Alderperson Meltzer Responds To Questions Regarding Bird Safe Glass Resolution – Economic Impact And Number Of Birds Effected Locally Still Unknown

Resolution 6-R-23, the Bird Safe Glass resolution, is currently working its way through the committee process, and will be coming before the Community and Economic Development Committee for a vote on 09/13/2023. If passed as written, the resolution would create bird-safe glass building requirements for new construction and facades within the city as well as require the city to retrofit any public buildings with bird-safe glass treatments.

As outlined in a memo from City Attorney Christopher Behrens the legality of such a resolution is currently in question as the Madison ordinance this resolution is based on is currently undergoing legal appeal, and both Attorney Behrens and Mayor Woodford have recommended holding the item until the legality of the legislation is settled.

I reached out to the authors of the resolution and Mayor Woodford with questions about the expected benefit to the local bird population and the estimated cost and economic impact the ordinance changes would have on the city. Neither Mayor Woodford nor Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9), the main author of the resolution, had solid numbers on either the potential financial impact of the ordinance changes nor on the potential benefit to the local bird population.

While I was on vacation, Alderperson Vered Meltzer (District 2), one of the cosponsors of the resolution, also responded to my questions about the resolution. Along with Alderperson Schultz and Mayor Woodford, Alderperson Meltzer was unable to provide any statistics on the number or species of birds in Appleton that are killed by bird strikes but did note “the primary author of the resolution has witnessed it happen, and so have some of my constituents. It’s a traumatizing experience that leaves them with guilt, sadness, and the desire to keep it from happening again.”

Alderperson Meltzer stated that a number of questions related to the cost and impact on local development would not be answered unless the resolution was moved forward by the committee, those included (1) the costs associated with retrofitting all city owned windows that pose a safety issue for birds, (2) the nature of the impact of the ordinance on approved projects that have not yet started construction, (3) the impact on the cost of building affordable housing in Appleton, and (4) what percentage of new development would be expected to have to install bird-friendly glass.

Additionally, in answer to the question, “Have the alderpersons who submitted the resolution or city staff conducted a cost/benefit analysis comparing the increased cost of development caused by this resolution to the number and species of birds that would potentially be saved?” Alderperson Meltzer responded, “Such an activity would require significant enough staff time that it would not be appropriate unless the committee of jurisdiction directs staff to do so.”

Below are the questions I asked and Alderperson Meltzer’s responses along with the answers I received from Alderperson Schultz and Mayor Woodford back in July.

QUESTION 1: How many birds die annually in the city of Appleton due to colliding with glass windows? The resolution states up to a billion birds die annually, but I would assume those are not evenly spread out but are rather disproportionately concentrated in cities like New York and Chicago that have many skyscrapers.

• Meltzer: I don’t know how many birds die in Appleton, but I know that the primary author of the resolution has witnessed it happen, and so have some of my constituents. It’s a traumatizing experience that leaves them with guilt, sadness, and the desire to keep it from happening again.
• Woodford: I am not aware of any data that has been collected locally on this issue. The City of Appleton does not have any data on this issue one way or another.
• Schultz: We do not have any direct data to share for Appleton. The best we can do is make inferences based on number of buildings and total area of glass panes that meet the criteria. It would be safe to estimate several hundreds to several thousand. 

QUESTION 2: What species of birds are dying in Appleton due to striking glass windows?

• Meltzer: I do not know what species but from what I have heard it seems to happen with a variety of species rather than any particular one.
• Woodford: See response to question one, above.
• Schultz: Every avian species is subject to the disorientation of window reflections, though the primary victims of fatal collisions are smaller migratory songbirds.

QUESTION 3: The resolution would “compel non-public entities, businesses and urban residential housing managers and owners whose existing buildings have glass panes which meet the bird-strike risk criteria” to put educational language on their websites which raises several questions:

• Meltzer: We are not asking anyone to put any language on their own websites. The resolution is calling for Appleton to put language on its own website that “informs and compels” others to “incorporate bird-safe glass building requirements”. Basically, if this resolution is adopted, we want that to be blasted on the city website so that we can draw attention to the new ordinance. Perhaps the word “compel” is something that should be discussed and possibly amended.
• Woodford: Review is ongoing.
• Schultz: This language will be revised to read differently that it does now, replacing “compel” with “encourage” is the likely word revision.

QUESTION 3a: What are the specifics of the “bird strike risk criteria”? This resolution uses the Madison ordinance as an example, but it’s not clear if you intend to just use that language for Appleton or if you are creating your own language.

• Meltzer: I anticipated that it would be up to advice from staff as to whether we would use Madison’s language for “bird strike risk criteria” or customize it for ourselves.
• Woodford: I cannot answer this question as I am not an author or sponsor of the Resolution.
• Schultz: A lot of work went into the Madison ordinance, so we’ll adopt what makes sense to and revise what doesn’t to fit our community and urban environment.

