The Municipal Services Committee met 06/24/2024. They spent nearly an hour and a half discussing the resolution to rescind the No Mow May ordinance language in the city’s Municipal Code.
Right now, the city has an 8-inch height restriction on the grass on developed properties with that height limit not being enforced during the month of May. As originally submitted, the resolution would have removed the May non-enforcement clause of the city ordinance and maintained an 8-inch enforceable height limit year-round. The committee ended up voting on a substituted resolution that allowed the grass height to be enforced year-round but increased the maximum allowable height of grass to 10 inches.
The committee ended up recommending this version of the resolution for approval by a vote of 3-2 with Alderpersons William Siebers (District 1), Vered Meltzer (District 2), and Denise Fenton (District 6) voting in favor of it and Alderpersons Brad Firkus (District 3) and Chad Doran (District 15) voting against.
I’ve prepared a transcript of the discussion for download:
The “Whereas” clauses of the resolution were an issue for some of the alderpersons, and early on in the discussion Alderperson Meltzer made a motion to amend the resolution by substituting it with a resolution written by Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9). This alternate resolution removed reference to the retraction of the study by Professor Israel Del Toro that served as the scientific basis for implementing the No Mow May program as well as a clause that stated “the study has been proven to be unreliable with faulty conclusions.” It removed reference to studies and statements by scientists regarding the lack of benefit of No Mow May and long grass to pollinators as well as the possible negative impact on insect populations caused by the immediate mowing after No Mow May. It also removed reference to the increased workload No Mow May was causing for the city’s Inspections Division and the move away from No Mow May by other Wisconsin municipalities.
It did eliminate No Mow May, but, at the same time, it increased the maximum allowable height of grass on developed lots from 8 inches to 12 inches.
Alderperson Schultz explained that he wanted to increase the height to 12 inches as a way of providing a narrative to the Appleton community “that we’re trying to move forward and allow a lot of residents who are now sort of embracing this to give them some leeway as they move into maybe a shift in the in the practices.” He recognized that there were some issues in people’s lawns growing out of control, but he was worried that if the city simply rescinded No Mow May people would just think it was over and done with and not try to continue doing things to benefit pollinators. “I think really, what it’s down to now is trying to move in a direction that still allows us to say we’re participating in a Slow Mow Summer initiative, but we are going to try and constrain some of the things that are getting out of our hand in our community, to control some of the things that aren’t necessarily doing any good for our pollinator species.”
Alderperson Schultz acknowledged that 12 inches was an arbitrary number. He also acknowledged that the long grass promoted by No Mow May was not necessarily benefiting pollinators. “[W]e’ve [been] having talks over the last couple of years in the pollinator organization about how do we pivot to something that’s more amenable to the community because, you know, we’re seeing this sort of passive participation that’s leading to not ideal circumstances. Your lawn gets over 12 inches, and it gets up to 18 and 24 inches, and all that is, is long grass. You’re not really benefiting the pollinators anymore. And so, the question is, at what point is it diminishing returns to the thing we’re trying to accomplish? I don’t know that there’s a science that we can lean into and get to that answer. And so, it’s a little arbitrary to even suggest increasing the number, but again, that’s the rationale.”
Alderperson Fenton made a motion to amend the amended resolution to allow grass up to 12 inches in the backyard of a property but keep the front yard at only 8 inches, a situation colloquially described as a “mullet lawn.” This proposal had logistical issues with enforcement. City staff does not generally have access to people’s back yards, so would not be able to measure the grass height to determine if it was over 12 inches. Additionally, there were questions about whether the committee wanted to set the parameters as the “front yard” and “back yard” which would be determined by the location of a house on any given lot or use a defined setback amount to delineate where grass could move from 8 inches to 12 inches. Finally, staff believed this proposal would be difficult to enforce all summer long and would be much more manageable if it were limited to May.
As a result, the proposed amendment was voted down by a vote of 2 – 3.
Alderperson Schultz then suggested that the originally amended resolution be amended to reduce the height limit from 12 inches to 10 inches which he felt was a reasonable compromise for other alderpersons who thought 12 inches was excessive. A motion to this effect was then made by Alderperson Meltzer.
This 10-inch heigh limit seemed as arbitrary as the 12-inch height limit. Alderperson Patrick Hayden (District 7) one of the authors of the original resolution pointed out that no law mower could be set to cut at 12 inches, 10 inches, or even 8 inches, but, at the same time, he thought 10 inches was “a nice compromise in the spirit of finding middle ground.”
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) thought that maintaining an 8-inch height limit would be more in keeping with the move to a “Slow-Mow” model referenced in the amended resolution and that that other municipalities are turning toward. She noted that the Slow-Mow educational literature provided by Kaukauna and the 1000 Islands Environmental Center indicated that a lawn should ideally be maintained at 4 inches tall, and 8 inches was already double that.
Alderperson Meltzer wanted a height over 8 inches, saying, “I think that there are quite a number of benefits. So, for example, it was only after my lawn got past eight inches, that I had my violets emerge. So, eight inches, no violets. More than eight inches violets. So, it does it have to be 12? Like I said, like Alex has been saying, we’re not married to that number, but it does have to be higher than eight. Maintaining it constantly at eight did not allow that awakening time that allowed those seed banks to activate themselves. So, for biodiversity, being able to let your lawn go past eight inches, does seem to me to be very important.”
Alderperson Doran was in favor of keeping the height at 8 inches, saying, “Well, we can plant violets I believe. I don’t think they just grow in grass. So, there’s lots of ways we can we can have the beneficial things that we need for pollinators without having to let grass grow longer than eight inches.” He also pointed out, “Another reference site that’s referenced often is the UW Minnesota Extension which says that you should maintain your lawn at a height of three inches and cut it when it gets to four and a half. So, there’s nothing that that says that allowing this grass height to continue to be longer is any more beneficial when the real thing that we should be doing is encouraging people to plant these pollen—pollinator friendly plants.”
The committee ended up voting 3-2 to amend the amended resolution to increase the height limit on grass to 10 inches rather than 12 inches.
The committee then went on to vote 3-2 to recommend the resolution for approval.
[On the one hand, all of this seems a little silly to me. I’m of the opinion that growing long grass clearly is not something that helps bees. I may not be a scientist but I have the witness of my own eyes, which, this last May, saw multiple yards with lots of overgrown grass and no flowers or bees, as compared to my own yard with short grass but flowering fruit trees and a bunch of Creeping Charlie and clover which seem to attract bees and wasps to one degree or another.
On the other hand, one of the purposes of local government is to argue about things like the acceptable height limit for grass, and it warms my heart a little when I watch them doing just that.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1206376&GUID=04F4DDBF-540F-45FA-8308-0F8EE047FDDE
Be the first to reply