What happened at the Fitchburg Common Council meeting on Feb. 26, and what it means

The Common Council approved the resolution to create an application for an Urban Service Area Amendment for the Northeast Neighborhood, but our fight isn't over yet! Click here to read more.

The Missing Aquitard: A short explanation of why you shouldn't drill deep wells near the Yahara chain of lakes by UW Madison Professor Cal DeWitt

Here is an illustration from Wisconsin Geological Survey's Ken Bradbury that shows that he knows the situation with the Eau Claire formation:

You can access this from:
http://www.nelson.wisc.edu/partnerships/programs/docs/bradbury_slideshow.pdf

The whole presentation is worthwhile to read, but the illustration above (from page 5 of this report) is a good summary.

A few things to observe here:

1. A the base of the diagram is "Recambrian crystalline rock" -- note that it steadily rises from the west to the east; this rise in Precambrian bedrock is part of the Wisconsin Arch.  The "Mount Simon aquifer" was formed largely by sand deposition by an ancient sea over this arch. 

2. The "Eau Claire aquitard" (also call the  Eau Claire "Confining unit" was deposited next by the ancient sea, but as the sea got shallower from west to east, the deposition of silt gradually changed to the deposition of sand as the sea reached the beach (the deeper quiet waters allow deposition of silt, which later becomes the "Eau Claire shale" but the shallow more turbulent shallow waters in the foreshore and shore areas deposit sand which later becomes sandstone.

3. The Eau Claire formation thus becomes thinner and thinner from west to east, even as it changes from having much silt (which forms the shale) to having less and less silt and more and more sand (which forms the sandstone).

4. As this thinning progresses from west to east, and as this shift from silt to sand occurs as the sea water becomes shallower to the west toward the shore, the quality of the Eau Claire formation as an aquitard (confining unit) becomes less and less.

5. Upshore from the water the Eau Claire formation disappears altogether.

6. This diminishing and disappearance of the Eau Claire formation is strongly accentuated by the ancient bedrock valley that cuts below the Eau Claire formation as it progresses from north to south---a valley that now contains the Yahara chain of lakes and glacial till deposits---a classic "buried bedrock valley."

The recent work of Wasinee Aswasereelert adds vital information to all of this, and has been published not only as her Master's dissertation in Geology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but also published as a refereed paper at:   http://wisconsingeologicalsurvey.org/pdfs/geoscipdf/1_GS19.pdf

Is Fitchburg Serious About Sustainability?

By Phyllis Hasbrouck

Once in a while we see flashes of brilliance among the alders of Fitchburg, and they must be acknowledged. Though I no longer haunt each and every Fitchburg Common Council and Plan Commission meeting, being too busy organizing and fundraising for Fitchburg Fields, I do catch up on what happened by reading that excellent publication, the Fitchburg Star. And I was delighted to read that on Aug. 5, Alder Jay Allen took a principled stand and voted against the Lacy Rd. interchange with Hwy. 14!

Why did Alder Allen do it? Because the interchange is integral to the current plan for Green Tech Village, and he wanted to get people's attention as to how far the city has strayed from its original conception of that development. He said that the city "lacked the political will to enforce the standards it had once deemed essential. He referred to the protracted discussions involving the development of Orchard Pointe, the failure of the [Green Tech] Sustainability Task Force to endorse standards, and continued pressure by developers to create just 'another run-of-the-mill development.'"

I admire someone who can admit that something that they have supported is turning out differently than they had hoped. Conditions change, commitments are not always kept, and a person with flexibility and intelligence can change their vote if they realize that a project is no longer in keeping with their values. I want to know what happened to the rest of the alders? Why didn't they vote with Alder Allen?

As we parents know, if there are no consequences for bad behavior, children will stop taking our pronouncements seriously. Likewise, if developers' initial statements about how "green" a development will be are discovered to be just window dressing, but no one says, "Meet our standards or go somewhere else" then developers will just learn to give lip service and then do what's best for their own bottom line.

Stopping that interchange would have gotten the attention of all those who aren't taking sustainability seriously. I hope that we'll continue to see such leadership from Alder Allen, and that the rest of the alders will follow suit.

Surprise Guest Remains a Mystery

This is a longer version of the Letter to the Editor, Capital Times
To be published 1/15/2008

Who could the “Special Guest” be at the top of the agenda? What forwarding-thinking person is Mayor Clauder going to present? I’ve never seen the Mayor so excited about anything. But, then, I’ve mostly seen him at Council or Plan Commission meetings. But wait. This IS a Common Council meeting and he’s still excited about something.

