total time: 28.27 minutes
total words: 782
total time: 3.65 minutes
total words: 338
total time: 1.11 minutes
total words: 113
total time: 3.13 minutes
total words: 271
[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Chair Lazzaro. I think we'll probably end up talking about both of them in concert, but I can run through the overgrowth ordinance draft quickly and then the rodent control updates quickly and then we can talk about the kind of global issues that we need to get both of these over the finish line. Great. Thank you. Thank you, my fellow Councilors for your collaboration on these two ordinances. Again, one of them is new, one of them we're just updating an existing ordinance on the books. Thank you to Director O'Connor for proposing these updates and for your collaboration on this. I believe the last time we met on these ordinances was just a month or two ago. In broad strokes, just to get us all on the same page, the overgrowth ordinance is new. One of the reasons that we are creating an overgrowth ordinance is so that, well, it's to respond to problems. One of the problems with overgrowth is that occasionally when property owners don't take care of their property, overgrowth causes impediments on the public way, which is not fair to people who use the public way. And the Board of Health needs something on the books that allows them to take enforcement action when that is occurring. Again, it's rare, but when it does happen, the city needs to be able to step in. So the ordinance, this ordinance would create that possibility. Secondly, the Board of Health director has been taking steps to shore up the city's responsiveness to our rampant rodent issues in the city, which are, you know, I'd say, no better or worse than anywhere else in the region. But being able to strengthen our holistic systemic approach to rodent control is a big part of keeping rats away from every part of the city, whether there are burrows on your street or not. The city needs to have more tools to help property owners prevent rodents on their property and take enforcement action when people are not being responsible about it. So the rodent control ordinance already exists. We want to add some language that would give the Board of Health more ability to step in and take enforcement action when necessary. And we are also looking for ways to direct more of the fees and fines associated with both the overgrowth ordinance and the rodent control ordinance into the rodent control revolving accounts that the city has more funding available to do its rodent mitigation work which as we all know, we, every single neighborhood of the city really needs, and the city needs more resources to be able to do that. So it's appropriate that fees and fines collected associated with violations of the Overgrowth Ordinance and the Rodent Control Ordinance should go into that fund. So since last time, I have updated the drafts to include more comments from Director O'Connor to kind of bring us to where we are in this meeting. And we have also had a preliminary review of the draft ordinances by City Solicitor Kevin Foley. Because of when he joined City Hall, this was the first time that he's had the opportunity to review these drafts. So I will quickly I think Councilors got them got these drafts in their packets last week. But maybe I will just walk through the two ordinances, very very quickly and then I will move over to solicitor Foley's red line and just try to summarize his main comments on the ordinances so far. can synthesize our next steps to get these finished. So actually, I want to interrupt myself. And before I dive in, Director O'Connor, if there's anything that you'd like to say as introduction or to introduce these projects, by all means. Oh, sorry, we should have you mic'd.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Thank you, Councilman Coates, for all your work on this and for helping push this forward. We really do feel this is very important to help us continue our mitigation efforts and also to address some of the violations in a more meaningful and better enforcement. So appreciate you all taking this under consideration and happy to answer any questions at the end.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you so much, Director O'Connor. Okay. Great, thank you. I will share my screen. So I will quickly share the non-redlined version and then I'll move over to Solicitor Foley's redlined version. He sent these over in advance of this meeting. Unfortunately, he wasn't able to be with us tonight. This is just to get everybody up to speed. These are also linked on the city council's public portal if anybody wants to follow along. This is really short purpose and intent. I just spoke to that. In this initial draft, we were looking to see if the solicitor had feedback on if any of these kind of overgrowth specific terms should be defined for clarity within the ordinance. And then we get to the real substance of the ordinance. referring to prohibited and required actions in the case of overgrowth and harborage conditions, that being rodent harborage, so when stuff is going on a private property that is causing plant overgrowth or rodent harborage. Essentially saying that any property owner whose property abutting a sidewalk or public right-of-way shall not allow shall not allow overgrowth To remain to such an degree that an impediment occurs that it blocks the right of way, it must be remained free of vegetation that is infested with rodents or other dangerous insects or animals. Property must be maintained free of pools of stagnant water that are conducive to the breeding of mosquitoes. or that create