Honeybees, nuisance parties and fireworks. Less details than usual, I was multi-tasking and trying to get this done quickly.
ROLL CALL
Solomon and Bruer absent.
SUSPENSION OF THE RULES
They were.
HONORING RESOLUTIONS
– Honoring Barbara Dimmick, the Library Director who is retiring after 36 years of service to the City. Council members, the mayor and a letter read from the library board president gave her many, many kudos.
– Declaring Feb 8th – FIRST Robotics Day.
– Honoring WSUM (91.7FM) on its 10 year anniversary. Verveer asked for everyone to be added as a sponsor and there were no objections.
EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT
On item 22 – Dawn O’Kroley was available for questions on selling a house in James Madison Park to her.
CONSENT AGENDA
– Agenda Items #4 through #12 are PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS.
– Note: the WSUM resolution has a typo – title originally read “91.7”, changed to “97.1” and body referenced February 2, changed to February 22
– 38 is referred to public works.
– 67 Amending Ordinances to change the composition of the Alcohol License Review Committee. – Add CCOC as additional referral
– 15 the veto override for the Goodman Community Center liquor license has speakers
– 23 (Engineering positions), 28 (moving grantriter to Finance from Community Development) and 29 (health department grants- are supermajority vote items changing the budget. There are no objections to including those in the consent agenda.
– 18 – They are reconsidering people kicked off Boards, Committees, Commissions, Ad Hoc Committees & Subcommittees for not filing Statement of Interests Forms.
– 19 – Nuisance Parties ordinance has speakers
– 39 – Firworks study has speakers
– 61 – correction to refer to March 5 plan commission and March 20 council meeting
ITEM 15 – GOODMAN COMMUNITY CENTER LIQUOR LICENSE
– Wow, the sound system in the room completely went dead for a moment.
– Cnare moves to take this item out of order, that passes.
– Rummel moves to override the veto of the mayor.
– Goodman Center has two speakers to answer questions.
– No discussion.
– Unanimous aye vote to override the mayor.
ITEM 4 – PLAN COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS – HONEYBEES
2nd substitute is moved. 1 registration in support, available to answer questions. Mike ? from the Dane County Honeybee keepers.
Questions of speakers
Lisa Subeck asks about multi-unit buildings.
Mayor interrupts, opens the public hearing and apologizes for interruption and for calling Lisa by her first name when he interrupted her. She laughs it off and says it more comfortable that way.
Subeck asks about a fly-away barrier.
The registrant says that it would probably be overkill. The ordinance says that they have to inform everyone who lives there and who is an owner. He is a landlord. His leases says no chickens or bees will be kept without his permission. He supports both, but thinks the tenants need to be notified and he doesn’t want to lose anyone because of the bees and chickens.
Subeck asks his opinion of excluding multi-unit buildings.
He says they don’t need to do that now, it can be safe and some buildings have them now and some are including them in the construction. This would help the ecology of Madison and urban agriculture.
Subeck asks about Des Moines Iowa ordinance that requires a 4 foot fence instead of a fly away barrier, and requires signage, why the 4 foot enclosure instead of the flyaway barrier.
He doesn’t know, assumes it is the same reason – it forces the bees to fly up higher. But he’s not sure why they would have it.
Discussion
Satya Rhodes-Conway wants them to support the Plan Commission version. She says she has been talking to the Zoning Administrator about this for 2 years. A year ago they started the process to change the ordinances. The first version was widely criticized by the beekeepers and others – it was too restrictive for something that was already allowed. This version is here with support of the Dane County Beekeepers. She says this is important to support because it is already happening. She says there are some neighbor conflicts and this is how to deal with those. She says that bees are the key pollinators for many fruits and vegetables. They are crucial to urban agriculture and gardens. They are also in trouble, hives are dying. That is scary when you think of all the things pollinated by bees. Also a local food issue, some folks want to produce honey. (Lots of bee puns) Also need to make sure beekeeping is safe. If you have questions, ask staff. They looked at many other ordinances, and talked with public health, UW, beekeepers, etc. This is a compromise that minimizes the conflict with hives. Bees are not dangerous or aggressive. Wasps are aggressive. Honeybees die if they sting you. If you don’t mess with them, they won’t mess with you. It’s a safe practice, can do more with zoning to keep it safe to make sure they have water on the site, make the bees fly over adjacent property and use flight barriers to get them to fly up. They also have a way for staff to address any issues and they can revoke their license.
