Chicago City Wire

City of Prospect Heights City Council met June 9

Here are the minutes provided by the council:

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL - At 6:30 PM, Mayor Ludvigsen called to order the Regular Meeting of the Prospect Heights City Council at City Hall, 8 N Elmhurst Road, Prospect Heights, IL 60070. 

Deputy Clerk Austin called roll. A quorum was present. 

ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT - Alderman Ward 1 Cameron, Alderman Ward 2 Anderson, Alderman Ward 3 Morgan-Adams, Alderman Ward 4 Dash, Alderman Ward 5 Dolick, Mayor Ludvigsen 

ABSENT - City Treasurer Tibbits with prior notice, City Clerk Prisiajniouk with prior notice OTHER OFFICIALS PRESENT - City Administrator Wade, Assistant City Administrator Falcone, Director of Building and Development Peterson, Police Chief Derman, Assistant Finance Director Tannehill, Deputy Clerk Austin, Attorney Jim Hess, Digital Communication Technician Colvin. 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Mayor Ludvigsen led the pledge of Allegiance. 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 

A. May 27, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Minutes - Alderman Ward 5 Dolick 

moved to approve May 27, 2025 City Council Special Meeting Minutes as presented; seconded by Alderman Ward 1 Cameron. There was unanimous approval. 

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Michelle Cameron, Terry Anderson, Wendy Morgan-Adams, Danielle Dash, Matt Dolick 

NAYS: None 

ABSENT: None

Motion carried 5-0

PRESENTATIONS – None 

APPOINTMENTS, CONFIRMATIONS, AND PROCLAMATIONS – 

A. Re-appointment of Joe Fiorito as Commissioner of the Police and Fire Commission - Alderman Ward 2 Anderson moved to approve the Re-appointment of Joe Fiorito as Commissioner of the Police and Fire Commission; seconded by Alderman Ward 3 Morgan-Adams. There was unanimous approval. 

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Michelle Cameron, Terry Anderson, Wendy Morgan-Adams, Danielle Dash, Matt Dolick 

NAYS: None 

ABSENT: None 

Motion carried 5-0 

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA MATTERS (FIVE MINUTES TIME LIMIT) — 

Christine Shiel- Ms. Shiel thanked the council for their service and apologized for any confusion caused by resident advocacy efforts. She expressed strong concern over the proposed cap of 75 chicken permits, arguing it could negatively impact home values and lead to license hoarding, as residents may cling to permits out of fear of not being able to get one again. Ms. Shiel emphasized that her chicken coop is a valuable property feature, and restricting permits could deter potential buyers. While initially worried about annual inspections, she noted her concerns were eased after a discussion with Mayor Ludvigsen. 

Susan Digianfilippo- Ms. Digianfilippo is here to show support for the ordinance that is being presented. Especially the part that would not allow roosters. Her one question she has is how long individuals will have to comply with the new ordinance if it is passed. 

Ashley Sarabia- Ms. Sarabia spoke on behalf of backyard chicken owners, urging the council to adopt fair and evidence-based regulations. She criticized the proposed ordinance as overly punitive, calling the 75-permit cap arbitrary and suggesting starting with 90 permits. She advocated for allowing up to 30 chickens per household, opposed a total rooster ban (asking instead for a grandfather clause), and requested that inspections only occur in response to documented complaints. Ashley emphasized education over punishment and asked the council to respect residents' rights and lifestyles, warning that the current proposal could lead to unnecessary harm to animals and emotional distress for their owners. 

Grace Martinez- Ms. Martinez addressed the council to thank them for their work and acknowledge differences of opinion regarding backyard chicken. Ms. Martinez reiterated the benefits of backyard chickens, including natural pest control, reduction of food waste, fertilizer production, and mental and physical health benefits. She mentioned that a petition in favor of chickens in Prospect Heights had nearly 1,400 signatures and stressed that many residents support keeping chickens and roosters under current codes. She proposed forming a volunteer chicken committee to help mediate complaints and issues. Ms. Martinez raised concerns about the proposed ordinance's impact on current chicken owners, particularly the absence of a longer grandfathering period. She shared survey data from 24 local households, showing most had fewer than 30 birds and 18 roosters total. The proposed limits would affect around 108 hens and 18 roosters. She urged the council to reconsider the restrictions and seek a more balanced solution. 