a fire hazard and property must be maintained free of an overgrowth of ragweed or other known widely allergenic plants. This was created with the collaboration of the Board of Health. Again, the point of this is not to say what people can grow in their gardens, but rather to say that people cannot create or maintain public health hazards on their property. Enforcement and penalties. First offense, written warning. I think it's, you know, it's never the Board of Health's intent to immediately fine people. The intent is to resolve the issue and that's reflected in the first offense being met with a letter of warning and a request to correct the issue. Second offense, $50. Third and each subsequent offense, $100. penalty fines collected from the enforcement of this ordinance shall be deposited into the rodent control account, which already exists, and I believe that some fees are already going into that account because of the integrated pest management plans that companies that have dumpsters have to feed into. So the solicitors, let me switch what screen I'm sharing. The solicitor's feedback on this draft looks crazy, but most of it is just language tweaks, which is fine. He's the legal writer, not myself. He suggests that we renumber the ordinance. I'm just going to try to quickly summarize this red line. And I believe it was circulated to Councilors via the interim clerk on Monday as well. Suggest renumbering the ordinance, and putting it into a different section within our municipal code. The solicitor suggests, I believe, no definitions, feeling that those are unnecessary. I'll certainly defer to legal opinion on that. Unnecessary to include a deferential reference to the Department of Conservation and Recreation, which makes sense. That does go without saying that all local ordinances are preempted by state law. There is some wordsmithing on the, you know, kind of the heart of this ordinance that talks about what property owners may or may not do or must do to correct overgrowth that's affecting public way. And the solicitor also recommends that we not include language regarding an overgrowth of ragweed or other allergenic plants. I'm just looking for, sorry, there's a lot of comments here and I'm trying to find the one that explains his understanding. He writes, as a practical matter, property owners cannot be expected to, pardon me, calling into question whether the city can legally enforce a prohibition on certain types of plants growing on public property. And with this, I think he's saying it is impractical either not possible or impractical for the city to prohibit property owners from ragweed growing on their properties. Because the solicitor isn't here and there's a lot of comments on both of these ordinances, this is something that I'd like for us to discuss further before we finalize this ordinance, because I think broadly, with all of these ordinances and a lot of ordinances, It's not really that we want to be able to find anybody if there's ever ragweed growing on their property ever. That's not the point. That's never how the Board of Health is going to be spending their time running down where ragweed occurs. It's just that the city needs to be able to intervene. If there's an overgrowth to such an extent that it's really causing problems, we need something on the books that they can then intervene. to that end. I'm not really clear on why it's problematic to have that language in there, knowing that this is never going to be enforced unless it actually creates a public health hazard. Yeah, I don't think you're amplifying.
[Emily Lazzaro]: No, but it's like, Jesus Christ. Sorry. Is who's in the room? How does this sound? Okay, it now sounds really loud. Okay. Um, what I was saying before is, it's probably a language thing, but that we could finagle it, but it, it kind of reminds me of legal language issues around, you know it when you see it, that if it was so much ragweed that it's causing a problem for neighbors, then it would be a problem. And it would be beneficial to have solicitor fully here to address the issues. Councilor Callahan, then I'll go back to Vice President Collins. Sorry, Councilor Callahan, what number is your mic? Six.
[Anna Callahan]: Yeah, just a super quick, would it help to remove the specific ones and just say all property must be maintained free of an overgrowth of widely allergic plants? Then we're not mentioning them by name?
[Emily Lazzaro]: I think what we're going to keep running into with this is that we're not going to be able to make any decisions until Solicitor Foley is here. Vice President Collins?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you yeah no I think these language suggestions are helpful because I think what I see in his comments is that some of these some of my language choices. seem to be, for this purpose, not quite it, which, again, is fine. I'm not the one with the JD. But I think, and I'd be curious to hear Director O'Connor's perspective on this as well, I think it would be good to see how much of this content can we keep as long as we change the language to be what it needs to be. Certainly, it seems like the language, all property must be maintained free of, is perhaps too comprehensive. That's fine. I think I'm certain that there's other language that still gives Board of Health latitude to intervene when things are, for example, allowed to proliferate to the extent that a public health hazard is observed. Yes.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Per the complaints of neighbors. All of it seems like the wholesale removal of the entire bullet point doesn't seem strictly necessary. Councilor Tseng?