During the Mayor’s melodramatic and “suspenseful” introduction, I can’t help but watch the clock because time is valuable and I came here to observe the Fitchburg Common Council meeting. It’s been 3 minutes and he’s still playing his mystery game. So far, we know it’s connected to the Packers because he unfurled a giant poster containing the familiar helmet. We can also see a green and gold bobble-head doll perched near the Mayor’s seat (which remained in the camera’s view the entire night).

After 5 minutes of introduction, the moment arrived. There was no curtain so special guest John O’Neill appeared out of the wings of FACTv’s offices (affectionately referred to as “tent city” because of the tarps protecting their equipment from a leaky roof). Covered from head to toe in an elaborate green and yellow costume, “Saint Vince” strode across the Council Chambers carrying a staff topped with a cheesehead wedge and took the microphone from our beaming Mayor. O’Neill explained his unusual Packer Fan history including his costume (a tribute to “Saint" Vince Lombardi) and inclusion in the NFL Fan Hall of Fame.

Yes, this really happened and I had the misfortune to witness it for a mind-boggling 20 minutes at the beginning of the Common Council meeting on Jan. 8th.

I don’t think I was the only person to be dazed and confused by this display of Football Fever. I noticed a few other somber or perhaps puzzled faces in the audience. They probably came to express their concerns to about official agenda items. They were made to wait through 20 minutes of sports trivia before the Council could get on with business. I doubt that these concerned citizens appreciated the extra time spent waiting their turn.

I can’t help but wonder why Mayor Clauder believed that this was an appropriate venue for such a guest. Clauder mentioned that Green Bay and Ashwaubegon councils both invited the famous fan. He mentioned that he’s personally known O’Neill for a long time because he lived in Fitchburg for many years. But I still don’t see why Fitchburg needs to follow the lead taken by Green Bay. The two cities are quite different. We don’t even have a stadium much less one filled with Packer fans year after year. I haven’t a clue as to why Ashwaubenon is now setting a precedent for Fitchburg to follow.

Now, before any of you send me hate e-mail for being anti-Packers, I should tell you that “Saint Vince” seems to be having a great time as he raises money for charity by charging people to have their picture taken with him. This is all well and good… in the right time and place. I believe that a Fitchburg City Council meeting is not the right place. And if it were the right place, the priorities around allocation of time are still wrong.

And there’s also the issue of fairness and equity. Many people, including me, find it quite difficult to get more than 3 minutes of face time with the Council or the Plan Commission without being interrupted by “Are you almost done?” But I’m not in the NFL Fan Hall of Fame like O’Neill who had no such problem.

I have to question the priorities because I know that Dr. Cal DeWitt, a UW Professor who has devoted his life to studying and teaching complex ecosystems, was given just 30 minutes to present important research at the Plan Commission meeting Tuesday, Jan. 15th when he could have spent much more time if permitted. Dr. DeWitt has built an international reputation through his involvement with projects and conferences relating to global climate change and other ecological issues. His interdisciplinary experience has allowed him to connect some important dots in Dane County and we need to hear what he has found.

Do you see anything wrong with the judgment over at City Hall when the Mayor can allocate 20 minutes for stories about the Packers while Dr. DeWitt is only allowed 30 minutes for a presentation about the importance of buried bedrock valleys, missing aquitard and how these affect our groundwater system?

I do. Fitchburg’s Council, Committees and Commissions have important work to do. Their decisions impact the daily lives of current and future residents. Although I enjoy the occasional bit of humor at city meetings, wasting 20 minutes on sports trivia is a disservice to our community.

Terry Carpenter
(Disgusted in) Fitchburg

Ghost From Councils Past

At the Common Council meeting on Dec. 11, the Ghost from Councils Past was put to rest. Through the haze of "institutional memory," there was confusion about whether or not the city had prohibited aerial spraying of pesticides (fungicides, herbicides or insecticides) in the City of Fitchburg. So, some farmers and sprayers were refraining while others were not. While I understand the desire to clean up the books, it seems like overkill to me (no pun intended) assuming nothing was found in the books to clear up. But, I'm not a lawyer. That's why I thought the city attorney should have been asked if a resolution to rescind a ghost resolution was even needed.