Katie King- Ms. King criticized a previous alderman's claim that residents opposed all restrictions, calling it dismissive of the community's collaborative work with the zoning board. She questioned why annual inspections were reintroduced after the zoning board 

recommended against them due to staffing and safety concerns. Katie expressed her personal appreciation for roosters and supported a complaint-based or "three strikes" system for managing noise concerns. She also objected to the use of the phrase "silent majority". Lastly, she voiced support for earlier proposals made by other speakers, which she felt offered a fair compromise. 

Niki Moylan- Ms. Moylan voiced strong opposition to the proposed requirement for annual inspections, calling it an overreach, a misuse of city resources, and inconsistent with how other residential properties are regulated. She proposed three alternatives: require reinspections only if structural changes are made, allow inspections in response to complaints, or accept annual photo submissions as proof of compliance. Ms. Moylan also questioned the 75-permit cap, suggesting a pilot program instead, as it's unclear if that number accommodates current chicken owners. She urged the council to consider grandfathering in existing animals to prevent unnecessary harm and support animal welfare. 

Jennifer Brace- Ms. Brace expressed appreciation for the council's work and shared concerns about the proposed ordinance. She opposed the 75-permit limit, stating it could restrict new residents interested in backyard chickens and impact the community's appeal. She also voiced concern over the 20-bird limit, especially for families who already own more, noting that euthanizing animals to comply would be distressing. Lastly, she questioned the practicality and health risks of annual inspections due to the potential for disease transmission between coops. 

Genevieve Charet- Ms. Charet thanked the council and city staff but expressed disappointment that many PZBA recommendations-like no annual inspections, no permit caps, and grandfathering for current owners-were rolled back. She argued annual inspections unfairly burden residents and urged replacing them with photo submissions or dropping them altogether. She opposed the arbitrary permit limits, noting many residents are reluctant to speak up, and warned that caps could cause conflict. She also rejected restrictions on chickens in multiple neighboring houses, saying dogs cause more disruption. Genevieve strongly opposed rooster bans and fixed bird limits but asked for humane, lifelong grandfathering if these rules stay. She highlighted concerns about forced rehoming causing animal welfare issues and said local resources are insufficient to handle it. Finally, she refuted claims that chicken keeping is illegal in Prospect Heights, citing legal advice and history, and called for mutual respect and more community education. 

CONSENT AGENDA - None 

OLD BUSINESS - None 

NEW BUSINESS - 

A. R-25-37 Staff Memo and Resolution Approving Wolf Road Engineering Supplement to the Construction Engineering Agreement in the amount of $66,289.79 - Alderman Ward 3 Morgan-Adams moved to approve R-25-37 Staff Memo and Resolution Approving Wolf Road Engineering Supplement to the Construction Engineering Agreement in the amount of $66,289.79; seconded by Alderman Ward 2 Anderson. There was unanimous approval. 

Administrator Wade explains this resolution is for additional funding for the Wolf Road sidewalk project. Between going over the railroad, utility issues, and storm water management, this project has been tricky to get completed. The congestion mitigation and air quality program, which is partially funding this project, allows for an application to be submitted to cover reasonable expenses on a project like this one. For this whole project, the city has covered about fifteen percent of the costs while different grant sources have covered the other eighty-five percent. 

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Michelle Cameron, Terry Anderson, Wendy Morgan-Adams, Danielle Dash, Matt Dolick 

NAYS: None 

ABSENT: None 

Motion carried 5-0 

B. O-25-12 Staff memo and Ordinance Amending Chapter 2 (Definitions), Chapter 3 (General Provisions) of Title 5 (Zoning) and Amending Chapter 1 (Animal Control) of Title 9 (Police Regulations) and Title 12 (Fine & Fee Schedule) of the City Code Pertaining to Backyard Chicken Keeping in the R-1 Single Family District (1st Reading) – Mayor Ludvigsen starts the conversation by asking if any Aldermen have questions about the proposed ordinance. Alderman Cameron indicated she had no further questions. Alderman Anderson inquired whether the ordinance was already drafted and if it included a provision for a grace period-such as 60 days—for current chicken owners to apply for a license. Staff confirmed that the ordinance is written, and as currently structured, license applications would be handled on a first-come, first-served basis. However, staff stated they would need direction from the council to implement a designated window of time giving priority to existing chicken owners. Staff further clarified that while the application and licensing process is an administrative function and not subject to the ordinance itself, the council can provide direction on how that process should be managed. The council discussed the importance of ensuring that current chicken owners are grandfathered into the program and are given the opportunity to apply for a permit before new applicants are considered. 

