binding upon the applicant.96 H. Slaughter Abattoirs and slaughtering are restricted or pro- hibited in many cities, and they may also be subject to federal and state regulations, as discussed above. Some cities, such as Rogers, Arkansas,97 and Buffalo, New York,98 prohibit slaughtering outside. Madi- son, Wisconsin,99 and Knoxville, Tennessee,100 pro- hibits chicken slaughtering in residential districts, while Chicago allows slaughtering only by licensed slaughtering establishments.101 In San Francisco, slaughtering must be carried out in a separate room, away from any chickens.102 Most of the ordinances and zoning provisions addressing the slaughtering of chickens apply to larger commercial operations, and ordinances relating to urban chickens are quiet on this matter. V. Conclusion The bottom line is that this is no “Chicken Lit- tle” story, and if chicken lovers are not present in your community today, chances are they are coming soon. In addition to significant websites and blogs103 that boast thousands of active members and read- ers, a quick search on Amazon.com reveals dozens of books about how to raise urban and backyard chick- ens, and magazines are on the market catering to this growing interest. Municipalities would be wise to proactively address these issues now, by reviewing the experience in other communities and by studying the various methods for most effectively regulating the keeping of hens and roosters in non-rural resi- dential neighborhoods. Notes 1. “Locavore” was chosen as the Oxford American Dictionary’s 2007 word of the year. As the dic- tionary explained, “The ‘locavore’ movement en- courages consumers to buy from farmers’ markets or even grow or pick their own food, arguing that fresh, local products are more nutritious and taste better. Locavores also shun supermarket offerings as an environmentally friendly measure, since shipping food over long distances often requires more fuel for transportation.” Oxford University Press Blog, Ox- ford Word of The Year: Locavore, Nov. 12, 2007, http://blog.oup.com/2007/11/locavore/ (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 2. See, e.g., Adrian Higgins, Hot Chicks: Legal or Not, Chickens Are the Chic New Backyard Addition, The MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 8 © 2011 Thomson Reuters Washington Post, May 14, 2009, http://www.wash- ingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/ AR2009051301051.html (visited February 2011); William Neuman, Keeping Their Eggs in Their Back- yard Nests, The New York Times, Aug. 3, 2009, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/ business/04chickens.html?_r=1 (visited February 2011); Katherine Houstoun, The Backyard Chick- en Movement, Richmond.com, http://www2.rich- mond.com/lifestyles/2010/jun/16/backyard-chick- en-movement-ar-592398 (visited February 2011). There has been some skepticism, however, over the booming popularity of backyard chickens. Jack Shafer, Bogus Trend of the Week: Raising Backyard Chickens, Slate, May 14, 2009, http://www.slate. com/id/2218390/ (visited February 2011). 3. Mary MacVean, Victory Gardens Sprout Up Again, Los Angeles Times (January 10, 2009), available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/10/home/hm- victory10/2 (visited February 2011). 4. Amy Eddings, What the Cluck?! Backyard Chick- en-Keeping Booming in New York City, WNYC, Jul. 8, 2010, http://www.wnyc.org/articles/wnyc- news/2010/jul/08/what-the-cluck-backyard-chick- en-keeping-booming-in-new-york-city/ (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 5. Although he admits to considering whether to eat it, food writer Jonathan Gold tells the story of how he came to have a pet chicken in This American Life Episode 343: Poultry Slam 2007, available to stream or download at http://www.thisamericanlife.org/ radio-archives/episode/343/poultry-slam-2007 (vis- ited Feburary 2011). In Cambridge, Massachusetts, residents attempted to seek approval for five chick- ens and ducks as residential accessory uses, arguing that the birds were pets. Xi Yu, Chicken and Duck Owners in Cambridge Lose Appeal, The Harvard Crimson, Feb. 12, 2010. 6. Monte Whaley, Backyard-Chickens Just Cage Rat- tling Longmont Learns, Denverpost.com (Nov. 2, 2010), available at: http://www.denverpost.com/ news/ci_16496049 (visited February 2011). 7. Dan Flynn, Nations’ Cities Debate Backyard Chick- ens, Food Safety News, http://www.foodsafetynews. com/2010/06/nations-cities-debate-backyard-chick- ens (visited February 2011); Amy Eddings, What the Cluck?! Backyard Chicken-Keeping Booming in New York City, WNYC, Jul. 8, 2010, http://www. wnyc.org/articles/wnyc-news/2010/jul/08/what-the- cluck-backyard-chicken-keeping-booming-in-new- york-city/; Carol Lloyd, Urban Farming: Back to the land in your tiny backyard, San Francisco Chronicle, Jun. 27, 2008, http://articles.sfgate.com/2008-06- 27/entertainment/17120257_1_pot-bellied-pigs-ani- mal-care-and-control-horses-and-goats (visited Feb- ruary 2011); Catherine Price, A Chicken on Every Plot, a Coop in Every Backyard, New York Times (Sept. 19, 2007), available at http://www.nytimes. com/2007/09/19/dining/19yard.html (visited Febru- ary 2011). 8. John Aguilar, Lafayette Gives Initial OK to Back- yard Chickens, Daily Camera (February 1, 2011), available at: http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ ci_17262635 (visited February 2011). 9. Linda Girardi, Batavia Resumes Chicken Debate, Beacon News (Jan. 24, 2011), available at: http:// beaconnews.suntimes.com/news/3426295-418/ story.html (visited February 2011); Linda Girardi, March Hearing Set on Batavia’s Chicken Issue, The Courier News (February 7, 2011), available at: http://couriernews.suntimes.com/news/3671554- 418/chickens-issue-batavia-committee-residents. html (visited February 2011). 10. http://www.scribd.com/doc/44855544/Proposed- Albany-Chicken-Law-Amendment (visited February 2011). 11. Jennifer Wardell, NSL Pecks at Backyard Chicken Idea, Davis County Clipper (Jan. 24, 2011), avail- able at: http://www.clippertoday.com/view/full_sto- ry/11112756/article-NSL-pecks-at-backyard-chick- en-idea?instance=secondary_stories_left_column (visited February 2011). 12. For surveys showing different responses to back- yard chickens, see, e.g., Kyle Slavin, Survey Says: Chickens OK in Saanich Backyards, Saanich News (January 16, 2011), available at: http://www.bclo- calnews.com/vancouver_island_south/saanichnews/ news/113846889.html (visited February 2011); Ta- mara Cunningham, Chicken Survey Says: Not In My Backyard, Canada.com (February 4, 2011), avail- able at: http://www.canada.com/Chicken+survey+s ays+backyard/4223769/story.html (visited February 2011). 13. Eggheads Seek to Educate About Backyard Chickens, http://www.wxow.com/Global/story. asp?S=13977512 (visited February 2011). 14. See, e.g., Dan Flynn, Nations’ Cities Debate Back- yard Chickens, Food Safety News, http://www. foodsafetynews.com/2010/06/nations-cities-debate- backyard-chickens (visited February 2011); Jill Richardson, How to get your city to allow backyard chickens, Grist, Jan. 5, 2011, http://www.grist.org/ article/food-2011-01-05-how-to-get-your-city-to- allow-backyard-chickens. 15. No Backyard Chickens for Springville Residents, Daily Herald (January 24, 2011), available at: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/state-and-re - gional/utah/article_2916f1c1-5436-53b3-aea2- c226d175e85e.html (visited February 2011). 