The Common Council met 03/16/2022 and took up Resolution #3-R-22 regarding Municipal Code Chapter 12, Article III, Weeds and Wild Growth (i.e., the “No Mow May” resolution.)
They amended it several times and then voted to approve it, permanently ensconcing No Mow May in the city’s municipal code.
As you may recall, this resolution was discussed extensively during the Municipal Services Committee meeting last week. During that meeting, Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) made a motion to amend the resolution to essentially remove the permanent aspect of it and instead just conduct No Mow May 2022 in line with the practices established in previous years. That amendment was approved by the committee 3-2, and that was the version the Council then took up.
During the Council meeting, the resolution underwent several amendments.
- It was amended by Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2) to restore the original language of the resolution. This amendment passed 10 to 4 with Alderpersons Matt Reed (District 8 ), Michael Smith (District 10), Sheri Hartzheim (District 13), and Chad Doran (District 15) voting against it.
- It was amended by Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) to restore the current language of the municipal code regarding the maximum height of grass. Current code sets a maximum of 8” for developed lots and 12” for undeveloped lots. The resolution would have changed that to a flat 12” for all lot types, but Alderperson Fenton’s amendment maintained the developed vs undeveloped distinction. This amendment passed 14-0.
- It was amended by Alderperson Firkus to allow the city’s Weed Commissioner to act upon non-compliant properties prior to June 1st if a complaint has been received by the city and the property is abandoned or unoccupied. This amendment passed 14-0
The amended resolution was then approved by a vote of 10-4, again with Alderpersons Reed, Smith, Hartzheim, and Doran voting against it.
The Council engaged in an extensive discussion, but I don’t know that it’s particularly beneficial to do a play-by-play recap. The two main positions expressed during this meeting mirrored those expressed during the Municipal Services Committee meeting.
IN FAVOR: The study by Lawrence Professor Del Toro demonstrated the real-world benefit of No Mow May. It didn’t matter if property owners were participating because they were lazy and didn’t want to mow their lawn or because they genuinely cared about the bees; the bees were still benefiting. The one thing not mentioned during the committee meeting but brought up at Council was that making it permanent would allow the Pollenablers to more confidently prepare for it and increase their education and awareness efforts since they would have the assurance that it was going to happen and they wouldn’t have to spend some of that effort making sure it was approved by Council every year.
OPPOSED: They weren’t opposed to No Mow May per se but thought that making it a permanent part of the code would lead to dissention among neighbors. A number of constituents had expressed opposition to the resolution. Additionally, placing it into the city code removed the degree of discretion staff had to deal with problem properties under the previous, annual set-up. Having it come before the Council every year allowed an opportunity to both publicize that it was happening and make changes should resident feedback or changes in science warrant it.
Ten members of the public showed up to the meeting to speak in support of the resolution including State Assembly Representative Lee Snodgrass and Professor Israel Del Toro who authored a research study that found there was beneficial results to No Mow May.
No members of the public spoke in opposition to the resolution.
Here is a mini recap:
Alderperson Hartzheim started out by raising the possibility of amending the resolution to include the tracking and registration of people wanting to participate in No Mow May. She wasn’t ready to make a motion to amend but she wanted to hear from other alderpersons about it.
FIRST AMENDMENT: “Alderperson Meltzer moved, seconded by Alderperson Wolff, that the item be amended to restore the original Resolution as submitted.”
Alderperson Hartzheim’s idea went nowhere and Alderperson Meltzer then made the motion to amend the resolution by substitution and restore its original language stating, “Now clearly we have heard from the community that this is a very valued initiative, and making it permanent is I believe prudent. “
Alderperson Schultz appreciated the amendment and reminded everyone that it truly was only for the month of May and once June 1st hit everyone would be subject to enforcement. He noted the benefits of the program and didn’t see the benefit of having to go through an approval process every year. “I mean how many times do we want to reproduce that? And I think because we’ve done this for two years and the data is showing that it’s positive, and those who have come this evening to express their views are also in favor of it. I think there isn’t any—no one can give me a solid reason why we shouldn’t basically […] encode it in our municipal code so that it’s not it’s not something we have to go through the process every year.”
SECOND AMENDMENT: “Alderperson Fenton moved, seconded by Alderperson Prohaska, that the Item be amended to reinstate the current municipal code language,12-58(c)1 &12-58(c)2 in the Resolution regarding lawn height: 8″ for developed land and 12″ for undeveloped land.”
