The Common Council met 09/20/2023. One of the items they took up was Resolution 6-R-23, the bird safe glass resolution which they ended up voting down by a vote of 10-5.
The resolution initially called for the creation of a bird safe glass ordinance in Appleton, requiring the installation of bird safe glass or glass treatments on windows that met certain dimensional metrics on buildings that were 10,000 square feet or larger. It also required the retrofitting of city owned windows that met those dimensional requirements and included the addition of educational information regarding bird window strike risks to the City of Appleton’s website.
The resolution as initially written was potentially illegal, and a similar ordinance in the City of Madison is currently undergoing legal challenge. During its 09/13/2023 meeting, the Community and Economic Development Committee extensively amended the resolution, removing the requirement to create a city ordinance regarding bird safe glass requirements and adding that any actions to retrofit city windows should be taken “as soon as practical and within budget and staffing constraints.”
There were four city-owned buildings that potentially met the guidelines for needing bird-safe glass abatement measures. Those were:
- The Library
- City Hall
- The Water Treatment Plan on Manitowoc Road
- The Yellow Parking Ramp in downtown
At the Common Council meeting, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities Dean Gazza told the Council that he estimated the cost of retrofitting the windows would around $10,000 total mostly due to labor and equipment costs. The funds would need to come from several different sources because each of the buildings were covered by different department budgets.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) made a motion to amend the resolution to remove the language calling for city-owned windows to be retrofitted with bird strike abatement measures. That motion to amend was not approved, but not because the Council overall wanted to retrofit city windows but rather because they preferred to just vote the resolution down in its entirety.
Alderperson Kristin Alfheim (District 11) expressed the idea that $10,000 was not an inconsequential sum. Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6) pointed out that even merely posting educational information on the city website was not free; somebody would need to spend time putting together whatever was posted to the website. Additionally, she believed that passing the resolution now would probably not have much effect on the migrating birds due to how late in the year it was.
The Council voted 10-5 against approving the resolution with Alderpersons Vered Meltzer (District 2), Israel Del Toro (District 4), Joss Thyssen (District 8), Alex Schultz (District 9), and Nate Wolff (District 12) casting the five votes in favor of the resolution.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
Alderperson Schultz was the primary author of the resolution. He argued that the Council does a lot of work with its building, zoning, and municipal codes to create safe and habitable spaces for humans, “But there’s very little in our building code that gives the same deference to the other creatures on the planet and the wildlife that exists in the city, and the code that exists for those is usually about abatement or management.” This resolution provided “an opportunity to say that there are other species on the planet and they are important” There were not a lot of public buildings that would require abatement measures and he believed retrofitting them could be managed relatively easily and inexpensively.
He thought it was important to educate the public because there were a lot of private buildings that posed a bird-strike risk for birds.
In answer to a question from Alderperson Hartzheim, Director Gazza told the Council he estimated it would cost around $10,000 to retrofit the four buildings. That cost was driven by staff time and the need for equipment to access the windows in question. Alderperson Hartzheim then made a motion to remove the section calling for the retrofitting of city-owned windows.
Alderperson Meltzer, one of the resolution’s co-sponsors, felt that the language saying that the work should be done “as soon as practicable and within budget and staffing constraints,” provided enough leeway to the Council to vote at a later date as to whether any specific retrofitting project met that requirement. Even if slow and incremental progress toward retrofitting windows was “important to the heart of the resolution.”
Alderperson Del Toro, another of the resolution’s co-sponsors, thought the version that came out of the Community and Economic Development Committee was a compromise that posed “little to no impact on city staff and resources.” He believed the proposed amendment was “inadequate and inappropriate and takes away any of the action—well, the majority of the action proposed by this resolution.”
Alderperson Hartzheim pointed out that the funds for retrofitting the water treatment building would have to come out of the Utility Fund, and that cost would fall on rate payers. The funds to retrofit the Yellow Parking Ramp would have to come out of the Parking Utility budget which was already underwater.
Alderperson Patrick Hayden (District 7) wondered if it would be possible to schedule the retrofitting of windows to coincide with a time when window-cleaning was happening which could potentially save on the cost of a lift since such equipment would already be needed for the window cleaning.
Mayor Woodford answered, “If the Council as the legislative body approves a resolution or an action that then requires action on the part of the executive branch to execute then we will do that.” He noted that staff had not done significant analysis on the item because he did not want staff to spend unnecessary time on it unless the resolution was actually passed. He started to talk about prioritization but then stopped himself because he did not want to engage in debate.
Alderperson Alfheim said, “The idea of saving birds is great. I get it. But $10,000 is a lot of money. Just think of the hours we’ve spent already in discussing the idea. And there are so many things that we need $10,000 for.” She felt that educating the public was more beneficial that retrofitting four city owned buildings because there were many windows on many residences and high-rises. “We are not in a situation to be trying to help the birds when there are people that we should be helping with $10,000.”
Alderperson Del Toro said, “I find it troubling that we are placing a dollar value on life that’s just not human life. That’s a very, very concerning issue.” He thought that the language saying the work should be done “as soon as practicable and within budget and staffing constraints” provided enough leeway to the city. He also thought Alderperson Hayden had made a good suggestion about saving money by retrofitting the windows at the same time they were cleaned.