16. Jim Harger, City Commissioner James White Says He Agrees With Backyard Chicken Ban For Grand Rapids Though He Missed Vote on Issue, MLive. com (August 24, 2010), available at: http://www. mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/08/ 9 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters city_commissioner_james_white.html (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 17. Cindy Schroeder, Cities Cry Fowl Over Residential Chickens, Cincinnati.com (Feb. 12, 2011), available at: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110212/ NEWS0103/102130335/Cities-cry-fowl-over-resi- dential-chickens?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctex t%7CFRONTPAGE (visited February 2011). 18. Devra First, Back to the Land, Boston Globe (May 27, 2009), available at: http://www.boston.com/ lifestyle/green/articles/2009/05/27/back_to_the_ land/?page=2 (visited February 2011). 19. Mary MacVean, Victory Gardens Sprout Up Again, Los Angeles Times (January 109, 2009), available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jan/10/home/ hm-victory10 (visited February 2011). 20. J.E. Ikerd, Current Status and Future Trends in American Agriculture: Farming with Grass, avail- able at: http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/ Oklahoma%20Farming%20with%20Grass%20 -%20Status%20%20Trends.htm, p.6 (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 21. See Kathryn A. Peters, Creating a Sustainable Urban Agriculture Revolution, 25 Envtl. L. & Litig. 203, 214-215 (2010) (discussing the forces popularizing urban agriculture). 22. http://www.cherokeega.com/departments/plannin- gandzoning/uploads/File/OrdChanges/backyard_ chicken_ord_7.7-9_version_09-16.pdf (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 23. See Sandra B. Eskin, Putting All Your Eggs in One Basket: Egg Safety and the Case for a Single Food- Safety Agency, 59 Food Drug L.J. 441 (2004); http:// www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/birdbiosecurity/ (visited February 2011). 24. 21 U.S.C.A. §§451 et seq. 25. 21 U.S.C.A. §§1031 et seq. 26. 7 C.F.R. § 57.100 (egg products); 9 C.F.R. § 381.10 (poultry products); see also http://www.fsis.usda. gov/oppde/rdad/fsisnotices/poultry_slaughter_ex- emption_0406.pdf at 5 (providing a flow chart to determine whether a poultry producer is exempt). See generally Geoffrey S. Becker, CRS Report for Congress RL32922, Meat and Poultry Inspection: Background and Selected Issues, Mar. 22, 2010, available at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/as- sets/crs/RL32922.pdf (visited February 2011). 27. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/oppde/rdad/fsisnotices/ poultry_slaughter_exemption_0406.pdf at 2 (visited February 2011). 28. See http://www.cdc.gov/Features/SalmonellaPoultry/ and http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/pdf/intown_ flocks.pdf. 29. See, e.g., Md. Agriculture Code Ann. § 4-217 (au- thorizing exemptions similar to those under the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act); COMAR § 15.04.01.09(A)(3) (requiring registration of pack- ers who keep fewer than 3,000 chickens but exempt- ing them from registration and inspection fees); N.Y. Agr. & M. § 90-c (requiring domestic animal health permits only for chicken wholesalers and transport- ers). 30. See, e.g., Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22-324 (specifically in- cluding poultry kept as pets); N.Y. Ag. & M. § 73. 31. Texas Dept. of State Health Services, Food Establish- ments Group Regulatory Clarifications, http://www. dshs.state.tx.us/foodestablishments/pdf/RegClarifi- cations/E23-13195_FEGRC_9.pdf (revised May 1, 2009). See also http://agr.wa.gov/FoodAnimal/Eggs/ Licensing.aspx (visited February 2011). 32. K.R.S. §§260.540 et seq. See also 2010-2011 Ken- tucky Farmers’ Market Manual, Kentucky Dept. of Agriculture, http://www.kyagr.com/marketing/farm- market/documents/20102011KyFarmersMarketMa nualwCover.pdf 73-75. 33. State of Alabama Farmers Market Authority, Guid- ance re: Sale of Farm Raised Eggs at Farmers Mar- kets, Jan. 27, 2009, http://www.fma.alabama.gov/ PDFs_NEW/Shell_Eggs.pdf. 34. M.C.L. § 289.333. A “first receiver” is a person who receives eggs from a producer at any place of business where such eggs are to be candled, graded, sorted and packed or packaged. M.C.L. § 289.321(d). See also Michigan Department of Agriculture, Operat- ing Policy for Egg Sales at Farmers’ Markets, http:// www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125--212367-- ,00.html. 35. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Farm Direct: Specific commodities: Eggs, http://www.oregon.gov/ODA/ pub_fd_commodities.shtml#Eggs. 36. Michigan Department of Agriculture, Farmers’ Mar- ket FAQ, http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7- 125-1568_2387_46671_46672-169336--,00.html. 37. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, Farm Direct: Specific commodities: Meat and poultry, http://www.oregon. gov/ODA/pub_fd_commodities.shtml#Meat_and_ poultry. See also North Carolina Dept. of Agricul- ture & Consumer Services, Meat & Poultry Inspec- tion Information Statement, http://www.ncagr.gov/ meatpoultry/info.htm. 38. N.Y. Mult. D. § 12(2). 39. MCL § 125.479 (prohibited uses); MCL § 125.401 (scope of act). 40. See Humane Society of the United States, Cockfight- ing: State Laws, http://www.humanesociety.org/as- sets/pdfs/animal_fighting/cockfighting_statelaws.pdf (listing statutes) (last updated June 2010); Brandi Grissom, Cockfighting Outfits Evade the Law, and Continue to Prosper, The New York Times, Dec. 23, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/ us/26ttcockfighting.html. (visited February 2011). 41. See, e.g., D.C. Code § 8-1808; Fla. Stat. § 828.161. MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 10 © 2011 Thomson Reuters 42. See Multi-coloured chicks for Easter, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3615191.stm (visited February 2011). 43. Myer v. Minard, 21 So. 2d 72, 74 (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1945). 44. Myer, supra n. 44, 21 So. 2d at 76. 45. See, e.g., Singer v. James, 130 Md. 382, 100 A. 642 (1917) (finding a nuisance where the defendant kept five hundred chickens, fifty geese, fifty dogs, forty hogs, and various guinea fowl, turkeys, cows, calves, and horses). 46. Forrester v. Webb, 1999 WL 74543 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. Butler County 1999). 47. Forrester, supra n. 46. 48. Laws of the City of St. Louis, Missouri Chapter 10 § 20-015 (http://www.slpl.lib.mo.us/cco/code/data/ t1020p1.htm). See also Code of Ordinances, City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Title 10 Chapter 1 § 10-114 (http://www.mtas.utk.edu/public/municodesweb.ns f/5cde681dbdedc10f8525664000615fc4/aa36ab28 994d11e585256faa006a8613/$FILE/Oakridge.t10. pdf) (prohibiting the keeping of any livestock, in- cluding fowl, within city limits, except in areas spe- cifically zoned for that purpose). 49. City of St. Paul v. Nelson, 404 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). 50. State v. Nelson, 499 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993). 51. State v. Nobriga, 81 Haw. 70, 912 P.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1996), as amended, (Mar. 11, 1996) (involving an ordinance that providing that “[i]t is unlawful to be the owner of an animal, farm animal or poultry engaged in animal nuisance” and defining “animal nuisance” as including “any animal, farm animal or poultry which: (a) Makes noise continuously and/or incessantly for a period of 10 minutes or intermit- tently for one-half hour or more to the disturbance of any person”). 52. Buck Hill Falls Co. v. Clifford Press, 2002 PA Su- per 17, 791 A.2d 392 (2002). See also Olsen v. Kil- patrick, 2007 WY 103, 161 P.3d 504 (Wyo. 2007) (holding that pheasants were prohibited by cov- enant). 