QUESTION 3b. What specific educational language would these private businesses be required to place on their websites?

• Meltzer: We are not requiring any private business to put any language on any website.
• Woodford: Review is ongoing, and final ordinance language would have to be created should the item move forward.
• Schultz: Again, there will be no “requirement” but rather a recommendation to share info. This is one example of info share that we could share with businesses and residents alike.

QUESTION 3c. What state or federal statute is the resolution relying on in order to compel private individuals and businesses to disseminate government mandated messages?

• Meltzer: Again, we are not asking anyone to disseminate any message whatsoever.
• Woodford: Review is ongoing, though I do not believe the Resolution cited specific statues on this matter.
• Schultz: Not applicable.

QUESTION 4: What are the estimated costs associated with retrofitting all city owned windows that pose a safety issue for birds with bird-friendly glass or alternatives by 2025? Additionally, how many windows are estimated to need to be retrofitted?

• Meltzer: The costs of implementing the resolution will have to be discovered by staff if the committee of jurisdiction decides the resolution can move forward. If the resolution won’t be moving forward, the staff time necessary to get those answers should not be wasted.
• Woodford: Review is ongoing, however, in the interest of protecting staff time, we will not conduct a detailed analysis to determine this figure unless the Council passes a Resolution compelling it.
• Schultz: These are unknowns and an audit would have to be conducted to get concrete numbers. Cost could range anywhere from several thousand to several tens of thousands.

QUESTION 5: Will these retrofitted windows and treatments result in increased ongoing maintenance costs to the city?

• Meltzer: There would be no ongoing maintenance costs that I’m aware of.
• Woodford: See answer to question 4.
• Schultz: Potentially, yes. Window films don’t last forever, but like a window tint on a car, we should expect them to last for several decades.

QUESTION 6: How will these ordinance changes impact currently planned projects that have not yet started construction, such as the library, the Fox Commons development, and various housing developments planned for downtown?

• Meltzer: These ordinance changes would impact public buildings and new projects that are initiated subsequent to the passage of the resolution. The broader nature of the impact would have to be determined by staff if the committee of jurisdiction directs them to move forward.
• Woodford: Review is ongoing, though we are not presently changing plans on a speculative basis. We will adjust course as required by Council action.
• Schultz: Public properties such as the Library would have to consider treatments. Fortunately, the new library design already incorporates bird-sensitive elements and may not need an additional treatments. Other project would not be affected unless the developer chooses to do so.

QUESTION 7: Will these proposed changes impact or increase the cost of building affordable housing developments in Appleton?

• Meltzer: This question would also require additional staff time to answer, thus waiting for the committee process.
• Woodford: Review is ongoing, though from our analysis of potential approaches for the Library project, it did seem that certain interventions would have increased construction costs. In the case of the Library, we reduced the total glazed area on the façade and our architect designed the glazed area in a way to reduce environmental impact, including potential for bird strikes.
• Schultz: I would not expect any significant cost increase. These treatments materials run anywhere from $0.00 sf. if one were to deploy something like recycled CD’s up to roughly $1sf for something like CollidEscape or applying decals like  WindowAlerts

QUESTION 8: Will this proposed ordinance impact the way developers view building something in Appleton? Will it make the city appear more friendly to new development or less so?

• Meltzer: We are hoping that it will educate developers about a tool that will help to make their buildings more attractive to residents and businesses. Seeing a bird fly into a window is a traumatizing experience that can lead someone to avoid visiting a business again. When residents consider housing options that are many floors up, knowing that the glass is bird-safe is an added value that will help them to feel environmentally responsible.
• Woodford: I suggest this question be put to the authors and/or area developers for their feedback.
• Schultz: I would hope the overall impact would be positive.

QUESTION 9: What percentage of new development in the city would be expected to have to install bird-friendly glass?

• Meltzer: This question would also have to be put to staff.
• Woodford: Review is ongoing.
• Schultz: Again, no one will be required to install bird-safe glass.

QUESTION 10: Have the alderpersons who submitted the resolution or city staff conducted a cost/benefit analysis comparing the increased cost of development caused by this resolution to the number and species of birds that would potentially be saved?

• Meltzer: Such an activity would require significant enough staff time that it would not be appropriate unless the committee of jurisdiction directs staff to do so.
• Woodford: I am not aware of any such analysis, nor, in the spirit of my response to question 4, do I intend to direct staff to conduct such an analysis.
• Schultz: No

QUESTION 11: Are there any situations in which this proposed ordinance would affect 1 and 2 family residential properties?

• Meltzer: Not that I am aware of, however, owners of such properties would have access via the city website to information about window treatments.
• Woodford: Review is ongoing.
• Schultz: No