total time: 9.38 minutes
total words: 1107
total time: 17.63 minutes
total words: 2812
total time: 1.85 minutes
total words: 190
[Lazzaro]: Okay. This is the Medford City Council Public Health and Community Safety Committee meeting, June 5, 2024. We are here to discuss 23-449 offered by Vice President Collins, the resolution to draft the wildlife feeding ordinance. City Clerk, can you please call the roll?
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Callahan is absent. Vice President Collins?
[Collins]: Present.
[Leming]: Present.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng? Tseng is absent. Chair Lazzaro?
[Lazzaro]: Present. Three present, two absent. This meeting is called to order. So this is, uh, The second or third time we've discussed the wildlife feeding ordinance and I will ask Vice President Collins to take it away.
[Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. Just to recap, I believe we had our first substantive discussion about this ordinance in February. At that time, the committee approved a motion for me as sponsor of the paper to draft a, actually I believe we motioned to have an ordinance be drafted in February, I believe we discussed it in March. I based the draft off of wildlife feeding ordinances that are present in other of our, you know, nearby or neighboring communities in Massachusetts and beyond. To quickly recap on the intent and goals of this ordinance, this is not an ordinance to illegalize bird feeders or to prevent any sort of normal activity that we do with, you know, household animals or songbirds. This is in response to problems that residents have noted in the community with food scraps being inappropriately left out as kind of deliberate lures for wild animals or inadvertent lures for wild animals that are creating the presence of, you know, a kind of destructive presence of wildlife. In our residential neighborhoods, a couple residents have come to me and said, you know, My neighbors have this practice of leaving out XYZ unopened containers. It's really a lot of food, it's a lot of peanuts, it's a lot of seeds, what have you. And it would be one thing if the raccoons or the pigeons would stay on their side of the fence, but obviously animals do not observe private property. And our code enforcement currently does not have a mechanism for enforcing this type of nuisance. So the intent of this ordinance is not to legalize any sort of harmless animal related activity, but just to be able to provide a recourse for Code Enforcement or Board of Health to issue warnings or tickets in the case of inappropriate animal feeding that really is creating a nuisance for other people. So at our last meeting on this topic in March, we passed several motions to receive feedback on the ordinance from department heads, code enforcement, from the Board of Health, from the animal control officer, and to receive a legal review. So we have received some feedback from department heads on the ordinance. I don't know if any of them are on the call tonight. I have some comments in my email from department heads. We also did receive a legal review from KP Law yesterday midday. So this is the first chance that the council has to consider legal opinion on the ordinance as well. So that's the recap of where we are so far and I have comments that I can offer about where I think we should go next with this, but I'll pause there.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. I would like to pull this up. I don't know if it's going to show up on the screen. Yes. Is that on the main? Yep. Is this showing up? This is showing up on the screen.
[Leming]: I can't see it.
[Lazzaro]: Hold on. Oh, I'll do it on the Zoom. Hold on one second. Sorry. Does that show up? No, still no? I'm sorry, hold on.
[Leming]: Can you share your screen?
[Lazzaro]: Yes, but it's, just one second.
[Hurtubise]: One second, one second.
[Lazzaro]: Councilor Leming, are you, do you have access to this document? You can do it? Okay. Oh, great, beautiful.
[Leming]: Okay, what part would you want me to scroll to?
[Lazzaro]: So it's actually, Councilor Collins has an opinion from AP Law that she's going to share.
[Leming]: She's on Zoom right now, so she can share the screen.
[Lazzaro]: Sorry.