53. Becker v. Arnfeld, 171 Colo. 256, 466 P.2d 479 (1970). 54. Homewood, Alabama, Code of Ordinances Re- lated to Animal Offenses, Fowl, sec. 4-8. Avail- able at: http://search.municode.com/html/11743/ level3/COOR_CH4ANFO_ARTIIOFREAN. html#COOR_CH4ANFO_ARTIIOFREAN_S4- 8FO (visited February 2011). 55. See, e.g., the codes of Fullerton, California (http:// www.cityoffullerton.com/depts/dev_serv/code_en- forcement/animal_regulations.asp) (visited February 2011); and Portland, Oregon (http://www.portland- online.com/auditor/index.cfm?a=13510&c=28231) (visited February 2011). 56. Ann Arbor Ord. No. 08-19. A copy of the permit application is available at http://www.a2gov.org/ government/city_administration/City_Clerk/Docu- ments/Backyard%20Chickens%20Permit%20 0708.pdf. See also Thelma Guerrero-Huston, After big flap, only five chicken license applied for in Sa- lem, The Statesman Journal, Jan. 29, 2011, http:// www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20110129/ NEWS/101290312/After-big-flap-only-five-chicken- licenses-applied-Salem (visited February 2011; dis- cussing the permit requirement in Salem, Oregon, which is valid for three years and costs $50 per year). 57. Code of Ordinances, City of Charlotte, NC, sec. 3-102, available at http://library1.municode. com:80/default/template.htm?view=browse&doc_ action=setdoc&doc_keytype=tocid&doc_key= 1c56ab278fcac109f43f0a5468a9a640&infoba se=19970. 58. Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennes- see, Part 2 Chapter 5 Article IV § 5-107 (http://li- brary.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098& stateId=42&stateName=Tennessee&customBann er=11098.jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt). 59. City of Salem, Oregon, Chicken License Applica- tion, see http://www.cityofsalem.net/Departments/ CommunityDevelopment/BAS/Documents/Chick- en%20License%20Application.pdf (visited Febru- ary 2011). 60. City of Adair Village Backyard Chicken Permit Ap- plication, available at: http://www.cityofadairvil- lage.org/Planning/2010%20Building%20Permits/ Backyard-Chicken-Permit-Application-FINAL.pdf (visited February 2011). 61. City of Ann Arbor Permit to Keep Backyard Chick- ens, http://www.a2gov.org/government/city_ad- ministration/City_Clerk/Documents/Backyard%20 Chickens%20Permit%200708.pdf (visited February 2011). 62. City of Brainerd Permit to Keep Chickens, http:// www.ci.brainerd.mn.us/administration/docs/chick- enpermit.pdf (visited February 2011). 63. Dan Linehan, Mankato Council Approves Chick- en Ordinance, The Free Press (June 14, 2010) available at: http://mankatofreepress.com/local/ x1996924618/Mankato-City-Council-Urban-chick- en-hearing-Live (visited February 2011). 64. http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/planning/ limited_ag_permit.cfm (visited February 2011). 65. http://www.ci.longmont.co.us/planning/permits/ documents/chicken_permit.pdf (visited February 2011). 66. Portland, Maine, Code § 5-403, http://www.port- landmaine.gov/citycode/chapter005.pdf. 11 Zoning and Planning Law Report MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 © 2011 Thomson Reuters 67. San Francisco Health Code, art. 1, § 37; see http:// library.municode.com/HTML/14136/level1/AR - T1AN.html#ART1AN_S37KEFESMANPOGABI (visited February 2011). 68. Houston, Code §§ 6-34 (show chickens), 6-38 (chicken hens); available at: http://library.municode. com/index.aspx?clientId=10123&stateId=43&state Name=Texas (visited February 2011). 69. Windsor Heights, Iowa, City Code, Section 32.02, available at: http://www.windsorheights.org/ City%20Code/Ch%2032%20Animal%20Control. pdf (visited February 2011). 70. http://www.co.larimer.co.us/planning/planning/ land_use_code/amendmentsadopted111510back - yardchickens.pdf (visited February 2011). 71. Seattle Municipal Code 23.42.052, as amended Aug. 23, 2010, available at http://clerk.ci.seattle. wa.us/%7Escripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s3=116907&s 4=&s2=&s5=&Sect4=AND&l=20&Sect2=THESO N&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=CBORY&Sect6=HIT OFF&d=ORDF&p=1&u=%2F%7Epublic%2Fcbo ry.htm&r=1&f=G (visited February 2011). 72. See, e.g., Xi Yu, Chicken and Duck Owners in Cam- bridge Lose Appeal, The Harvard Crimson, Feb. 12, 2010. 73. See, e.g., Simmons v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of New- buryport, 60 Mass. App. Ct. 5, 798 N.E.2d 1025 (2003) (stabling three horses found not to be “agri- cultural,” but permitted as an accessory residential use); Anderson v. Board of County Com’rs of Teton County, 2009 WY 122, 217 P.3d 401 (Wyo. 2009) (upholding the board’s determination that a barn/ equestrian center was an accessory residential struc- ture). 74. See, e.g., De Benedetti v. River Vale Tp., Bergen County, 21 N.J. Super. 430, 91 A.2d 353 (App. Div. 1952) (“Certainly, chicken houses could not be con- sidered as accessory to, or complementary to, the main building of plaintiffs’ premises, which is the dwelling house.”); Lawrence v. Zoning Bd. of Ap- peals of Town of North Branford, 158 Conn. 509, 264 A.2d 552 (1969) (holding that the board did not act illegally or arbitrarily in determining that the raising of chickens and goats was not an accessory use to residential property located in the center of town under an ordinance permitting accessory uses customarily incidental to uses in rural residential and agricultural districts). 75. Code of Ordinances, City of Concord, New Hamp- shire Title IV Chapter 28(4)(28); see http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10210&stateId =29&stateName=New%20Hampshire (visited Feb- ruary 2011). 76. Grand Rapids, MN Code § 10-72; see also http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_ id=134300076826 (visited February 2011). 77. Pima County Code of Ordinances, § 18.25.010; see http://library.municode.com/html/16119/level2/ TIT18ZO_CH18.25SIREZO.html (visited February 2011). 78. http://sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData. php?section_id=600663 (visited February 2011). 79. Little Rock City Code, Little Rock, Arkansas Chap- ter 6 Article 4(44); see http://library.municode.com/ index.aspx?clientId=11170&stateId=4&stateName =Arkansas (visited February 2011). 80. Municipal Code of Topeka, Kansas Title 6 §40; see http://www.codepublishing.com/KS/Topeka/ (visited February 2011). 81. Code of the City of Stamford, Connecticut §111-6; see http://library2.municode.com/default-test/home. htm?infobase=13324&doc_action=whatsnew (vis- ited February 2011). 82. Sacramento Code §9.44.340, http://www.qcode. us/codes/sacramento/view.php?topic=9-9_44-iii- 9_44_360&frames=on (visited February 2011). 83. Lenexa Code § 3-2-H-1, http://www.ci.lenexa.ks.us/ LenexaCode/codetext.asp?section=003.002.008 (visited February 2011). 84. City of Atlanta, GA Zoning Code, http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10376&stateId =10&stateName=Georgia Art. II sec. 18-7 (visited February 2011). 85. Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennes- see, Part 2 Chapter 5 Article IV § 5-107 (http://li- brary.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098& stateId=42&stateName=Tennessee&customBann er=11098.jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt). 86. City of Atlanta, GA, Zoning Code, http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10376&stateId =10&stateName=Georgia Art. II sec. 18-7 (visited February 2011). 87. Code of Ordinances, City of Knoxville, Tennes- see, Part 2 Chapter 5 Article IV § 5-107 (http://li- brary.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098& stateId=42&stateName=Tennessee&customBann er=11098.jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt) (vis- ited February 2011). 