Subeck is allergic to honey bees, she is struggling with it. She wants permission from the neighbors. If she lived in a 4 unit apartment building if a neighbor started keeping bees, she would be concerned. If she had a kid, she would be more concerned. It’s a deadly allergy. It infringes in multi-unit buildings on their use of the property. They have protections for neighbors but not other residents of the multi-unit property. There are reasons why permission might be problematic. So, she has an amendment to say if it is on a multi-unit property to have additional protections.
Mayor Paul Soglin points out she was supposed to make the motion first.
Subeck says that is how she arrived at the motion.
Steve King says that he voted for bees, wouldn’t vote for chickens, asks for Judy Compton’s forgiveness for voting for this.
Marsha Rummel asks what is a nulti-unit building? Is it a two flat? Is there a more descriptive way to describe it. Otherwise it would exempt many of the properties in her district.
Subeck says two or more dwelling units. She says often it is more than 2 units or not owner occupied. She says easier to work things out with one neighbor. She is happy making it apply to any property with 4 or more dwelling units.
Rhodes-Conway asks Matt Tucker if he would help us out on the unit question, she says it can be hard to understand what this would apply to? How many units?
Mayor asks Cnare to come up, thanks everyone for their well wishes, he’s not 100% yet, says he can’t stay.
Tucker says that there are three breaks in the ordinance, single family, 2 family or more than 2 family, it would be best to choose one of those. He says the key is common shared living space – if you want to establish a hive barrier it should be around the hive, not the property.
Rhodes-Conway asks about other activities in a back yard might be an issue in shared common space that are not regulated and perhaps dangerous.
Tucker says gardening is not regulated, recreational activities, playing in lawn areas or socialization on patios, there is ordinance on bands in the back yard, that was more about quality of life impacts. I hear people have weddings in back yards and set up tents, that could be dangerous.
Rhodes-Conway says that she appreciates what Subeck is suggesting. There are many activities that might be dangerous and might discourage someone from using it because of how others are using it. She says that if they limit this, they need to look at other dangerous activities. Compton and her had this discussion over solar panels. Just because a use is new, they shouldn’t regulate it more. She urges rejection.
Bridget Maniaci says that from the perspective of landlord tenant issues, . . . lots of static in the microphones . . . seems to be someone’s phone. She suggests an amendment that requires notification of the bees on the property before a security deposit is entered into or before a lease is signed.
Michael May, City Attorney, says there is already an amendment on the floor they have to dispose of.
Mark Clear asks if this issue came up at plan commission or other committees and could someone characterize this discussion.
Tucker says the Community Gardens Committee discussed it. They wanted to be flexible to let the condo association or tenants work out the details about how it would go forth above and beyond the regulations of the city.
Subeck wants to clarify the barrier around the yard, all the way around the hive is what she meant, the fly away barrier is intended to be around the hive, didn’t put in a number of feet around the hive would be – she says they can figure that out, what she is not comfortable with is thinking that landlord or condo association will just work this out. She would not be the tenant that can’t get this worked out. We should have the same safety level as they have for the neighbors.
Chris Schmidt says they should be a maximum distance, and he makes a motion that it be no more than 10 feet from the hive. Subeck seconds.
I missed a bunch . . . they were working out an amendment to fix everything they are talking about. I think it was a 6 foot barrier, 25 feet from hive on all sides for a 3 unit or more.
Rhodes-Conway says Subeck can’t change her motion. Schmidt can amend it. She says that they should talk about the usable open space in the yard, you want a fixed distance from the hive, not the property line. If the hive is by the property line will need the fly away barrier anyways.
Schmidt asks to withdraw his amendment, there is no objection. He says they should table it, Subeck and he can talk to Tucker and come back with better language and not do it on the fly.
The motion is tabled.
ITEMS 5 & 6 – PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PLAN COMMISSION ITEMS
Item 5 is referred. Lots of huddles in the back of the room making deals and it’s hard to hear.
Item 6 is also referred.