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I mean, I think in reading the comment, I think the worry is that it's overbroad and would punish people who kind of can't control circumstances or, for example, maybe a stagnant pool of water just forms one day and a code enforcement officer passes by and warns them or finds them. but I do think maybe this is a less of a legal question, actually more of a question for city staff to be, to help us in defining the circumstances. So there's less gray area. Cause I think the way I read it as the original language, if you could scroll back up, I think the way that I would have, found difficult for a court, if this, for example, ever got litigated, what would make it difficult for a court to understand is where to draw the line between this is clearly not you know, intentional or negligent on the behalf of a property owner versus this is and where the draw the line. I think maybe what would help with this wording is to work with city staff to find at least a bit of a clearer line of what is and what's not. I don't necessarily read the comment from the solicitor to say that all of this is unenforceable. I think it's just as as is, it's a bit over broad. So I think with that in mind, I think it's actually the people we should talk to first are actually maybe city staff with a better understanding of the issue and the trouble that we're trying to solve.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Uh, Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you. I think that's helpful. And, um, I'd say if I'm going to follow up about this with going to follow up about all of this with Board of Health after this meeting, of course, like we're talking about before the meeting, but if for the purposes of our general edification if there's any sort of clarification that you'd like provide in this setting on sort of like what we're really going for here will be most helpful to your department. That is our whole goal with updating this ordinance so feel free to use this forum to. shed a little bit more light on the situations in which it would be helpful for you to be able to intervene. And certainly, you know, I'll be reaching out to collect that information when we go back and update this draft as well. So if you'd like to speak to that now, that's fine. Or we can review more at our next meeting. Oh, sorry, could you turn the mic on?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Oh, sorry. I apologize because I have not seen the red line version, so I haven't really had a chance to go through it. But my understanding, like, the overgrowth to me is the key, right? We're not punishing anyone for having, you know, a little bit of ragweed on their property. It's overgrowth uncapped. Not that it's intentional, but that it's there. And, you know, pools of stagnant water. That are conducive to the breeding of mosquitoes. So, you know, after if you have a puddle on your property after a rainstorm that's going to dry up that's not a pool of stagnant water that's not going to breed mosquitoes but if you have, you know, tires on your property or things you know open barrels or whatever. that water could sit there long enough and be stagnant. We have people with pools that they no longer use, but they can maintain to have water in their pools. And that is certainly a breeding ground for mosquitoes and causes problems for neighbors and we do have West Nile virus and and other concerns with mosquitos. So I would love to go over this with Councilor Collins and the city solicitor to really see, like again, I really haven't had a chance to look at his issues with some of the language, but happy to go over it with him.
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry, you're not. Oh, sorry.
[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. I had a question about the ragweed portion. I think your illustration of the stagnant water really helps us understand what we're trying to solve here. Could you kind of give a similar illustration of the ragweed situation?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: certainly again yeah it would be an abundance and an overgrowth unmaintained unkept property that would be causing problems for neighbors children in the area whatever who may have you know allergies to those situations or asthma whatever so again it would be an overgrowth situation an extensive situation something that a neighbor would complain about, basically. And that's when most of the time how we find out about these issues. It's not that we would be going out looking for them. It's most of the time neighbors themselves are complaining about their neighbor's properties because they are having issues. Thanks.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, I think that helps. I think we're beginning to see, at least with the stagnant water situation, maybe a way that we could define the situation that's a little bit broader than just the creation of. Although that might actually capture what you're describing, but we could maybe put in something with regards to containers, vestibules, something of stagnant water, so that people know more clearly what we're referring to. I don't know. I don't have any specific suggestions right now.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: That's actually a good idea.
[Justin Tseng]: But I think that that might help just make it clearer. And then if we can find this similar kind of like analogy wording for the ragweed situation, that might be helpful. I think extensive might not be clear enough of a line, which is why I think we might need to just think about it for a little bit. But yeah.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: I don't know if problematic will be, I don't know. Yeah. I have two of our sanitarians are with us too, so if they have any suggestions or they're the ones out there doing this work every day, so.
[SPEAKER_00]: Hi, everyone. I'm Raven. I'm one of the sanitarians that works under Director O'Connor. It might be helpful just like if we're looking for language to use specifically. I don't know if anybody is familiar with the state sanitary code, the housing code. It's 105 CMR 410. But it's the code that we use a lot of the times whenever we are dealing with property owners. There is a specific section in there that talks about stagnant water and things like that because it can be conducive for rodents because rodents need water and things like that. So it may just be a good idea to maybe look at that if we're trying to condense it down and define it specifically because that's a legal document, this is a legal document, and it may just be helpful.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yeah. It's very helpful. Thank you. Um, do you need a an address for the senatorians for the record? Okay. Thank you. Um, do you have any other questions for Raven or Vice President Collins?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I think that's really helpful. And as we continue to wordsmith this, I think we should just plan on being in collaboration to make sure that it as closely matches your needs in the language that you use as possible, because that's the whole point. Thank you. Really helpful. So just to tie a bow on the suggested edits to the overgrowth ordinance. Bear with me for one second. So the final major piece on this ordinance is our segue into the Road and Control Ordinance updates as well. One thing that the solicitor flagged that he wants to review further, including as per his suggestion with KP Law, is making sure that we have everything in place that we need, that penalty fines collected from this ordinance and also from the Road and Control Ordinance can be deposited into the Road and Control account. That is something that I think me and Director O'Connor are going to sync up with the solicitor about offline. I think the solicitor described to me in a phone call yesterday that he has some concerns, he has some, sorry, concerns that while we have the language on the books that we need so that fees can go into revolving accounts, he is concerned that we don't have the language on the books that we need so that fines can go into revolving account. This is something we have to run down, especially because per our, this is the tobacco regulation ordinance, fees and fines both associated with the tobacco regulation ordinance are already going into a revolving account for the tobacco regulation account. So what we need to get on the same page about with the solicitor is if we are all set to go with having fees and fines associated with these ordinances go into the rodent control account or if there is a step missing that we need to go back and fix so that You know if somebody refuses to do what is needed to prevent a large infestation of rats on their property and they get fined. What do we need to do to make sure that that can go into the account where it belongs, so that the Board of Health has the money it needs to prevent rodent proliferation in the future. So the solicitor raised that concern with fines from the Orphan Growth Ordinance going into the Road and Control Account with this ordinance, and he raised the same concern with the Road and Control Ordinance as well. Director O'Connor did, just before the meeting, direct me to... It's our current Medford Ordinance. This is Article 5, Division 4, Section 2, 964, authorized revolving funds, and that does indeed list both fines and fees going into an existing revolving account for a different one, but I think the question is, are we good and we just need to get on the same page, or is there something that we need to fix holistically so that fines and fees can both go into revolving accounts when they occur? I know this is absolutely titillating stuff, but at the end of the day, we're trying to make sure that the city has the money that it needs from property owners who are delinquent willfully so that we can prevent rodent proliferation for everybody else who is following the rules and trying to do the right thing.
