AI-generated transcript of City Council Public Health and Community Safety Committee 03-12-24

[Lazzaro]: public health and community safety committee meeting. The Medford City Council, March 12th, 2024, 6 p.m. Clerk, can you please call the roll?

[SPEAKER_02]: Councilor Callahan?

[Caraviello]: Present.

[SPEAKER_02]: Vice President Collins?

[Collins]: Present.

[SPEAKER_02]: Councilor Leming? Present. Councilor Tseng? Present. Chair Lazzaro?

[Lazzaro]: Present. Five present, zero absent. This meeting is called to order. We just have one item on the agenda today. It is paper 23-449, a resolution to draft wildlife feeding ordinance brought by Vice President Kit Collins. So Vice President Collins, take it away.

[Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I apologize for having to be virtual tonight. Can everybody hear me okay?

[SPEAKER_02]: Now we can.

[Lazzaro]: We can now, thank you.

[Collins]: Great. Let me know if the volume goes in and out at all. So thank you for... Having this be our main topic for tonight, I'm hoping that this will be a pretty straightforward discussion. First, I'll offer a brief introduction, and then I can run us through the draft ordinance before us that I'm hoping we can use as a jumping off point. Open it up to, you know, love to hear any comments from my fellow Councilors at this preliminary stage, comments from the community, and figure out some next steps that make sense for this community. So the idea for a wildlife feeding ordinance came up based on some outreach from constituents that I got over the course of the year last year, talking about some issues arising from overfeeding of wildlife in some of Medford's denser residential areas. Looking around a little bit more, given the characteristics of some of Medford's denser residential neighborhoods, this is an issue that can cause public health nuisances whenever we have these areas of the city with homes close together, if there's overfeeding of wildlife, we have permeable borders between our various homes and backyards and porches in the city. So the intent of this is to give the Board of Health and Code Enforcement the ordinance tools that they need in order to issue warnings, tickets, potentially fines, whenever there's an issue arising from overfeeding of wildlife that neighbors cannot resolve amongst themselves. I do want to emphasize that. The intent here is just to empower code enforcement to step in when it's necessary to reduce a nuisance that's in line with other goals of the Board of Health and Code Enforcement to make sure that residents' enjoyment of the outdoors is enhanced and not limited. So I want to be really clear from the beginning, this is not about saying you can't have a bird feeder. This is about saying if there's feeding going on that's causing too many seagulls or pigeons or raccoons or rats on somebody else's property. That's something that if neighbors can't sort that out amongst themselves, then co-enforcement needs to be able to. So this, I have a draft ordinance for us to look at as a jumping off point. This language is based on several other communities ordinances that have similar goals. The one that this is modeled most closely on is Westford, Mass. So, Chair Lazzaro, if it's okay with you, I can run through the draft ordinance. I'd be happy to share my screen, or if you'd like to, I can follow along.

[Caraviello]: Yes, please. You can share your screen.

[Collins]: That'd be great. Great. Hang on one second, please. All right. Can everybody see where it says Wildlife Feeding Ordinance Draft 2.13?

[Caraviello]: Yes.