[Collins]: No, I was just gonna make a comment, but I wanted to wait for you to recognize me. Oh, go ahead, please. Thank you. I just wanted to, I think that, so this is the first time that we're seeing the legal review and just to recenter on, you know. possible avenues for this committee. We have the feedback from department heads that we could review on the draft ordinance, and most of that has been positive and affirming. There's been some suggestions for how to just firm up the language a little bit, but no contesting of the goals. There are some comments from residents that I've received that I'd like to at least put on the record. And then this is our first opportunity to review the legal review together. So I think that it's possible that there might be some language changes that this committee might want to consider before we report this out to committee of the whole, just because we haven't had a chance to consider this legal opinion until doing it live. Great. So I am happy to, because we don't have council with us here tonight, I'm happy to kind of run through. Um, this overview of the legal review of the ordinance. And then I would also at the end, I would motion to circulate the legal review to committee members that we can, um, review. Yes. Uh, one second.
[Hurtubise]: Yes, clerk. I'm not sure that you need to have a motion to circulate the review. You can just send it to me and I can circulate to the committee.
[Hurtubise]: Cool.
[Collins]: Excellent. So I'm gonna go over this kind of, I'm gonna try to go over this briefly. There was a recommendation to, I think, disaggregate intent from purpose and intent, or there was a recommendation that Here, Attorney Braun says, some municipalities seek to add an intent element to distinguish between accidental feedings and intentional misconduct. As written, the section A just reads, the intent of this ordinance is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the community. That does seem to me like a good suggestion in the intent section to say the point of this is to target intentional inappropriate feeding, so that it's very clear that I've received some questions from residents around What does this mean for the garden in my backyard? What does this mean for my beehive? What does this mean for my bird feeder? And I do think it's important to make it clear that this is really targeting inappropriate feeding and not accidental feeding that does not result in nuisance. Though I think it is also true that this is an ordinance that will only be enforced when a problem actually occurs. And so I think that's an important part of that remedy as well. So there's a suggestion, i.e., whenever the animal control officer becomes aware the wildlife has been found feeding on any substance, dot dot dot, and the resident or person responsible has been notified of the occurrence thereof, any subsequent feeding shall be evidence that the feeding was with the knowledge or intent. So that's, again, to focus on when somebody was given the opportunity to know better and kept doing it anyway. We have a comment about if, you know, garbage or compost centers unintentionally being the source of wildlife feeding. Again, this is kind of around making sure that nuisances don't accidentally arise. I think that there's a section later in this ordinance that kind of takes care of this in other language that essentially says, you know, the first penalty for violating this ordinance should it pass is never simply getting a fine, but rather you know, the enforcing officer saying, it looks like this is a source of a problem on your property, please remedy it. And then failure to remedy it, of course, might require a further remedy. There's a recommendation to define what a bird feeder is, just so there's no ambiguity there. always count on attorneys to point out to us what seems specific that might actually not be. Likewise, a recommendation to define pets, and this brings up a comment that was made earlier in this process, where do feral cats or stray cats fall? Consider whether we want to specifically address cats, such as no person shall feed any feral or stray cat, or this section shall not apply to persons feeding feral or stray cats with the express purpose of adopting and domesticating them within a certain set number of days. And I think that might be something of interest to this committee based on comments that were made in earlier meetings. Going further down to enforcement and penalties. Attorney Braun says, in my opinion, the non-criminal disposition statute requires that an ordinance must specify the enforcing authority to place residents on notice and may not delegate a designee to do so. I have a question about this because this seems dissimilar from how some of our other ordinances are written. We often put X department head or their designee into our ordinances. So I think this is certainly something that I'd want to double check. So to summarize, it appears to me that many of the comments are around defining with more specificity those terms around bird feeder pets. So it's very clear, you know, what is an allowable use in the case of bird feeders, which I think is a very common allowable use. Making sure that it's clear what I'm going to put in air quotes, what sanctioned animals, you know, are and are not included. And I think the exception