There was consensus that the intent of the ordinance is to control and limit the number of backyard chickens within the city, not to exclude existing chicken keepers. The proposed ordinance currently sets a cap of 75 licenses, though council members acknowledged that the number may need to be adjusted depending on how many existing owners apply. 

During continued discussion of the proposed ordinance, council and staff addressed the administrative logistics for issuing licenses following ordinance approval. Alderman Anderson asked whether staff would require an additional 60 days after receiving applications to confirm compliance and issue licenses. Staff explained that, currently, there is no definitive list of which residents own chickens or have coops, aside from those who have voluntarily shared that information during public testimony. Therefore, once applications are received, inspections will be scheduled to confirm compliance and gather a more accurate count of existing chicken owners. Staff shared that all inspection personnel are being trained to follow appropriate safety procedures, 

including the use of PPE, disposable booties, and hand sanitizers, in order to prevent contamination during visits to residential flocks. Given the anticipated volume and pace of inspections (approximately one per inspector per day), staff estimated the initial inspection and review process would take between six and eight weeks if 75 applications are received. 

Council agreed that there should be a designated 60-day window during which priority is given to existing chicken owners for license applications. The application form will be structured to allow applicants to indicate whether they currently have chickens, thereby enabling staff to prioritize those applicants during the initial 60-day intake period. 

Staff will report back to Council with the final number of existing chicken owners. If the number exceeds the proposed cap of 75 licenses, further discussion may be needed to determine next steps. Council also acknowledged that some applicants may falsely claim existing ownership, but staff stated that inspections would help verify legitimacy-for example, signs of newly constructed coops would be considered. 

The council continued its discussion regarding the compliance timeline for the proposed backyard chicken ordinance. A central question was whether existing chicken owners should be granted 12 months from the ordinance's effective date to come into compliance, while new owners would need to comply immediately upon application. 

Alderman Morgan-Adams raised a concern about issuing licenses to residents who were not yet in compliance with the ordinance, particularly regarding issues like roosters, turkeys, and other non-permitted animals. She proposed shortening the compliance period to 60 or 90 days, instead of 12 months, arguing that licenses should only be issued once full compliance is achieved. 

Alderman Dolick supported the 12-month timeline, noting that breaking down compliance timelines based on individual issues (e.g., types of birds, number of birds, coop placement) would be too complicated. The proposed ordinance, staff explained, is written to allow for a license to be issued with a built-in 12-month compliance requirement. 

Attorney Jim Hess clarified that the ordinance could be written to allow the City to issue "provisional licenses"-licenses that are valid provided the applicant comes into full compliance within 12 months. If the resident is found to be non-compliant after that period (e.g., during the next annual inspection or through complaints), their license could be revoked, suspended, or denied renewal. 

The idea of provisional licenses was met with some hesitation, as multiple members questioned how enforcement would work and whether staff would be able to track and manage ongoing compliance. However, staff clarified that initial inspections would identify non-compliant structures or conditions. Owners would then be given time to correct the issues, and staff would re-inspect, similar to existing processes for other code violations. The ordinance also allows for the revocation of licenses for failure to comply with an approved mitigation plan. 

It was noted that current chicken owners are highly motivated to comply, given that failure to do so could result in license loss and potential exclusion from future licensing opportunities due to the proposed cap on the number of licenses issued. One question raised was whether a chicken license would transfer with the sale of a home. Staff confirmed that licenses are not transferable. If a property changes ownership, the new resident would have to apply for a new license. 

The Council expressed consensus in support of annual inspections. However, they acknowledged that the details of those inspections-including whether a resident needs to be present, the proximity to animals, and any required PPE still need to be defined. The intent of the inspection would be to assess overall compliance, not interact directly with chickens. 

Several council members raised concerns about residents applying for licenses "just in case," without any intention of actually keeping chickens. To prevent this, the following measures were confirmed: licenses will only be granted once an applicant shows proof of coop construction and intent to use the license; Licenses will not be renewed if the resident fails to follow through with permits, construction, or actually obtaining chickens; Preliminary inspections will be used to confirm progress before granting a final license. The overarching goal is to ensure fairness, particularly for residents on the waitlist who are prepared to follow the rules and take immediate action. Licenses will not be issued or renewed for speculative purposes. 

There will be a second reading and action taken on O-25-12 at the next council meeting, which is scheduled for Monday, June 23rd at 6:30pm. 