[Collins]: Great. So I'll just go through this pretty quickly. This was in councilor's packets for this week, so I'm sure this isn't the first time that my colleagues are seeing this. Standard ordinance format. Up top, we start with purpose and intent, stating that Medford is, of course, as we all know and as we all cherish, Medford is home to a large population of wild animals, including rats, pigeons, bulls, and raccoons. However, feeding such wildlife, whether on purpose or through neglect, can entice and attract wild animals onto private property. porches, backyards. And again, the emphasis here is on feeding occurring on one lot that is having adverse effects for either that lot or neighbors. But limiting the practice of feeding wildlife, whether intentionally or passively, and enforcing this prohibition, the city can help limit a major factor that entices wildlife into resident areas of the city. Again, not anti-wildlife. We just want to make sure that every organism stays where it's most healthy for it to be. We have a definition section just to make it clear what this is targeted towards and what it is not. I think that the more useful thing in this section is going into some detail about what constitutes feeding, and based on some of the issues that this ordinance project arose out of, I think it's important to know that feeding doesn't just mean intentionally distributing food for wildlife, but potentially leaving inappropriate wildlife food out in an area where realistically varmints are going to get to it. So section C, prohibited activity, no person shall feed any wildlife as defined above, nor distribute or scatter any foodstuffs in or on any private place or, sorry, any public place or private property. So this is a thing that we should not do because we know that it attracts wild animals into residential areas of the city. I want to highlight some of the exceptions that are going in in this early draft of the ordinance. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted so as to prohibit bird feeders. There is an exception to the exception. If it is appearing that a bird feeder is the cause of a public safety threat or nuisance, then perhaps the enforcing officer will step in and say, here's the cause of a nuisance. This must be resolved. I think that I personally have never heard of a case where a bird feeder is causing an issue. This also states, nothing in this section shall be interpreted so as to prohibit the feeding of pets, provided that if food for pets is determined to be the source of wildlife feeding, then in that case, if it's causing an issue, that person may be directed to make sure that that food is no longer accessible to wildlife. It also states, nothing in this section shall be interpreted to prohibit the storage of food products, pet food or any other material where it's not constituting an attraction to wildlife. And again, If a reasonable usage is resulting in an adverse effect, then in that case, if it's reported, if it's deemed to be an issue, the enforcing officer may say, this isn't necessarily an issue, but in this case, it's causing wildlife to come into your property or neighbor's property to an extent that is causing harm or might cause harm. And then they might order them to remove it and store it in a more secure way. Getting down to enforcement, I thought it'd be appropriate for the animal control officer, the health director, the code enforcement officers and their designees to share administration and enforcement of this ordinance. There are some other wildlife-related enforcement responsibilities that the health director already has. Obviously, this touches the purview of the animal control officer and code enforcement officers are often called upon to. administer some of these nuisance-related issues on public and private property. So I'd be curious to hear feedback from city staff on that, but I thought that was an appropriate place to start. And finally, in terms of penalties for non-compliance, it is my hope that But again, the goal of this, I think, is not to say, oh, you did something wrong. Well, gosh, we'll ticket you immediately. No. The point of this is to provide a recourse for when something is going wrong and neighbors aren't able to resolve it amongst themselves immediately. So I would hope that, as with our other ordinances at the discretion of the enforcing officers, sometimes this is a warning. Sometimes this is a written warning, an oral warning. Sometimes it escalates to a ticket if the issue is really not getting resolved. And in that case, You know, based on that, I have in this first draft, first offense is a written warning from an enforcing officer. Second offense, $50 ticket. Third and subsequent offenses, $100 ticket. And of course, per MGL, we are not able to charge more than a $300 ticket, I believe, for any civil code violation. And I think it makes sense. Again, this is supposed to be a deterrent, not something punitive. So I thought this could be good to hear my fellow Councilors' feedback. I'm not part of the audience and anything else. I also want to note before I stop talking and let my fellow Councilors respond to that, at our last meeting of the Public Health and Community Safety Committee, I did mentioned this ordinance, and as a follow-up, the clerk did circulate the ordinance to my fellow councilors and to relevant city staff requesting their feedback by March 15th. That was when I thought that the next meeting of this committee was going to be in April. The council meeting schedule changed since then, so the word has already been put out to relevant city staff to get their comment on that, and we'll be sure to have it by the next time that we meet on this ordinance. Thank you.

[Lazzaro]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. have a couple of thoughts about this. It doesn't mention specifically anything about just I imagine there could be the potential that somebody maybe loses a cat or a dog and might be trying to lure them back. I think we might want to add maybe a sentence or two to the language saying that it's permissible for something in there that includes something about that, like are cats and dogs considered wildlife? And maybe if we can speak to, again, city staff, we absolutely understand, and there's leeway for more time for them to respond to this, but if the animal control officer has any feedback about anything to do with maybe feral cats that we might have in the city, I know there's a practice of, trapping feral cats in order to spay and neuter them, which may sort of, depending on how we are defining wildlife, we could probably just add a sentence that would say whether we want to include cats or dogs or not to the list here. We could amend it for that purpose. Just something to consider. I don't know if it's that much of an issue. We also have a nonprofit in Medford called Kitty Connection that does, I'm not sure if they do that work, but they do have like adoptable cats, and I think some of them may have been previously feral, so it might be something to look into. Any other comments from committee members? Yes, Councilor Tseng.