for feral cats where there's the intent to domesticate and vaccinate them is one that might be relevant to Medford residents. And I think that there's a way to perhaps synthesize the suggestion around clarifying, you know, unintentional Nuisance creation via compost containers or garbage. I think there's a way to just like dovetail that more specifically with the language that's already in the ordinance. And perhaps shoring up the intent section. I have Most of the comments from residents that I have gotten apart from those who tell me that we really need this ordinance because they really need a remedy for the nuisances that are finding their way onto their property because of foodstuffs that are adjacent to their homes. A lot of those center around, you know, what does this mean about, again, what does this mean about my vegetable plot? What does this mean about my outdoor barbecue? What does this mean about my bird feeder? What does this mean about my beehive? Should I ever get one? And I think that the intent section could help to clarify, or sorry, excuse me, could help to clarify one, that This is an ordinance that seeks to correct for nuisances when they occur. We're not trying to outlaw any, we're not trying to regulate something that isn't causing a problem, but also to give more clarity around this is not, This is not something that's trying to eradicate any possible source of foodstuffs from somebody's backyard. It's just simply trying to create the mechanism by which when there's a problem, code enforcement actually has an ordinance to point to so that they can enforce about it. Because right now residents don't really have a recourse. So I'll pause there.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. On the subject of, I have two thoughts. One is about the, compost and trash receptacles. In my imagining of this, the only, the scenario in which that would be a problem is if a property is in like disrepair, disarray, sort of not being maintained well. And that would be like one of maybe a few avenues we would have to say like this property is not being maintained. And this is an ordinance that says that this is against local rule. So we should, you know, we can enforce these rules, but the danger is that we'd not make it impossible to follow our ordinances. and also not impossible to enforce them. So being that we are implementing the new composting program, I mean, those, the trash cans, which I would, I think are going to be similar to the ones that are the smaller versions of the trash cans now have lids. So it should be that kind of thing. Like it kind of takes care of itself, right? Yes.
[Collins]: Yeah. And just to add on to what you're already saying, and I can say this with some authority because I was on a has a number of. the former Solid Waste Task Force when we spoke quite at length about the role of the composting program and understandable resident concerns about the composting containers. They're actually harder for animals to get into than the trash and recycling residential containers that residents are used to because most of them are actually locking. They're a thick plastic, they're locking, they have lids, and they have been shown in other communities to actually reduce the extent to which waste receptacles are an attraction to wildlife. So I certainly wouldn't want to give off the impression that composting is expected to be a greater attraction for wildlife. And I think this again gets into not specific to trash and compost receptacles in particular, but rather, if anything, anything mundane happens to become an attraction for a nuisance, what then? And I think I think this is in line with how the ordinance is currently written, and perhaps there's a clarification we can make. But just to shore up that, if something is attracting a nuisance, the first step is to, for if neighbors can't work it out amongst themselves, for a city designee to say, this is attracting a nuisance, it's time to fix it. And then if a remedy doesn't occur, then we have the same recourse that we do for any other nuisance that's going unremitied, which is a warning, a ticket, and then a fine.
[Lazzaro]: Yeah, OK. The second thought that I had is I was curious to hear our Board of Health Directors opinion on this, but something that I had brought up in a previous meeting was about feral cats, stray cats, and trapping and either spaying and neutering and releasing or having them become domesticated and like adopting out these cats. I know that There are some folks in the area who do that. I lost a cat recently, and then I borrowed a trap from somebody. And so I know that this is something that people do. They weren't from Medford, they were from Winchester. So I'm not outing anybody. But I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that, Director O'Connor, if you have any, just about if that's something that we would want to, not have be part of this because they do put food inside the traps in order to attract those animals if they know that they're around. And the idea behind it, I believe, is to reduce the population of cats that are in the area because you're, you know, sort of reducing that sort of, it is kind of a nuisance to have like lots of stray cats. So I'm curious to hear your perspective, if you wouldn't mind. I can unmute it. Yep.
[O'Connor]: Can you hear me?
