The Municipal Services Committee met 02/21/2022. The item that took up the most amount of time was Resolution 3-R-22 regarding Municipal Code Chapter 12, Article III, Weeds and Wild Growth.
There was one member in the audience who wanted to speak about this item.
Israel Del Toro [who, as a side note, is currently running for the District 4 aldermanic seat] is a professor of biology at Lawrence University. He’s a pollinator biologist who has a number of years of experience in that field. He was also one of the original promotors of No Mow May in Appleton and wrote a paper that was referenced in the resolution itself and several times during the committee’s discussion.
He said the data clearly supported the idea that No Mow May was making an impact on Appleton’s local biodiversity. They were also having a regional impact, with close to 20 different municipalities across the state participating in No Mow May. They were moving pollinator education and conservation efforts forward. “Yes, No Mow May is a tiny little thing we can do, but it is an opportunity to educate our constituents regarding the benefits of protecting and valuing our local pollinators.”
He went on to say that “in general the data supports that…reduction in mowing frequency and intensity in our lawns has increased our pollinator abundance five-fold and our pollinator biodiversity three-fold.”
The bees were being fed, citizens were being educated, and the community was becoming much more resilient.
He said that he had a student in his biology class liken ecology to a Jenga tower. Jenga towers are most resilient when it has more blocks, but as soon as those blocks start being taken away the tower becomes more and more unstable. “If we chip away at these blocks and take away little bits and pieces of diversity or make it just that much harder for our bees and pollinators to get the resources they need then we are in a potentially dangerous situation where we can see major biodiversity collapse, major loss of urban pollinators which provide key ecosystem services.”
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) asked if she could have permission to ask a question from Professor Del Toro, and when Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) who was the chairperson of the committee gave permission, she asked Professor Del Toro if he could briefly talk about why Appleton has No Mow May and the importance of early blooming weeds as opposed to things that bloom later in the season.
He responded that it was all about timing and the concept of phenology which pertained to when things start to emerge and bud. In this case, phenology referred to the emergency of early foraging resources—i.e. the flowers that are essential for pollinators that are coming out of a long hibernation period. As they emerge from hibernation, pollinators don’t have the energy stores they would normally need to be effective. As a result, people want to make sure that the pollinators are getting off on the right foot.
He said that they actually recorded a rusty-patched bumble bee (Bombus Affinis), a threatened and endangered bumble bee species, in Appleton last year. That was the first recording of this endangered species in Appleton, and he took that as an indication that Appleton was making habitats suitable for pollinators, even rare and endangered ones, by providing early foraging resources.
Alderperson William Seibers (District 1) who was a member of the committee wanted to clarify if they were talking about the No Mow May month or the height of grass or both things.
Alderperson Firkus asked Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) who was not on the committee but was the lead author of the resolution to give an overview of what the resolution was accomplishing and what the changes were from the No Mow May resolutions that had been brought forward in the last few years.
Alderperson Schultz said that the resolution was calling for two changes to the municipal code.
The first would permanently encode the postponement of enforcement of the weed ordinance until June 1st, basically codifying No Mow May so that they don’t have to bring a resolution forward every year.
The second would change the allowable grass height for the rest of the year to be a uniform 12” instead of 8” on developed lots and 12” on undeveloped lots. He said that a lot of other communities in the area have a straight 12” height limits for yard growth, and he thought it would simplify things to do that in Appleton and would also give residents a little bit more breathing room. He said that most people were not going to allow their laws grow that long and the vast majority of community members cut their grass when it gets from 4”-6” tall.
He said that No Mow May was a teaching tool and not necessarily meant to be the one solution to help pollinators. It was essentially a doorway into thinking about different ways for property owners to treat their yards and other parts of their landscapes.
No Mow May had been in place for two years and had been successful. The number of complaints the city had received about overgrown lawns had also not increased significantly, although it was hard to tell if Covid impacted that.
He did, however, understand that staff had their concerns and he would appreciate hearing from staff about what they thought the effect on the community might be if the changes in the resolution were enacted.
He thought that in light of the last two years and the study published by Professor Del Toro it made sense to move forward with this. Appleton was the first community in the United States that pushed No Mow May forward, and now we had our first reported sighting of the rusty-patched bumble bee potentially because of No Mow May. Moving forward on this resolution would be a way of saying that we can do something significant, and it doesn’t even take that much effort—just mowing a little less frequently. He realized the changes to code were kind of a big thing, but he was hoping there was a comfort level between the Pollenablers organization, the community, and staff due to what they had done for the last couple years.