[Tseng]: Thank you, President Lazzaro. And thank you, Councilor Collins, for working so hard on this draft and bringing action to an issue that we hear a lot about. I just had two quick notes. The first one being, When in the ordinance draft when it talks about seed debris, it doesn't necessarily talk about how much time has to or how soon you have to collect seed debris by. I think that's an opening for a little bit of misunderstanding. It's possible that people could misunderstand it. It's not very clear for code enforcement what that is. I'm not necessarily motioning to amend it right now because there might be a reason why it's written like that. But I was wondering if, at the very least, the Board of Health could create a standard for how long we expect that sea debris to be cleaned up by. So that was my first note. I think the second note, It was also more about Board of Health policy, maybe if, since Councilor Collins is already working with city staff on this, it could bring up to the Board of Health. But I was wondering if the Board of Health should consider publishing best practice guidelines for gardens and vegetable community community gardens where vegetables are being grown that could attract rodents. I think the reason why I would separate this from the ordinance is it would be difficult to regulate this behavior, but it would be helpful to disseminate best practices in my opinion.

[Callahan]: Councilor Callahan. Thank you. On the idea of like having a lost cat or other pet and trying to lure them back, I do think that that is already accounted for in section B, number D, number, sorry, section D, number B, that there's an exemption for feeding of pets. And only if the food intended for pets is determined to be the source of wildlife feeding. So it seems like it's okay to do that already according to this. but only if it is determined to be the source of wildlife feeding, would then there be some sort of a, you know, they would be required to take some steps to render that food inaccessible to wildlife. So I think that probably already falls under the ordinance as my suspicion.

[Lazzaro]: Are there any other comments, Vice President Collins? Do you have anything else you want to add before I bring it to public comment?

[Collins]: Thank you. I really appreciate my fellow Councilors initial reactions to this. Thank you for taking this project so thoughtfully. initial reaction to the questions around, and I think it's a really good question, like how does this intersect with efforts to make sure that wildcats are attracted so that they can be spayed and neutered, which is important. There's a couple areas in the ordinance, and I appreciate Councilor Callaghan for speaking to this, where it might be covered, but I think that that would be a great thing to put to our animal control officer, as well as to have legal counsel take a look at when they do their review of this, just to make sure. that that should be would be interpreted the way that we intend. And again, the intent of this is to make sure that there's a recourse for when something is causing an issue, that there's a way for the code enforcement officer to step in. But I think that this is creating a good succinct list of questions to follow up with our staff and experts. And I would also be happy to, I'll probably make some motions at the end of our discussion, I'd also be happy to make sure that the Medford-based group, Kitty Connection, sees a copy of this just to make sure that it is on their radars as folks in the community who do work with wildlife. Thank you.

[Lazzaro]: Thank you. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this paper? Seeing none, are there any motions on the floor to move this forward?

[Collins]: Chair Lazzaro?

[Lazzaro]: Yes. Councilor, Vice President Collins.

[Collins]: Thank you. I'll answer to either. I would make a motion to refer this version of the ordinance to KP Law for a legal review prior to our next meeting on the topic. That would be my first motion.

[Lazzaro]: Okay, on the motion of Vice President Collins to refer this paper to KP law prior to our next meeting, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All in favor. Oh, actually, we have to do a roll call vote. Can you please call the roll, clerk?

[SPEAKER_02]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lemmie? Yes. Councilor Tseng. Chair Lazzaro.

[Lazzaro]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. The motion passes. And Vice President Collins, do you have another motion?

[Collins]: Yes, thank you. I have two more. Second motion would be to have the city clerk recirculate this document to the relevant city staff, along with the questions that came out of this committee discussion, mainly around if this covers putting out food to trap feral cats for spaying and neutering. And then I would also motion to keep this paper in committee.

[Lazzaro]: OK. On Vice President Collins' motion to circulate the paper.

[SPEAKER_02]: To circulate the paper, recirculate this document with relevant city staff, along with your other questions, and then further complete the paper.

[Lazzaro]: To relevant city staff with the questions regarding feral cats. Yes. Right, right, right. You got it. You got it. Send the committee report around. Send the committee report around to relevant city staff. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll? And also to keep it, do you have to announce that a second time as well? Yes.

[SPEAKER_02]: To keep it in committee, I'll do that after. No, it's already in there to keep it in committee. Okay, great. It's already in the motion.

[Lazzaro]: In the motion, excellent.

[SPEAKER_02]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Chair Lazzaro?

[Lazzaro]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. The motion passes. I believe that's all we have to address today. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Councilor Tseng, motion is to adjourn, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, will you please call the roll?

[SPEAKER_02]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Leming? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Chair Lazzaro?

[Lazzaro]: Yes. Five in favor, none opposed. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

Lazzaro total time: 4.03 minutes total words: 582	Caraviello total time: 0.06 minutes total words: 9	Collins total time: 11.05 minutes total words: 1823	Tseng total time: 1.62 minutes total words: 253
Callahan total time: 0.8 minutes total words: 131