[O'Connor]: Thank you. Yeah. So on that, I'd really, I'd like to defer to my animal control officer, because I would, I would assume that, you know, there are I don't know that I want the resident to do that themselves, that I would rather have a trained professional or somebody else coming in. I like the 14-day limit on the feeding, of course, but I think I'd like to get comments from my animal control officer before I go further with that, because I think there are ways to do it that are a little bit more licensed and legitimate than residents trying to do on their own. But I do appreciate not keeping down the stray cat population as well, because I know that it is becoming a problem. I also want to comment on a couple of things. The composting piece, I appreciate actually, and that knowing that if that is included in the ordinance, if that the composting container itself becomes damaged or you know, rats do eat through trash bagels, and they can eat through those composting bins, believe it or not, so that we have recourse if a container is damaged, that it must be replaced, or if the lock's broken, or, you know, so I do appreciate some of the language that was put in there. And I also appreciate the language that was put in there around the bird feeding, only the part that said that there has to be a mechanism that keeps the seed or the nuts or whatever from falling to the ground, that there is a catchment container attached to the bird feeder. Because it is really a nuisance and contributing to our rodent issue. And we do have difficulty sometimes trying to convince people that it could be contributing to the neighborhood's rodent problem. and to ask them to stop even temporarily. It's very difficult sometimes. So having that mechanism and that wording within the ordinance would be extremely helpful.
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. Are there any other comments before we consider engaging with, would you like to go in and start adding some of these or should we do it separately and kind of come back?
[Collins]: I think my recommendation, and if there's assent for this, I'm happy to offer it as a form of a motion. I think that I personally would benefit from some time offline to digest the legal review, which again, I apologize, I haven't had time to look deeply at it before it came in yesterday midday. As ordnance sponsor, like I created the first draft, I'm happy to create a revised draft that incorporates those suggestions around the bird feeder language from Director O'Connor and Animal Control Officer Hogan around the bird feeder to incorporate those suggestions from the legal review, provided that the rest of the committee agrees. And to include, that would be adding the intent section, adding that language around the definitions of bird feeders and pets, you know, contemplating the exception for feral cats, depending on the will of the committee, and just making sure that all of the comments from the legal review that the committee agrees with are incorporated. Personally, I think I'd do that more effectively offline than during this committee. My motion would be to authorize myself as lead sponsor to do that work. And then I would really prefer to bring a revised draft back before this committee as early as possible in July. Just because I know that I really appreciate the support on this ordinance that that has been expressed by Director O'Connor and Animal Control Officer Hogan and our code enforcement officers. And I know there's a lot of eagerness for this enforcement ability in the community from folks who are currently suffering nuisances, so I would love to be able to incorporate those and then expedite that in a July committee meeting. Okay, understood.
[Lazzaro]: Yes, sounds good. Are there any for Councilor Leming?
[Leming]: I'll second that. Nothing in particular to add.
[Collins]: Great. Chair Lazzaro? Yes. If we could, I don't know if we're getting to the end of our discussion, but if we are, I just would like to hear opinions from my fellow councilors and any city staff or interested residents who are On the call on the feral cat exception specifically just to make sure that I am editing in the right direction for our revised draft that will contemplate in July. When I read over the legal review, I thought that the exceptions mentioned seem reasonable to me, sort of that it's fine to do that sort of like very limited baiting for the express purpose of capturing feral cats where the full intent is to domesticate, spay, neuter, and vaccinate them. I think there's nothing wrong with leaving food out for wildlife in that case when the intent is to make them cared for pets and no longer wildlife. Clearly that's a very different issue than leaving, you know, lots of peanuts out that are attracting a horde of pigeons. But I just wanted to make sure that there was remit around that before I incorporate that exception into the next draft.
