Editorial: City council members need to come prepared

By Brandi Makuski

Stevens Point’s Public Policy and General Government Committee made the right decision Monday night when it voted 4-1 against recommending proposed changes to the city’s ordinance governing chickens, rabbits, and bees.

Not because the ordinance was necessarily bad.

Because nobody seemed fully prepared to explain it.

Let’s put this into perspective.

The committee wasn’t discussing a new city hall. It wasn’t debating a multimillion-dollar development project. It wasn’t reviewing a major borrowing proposal, a tax increase, or a major redevelopment agreement.

This was a relatively minor ordinance amendment dealing with backyard chickens, rabbits, and beekeeping permits.

The proposed ordinance wasn’t particularly sweeping.

For years, Stevens Point residents who wanted to keep chickens had to seek approval on a case-by-case basis. Those requests often drew supporters and opponents to committee meetings and regularly sparked lengthy discussions before the city eventually moved to an administrative permit system.

The latest proposal would not have changed the number of animals residents could keep. Property owners would still be limited to five chickens, ducks, or rabbits under a single permit.

Instead, the ordinance would have required more detailed site plans, continued the requirement for state livestock registration, increased the one-time permit fee from $10 to $50, and formally established a permit process for beekeeping. The proposal also included standards governing the number, size, and placement of beehives on residential lots.

In other words, this wasn’t a major policy shift. It was a relatively minor update to an existing ordinance.

Which makes what happened Monday night all the more troubling.

The most telling moment came from Second District Councilwoman Jacqui Guthrie.

“I would not say that I’m in agreement, because I don’t know what the current ordinance is,” Guthrie said before voting against the proposal.

Read that again.

A council member was being asked to recommend changes to city law while openly acknowledging she did not know what the current ordinance was.

To Guthrie’s credit, she voted no rather than approve something she didn’t understand. That’s preferable to rubber-stamping an ordinance and asking questions later.

But let’s not lower the bar too far.

The information was available.

The current ordinance was included in the committee packet. The proposed changes were included in the committee packet. The meeting was scheduled in advance.

The Metro Wire also published a detailed article before the meeting explaining both the current ordinance and the proposed changes.

Yet during the discussion, Guthrie stated she did not know what the current ordinance was.

She should have known.

Understanding the ordinance you’re being asked to amend is not an extraordinary expectation for an elected official. It is a basic responsibility of the job.

The same standard applies to city staff.

Community Development Director Jarod Kivela brought the ordinance forward, yet he was unable to answer whether key beekeeping provisions represented a change from current policy. When committee members raised questions about hive-size limits, staff did not have clear answers. Kivela acknowledged he would need to go back and review the existing regulations and permits. He also noted that a redlined version showing the changes from the current ordinance had not been included in the committee packet.

Even with the city attorney present, the discussion drifted into uncertainty about what the ordinance actually changed and how it would affect residents.

That should never happen.

Before elected officials are asked to vote on an ordinance, staff should be prepared to explain what is changing, why it is changing, and how it differs from existing law.

Those are not advanced questions. They are the most basic questions that should be answered before a proposal reaches a committee agenda.

As questions mounted, Ninth District Councilman Sam Lang, a former beekeeper, became the committee’s de facto expert on the practical implications of the proposed hive-size limits. The discussion ultimately centered on whether the ordinance could allow far more hive space than intended.

Those are questions that should have been resolved before the ordinance reached the committee table.

To the committee’s credit, members did not simply wave the proposal through. Guthrie, Lang, Sixth District Councilman Joe Donohue, and 10th District Councilman Matt Moldenhauer voted against recommending the ordinance. Only Third District Councilwoman Ginger Keymer voted in favor.

The 4-1 vote wasn’t the problem.

The problem was that a relatively simple ordinance amendment reached a public hearing without clear answers to basic questions about what was changing and why.

And that’s where residents should be concerned.

If city staff and elected officials struggle to come fully prepared for a discussion about chickens, rabbits and bees, what details are being missed when the city tackles projects involving millions—or even hundreds of millions—of taxpayer dollars?

Residents entrust city officials with decisions involving public safety, major construction projects, borrowing, taxes, and long-term planning. Those issues are far more complex than a permit ordinance involving backyard animals.

If city leaders can’t arrive prepared for a discussion about chickens, rabbits, and beehives, why should residents feel confident they’re fully prepared for the much bigger decisions facing the city?

Stevens Point residents deserve elected officials who understand the ordinances they’re voting on and staff who can clearly explain the ordinances they’re presenting.

That shouldn’t be an ambitious goal, one that voters can rely on in local representation.