88. City of Atlanta, GA., Zoning Code, http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10376&stateId =10&stateName=Georgia Art. II sec. 18-7 (visited February 2011). 89. http://search.municode.com/html/11265/level4/ CICO_CH7ANFO_ARTIVLIPO_DIV2PO.html (visited February 2011). 90. Code of Ordinances, City of Concord, New Hamp- shire Title IV Chapter 28(4)(28) (http://library.mu- nicode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10210&stateId=29 &stateName=New%20Hampshire). 91. Baton Rouge Code §14:224 (c)(1) (http://library. municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10107&stateId =18&stateName=Louisiana). MARCH 2011 | Vol. 34 | No. 3 Zoning and Planning Law Report 12 © 2011 Thomson Reuters 92. New York City Health Code §161.19, http://www. nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/zoo/zoo-animal- healthcode.pdf (visited February 2011). 93. Unified Development Code, City of Overland Park, KS, Sec. 18.370.020, available at: http://law.opkan- sas.org/lpBin22/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-hit- h.htm&2.0 (visited February 2011). 94. Geoff Campbell, Zoning Board Rejects In-Law Apartment, Approves Chicken Coops, The James- town Press (Nov. 4, 2010), available at: http://www. jamestownpress.com/news/2010-11-04/News/Zon- ing_Board_rejects_inlaw_apartment_approves_chic. html (visited February 2011). 95. Geoff Campbell, Zoning Board Rejects In-Law Apartment, Approves Chicken Coops, The James- town Press (Nov. 4, 2010), available at: http://www. jamestownpress.com/news/2010-11-04/News/Zon- ing_Board_rejects_inlaw_apartment_approves_chic. html (visited February 2011). 96. See, Minutes of the Leadville Planning and Zoning Commission Joint Meeting, July 6, 2010, available at: http://www.cityofleadville.com/reports/PZMinut es/2010PZMinutes/20100706AppMinutes.pdf (vis- ited February 2011). 97. Rogers, Arkansas Ordinance No. 06-100, http:// www.rogersarkansas.com/clerk/chkordinance.asp (visited February 2011). 98. Buffalo Code § 341-11.3(D), http://www.ecode360. com/?custId=BU1237 (visited February 2011). 99. Madison, Wisconsin Code § 28.08(2)(b)8.j.ii), http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=5 0000&stateId=49&stateName=Wisconsin (visited February 2011). 100. Knoxvile Code Art. II § 5-107, http://library.muni- code.com/index.aspx?clientId=11098&stateId=42 &stateName=Tennessee&customBanner=11098. jpg&imageclass=L&cl=11098.txt (visited February 2011). 101. Chicago Code § 7-12-300, http://www.amle- gal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/mu nicipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default. htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il (visited February 2011). 102. San Francisco Code, http://library.municode.com/ index.aspx?clientId=14136&stateId=5&stateName =California (visited February 2011). 103. See for example, The City Chicken at http://home. centurytel.net/thecitychicken/index.html; and Back- yard Chickens at: http://www.backyardchickens. com (visited February 2011). OF RELATED INTEREST Discussion of matters related to the subject of the above article can be found in: Salkin, American Law of Zoning § 18:10 Zeigler, Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Plan- ning § 33:16 Keeping Poultry as Nuisance, 2 A.L.R.3d 965 CITY OF BATAVIA C HICKEN AND C OOP R EQUIREMENTS A maximum of eight (8) domestic hens shall be kept on a property that is zoned and occupied for single family residential use, or zoned PFI Public Facilities and Institutional and occupied by Schools, Public and Private only. The keeping of roosters and the slaughter of any chickens is prohibited. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure and adjacent covered outside fenced area. The outside area shall not be less than 32 square feet in area. For all properties, enclosures and the adjacent occupied fence area shall be setback a minimum of thirty (30) from any adjacent occupied residential structure, other than that of the owner; but not less than the minimum property line setback required for accessory structures in the Zoning District. Additionally for PFI zoned properties, the enclosures and adjacent occupied fenced area shall be set back a minimum of one hundred and fifty feet (150’) from all streets and located not between the principal structures and adjacent streets All enclosures shall be constructed and maintained in manner to be free of rodent infestation. A building permit is required for all enclosures. The permit fee is the same as a shed permit. Requirements for the keeping of hens and coops Please direct all questions to the City of Batavia Building Division of the Community Development Department, Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM at (630) 454-2700. City of Batavia Building Division Community Development Department 100 North Island Avenue Batavia, Illinois 60510 Tel: (630)454-2700 Fax: (630) 454-2775 http://www.cityofbatavia.net This is a summary of the City of Batavia Ordinances allowing chickens and chicken coops. This is intended to interpret and explain the ordinances but does not represent or replace the actual ordinance language. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of this information. 12/04/15 Application Procedure 1. Submit a completed Building Permit Application to the Building Division of the Community Development Department. 2. Pay required minimum submittal fee. 3. Attach two (2) copies of drawings to the application showing the construction details, see attached sample. 1. Attach two (2) copies of the plat of survey showing the location of the coop and outside fenced area, setbacks to property lines, setbacks to any adjacent occupied residential structures, and all utilities (electric, gas, phone, sewer, water, etc.) (sample attached) Survey shall be to scale, not reduced or enlarged when copied. 5. Call J.U.L.I.E (Joint Underground Location for Inspectors and Engineers) at least 48 hours prior to any digging to locate any underground utilities. (Dial 811 or 800-892-0123) 6. Complete the Keeping of Chickens registration form. 7. If property is not owner occupied, Property owner's signature will be required on the building application and chicken and coop registration form. 8. Schedule the required inspections with the City of Batavia Building Division at least 48 hours in advance to insure that we can meet your schedule. City of Batavia, Storage Shed Requirements Page 2 Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord or cords. Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. All chickens and enclosures shall be kept in the rear yard. All areas where hens are kept shall be maintained neat and clean and free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent property. No person shall allow chickens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity and shall not allow the nuisance to exist. Requirements for the keeping of hens and coops (Continued) Sample Construction Details City of Batavia Storage Shed Requirements, Page 3 Wall & Roof Section INDICATE DIMENSIONS AND MATERIALS Roof covering Roof sheathing Roof slope / pitch Roof framing Rafter, wall or collar ties Wall framing stud size 1 Braced corner type Wall sheathing 4” concrete with 6 x 6 -10 wire or fiber mesh Building wrap 8” 4” gravel fill Wall finish material 8” Opening header sizes______________ Indicate the location with dimensions of the coop and the run area on the property. Show the location and distance of all occupied residential structures that surround the property applying for permit. Building Address:________________________________________________________________________ Building Owner:__________________________________________________________________________ Email:_________________________________ Phone:___________________________________________ Responsible Party of Chickens: ______________________________________________________________ Email: _______________________________ Phone:_____________________________________________ Property Owner Occupied: Yes __ No__ If no, Owner Address:____________________________________ PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS REGARDING THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS All persons keeping chickens in the City of Batavia shall keep no more than 8 hens. Roosters shall not be kept anywhere on premise. Slaughter of any chickens shall not be allowed except for humane reasons only. Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure and an adjacent covered outside fence area not less than 32 square feet. All hens will be kept in the enclosures and fenced areas at all times. All hens are kept in the rear yard. All enclosure (s) will remain 30 feet from any adjacent residential structure, other than the owner, but not less than the minimum property line setback required for accessory structures in the Zoning District. PFI zoned properties shall keep enclosures and fenced areas 150 feet from all streets and not between the principal structure and adjacent streets. Electric service to enclosure will not be provided by electrical cord or cords. All enclosures and areas will be kept clean, sanitary and rodent free at all times. All feed shall be contained in containers with tightly fitted lids. Owner will ensure that the hens do not produce unreasonable noise. Owner agrees to allow Building Division staff personnel to access the rear yard of the residence for the purpose of verifying compliance with the above and Title 5, Chapter 4, and 5-4B7 of the Municipal Code. If it has been found that violation exists and correction has not been made within the timeframe given by the Code Compliance Officer, fines in the amount of $100.00 a day, every day the violation exists will be implemented as well as an appearance in front of the Adjudication Hearing Officer. If there have been three documented violations within any twelve month period, there will be a loss of permission to keep chickens on the property. Keeping chickens after permission has been revoked will result in a $750.00 fine a day every day the violation exists and an appearance in front of the Adjudication Hearing Officer. By signing this document, I understand and agree to the conditions set forth. Responsible Party:__________________________________________ Date:_____________________ Property Owner:____________________________________________ Date:____________________ Witness:__________________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Approved: ______Yes _____ No Date:________________ Inspector:___________________________ License #______________________ R City of Batavia Community Development Department 100 North Island Avenue Batavia IL 60510 Phone (630) 454-2000 Fax (630) 454-2775 CHICKEN REGISTRATION APPLICATION Registration number:___-___-___ CITY OF BATAVIA,ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALLOWING CHICKENS ON CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF BATAVIA ADOPTED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THIS 16 TH DAY OF MAY,2011 Published in pamphlet form by authority of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Batavia, Kane &DuPage Counties,Illinois, This 1ih day of May,2011 Prepared by: City of Batavia 100 N.Island Ave. Batavia,IL 60510 Page 1 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA,ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ALLOWING CHICKENS ON CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF BATAVIA WHEREAS,the City of Batavia's Municipal Code has for many years prohibited the keeping of chickens on residential property in the City limits;and WHEREAS,the City Council has been requested by several residents to change the City Code to permit the keeping of chickens on residential property in the city limits; and WHEREAS,there has been significant public input presented to the City demonstrating that there is substantial community benefit from permitting residents to keep a limited number of chickens for personal use in the residential areas of the City; and WHEREAS,those communities who permit a limited number of chickens to be .kept in residential areas have experienced few problems resulting from that action;and WHEREAS,there are demonstrated health benefits from allowing residents to raise chickens;and WHEREAS,many communities in the region have adopted ordinances permitting residents to keep up to eight hens for personal uses;and WHEREAS,the City Services Committee has studied the issue and held several public meetings where residents were afforded an opportunity to express their opinions about a potential change to the City Code to permit chickens on residential property;and WHEREAS,the County Health Department has noted its approval for the adoption of an ordinance allowing up to eight hens on a residential property;and WHEREAS,the City Services Committee has voted to recommend approval of Ordinance 11-04 to the City Council;and WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed the recommendation of the City Services Committee for changes to Municipal Code Title 5;and WHEREAS,it is in the best interests of the City of Batavia and its residents that the proposed ordinance be adopted by the City Council of the City of Batavia. Page 2 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA.ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 NOW THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED,by the City Council of the City of Batavia,Kane and DuPage Counties,Illinois: SECTION 1:That Title 5 of the Municipal Code be revised as follows: Chapter 4 ANIMAL CONTROL,Article 4B ANIMALS 5-4B-l:KEEPING OF ANIMALS RESTRICTED The words "other than eight (8)domestic hens"shall be inserted following the words "fowl and poultry"in sentence one.The last sentence,beginning with the words "In regard to fowl/poultry ...",shall be deleted. Add new Section 5-4B-7:STANDARDS FOR KEEPING OF CHICKENS A.Up to eight domestic hens may be kept on properties zoned and occupied for single family residential use only. B.Roosters are prohibited in the city limits. C.No person shall slaughter any chickens in the city limits,except for humane reasons. D.Hens shall be provided with a covered inside enclosure and an adjacent covered outside fenced area.The outside fenced area shall be no less than 32 square feet in area. E.The enclosures and adjacent fenced area shall be set back: 1.thirty feet from any adjacent occupied residential structure,other than that ofthe owner;but 2.not less than the minimum property line setback required for accessory structures in the Zoning district. F.All enclosures shall be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to be free of rodent infestation. G.A building permit shall be required for all enclosures.The permit fee shall be the same as for a shed. H.Electric service to enclosures shall not be provided by an extension cord or cords. Page 3 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA.ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 1.Hens shall be kept in the enclosure and fenced area at all times. J.All feed and other items that are associated with the keeping of chickens that are likely to attract or to become infested with rats,mice or other rodents shall be protected in a container with a tightly fitted lid so as to prevent rodents from gaining access to or coming into contact with them. K.All chickens shall be kept in the rear yard. L.All areas where hens are kept shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, free of undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. M.No person shall allow chickens to produce noise loud enough to disturb the peace of persons of reasonable sensitivity,and it is hereby declared a nuisance and shall be unlawful for any person to allow such nuisance to exist. Add new Section 5-4B-8.REGISTRATION AND PENALTIES A.All persons keeping chickens in the City shall register with the Code Compliance officer prior to acquiring the chickens.Registration shall be on a form established by the Community Development Department.Registration forms will not be accepted until the enclosure has passed a final inspection by the Building Division.Persons having chickens as of the effective date of this Ordinance shall have 30 days to bring their property into compliance with this Ordinance. B.The registration form shall include written permission for any Building Division staff member to access the rear yard of the residence for the purpose of verifying compliance with this Code on a periodic basis.The form shall also acknowledge receipt of a copy of the standards set forth in Section 5-4B- 7 above by person registering. C.There shall be no fee charged for registration. D.Failure to notify the Code Compliance Officer in accordance with "A"above or failure to allow an inspection in accordance with "B"above shall constitute a violation of the City Code and shall be punishable by a fine of no more than $100 plus hearing costs,the amount to be established by the Code Hearing Officer. E.Violation of any standard in Section 5-4B-7 above shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 plus court costs,such fine to be established by the Code Hearing Officer.Each day a violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. Page 4 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA.ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 F.Three violations of this Ordinance on a property within any twelve month period shall result in loss of permission to keep chickens on the property. Keeping of chickens after permission has been revoked shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $750 plus court costs,such fine to be established by the Code Hearing Officer.Each day a violation continues shall be considered a separate offense. Add new section 5-4B-9.CONFLICT WITH PRIVATE COVENANTS Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to permit the keeping of chickens when such activity is prohibited by private covenants,conditions or restrictions governing the use of property,or by rules,regulations or orders issued by the Illinois Department of Public Health or the Kane County Health Department. SECTION 2:That this Ordinance 11-04 shall be in full force and effect upon its presentation,passage and publication according to the law. Page 5 of 6 total pages (including title page) CITY OF BATAVIA.ILLINOIS ORDINANCE 11-04 PRESENTED to the City Council of the City of Batavia,Illinois,this 16th day of May, 2011. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Batavia,Illinois,this 16th day of May,2011. APPROVED by me as Mayor of said City of Batavia,Illinois,this 16th day of May,2011 Ward Aldermen Ayes Nays Absent Abstain Aldermen Ayes Nays Absent Abstain 1 O'Brien x Sparks x 2 Dietz x Wolff x 3 Jungels x Chanzit x 4 Yolk x Stark x 5 Frydendall x Thelin Atac x 6 Liva x Clark x 7 Tenuta x Brown x Mayor Schielke YOTE:9 Ayes 5 Nays o Absent Abstention(s) Total holding office:Mayor and 14 aldermen ATTEST: 9j ELeL.J U'Cfi:d Heidi Wetzel,City Clerk Page 6 of 6 total pages (including title page) / (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (1) (2) (3) (f) (g) (h) (i) Sec. 6-108. - Keeping of chickens. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep any chickens within the village, on any lot, piece or parcel of land, except as provided in subsections (a) through (i) below. Permitted locations. Domestic hens may be kept within the village only on property zoned and occupied for single family residential use. All hens shall be kept in the rear yard of the permitted location. Maximum number. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep more than eight (8) hens, of any age, on property zoned and occupied for single family residential use within the village. Keeping of roosters. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep a rooster(s) within the village. Slaughtering of chickens. It shall be unlawful for any person to slaughter any chickens within the village, except for a humane reason. Shelter and fenced areas. All hens kept in the village pursuant to this article, shall at all times be provided a shelter and an adjacent covered outside fenced area. All hens shall be kept in a shelter or adjacent outside fenced area at all times. The outside fenced area shall be no less than thirty-two (32) square feet in area and shall be demarcated with a fence constructed of wood or metal, excluding barbed wire or razor wire, of sufficient height to contain the hens. The shelter shall be no less than sixteen (16) square feet in area and no more than six (6) feet in height. The shelter shall contain an independent electric/heat source. Such utilities shall not be maintained with the use of extension cords. The shelter and adjacent outside fenced area shall also be: Thirty (30) feet from any adjacent occupied residential structure other than that of the owner or occupant of the real property on which the shelter and adjacent outside fenced area are located; Not less than the minimum property line setback required for accessory structures in an R-1 zoning district as defined by the village's zoning code; and Constructed in such a manner as to contain the hens to the shelter or the adjacent outside fenced area at all times and to keep the shelter and adjacent outside fenced area free from rodent infestation. Property maintenance. All areas in which hens are kept shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, free from undue accumulation of waste such as to cause odors detectable on adjacent properties. All feed for hens shall, except when placed for consumption by the hens, be kept in containers with tightly fitted lids that are rodent-proof. Permit/inspection required. A permit shall be required for construction of a shelter utilized to contain hens. The permit shall be issued by the village's building department. The fee for the permit for construction of the shelter shall be twenty dollars ($20.00). Two (2) inspections by the village's building department officials shall be required during construction of the shelter. The first shall occur upon installation of the base/floor of the shelter and prior to any further construction of the shelter; and the second shall occur upon completion of the shelter and prior to the owner acquiring hens to occupy the shelter. The inspections are required to confirm compliance with this article and the village's building code. A fee of thirty dollars ($30.00) shall be charged for each inspection. The owner/occupant of the property shall be responsible for contacting the village's building department to schedule each inspection of the shelter. Registration. All persons keeping hens in the village shall register with the village's planning department prior to acquiring the hens. Registration shall be on a form established by the village's planning department and shall include written permission for any village building or code enforcement official to access the rear