Alderperson Firkus gave staff a chance to respond.
Inspections Supervisor Kurt Craanen said that he was the weed commissioner and has a lot of experience enforcing weed codes over the years. “I’ve never been a proponent of this, but the last years have not been that bad. Not as bad as I thought they’d be.”
He was, however, concerned about how this would impact enforcement of lawn height on vacant lots and foreclosed properties that weren’t being maintained. He thought that neighbors of lots like that where the grass was growing tall would get pretty upset if they were told that the city wasn’t going to enforce the code for a month. He would like to be able to resolve those problems and be able to enforce the code in situations like that for real problem properties where the owners were not actually participating in Now Mow May.
Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) who was present but not a member of the committee thought that lawn height was important for a couple of reasons. Appleton was the champion who was role-modeling conservation to the rest of the region so there was an inconsistency there if we restricted grass to 8” but the other municipalities allowed it to grow to 12”. “How much are you behind your mission for creating a better ecosystem when you have a more restrictive rule like that?”
Beyond that whether people were intentionally participating in No Mow May or simply not mowing for a month, it still supported pollinators and achieved the mission of No Mow May. “I think also part of the interface when any customer complaint is being dealt with is the opportunity for community education and engagement. So people who are upset about the foreclosed house not getting mowed, this is their opportunity to then learn about how this benefits the environment, so I feel that while it’s nice to maybe be able to get out ahead of things that we know we’re gonna have to deal with eventually, I think part of the spirit of No Mow May is for the sake of the bees, allowing this time and then taking care of it later, so I—while I can sympathize and I understand where Inspector Craanen is coming from, I think that this is one of those sort of prices to pay for the sake of ecological betterment.”
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) who was also present but not a member of committee thought it was great that Appleton was trying to increase its pollinator population, but had seen many instances of No Mow May resulting in increased disharmony and disruption in neighborhoods. She had an issue in her neighborhood where a resident took too long to cut their crass and when they finally cut it after being told by the city to do so, they had so much grass that that they left a big pile of cuttings in the back corner of their yard which caused another problem. “While the incidental non-cutting, non-mowing of grass may help the pollinators, it also, again, contributes to this disharmony amongst the neighbors.”
She was hesitant to pass this resolution and preferred to bring No Mow May back to the Council every year to discuss and renew it.
She also had some concerns about the study and pointed out, “What was mentioned was how successful this plan has been and the published paper, but it was a small published paper—again, thank you for the actual scientific discovery and publishing of that paper—but it was a small paper and there were three peer reviews. And there was a very small sample size, and they compared residential lots to park lots which we all know are maintained differently. So, there were some questions and issues with the published paper as well. That does not mean that there wasn’t success. I’m not saying that there wasn’t. But there are some concerns about taking that as the end all be all science.”
She didn’t think that the city code as it currently pertained to grass height was a problem. She thought that people could tell the difference between areas where the limit was 8” vs areas where it could be 12”. There were many areas within the municipal code that had different rules for different types of property.
She didn’t disagree with the desire to increase pollinators, but she encouraged her fellow council members to think things through further and was not in favor of passing the resolution.
Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) encouraged her colleagues to vote in favor of the resolution. The science paper had been published the first year of No Mow May, and the idea was that as more cities got involved, they would have much larger sample sizes and would be better able to compare. She was really proud that Appleton had led the way on this.
She went on to say, “I think that in terms of the science, the provable affect that we’ve had might be worth a little bit of disharmony among neighbors.” She pointed out that this was not the only thing that caused conflict between neighbors, as they sometimes saw in the Board of Zoning Appeals and some of their other committees.
She pointed out that the Pollenablers group which supports this has provided some really attractive signage intended to indicate to neighbors that a property is participating in No Mow May and the purpose behind that. They included a link to provide educational information. Beyond that, the group worked with the people who were participating and helped remove grass clippings and compost them. She was assuming that they would be doing the same thing in future years.
She also thought that the benefit of not having to bring this forward every year outweighed any problems that they had.