Alderperson Fenton made an amendment to the amendment to remove the language that would have altered the municipal code language regarding maximum grass height and instead keep the code as it currently is with a maximum height of 8” for developed lots and 12” for undeveloped lots. “I offer this in a spirit of compromise. The eight-inch limit has been very successful in number and diversity; that’s what we had the last two years, and as a point of compromise I’d like to move this forward as a permanent No Mow May but keeping the distinction between developed and underdeveloped lots—and undeveloped lots.”
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) really liked the amendment. “I’m not a fan of having to [approve No Mow May] every year. I think there is enough science that’s out there. […] There’s enough science to say that we are doing some good. The challenge is whether it’s lazy verses green whether if we have a manicured yard versus a weedy or a wild yard.”
She went on to say, “I think it would be nice to see every person who were involved in the No Mow May had to have a sign—that it clarified it was participating in a forward movement for the good of the planet as opposed to just sloughing off. And the reality is there are some people sloughing off.”
Alderperson Smith asked Director of Public Works Paula Vandehey if this amendment would give staff back the discretion that they felt they would be losing with the original resolution.
Director Vandehey did not think so. Staff’s perspective was that they would have more discretion if No Mow May was not part of city ordinance as opposed to being codified.
Alderperson Firkus thought this amendment was “a really good way of making sure that this isn’t any more contentious than it has to be within our neighborhoods.”
THIRD AMENDMENT: “Alderperson Firkus moved, seconded by Alderperson Alfheim, that the Item be amended to add the following language to 12-58(c)2: except for any property within the City of Appleton that is abandoned or unoccupied, in which case, the Weed Commissioner may act upon those properties for non-compliance prior to June 1st if a complaint has been received by the City.”
Alderperson Firkus made a motion to amend the resolution to allow city staff to take enforcement actions prior to June 1st against properties that are abandoned or unoccupied.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) wanted to know if the city attorney had any concerns about the amendment.
Attorney Behrens said based on what he had heard, it would allow some discretion for staff and would allow staff to go ahead and take their enforcement actions prior to June first if a property is, in fact, abandoned.
Alderperson Schultz asked how it would be determined whether a property was abandoned vs whether the homeowner was snow-birding in Florida.
Attorney Behrens answered that there were various ways that staff already dealt with abandoned properties. It’s not always the easiest to determine, and it would certainly place a burden on staff to determine that an individual wasn’t just temporarily away. Properties that tend to draw complaints that they are abandoned properties are ones that are very clearly abandoned, possibly with broken windows or serious signs of neglect. Often the complaining neighbors are able to provide a significant amount of detail supporting the fact that the property wasn’t just recently abandoned but had been thus for a period of time. If the motion were to pass, those properties might be subject to earlier enforcement action, but staff would also have the discretion to defer enforcement until after June 1st.
Director Vandehey added that her staff would work with the attorney’s office to establish some kind of internal guidelines to identify an abandoned property.
Alderperson Schultz wondered if the current city and state ordinances against noxious weeds already would give staff authority to deal with overgrown yards on abandoned properties.
Director Vandehey believed that those codes would only allow staff to go in and pick out the noxious weeds—not clear cut the lawn.
Alderperson Firkus said, “I know bees don’t care if it’s the property—if it’s a lawn of an abandoned property, but the neighbors do. And upkeep of abandoned properties I think is something that we should allow some leeway for even during the first month of this program.”
He also noted that in his motion he intentionally included the requirement that enforcement happen due to a complaint so that if the neighborhood was fine with an overgrown yard and nobody complained no action would be taken.
Alderperson Meltzer didn’t like the amendment, “I think it’s a loss to the bees. I—however I think that, you know, I appreciate it being brought forward. I think in the spirit of compromise, this is something that can really help us get onto the same page. Does it diminish from what I think I’m trying to do as the author of the resolution? Yes, it does, but I can accept that, and I am willing to vote for this amendment even though it is not ideal to me.”
[I think the addition of allowing enforcement against abandoned or unoccupied properties was a reasonable improvement to the resolution that helped city staff maintain some ability to deal with problem properties.
I felt like nobody seemed particularly prepared or made a good case for their position during the Municipal Services Committee meeting, so it was nice to see supporters of the resolution get their act together and actually show up to publicly voice their support for it at this Common Council meeting.
Ultimately, it seems to me if people actually were opposed to this resolution they would have shown up and voiced that opposition. The fact that nobody did suggests to me that there wasn’t strong feel against it.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=917290&GUID=0B782C69-BC42-4B96-8C02-C9B0DF17B8BB&
4 thoughts on “Common Council Approves Resolution Making “No Mow May” A Permanent Part Of Municipal Code, Allows Early Enforcement Against Abandoned Or Unoccupied Properties, Makes No Changes To Lawn Height Requirements”