yard of the property where the hens are located for the purpose of verifying compliance with applicable village Code. Registration shall not be permitted until the shelter has passed final inspection by the village's building department. Compliance. All persons having chickens as of the effective date of this ordinance shall have ninety (90) days to bring their property into compliance with this article. (Ord. No. 3082, § 3, 10-15-12) From:Joel Frieders To:Krysti Barksdale-Noble; Bart Olson; Jackie Milschewski Subject:Fwd: In favor of chickens Date:Tuesday, July 7, 2020 6:33:08 PM ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: a m <> Date: Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 6:30 PM Subject: Re: In favor of chickens To: Joel Frieders <joelfrieders.ward3@gmail.com> Joel, Thank you for asking! I wish more people would be curious about many topics. I appreciate this as a human and a political figure. Yes, as a former agricultural educator, I helped children learn tangible life lessons with chickens. They learned responsibility, economics and husbandry to name a few. I watched as some students who have autism and struggled with social situations "come out of their shell' around chickens. Chickens offer a glimpse into the birdworld that we cant often have with wild animals, they are a domesticated animal but they do have similar behaviours to some of our wild feathered friends. I have friends who live in areas where chickens are allowed and for them its chance to do micro homesteading, earn a small amount of extra income (usually only enough to buy chicken feed) and reduce their food miles. Chickens also are insectivores they can aid in eating ticks, mosquitos and may other pests that annoy us or carry disease. They themselves cannot get lymes disease so it's a win win. Please feel free to ask anymore questions and share this information. April Morris On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:47 PM Joel Frieders <joelfrieders.ward3@gmail.com> wrote: any reasons why you support it? On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:06 PM a m <> wrote: Hi I am in favor of backyard chickens here in Yorkville! -- Joel Frieders Alderman, Third Ward United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Rd Yorkville, IL 60560 630-992-7516 PLEASE NOTE: I do not email after 5pm CST or on weekends, for the sanctity of my sanity. -- Joel Frieders Alderman, Third Ward United City of Yorkville 800 Game Farm Rd Yorkville, IL 60560 630-992-7516 PLEASE NOTE: I do not email after 5pm CST or on weekends, for the sanctity of my sanity. Dear Yorkville City Council, I appreciate Alderman Funkhouser’s efforts bringing the topic of Urban Chickens forward to the council. My family lives on a unique piece of property in town. We own ~1.25 acres between two connected parcels on Main Street. Main Street lets people go back in time surrounded by historic homes and the occasional glimpse of the Fox River. Many of these properties would have maintained chickens and other foul to provide for those families. Recently, my son found remnants of an old chicken coop in our back woods. Our property offers a unique habitat for chicken and some would say other animals as well. I had to put some thought into how much I really wanted chickens. Chickens are extra work, the costs take years to recover, and you must take into consideration end of life. We are a busy and expensive family of 7 plus our puppy Leo. However, I know these animals would quickly become family. I think of the unique opportunity it would offer my children and neighboring friends. I think of sustainability in these COVID days. The regular supply of fresh eggs offered by the hens is a great and healthy perk. Chickens also eliminate many nescient pests without spraying chemicals over our properties. They are also substantially quieter than the Route 47 traffic I can hear 4 blocks away. I hope you continue discussions and find an agreement as you did bringing apiaries into town. No matter the decision, I appreciate you taking the time and consideration as many Illinois towns have over recent years. Sincerely, Tim Johnson & Family (DeeDee, Claudia, Dylan, Scarlett, Monreau, Fiona, and Leo) Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #10a Tracking Number CC 2021-04a City Buildings Updates – Prairie Pointe Change Orders City Council – September 27, 2022 Supermajority (6 out of 9) Approval Bart Olson Administration Name Department Summary Consideration of a change order for complete buildout of the Community Development open- area. Background This item was last discussed by the City Council in March 2022, when the City Council approved a furniture purchase for the entire Prairie Pointe building. At that time, the City Council reviewed a furniture list and plan, which indicated most areas of the building would be fully furnished for total buildout, with some areas remaining un-furnished and requiring future furniture purchase. One of these said areas is the open cubicle office space in the Community Development area on the second floor. The full build out of this area will put six cubicles in this area, and originally the staff only proposed to purchase 3 cubicles (inspector, engineer, public works director). Since the City Council’s original furniture purchase (which included 3 cubicles), we have determined that one of the Community Development employees will have to sit on the second floor for the near future, as opposed to our original plan to put this employee on the first floor at the front desk. This change has been made due to a further review of our mostly-paper based Community Development permit and inspection workflow. This workflow cannot be significantly altered without causing further issues until the City finalizes an ERP purchase and implementation. Thus, until we have a new ERP, it is better from a workflow purpose for this employee to sit on the second floor vs. the first floor. In order to best accommodate this employee move, we felt it was appropriate to fully buildout the Community Development cubicle area. We did discuss moving an old desk into this area for the employee to sit at, but we felt building out the area with the final 3 cubicles was a better option over immediately moving into the building with mismatched furniture. Accordingly, the attached quote is for full cubicle build out of the Community Development open office area. It contains three matching cubicles to the three already included in the City Council’s original furniture purchase. The change-order is for just less than $16,000, and must be authorized by City Council. Even though this order had not been previously discussed by City Council or mentioned in various staff memos, we do have funds available within the project budget for this purchase, as reviewed by the City Council at the last meeting. Recommendation Staff recommends authorizations of the change order for the Community Development cubicles. Memorandum To: City Council From: Bart Olson, City Administrator CC: Date: September 22, 2022 Subject: Furniture add-on, change order Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 1 Resolution No. 2022-______ A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS RELATING TO 651 PRAIRIE POINTE DRIVE, YORKVILLE, ILLINOIS (Fifth Set of Change Orders) WHEREAS, the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois (the “City”) is a duly organized and validly existing non-home rule municipality created in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Illinois of 1970 and the laws of the State; and, WHEREAS, the City has acquired the building and property commonly known as 