[If you are still following me, you probably watched the last two Council meetings where this was discussed.] The bottom line: A resolution was passed to rescind any previous resolution in case one existed. Neither the ghost resolution nor the new one actually has any teeth since it appears the city has no jurisdiction over control of aerial spraying in the first place. I thought simply giving that information publicly would be enough to clear up the confusion and therefore this resolution was unnecessary. Some council members felt this way too.

This action did bring up a lively discussion about the use of pesticides (on farms and lawns) and whether the city would be promoting/encouraging their use by the wording of the original resolution which included phrasing like the city "affirms" the ability of farmers to use aerial spraying. This was later changed to "recognizes" and eventually it was removed from the resolution altogether leaving just the statement rescinding any contrary resolutions.

So, although I didn't think the resolution was needed, the final wording did the job of cleaning up the record without promoting anything. But, more importantly, almost every alder expressed concern about the dangers of pesticides and some wanted the city to explore alternatives such as conversion to organic agriculture.

I know that some alders and residents thought that arguing over something beyond the city's jurisdiction was a waste of time but I don't see it that way. This is an example of an important public health issue where the city can play a leadership role by educating the public and setting a good example.

Does the city use pesticides on any of its property? Are they poisoning the grass where our most vulnerable residents (kids) are playing?

What can you do? Three things:

(1) Attend any future presentation by fellow Fitchburg resident, Professor Warren Porter on the dangers of pesticides. In the meantime, FACTv has been replaying his November presentation as part of "Healthy Lawns, Healthy Children, Healthy Pets," and you can request a copy from FACTv.

(2) Learn more about maintaining a healthy lawn without pesticides. A talk on this subject given by Dr. Astrid Newenhouse, PhD Horticulturalist during the Healthy Lawns... event. So, again, watch for the replay or ask for a copy of this presentation.

(3) Contact your alder, get involved with a neighborhood group to explore this issue, or both!

Bloomquist Takes Stand on Water

Submitted by Phyllis Hasbrouck:

Hooray for Richard Bloomquist! Here is an alder who isn’t afraid to take a stand for what he knows is right, even when he clearly sees that he’s going to lose the vote. If more alders start to express their true feelings and vote their consciences, all sorts of “politically unfeasible” things may start happening!

At the Oct. 9 Fitchburg Common Council meeting, the alders had to decide whether to accept the Plan Commission’s map for a long term Urban Growth Boundary, which includes 3378 additional acres for development, including all of the Northeast Neighborhood.

Not only did Alder Bloomquist speak out against a plan that may endanger our water table, he also had the political courage to point out that though he and the mayor both opposed it, they had very different reasons for doing so.

(We are currently working on getting a short video on You Tube, and will post the link when we succeed.)

He also deserves our thanks for defending the democratic process. He reacted with incredulity to the news that some Plan Commissioners want to severely limit the public’s participation in the planning process.

“Why’d they shut the springs off?”

As the Council took up the question of whether to adopt the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) map that the Plan Commission (PC) had crafted, Alder Bloomquist surprised many by announcing that he would vote no.

“In the last 60 or 45 days, I’ve had some concerns with what we’re about to do to the city…I have some concerns with water. I have concerns with water recharge of the aquifers underneath us. I have concerns with what we may or may not do with ag ground, that is now inside some of this shaded border. We’ve been told that if we don’t move the borders at all, we have quite a bit of ground at the current rate of development, to last us for several years into the future.

“We’re about to, under the budget, possibly, take up Transfer of Development Rights and Purchase of Development Rights, probably more seriously than anyone thought we might a year ago. And I’m just a little gun shy about putting the kind of land out there, and drawing some maps and have some speculators decide this is what we’re gonna possibly do. One of the resolutions that we have this evening is the McGaw North Neighborhood, with the 5 developers that signed that.

“I just don’t feel comfortable until I hear more about Transfer of Development Rights and Purchase of Development Rights, and keeping certain farm grounds from ever being developed. But mostly I don’t want my name on anything that a generation from now people will say, ‘Why’d they shut the springs off, why’d they do this with the water?’ I just don’t have a comfort level tonight to say I want to see the current Urban Service Area get any bigger, nor the possibility of it getting any bigger. So that is my reason for voting no this evening.”

Alder Steve Arnold replied, “The concerns that you cited, are for me the reasons to support an urban growth boundary.” And he asked Bloomquist to elaborate.