[Personally, I’m in favor of this simply based on the principal that property owners should have pretty broad leeway to do what they want with their own property even if their neighbors are upset by their aesthetic choices. But, if I weren’t in favor of it, I would have taken the fact that the Pollenablers are currently actively involved in this as a reason to not make the changes permanent simply because there’s no guarantee that they will continue providing that support for future years. If their participation is an important reason why the program has been successful then it doesn’t really make sense to make the program permanent when odds are interest or finances will wane and they won’t be around forever. It seems like it would be easier to deal with lack of participation and a degrading of program functioning if the item had to come before the Council every year than if it was baked into the municipal code.]
Alderperson Meltzer said, “I want to respond to some things that were brought up about the published paper. I do agree that the sample sizes were small. It would be amazing to run the same study with a lot of samples and, as Alderperson Fenton pointed out, this was the first year, so I’m hoping that as we continue doing this, we’re gonna be able to generate much more data and produce really, really exciting papers.
“But three peer reviews; that’s really amazing. Council routinely approves and acts of studies that haven’t gotten any peer review as far as this kind of scientific process, so I think that…not only was it published, it also was peer reviewed. That’s an extra level of certification and validation.
“As far as comparing it to parks that’s because parks were the control group because parks were regularly being mowed, so it provided an adjacent property that was appropriately in the same environment as…the samples, and then you can compare it to what would it be like if No Mow May wasn’t happening. Well, right next door in the park No Mow May wasn’t happening. So, I just wanted to kind of explain the methodology behind that ’cause I think that’s important for us to keep in mind.
“As far as disharmony between neighbors, firepits get so much conflict and we allow firepits and we’ve sometimes had discussions about whether we should charge $30 or $50 for the permit, but in my opinion fire pits generate much more disharmony among neighbors compared to anything I have experienced throughout the years that we’ve been doing No Mow May. The firepit and other issues continue to consistently be a problem, and I think that claiming that No Mow May is its own issue with disharmony I think just doesn’t paint an accurate picture of the dynamics in our community. If neighbors want to have conflicts, they will find something to have a conflict over whether it’s the lawn or whether it’s smoke or whether it’s trash being taken out on the wrong day and things like that. “
After receiving permission, Professor Del Toro spoke. He was excited to see them talking about the details of his study and said, “So, to respond, I’m also a data scientist, and, in terms of statistics and appropriate statistical tests, we used a nonparametric alternative to the traditional parametric statistics to statistically and appropriately control for set sample size differences. So that’s cool.
“Then on top of that, we—I want to counter your argument of disharmony between neighbors because this is really the meat of your argument. We had harmony between neighbors. The number of really, really awesome educational opportunities that have come from neighbors across the street like ‘hey, what’s going on with your lawn? Oh, cool, you’re doing it for the bees.’ That discussion is happening all over city, left and right and left and right. And sure, you’re gonna find situations where people butt heads. I like my lawn this tall, you like your lawn that tall, okay. It’s only a month. Nobody’s forcing you to do it. It’s totally voluntary, totally opt in. It’s with a good purpose, and it reflects us as leaders in sustainability, resilience at building a sustainable urban ecosystem. So, I encourage you to change your mind on it and [am] happy to discuss more science and sample sizes with you at any given point and hopefully change your vote.”
Alderperson Schultz that that it should be recognized that the city had done an incredible job of promoting pollinator habitats around rainwater, retention ponds, and similar spaces. He said the Pollenablers were proud that the city was doing other things to promote pollinator habitats.
He had some sympathy for the challenges that Inspector Craanen faced, but he thought there was some language in the municipal code and also in state statute that allowed an inspector to remediate noxious weeds on a property. He noticed in his own neighborhood that there were a couple properties that typically don’t care about their lawns and let them go until the city has to intercede. He monitored those spaces during the first year of No Mow May and noticed that burdock, thistle, and some of the noxious weeds were well above a height that would allow an inspector to come in earlier than June 1 and tell them to take it down. He said there was some ability to enforce rank growth beyond 12” before June 1st in those spaces, particularly if there was an early growing season and some of those things got out of hand.
[Hopefully the committee will discuss this more, but I don’t see an enforcement mechanism for issues that happen prior to June 1 because the resolution specifically states “The Weed Commissioner shall destroy or cause to be destroyed noxious weeds, and is further empowered to enter upon public and private lands, *on or after June 1*, to cut or remove the accumulation or growth of weeds, grass, brush or other rank or offensive vegetation which has grown to a height greater than 12”.”
Alderperson Chad Doran thought that there had been some impressive efforts to educate the community over the last couple years regarding the importance of pollinators and that had resulted in a better understanding of the importance of pollinators in the community.