[Lazzaro]: The thing about the feral cats is. I think it is such a niche phenomenon and the people that do it are really dedicated and are doing it because they care a lot about this population of animals and they're trying to protect them. And in my very limited experience with it, I think that it is like, a kindness. But I do recognize that there could be like neighbor disputes about this and you would want there to be an opportunity for somebody to bring like a conflict somewhere if they needed to. However, you don't want as a city to have to litigate every neighbor conflict. over something that seems relatively innocuous in the end. So I guess that's where I'm, that's where in my heart, I'm going back and forth. But so my impulse is to sort of stay out of it to whatever degree I can, because I think it's like, it's really probably having limited impact on the city. But the fact that the, I think if we defined pets and said that cats would be considered pets, I think that would be fine. I think eliminating the possibility that somebody can feed a feral or stray cat is like impossible to say what's a feral or stray cat sometimes. Often they don't wear collars and cats are just walking around and maybe you're feeding somebody, your neighbor's cat that you don't know about. Like how much of this are we litigating and how much of it is our responsibility? It starts to sort of cross the line into the absurd. So I just don't, I don't know how much of that we need to wade into. So, Councilor Leming.
[Leming]: Thank you, Chair. So my thoughts on the feral stray cat issue is, one, I'm concerned that somebody could use that as an excuse to just keep putting food out for wildlife, and it would be very hard to disprove any sort of, to disprove intention. there. That's the first thought that comes to my mind. The second is, how often do people who engage in spay-capture-neuter-release programs end up catching stray cats with food versus other means? Oftentimes, get a stray cat, like some of them are friendly, you could pick them up off the ground. I would be interested to hear staff opinion on some of these issues, but those are just the problems with that that are coming to mind. My mom does the capture and release quite a bit. So a lot of this is just coming from what I'm thinking about she does,
[Lazzaro]: Thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you. I apologize for speaking over your council member. Yeah, I think those points are well taken. I also appreciate your perspective around not wanting to over litigate this because, of course, and I think that this is an important thing to remind ourselves and the public of when we're considering any ordinance with an enforcement mechanism, which is theoretically all of them, is enforcement kicks in when something is noticed to be in violation of the ordinance or creating a problem. So I do think it's true what you say that If baiting for wild cats so that they can be domesticated is going on and it's not creating a nuisance, then the ordinance is not being violated and the ordinance does, you know, then it's not creating a nuisance, it's a non-issue. And that is true whether or not the ordinance says so. So I think it might be kind of a wash whether we put it into this language or not. I would maybe propose that we, since this suggestion is new as of the legal review, I would maybe suggest that we run this exception by the animal control officer who I don't think could be on the call tonight just to get his two cents. And then that could be something that we, dispense with one way or another at our follow-up meeting in July when we hopefully finalize the ordinance.
[Lazzaro]: I would agree with that, yeah. I think that's a good move. Do we have any other thoughts on any of the other suggested changes from legal? Seeing none, on Councilor Collins' motion to digest the suggestions and then bring this to another meeting in July. Do we have a second? Did you second, Councilor Leming?
[Leming]: Yes, I did.
[Lazzaro]: Yes. Seconded by Councilor Leming. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Lazzaro]: Yes. Three positive, two absent, motion passes. So we will take this up again next month and have some time to address this. Though I would just like to say I appreciate Vice President Collins bringing this in front of this committee and taking the time to carefully consider it. Every time we write ordinances, we're changing the rules of the city, and it deserves the time and respect that it takes to do it right. So we should take the time to do it right. So thank you. Vice President Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I appreciate that. And I think it's always a good point to make that ordinances for setting policy or creating a remedy for problems, but it's also important to take the time to make sure that the language doesn't have unintended consequences. I don't think that that is an issue here, but I certainly appreciate the feedback that we've gotten from residents on this and just clarifying notes raised in the legal review to make sure that the language is really clear in what this ordinance is about and what it isn't about so that we have a recourse for solving problems when they arise and when there is a problem that people can feed birds and keep bees in peace. So I want to thank our department heads for their comments on the ordinance and for their support of this ordinance. And I appreciate all the residents that have advocated for this and weighed in on it from any direction.
[Lazzaro]: Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. second of Councilor Collins, Vice President Collins, seconded by Councilor Leming. Clerk, can you please call the roll?
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Three in positive, two
|
total time: 9.38 minutes total words: 1107 |
total time: 17.63 minutes total words: 2812 |
total time: 1.85 minutes total words: 190 |
|