Alder Bloomquist responded,

“…Someone asked me earlier today, if I would be in favor of freezing the current urban service area and not growing and developing any more. And I have a comfort level that would say at the moment, yeah, I’d support that. I’d make the current urban service area, the permanent boundary of the city. But that’s probably not realistic 30 or 40 years down the road, as we grow out. But I’d just really like to know where we’re going with Transfer of Development rights, and Purchase of Development Rights, cause I think there’s been some, almost faith that that’s going to happen, and take the pressure off some the development that’s inside those lines [of the Urban Growth Boundary].

… I have this feeling that if we don’t do this right, we’re gonna screw up the water table, and I think that’s too big of a risk to take. And I’d really like to know more about the water, and the development rights. And if we’re gonna take farm ground that encroaches into some of these areas, and say, even though it’s in the possible Future Urban Development Area, that we’re not gonna do it.

And the more I think about it, is 75 acres the right number? That’s still a lot of ground per year to take out for homes…But it’s just those 2 big things. I don’t want to see the water table screwed up, and I want to know what were gonna do with some of the farm ground.”

A little later, when Alder Arnold asked him if it eased his mind at all to hear that the Plan Commission intends to have a framework for a TDR [Transfer of Development Rights] program by January, Alder Bloomquist laughed and responded, “You should probably quit selling and vote, cause it’s gonna be 7 to 1 anyway.”

When it was the mayor’s turn to speak he said,

“I think this is a real important vote tonight… A lot of the things Richard said, I won’t repeat, cause not only do I think he talked from his heart, he talked from the way I want to talk, of real concern. If you look at the map, on the west side, it’s not balanced…”

Alder Bloomquist later responded,

“Excuse me, Mr. Mayor… I think you and I disagree… on what we consider the shortcomings of the plan. I really don’t care if it’s skewed to one side or the other. …I’m really not anti-development this evening, but I’m not really pro-development to concrete anymore. I’m not really pro-subsistence farming either… I think the taxpayers of Fitchburg will pay for TDR or PDR and keep soils that should be in ag, in ag. I think if it’s explained the right way, that’ll happen. … [Alder] Steve [Arnold] sort of chided on me on have a little bit of faith of keeping farm grounds out. After 57 years, faith is a little thin… so I’ll take some of it at their word, but I’m still going to vote no tonight, but probably not for the reasons the mayor thinks.”

He was right, he lost that vote 7 to 1, but he gained the respect and gratitude of many citizens. We were also glad to hear his incredulous question to Alder Jay Allen: “I’ve been reading the minutes of some of the Plan Commission things. You aren’t really talking about shutting off public participation in the plan process, and not allowing people to speak, are you?”

Alder Allen started to respond with “What…” and Alder Bloomquist interrupted with “No, that was a yes-or-no question.” (For more info on the topic of public participation, see the blog entry Keep "Public" in Public Hearings, and watch the You Tube video of the 10-9-07 Common Council meeting when we post the link in a few days.)

I hope that other alders will take courage from Alder Bloomquist’s willingness to absorb new information, come to uncomfortable conclusions, and then speak out.

Whose Agenda Is It?

At last night's Common Council meeting, Mayor Clauder suggested that if we don't like the fact that two alders can introduce an agenda item without the mayor's approval, perhaps we should change this for the next mayor. He clearly would like to see this duo-power removed.

On the flip side, an unnamed alder offered that we might also want to consider removing the power of the Mayor to introduce an agenda item on his/her own. Something tells me he had his tongue in his cheek at the time. But, I can't be sure because his speech wasn't affected by this difficult contortion.

Can you hear the hair bristling? Do you want to know the name of the alder? Sorry, but I need to give those of us who watched a bit of power in future Council Trivia games which I expect to see one of these days in the Fitchburg Star!

Personally, I think the agenda rules are fine. Being a mathematically minded person, I see it as: 2 alders = 1 mayor. Not a bad formula really.

But, wait. Could 50 residents = 2 alders = 1 mayor? Now, we're talking! Power to the people! I wasn't able to make this suggestion last night since I hadn't made a request to speak on the subject and besides, the meeting had already progressed past "Non-Agenda Items."

Maybe next time.

P.S.
I know many of you are new to Blogs. If you want to respond to a posting on this Blog, click on the word "Comments(#)" below any post and follow the instructions. You will be required to login with a Google Account (they are free and you can use your existing email address to create one) since we don't want (uncivil) anonymous entries. You will also be required to enter the letters you see on the "Word Verification" since that prevents spam comments. After your comments are approved, they will appear on the Blog.

If you'd like to become more involved and start a discussion on a new topic, send me an email (fitchburgvoices@gmail.com) and I'll explain the rules.