He went on to say, “This one’s kind of a tough one because it’s—there’s a balance here I think that we’re trying to strike with what people can and can’t do with their property and trying to find the happy medium. And I’m not—I’m not quite certain myself where that line lines really.”
He had done some research, reading both Professor Del Toro’s study and some studies by professional entomologists. Those studies indicated that the timeframe for not mowing grass that was most optimal at helping bees was two weeks. If grass grew for longer than that, it made it more difficult for the bees to find the flowers they were looking for. “So that, to me goes sort of against the idea of what an entire month would indicate.”
He also read some discussions by interested people that suggested a more effective way of helping bees and pollinators was through types of plants in gardens and not through the length of grass. He had reached out to a couple of professors who wrote some papers to get their perspective on the issue but had not heard back from them yet. He was interested in hearing from them because their papers seemed to indicate that the best thing people can do to help bees is mow their grass every two weeks rather than every week or couple of days, but going longer than two weeks was not as helpful to the bees.
He wanted to hold the item for a couple weeks to give time to hear back from those experts and do a little bit more research.
He added that he wasn’t necessarily in favor of changing the ordinance itself because that was a permanent change and would make it more difficult to undo if in the future there is evidence that shows it’s harmful to bees.
He made a motion to hold the item until the next Municipal Services Committee meeting and Alderperson Siebers seconded it.
Alderperson Meltzer said, “I’m going to ask you not to hold this item. I think that there might be a lot of debate in the scientific community or maybe some disagreements in the scientific community but holding this item longer isn’t going to resolve that.
“I think one important thing to keep in mind when we’re talking about how to help the bees vs length of grass—it’s not the length of grass that helps the bees. It’s the infrequency of mowing, so allowing grass to get longer allows people to mow less frequently which allows those first flowers of the year to be there and allows the bees to feed on them. So exactly to this point about lawn height, we are not asking for a No Mow Summer. No Mow May is specifically timed and then after May is over, then yes, take care of your grass so that the bees can find those flowers that you have permitted to survive.
“So, I think that there is one of the reasons why this peer reviewed paper from Professor Del Toro is so important is that…as entomologists learn more about insect behavior and that kind of things these experiments provide new data that teach people more about what helps bees and what doesn’t.”
Alderperson Siebers didn’t see any harm in holding the item for two weeks given that it was only February and there was plenty of time until May.
Alderperson Schultz wasn’t opposed to holding it and had introduced it so early specifically so that there could be discussion.
He agreed with Alderperson Doran’s assessment that there are some peer reviewed studies out there showing that anything over 8” might be detrimental to bee habitat hamper their ability to get to flowers. But every single yard was different. His own yard was natural and not treated and he only had to mow it about four times a year because it was filled with phlox, Creeping Charlie, and other things that don’t require frequent mowing. The changes promoted by the resolution were not about letting people have one monoculture grow until it reached 12”. Rather, it was about having conversations about how they didn’t need to just grow grass and could let natural things take over that space that are just as green and don’t require as much mowing.
Alderperson Firkus also saw no problem with holding the item until the next Municipal Services Committee meeting. That would give them more time to have further discussion.
The committee voted 3-1 to hold the item with Alderpersons Siebers, Firkus, and Doran voting to hold and Alderperson Fenton voting again.
[I’m inherently on the side of letting people do what they want with their yards, but the discussion actually made me feel like this wasn’t necessarily going to be an effective way to promote bee health. Keeping this as an annual resolution brought up before the Council every year rather than placing it permanently into the municipal code seems, to me, like it would be a more effective way to promote community awareness and education because discussion would happen every year when it was brought forward.
Additionally, it sounded like even Alderperson Schultz agreed that the science was up in the air as to what exactly what healthiest for bees in terms of grass height, and Alderperson Meltzer also stated that it wasn’t the length of grass that helps the bees, so setting a 12” limit seems like it might not be the best thing for the pollinators, much as it may be desirable from a property rights standpoint.
Finally, by increasing the height limit for weeds and grass to 12” aren’t they effectively creating if not No Mow Summer then at least Only Mow Once Or Twice Summer? Which, again, I’m not opposed to.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=922397&GUID=189A4237-2841-4AF6-A758-ACF6AEDFE307
2 thoughts on “Municipal Services Committee Holds “No Mow May” Resolution Until Next Committee Meeting”