[I thought his comment about how concerning it was to place a dollar value on non-human life was interesting. Our society already has discussions about the value of human life, particularly in relation to the debate surrounding abortion. If it is appropriate to discussion the value of human life as it relates to other considerations such as the economic and physical well-being of women, it would seem more than appropriate to have a debate about the value of non-human life as it relates to other considerations such as the economic well-being of the city and the availability of affordable housing.]
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) felt that information about bird strikes and retrofitting windows could be done without a resolution. She had left the Community and Economic Development meeting thinking that while there were window surfaces in city owned buildings that met some of the bird-strike risk criteria there were none that actually qualified as dangerous for birds. So, she was confused as to whether or not any windows actually needed to be retrofit. “I think we’re not in the window business. And I think that we should just vote this down.”
After the meeting, Alderperson Van Zeeland reached out to me via email with further thoughts on the resolution. She had proactively reached out to Bird City USA and asked about low-cost sticker options to placed on windows and reduce the risk of bird strikes. She had then contacted Alderperson Schultz and suggested the possibility of promoting those resources through Bird City USA without passing a resolution, but Alderperson Schultz did not response to her suggestion. [It’s a little baffling to me that Alderperson Van Zeeland seemed to put more effort into looking into options for bird-strike abatement options than the actual authors of the resolution did.]
Alderperson Schultz thought that educating the community could be come through the city taking some action [in this case retrofitting city windows.] He thought that the language in the resolution provided adequate leeway. He liked the idea of retrofitting windows in conjunction with window washing and didn’t expect it to really end up costing $10,000. “I think it’s incumbent upon us to take a leadership role in this so that we can show that, you know, communities of a scale such as Madison are not alone in moving these initiatives forward, and I think would be a great thing for Appleton to pass this this evening.”
Alderperson Fenton pointed out that even just posting educational information on the website had a cost. She was not in favor of the resolution because she thought the entire resolution should be redone.
The motion to amend was voted down by a vote of 5-10. The Council then went back to discussion the resolution as it came to them from the Community and Economic Development Committee.
Alderperson Fenton said that September was the peak migratory period for birds so the window for doing something to protect birds this year was basically over. Back when the resolution had come before the committee on 08/09/2023 only one of the authors had been present, so at the request of that author the committee held the resolution until 09/13/2013. In the interim, Alderperson Fenton had discussed the potential legal issues with the resolution with the city attorney and believed Appleton would face a legal challenge if they passed the resolution as originally written. She reached out to the authors of the resolution with her concerns but by the time of the September meeting she had only heard back from one of the authors who requested the item be held until after the budget season.
Alderperson Fenton had been prepared to deny the resolution at committee, but instead they workshopped it and she left the meeting feeling reasonably comfortable that the end product did not break the law of the State of Wisconsin; however, the language was still very vague and did not lay out an specific measures to be taken other than “when it’s possible and within budget.” The committee had not talked to staff at all about what the cost would be.
She welcomed her colleagues to work on a resolution that would lay out plans and costs and make some provisions for allocating funds to cover those costs; however, she did not support this current resolution. “I’m frankly somewhat disappointed that the authors just expected us to blindly accept it, and—without even appearing at the first committee where it was discussed.”
Alderperson Del Toro said that migration season would come again next year, and they should get the ball rolling now to make an impact in 2024. “The change that’s been proposed here allows for flexibility from staff and from the executives to actually implement this in a responsible timeline with appropriate resources. Please, please, please move forward and accept this resolution as has been amended and suggested now by my committee.”
Alderperson Meltzer thought that the committee had done some really valuable work that had turned the resolution into something “that was good and actionable and was a good compromise. […] I think that if you—if Council all votes against this tonight, then we’ve basically shown how great doing committee work in committee is, and then we’ve also shown how futile it can be. And I’d rather there be a happier moral to the story.”
Alderperson Alfheim opposed the resolution and if something similar was brought back in the future, she encouraged the authors to look for grant opportunities so that it could perhaps be funded from outside the city.
Regarding the possibility of a similar resolution being brought forward in the future, Alderperson Van Zeeland encouraged her colleagues to be specific about how these things were relevant to our city, Appleton, rather than Madison.
Alderperson Chad Doran (District 15) thought there were opportunities outside of a resolution make some changes. He didn’t see the resolution as being a priority for the City of Appleton given other issues that we face. “So, I hope that we vote it down. I hope it doesn’t come back. But I do wish our colleagues success in finding other avenues to make the changes that they seek in this if it’s something they feel strongly about.”
Alderperson Schutlz said that bird strikes happen year-round, even if they were more prevalent during the migration season, “So, this notion that we’ve lost our window is essentially a false one.” He thought it was valuable to at least add educational language to the website. He also thought that if the resolution was passed, city staff could look for grant funding.
Alderperson Hayden said that he had worked in a 20-story building that had bird safe glass, and they found that when the bird strikes were reduced, the mice and rat population was also reduced because they didn’t have bird carcasses to eat. He liked that secondary effect, but “I do share a lot of the concerns that a lot of other people have about finding funding and that additional sources could be out there. So, I kind of feel like I’ll be voting no, but I look forward to voting for voting yes when those sorts of things get cleaned up.”
The Council proceeded to vote the resolution down by a vote of 5-10.
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1114839&GUID=50924CCD-719A-41E8-982A-51D0EA4112F5
Be the first to reply