Both to March 5th for Plan and 20th for Council and are related to Grandview Commons and the grocery store.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS ITEMS
Item 7 – adopted without discussion. Voice vote.
Item 8 – adopted without discussion. Voice vote.
ITEM 9 – ST PAULS
– Some people available to answer questions (Trachtenberg and other lobbyists)
– Others registered in support as well – about 20 of them.
– Motion is to adopt with Plan Commission recommendations.
– Maniaci says there is a spartan element to St. Paul’s, she appreciates the work going on. The existing St. Paul’s has a soft spot for her, the new one is such a change in scale and mass and she will be voting no.
– Scott Resnick thanks the students for sitting through the meetings about beekeeping and appreciates seeing the chambers packed with students and thanks them for showing up.
– Rummel says that she will be voting no.
– Passes on a voice vote, with only 2 nos, I believe.
ITEM 10 – N BROOKS ST.
Recessed hearing, referred to March 5th Plan Commission meeting.
ITEM 11 – EAST WASHINGTON PROJECT
– Motion to recess the public hearing, refer to March 5 meeting.
– Maniaci asks about the request from the applicant to refer further out, should they leave it out. What should they do.
– Brad Murphy says that if you are sure they want to refer to the 19th you should change it.
– Maniaci amends it to do so. It passes.
ITEM 12 – UNIVERSITY RIDGE GOLF COURSE
Move to adopt, no discussion. Passes on voice vote unanimously.
ITEM 18 – KICKING PEOPLE OFF COMMITTEES FOR NOT FILLING OUT STATEMENT OF INTEREST FORMS
– Schmidt moves reconsideration of the booting people off committees. They vote in favor.
– Schmidt moves to accept the revised report dated Feb 28th, 2012.
– Passes on a voice vote.
ITEM 19 – NUISANCE PARTIES (Sorry, the rest of this was essentially live blogged, no editing)
Awful microphone issues. 3rd substitute is moved.
Public comment
Hannah Somers from the ASM legislative committee says they are neither in support or opposed. They are generally opposed, they are worried it is tacking more fines on and not confident on the impact it will have. But they support his version more than others and happy students were able to be involved. They are happy eviction language is out and that fines are removed for the first time and is happy that the students, landlords and police will sit down together. They also support a 2 year sunset clause and an annual review. They hope the police use their discretion as discussed and they will do their part to make sure students are educated.
Curt Brink agrees with the Somers. He says that it was a good process.
Ryan Rainey is here from the Badger Herald Editorial Board – they are opposed. He thinks the substitute is a great compromise if it is going to pass we will have a lot less reservations. He says that he has friends at other universities and Madison is unique because students have a great relationship with the police department and he worries that in the future this kind of ordinance could lead to future laws that would take them back to the 90s when relationships were that great. Students will talk to police because they are not intimidated by them. Everyone acknowledges there is a problem and elsewhere it is more anti-student. He wants to keep the relationship good.
Questions of Speakers
Maniaci asks Brink why he supports this over the second substitute. He explains there were multiple changes and a meeting.
Questions of Staff
Rhodes-Conway has a question for the police department, but they are not here. She wants to know why they need this.
Mark Woulf, the Alcohol Policy Coordinator, says the police department gets the dispersal tool. This also requires notification to the landlord and has them hold the tenant accountable. Now the landlord and the alder will know about the situation. It give the police department an extra tool in the bag.
Rhodes-Conway says you’ll forgive me if after the last year I’m a little wary of tools. Can you speak to the scope of the problem.
Woulf says that part is the students, the other part is the after set parties, sometimes violent activities happen and they have a focus of alcohol. They work to bring in people in the situation and landlord don’t know about what is going on, it brings them into the loop. It determines if this is an absentee landlord, and gets them involved in their properties, not just downtown but in other areas of the city.
Maniaci asks Michael May, City Attorney, how this works with the chronic nuisance ordinance.
May doesn’t know. He not sure if it is covered in this ordinance.