651 Prairie Pointe Drive (the “New City Hall”) for the purpose of rehabilitating the building and repurposing it as the new Yorkville City Hall and the headquarters of the Yorkville Police Department (the “Project”); and, WHEREAS, the City requested Cordogan Clark to provide furniture recommendations and coordinate furniture suppliers. After review of two proposals, the City entered into a contract with Groupe LaCasse of Montreal, QC, Canada (the “Contract”); and, WHEREAS, Groupe LaCasse has submitted a change order to the original Contract for additional costs which are the result of requested modifications by the City to the original numbers and specifications for furniture and materials for a total cost of $15,430.05; and, WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the change orders as submitted by Groupe LaCasse and acknowledges that the furniture and materials covered by this change order was unforeseen but is necessary and in the best interest of the City; therefore, the City is prepared to approve the Change Order as hereinafter provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois, as follows: Section 1. The foregoing preambles are hereby adopted as if fully restated in this Section 1. Resolution No. 2022-____ Page 2 Section 2. That the change order as submitted by Groupe LaCasse in the total amount of $15,430.05 are hereby approved. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ CITY CLERK KEN KOCH _________ DAN TRANSIER _________ ARDEN JOE PLOCHER _________ CRAIG SOLING _________ CHRIS FUNKHOUSER _________ MATT MAREK _________ SEAVER TARULIS _________ JASON PETERSON _________ APPROVED by me, as Mayor of the United City of Yorkville, Kendall County, Illinois this ____ day of __________________, A.D. 2022. ______________________________ MAYOR Attest: ______________________________ CITY CLERK R1-YORKVILLE AND POLICE PREPARED FOR: YORKVILLE CITY HALL - 207 ADD PREPARED BY: APN 09-15-2022 Part numberQtyLine #Unit$Ext. Unit $Description Cat SC ADD ON- 207 COMMUNITY PAUKACB-P-2-?Standard cantilever brackets, pair2 54.40 $108.80 $1 PAUKACB-S-2-?Shared cantilever brackets, pack of 22 66.00 $132.00 $2 PAUKAPB-2-?Panel brackets, pair5 21.20 $106.00 $3 PAUKEB3-S-6 3-circ., hardwire base feed1 108.00 $108.00 $4 PAUKER3-C1-?3-circ., duplex receptacles, circuit #1,pack of 101 134.00 $134.00 $5 PAUKER3-C2-?3-circ., duplex receptacles, circuit #2, pack of 101 134.00 $134.00 $6 PAUKMPF-1518-2-?Modular pedestal w/ metal fr., F/F, 17 7/8D3 275.20 $825.60 $7 PAUKMPF-1518-3-?Modular pedestal w/ metal fr., B/B/F, 17 7/8D3 308.40 $925.20 $8 PAUKPFG-ALIGN-?Glass alignment hardware for in-line applications, pack of 4 1 71.60 $71.60 $9 PAUKEJ3-T 3-circ., jumpers for electrified T junction2 52.40 $104.80 $10 Part numberQtyLine #Unit $Ext. Unit $Description Cat SC PAUKUR-2448-1-G-?Std. rect. surf., TFL, grommet, 24Dx48W3 164.80 $494.40 $11 PAUKUR-2472-1-G-?Std. rect. surf., TFL, grommet, 24Dx72W3 214.00 $642.00 $12 PAUKVCP-6-?Raceway cutout covers, pack of 62 31.20 $62.40 $13 PAUKVET-42-?End-of-run trims, full height, 42 1/4H4 77.60 $310.40 $14 PAUKVPL-42-?L junction kit, full height, 42 1/4H3 92.00 $276.00 $15 PAUKVPLA-66-42-?L junction kit, variable height, 66 7/8H lowering to 42 1/4H 2 105.20 $210.40 $16 PAUKVPTA-66-42-?T junction kit, var. height type A, 66 7/8H lowering to 42 1/4H 2 67.20 $134.40 $17 PAUKPFG-1224-?Privacy screen For panel, 12 3/8Hx24W3 127.20 $381.60 $18 PAUKPFG-1236-?Privacy screen For panel, 12 3/8Hx36W6 155.60 $933.60 $19 PAUKPMA-4224-NN Acoust. panel, non-pwr., 42 1/4Hx24W4 230.80 $923.20 $20 PAUKMSH-1448 Overhead Hutch w/ Flip Door, 48W3 493.20 $1,479.60 $21 PAUKPMA-4236-NN Acoust. panel, non-pwr., 42 1/4Hx36W6 280.00 $1,680.00 $22 PAU*KPMA-6624-3P Acoust. panel, pwr. 3-circ., 66 7/8Hx24W3 331.60 $994.80 $23 PAUKPMA-6648-3P Acoust. panel, pwr. 3-circ., 66 7/8Hx48W3 482.00 $1,446.00 $24 Part numberQtyLine #Unit $Description Ext. Unit $ Cat SC UNC*UP13-E3-MU?-G2-TP06-SYN-P-AB-HDW-R3D8Task chair, with arms, mesh backrest, GR:02, HDW CASTERS, ARM R3D8 3 365.60 $1,096.80 $25 1,714.45 $ Grand total:$15,430.05 PLEASE NOTE: - Specifica ons prices are valid with our current price list at me of purchase -It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the dealer to ensure the accuracy of this specifica on. -Any error, discrepancy or changes must be reported immediately prior to placing an order. -All pieces are built using the metric system; you must specify if you need exact imperial dimensions. -No finishes, fabrics or handles are specified. -Drawings are for reference only. -This is a Specifica on not a Purchase order. THANK YOU! Freight, Delivery and Installation Subtotal 13,715.60 $ COMMUNITY 207 PAUKPMA-6648-3PGRP1 PAUKPMA-6624-3PGRP1 PAUKPMA-4236-NNGRP1 PAUKPMA-4236-NNGRP1 PAUKPMA-4224-NNGRP1 PAUKUR-2472-1-GGRP1 PAUKUR-2448-1-GGRP1 PAUKVPL-42GRP1 PAUKVPTA-66-42GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKPFG-1236GRP1 PAUKPFG-1236GRP1 PAUKPFG-1224GRP1PAUKVET-42GRP1 PAUKVPLA-66-42GRP1 PAUKEB3-S-6GRP1 PAUKER3-C1-KGRP1 PAUKER3-C2-KGRP1 PAUKMPF-1518-3GRP1 PAUKMPF-1518-2GRP1 PAUKACB-P-2GRP1 PAUKACB-S-2GRP1 PAUKAPB-2GRP1PAUKAPB-2GRP1 PAUKAPB-2GRP1 PAUKPMA-6648-3PGRP1 PAUKPMA-6624-3PGRP1 PAUKPMA-4236-NNGRP1 PAUKPMA-4236-NNGRP1 PAUKPMA-4224-NNGRP1 PAUKUR-2472-1-GGRP1 PAUKUR-2448-1-GGRP1 PAUKVPL-42GRP1 PAUKVPTA-66-42GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKPFG-1236GRP1 PAUKPFG-1236GRP1 PAUKPFG-1224GRP1PAUKVET-42GRP1 PAUKER3-C1-KGRP1 PAUKER3-C2-KGRP1 PAUKMPF-1518-3GRP1 PAUKMPF-1518-2GRP1 PAUKACB-P-2GRP1 PAUKACB-S-2GRP1 PAUKAPB-2GRP1PAUKAPB-2GRP1 PAUKAPB-2GRP1 PAUKPMA-6648-3PGRP1 PAUKPMA-6624-3PGRP1 PAUKPMA-4236-NNGRP1 PAUKPMA-4236-NNGRP1 PAUKPMA-4224-NNGRP1 PAUKUR-2472-1-GGRP1 PAUKUR-2448-1-GGRP1 PAUKVPL-42GRP1 PAUKVPLA-66-42GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKPFG-1236GRP1 PAUKPFG-1236GRP1 PAUKPFG-1224GRP1PAUKVET-42GRP1 PAUKER3-C1-KGRP1 PAUKER3-C2-KGRP1 PAUKMPF-1518-3GRP1 PAUKMPF-1518-2GRP1 PAUKACB-P-2GRP1 PAUKACB-S-2GRP1 PAUKAPB-2GRP1PAUKAPB-2GRP1 PAUKAPB-2GRP1 PAUKEJ3-LSGRP1 PAUKEJ3-LSGRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 PAUKVCP-6GRP1 UNCUP13GRP1 UNCUP13GRP1 UNCUP13GRP1 PAUKMSO-1548GRP1 PAUKMSO-1548GRP1 PAUKMSO-1548GRP1 PAUKPMA-4224-NNGRP1 PAUKVET-42GRP1 PAUKPFG-ALIGN-SGRP1 PAUKPFG-ALIGN-SGRP1 24 X 72 24 X 48BBF BF6'-4"18'-8"131313131313DESSINE PAR :DATE :# DESSIN : SERIE :MODELE : SERIES :MODEL : DRAWING # : DRAWN BY : PROJET : PROJECT : TAG/DEPARTMENT: DEPARTEMENT/TAG:SEE SPEC207- COMMUNIT PARADIGM 09/15/2022 1/1 YORKVILLE & POLICE The drawing shown on this page is an approximation, for general design purposes. Certain details related to structure or appearance may differ from the actual product received. Have a question or comment about this agenda item? Call us Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 4:30pm at 630-553-4350, email us at agendas@yorkville.il.us, post at www.facebook.com/CityofYorkville, tweet us at @CityofYorkville, and/or contact any of your elected officials at http://www.yorkville.il.us/320/City-Council Agenda Item Summary Memo Title: Meeting and Date: Synopsis: Council Action Previously Taken: Date of Action: Action Taken: Item Number: Type of Vote Required: Council Action Requested: Submitted by: Agenda Item Notes: If new information is available at the time of the meeting, then a discussion will be held. Reviewed By: Legal Finance Engineer City Administrator Community Development Purchasing Police Public Works Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number Mayor’s Report #11 Tracking Number CC 2021-38 Water Study Update City Council – September 27, 2022 None Informational Bart Olson Administration Name Department