C. 0-25-13 Staff Memo and Ordinance Amending Chapter 1, Section 1 of Title 12: Fines and Fees Schedule to Include Recently Passed and Proposed Ordinance Changes (1st Reading) - There will be a second reading and action taken on O-25-13 at the next council meeting, which is scheduled for Monday, June 23rd at 6:30pm. 

STAFF, ELECTED OFFICIALS, AND COMMISSION REPORTS - Assistant City Administrator Falcone- Shares that community day this past Saturday was a massive success thanks to the community showing up, the government bodies involved and the weather participating perfectly. He also shared that coming up on June 21st there are two great city events, including a shredding event in the morning where you can bring old documents to dispose of, and then later in the day is the Prospect Heights Block Party, which includes two awesome bands, Radio Gaga and Modern Day Romeos. 

Building and Development Director Peterson- Provides an update on the zoning re-write that is being done by Michael Blue. Also updates how the scanning project is going, and mentions that there have already been 103 cubic feet of documents that have been scanned and uploaded into the Laserfiche software. 

City Administrator Wade- There was a one-point six-million-dollar Illinois transportation enhancement grant that was awarded to the city for the Camp McDonald sidewalk project that runs from Wheeling Road to Wolf Road. The second is for four hundred and twenty thousand for the Hillcrest storm water management project. Administrator Wade gives some background on what has already been put into these projects. 

Chief Derman- October 1st later this year will mark the 35th anniversary of the Prospect Heights Police Department and, to commemorate that, all officers who wear a physical badge will be wearing a 35th anniversary badge until the following year in 2026. Secondly, this past Sunday, the Police Department took place in a law enforcement torch run, which helps benefit the Special Olympics. 

APPROVAL OF WARRANTS - 

A. Approval of Expenditures 

General Fund $238,108.49

Motor Fuel Tax Fund $0.00 

Tourism District $6,476.37 

Solid Waste Fund $34,050.00 

Drug Enforcement $4,000.00 

Agenda Fund 

Special Service Area #1 $0.00 

Special Service Area #2 $0.00 

Special Service Area #3 $0.00 

Special Service Area #4 $0.00 

Special Service Area #5 $226.73 

Special Service Area Constr #6 (Water Main) $0.00

Special Service Area - #8 Levee Wall #37 $74.32 

Capital Improvements $1,318.40 

Special Service Area - Debt #6 $0.00 

Road Construction Debt $0.00 

Water Fund $16,848.47 

Parking Fund $490.50 

Sanitary Sewer Fund $20,757.50 

Road/Building Bond Escrow $400.00 

TOTAL $322,750.78 

Wire Payments 

05.30.25 Payroll 

Debt Service Payment Series 2013 $195,198.32 

$10,066.25 

Debt ServicePayment Series 2020 $39,250.00 

Debt Service Payment Series 2018 SSA6 $13,3661.25 

TOTAL WARRANT $580,926.60

- Alderman Ward 2 Anderson moved to approve the warrants as presented; seconded by Alderman Ward 1 Cameron to include a TOTAL of $322,750.78, a 05/30/2025 payroll wire payment of $195,198.32, a debt service payment series 2013 wire payment of $10,066.25, a debt service payment series 2020 wire payment of $39,250.00, a debt service payment series 2018 SSA 6 wire payment of $13,361.25, and a TOTAL WARRANT of $580,926.60. There was unanimous approval. 

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Michelle Cameron, Terry Anderson, Wendy Morgan-Adams, Danielle Dash, Matt Dolick 

NAYS: None 

ABSENT: None 

Motion carried 5-0 

PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA MATTERS (FIVE MINUTE TIME LIMIT) – None 

EXECUTIVE SESSION - Subject to 5ILCS 120/2.C1. Alderman Ward 4 Dash moved to go into executive session; seconded by Alderman Ward 1 Cameron. 

ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Michelle Cameron, Terry Anderson, Wendy Morgan-Adams, Danielle Dash, Matt Dolick 

NAYS: None 

ABSENT: None 

Motion carried 5-0 

ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS, IF REQUIRED – No council action was taken in executive session 

ADJOURNMENT – Alderman Ward 3 Morgan-Adams moved to Adjourn; seconded by Alderman Ward 2 Anderson. There was unanimous approval. 

VOICE VOTE: All AYES No NAYS 

Motion carried 5-0 

https://prospectheightsil.portal.civicclerk.com/event/21/files/agenda/2729