Discussion
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff gives some history, she says the police will use this 4 or 5 times a year, that is the breadth of the issue. That is why we need the reporting, to see if that scope is what they expect and to see if it is used appropriately or overused. Thanks Skidmore for the changes and patience in the process. She would have voted on substitute 2. Thanks the students for compromising to something they can live with. That is where she is at. Supports compromise because so much discussion about using it appropriately. Some big issues in the compromise is the fines, its more about bringing the parties together for a discussion. She has party houses in her district, she thinks forcing people to talk and get together is positive. She says that the other language forced evictions and she is glad that is taken out. She supports it, but will be interested in seeing the report and in seeing if it makes any difference. She is supportive of the amendments that are coming.
Paul Skidmore defers to Resnick.
Resnick moves an amendment for an annual review with a report from staff and committees due in December, first report in 2012. The amendment is friendly.
Maniaci wants to add the Landlord Tenant Committee, Resnick says he wants the Housing Committee because it will include that. (I think that is what he said).
Verveer moves an amendment that is a technical correction – changing 3rd to 2nd because that was what was intended. Passes.
Verveer moves another amendment to have it sunset March 31st 2014 unless the council renews it. He’s not a fan of sunsets, but they did it for the chronic nuisance ordinance and he thinks it is necessary to add a comfort level. Motion passes.
Skidmore yields to Verveer, Verveer yields to Maniaci. Maniaci moves to amend the chronic nuisance ordinance to include violations of this ordinance. Verveer seconds but says he doesn’t understand and wonders how it can amend something that is before them.
Bidar-Sielaff says that the other ordinance is not before us, but would amend it later.
May agrees, in terms of it being before them and public notices, it is a separate subject, she withdraws her motion.
Verveer thanks people – like he always does. This was a messy and uncomfortable process at times, and they talked about it ad nauseum at ALRC. This is a good product and he is comfortable voting for it. Thanks Skidmore for being open to suggestions and for being inclusive. Hopes it will be unanimous. Thanks Mark Woulf (Alcohol Policy Coordinator), he thanks the brief coalition (ASM, Apartment Association, Tenant Resource Center, police and alders). He says he supported the goal of making landlords be responsive. There are many examples of landlords who are not cooperative, it’s not all, some do a good job. But there are examples where that is not the case. He says the proof will be in the implementation, police will have tremendous discretion and how they use this will be interesting. Thinks it will help in some cases.
Resnick says Verveer said it all. They have been talking about this on campus since July. It has evolved to the point he can support it now. Most of the egregious pieces have been taken out. They want to preserve the good working relationship with the police. He thanks everyone.
Skidmore says this is not about students, but about behavior. It’s also not he garden variety party, Bassett St drinking and making noise. He thanks people for focusing on the issues, this has moved from a penalty to an education tool. There is consensus here, he thanks a bunch of people. Explains how they got here.
Passes on a voice vote, sounds unanimous.
HONEYBEES
Schmidt removes it from the table. That passes. Schmidt suggests they vote down the amendment and the amendment to the amendment and vote them down. Or withdraw them with consent. They are withdrawn with consent.
Subeck adds an amendment to say where a hive or hive is located on multifamily building 6 ft flyaway barrier no more than 10 feet away and 6 feet tall.
No discussion. No questions for staff. Motion fails on a voice vote.
Motion passes on a voice vote.
ITEM 39 – FIREWORKS
Weier moves adoption.
Public Comment
Jim Carrier says they voted for the money, this reduces the matching fund and moves the responsibility to engineering. He has a bag to things that fall out of the sky from the fireworks. WE don’t know what is in the water. This will pay for the lab fees. It may be it doesn’t cause a problem, they want to know what is in the water and sediment. They want to know how it might affect park, future firework, dnr fishery, public use of park and the water. People fish there and play in the water. Not sure why and objection, gone through a lot of committees and have worked hard to make it work. This will put to rest what is going on.
Trish O’Kane in support, PhD student in environmental studies, teaches a glass about kids in parks. They use the park for an outdoor classroom. They discover new species, look for a fox, they have done this for 3 semesters and the program has been extended to the summer. She is doing a study on the birds in the park. She did a survey after the fireworks. At first glance no residue, then realized the water seemed to be covered with leaves, but then realized that it was covered with cardboard. She is concerned about the warnings on the cardboard and wire and other debris. A few days later they were playing in the water, there was a sheen on the water, they wondered if they should let the kids play in the water. Health department suggested not, but that if they do they should wash their hands
Laurie Grant – Chair on Committee on the Environment, working on this 2 years. Citizens came to them concerns about the issues. Public Health staff had some studies on the airborne particles on health, but nothing on other issues. The sponsor of Rhythm and Booms decided to do water sampling. Public Health found nothing alarming. But, testing a few weeks after the event doesn’t include what is in the water and that they have no baseline information, so you can’t compare after the event. The committee thought it would be useful for the city. They requested funding for measuring the baseline. Worried about high levels of percolate. The council has appropriated money for the study, they are seeking a match fund, looking for in kind from university or volunteers. This just clarifies in kind work and assigns oversight to engineering where they are familiar with this kind of sample.
No questions of speakers.
Questions of Staff
Rhodes-Conway asks Mike Dailey about the testing information and what will be covered and she wants to know about the sediment and storm water testing. Also wants to know about how much of the info from the study is about fireworks and what is more about water quality of the lagoon.
Mike Dailey says that the one that is most descriptive of the fireworks will be the water sampling, R & B did their own sampling, but they did it 30 days later and if they knew about percolate they would know it would show nothing. They will do it a day before day after and a week later. With the money we have for the testing it will be hard to know if metals in eh d=sediment are from the fireworks or not.
Rhodes-Conway asks if the sediment testing will be for percolate, byproducts and heavy metals.
Daily says there are 15 heavy metals, and three of them are in fireworks, but it will be hard to tell where it came from.
Rhodes-Conway asks what would affect the water quality and what is in the sediment, what besides storm water might affect that. Are there other tests we could do to find other sources.
Daily says that this will catch most of the issues, other things can be tested by the Health Department. This will be useful whether or not it is tied to the fireworks, it could also tell us what is happening with run off.
Rhodes-Conway wants to make sure that this covers what they need for the master plan.
Skidmore asks Dailey about not being able to tie the results to the fireworks.
Dailey says for the water sampling, day before, day after, week later and month later will be very indicative. Sediment, soil and plants not so much. Not a before and after test, just a baseline. Can’t tie it to fireworks, if test year after year, then it would be more indicative.
Skidmore says when sold the study under the impression that it was about fireworks and that there would be a match and it would cost more. How much is water vs. sediment.
Daily says $8500. Even if amendment fails and the original budget, with the money they can get in donations they could do the water and sediment. Vegetation and soil would get eliminated.
Skidmore asks what the cost of a comprehensive study might cost.
Daily says no, Public Health wanted to test the air and it was around $150K. That was expensive to add air and see if fireworks was the cause.
Anita Weier says that she though percolate is taken up in plants and that is the notable and worrisome e item in fireworks.
Dailey says if perclorate in plants, would be worrisome, if it is in the vegetation it would be indicative of coming from the fireworks.
Weier asks if the budget is adequate.
Dailey says yes, they have been looking at $28K to $35K and that seems about right if they spend the money in the budget, we can do it in the budget and have meaningful results.
Skidmore asks about in kind donation of labor as a match, his understanding is that is not appropriate.
Michael May says that the resolution would allow it – doesn’t matter at this point, the reason for the match was that they would not spend their money until there was a match. He doesn’t know why we would care if someone volunteered.
Skidmore asks Rob Phillips. He says he does not recall it.
Skidmore is worried about adjusting the study to meet the money, he is worried there is not the match, he supports the project, supports a proper study appropriately funded, but can’t support this.
Weier has a written statement – says economy and reproductive rights have pushed environmental issues out of the news. That’s too bad because those are impacted by the environment. They have been working on this for two years, this just fixes mistakes made during the budget. She explains what the amendment does and what the tests would do. They have pledges for $4K, applies for $8K in grants and are seeking more. They are worried about people who fish. She says Board of Health, Board of Estimates and Committee on Environment all supported it.
Passes on a voice vote with only Skidmore voting no.
ITEM 61 – GRANDVIEW
Re-refer to March 5 plan, March 20 council.
MOTIONS FORM THE FLOOR
Maniaci has a resolution thanking 800 E wash selection committee
Happy Birthday to Schmidt (last weekend), Rummel (this weekend.)
ADJOURN
Sorry, this post is a little sloppy, busy day ahead.