[Emily Lazzaro]: And not to put too fine a point on it, but when we are asked if we are paying too close attention to national or international issues, It is important to draw people's attention back to meetings like this that are very sparsely attended, but are still taking place and are about local issues such as rodent control and overgrowth of ragweed and standing water. I do have a raised hand from the DPW commissioner. Commissioner McIvern, I'm gonna ask you to unmute.
[Tim McGivern]: Hi, thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Go ahead.
[Tim McGivern]: I just caught this on the agenda, I saw you guys talking about it. I was just wondering if I could have a chance to review this ordinance. I saw a couple of things in it. It seems maybe we got to look at this to see if it's duplicating anything because DPW does public right of way enforcement for sidewalk obstructions already based off existing ordinance. So I just saw that piece in there. And then as far as public way and enforcement, I know the building department doesn't do that, we do that. So the DBW does enforcement in the public right of way. But I would love to have an opportunity to dive in a little deeper and provide some comments.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yeah, Vice President Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, thank you, Commissioner given. I just shared them with you on one drive, and I'd be happy to set up a meeting to get your thoughts on it before we, um Submit revised drafts to this committee as well.
[Tim McGivern]: Awesome. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: My understanding also is that sometimes that these measures are taking place to mitigate some of these issues, but that there may not be, um, something in place if Something's proliferating to have teeth behind it. There may not be, um anybody empowered to take action if it's not happening beyond a warning or something like that? I'm not sure if that's the case here, but.
[Tim McGivern]: So we have a process if vegetation is growing into the public way and it either is causing an obstruction or a site distance, site viewing issue, then we do write them letters. We provide enforcement. We can fine as well. We do do that as well. So we, you know, I think, you know, in general, people forget that the DBW has a large actually enforcement piece, but it's, it's, you know, I have a part-time basically enforcement officer. I'd love to have a full-time enforcement officer, but it's a different conversation. But, you know, it's something that both me and the city engineer, as well as the deputy commissioner are always doing. is enforcing in the public right of way. And then the building department and everybody else is on private property. So that piece completely get, and I would agree that the ordinance that exists now is not very strong. It's very old when it comes to sidewalk obstructions and things like that. So I think it just needs to be, we need to look at existing ordinance and see what DPW is already enforcing and see what we're already doing and make sure this one is coordinated.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay, sounds good. We wouldn't want to replicate efforts if it's not necessary to. Thank you for mentioning that.
[Tim McGivern]: Yeah, no problem. Thanks for putting something forward that I think needs to be addressed. This is great.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Councilor Collins.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you and want to thank you again Commissioner McGibbon. Well, it will absolutely welcome your comments on this and certainly will want to make sure that especially when it comes down to who's responsible for what in terms of enforcement action that it's clear that the division of who's responsible for what is clear between. departments and also clear for residents. Um, so thanks again for, um, thank you for, for timing in on this meeting and look forward to, um, discussing your feedback on this draft as well.
[Tim McGivern]: I meant to turn on my camera. Sorry about that. I was, I was even testing it out, but anyway, I'm all set with you guys. Thank you very much and have a very nice night.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Great. If there are no other comments on the overgrowth ordinance specifically at this time, I'd suggest we segue to the roading control ordinance, which again, really similar to this one and a lot of the issues I think are the same.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes, please do.
[Kit Collins]: Great. I'll share my screen again. And is it helpful if I quickly run through the original draft that was circulated last week or should we just dive right into the red line. I don't know if it's helpful for folks to see like the simpler document before we look at the marked up version or if it doesn't matter since we're just gonna look at the markup version anyway.
[Anna Callahan]: Councilor Callahan? For me, I would love to just see what is different between the two. That would be enough for me, but I don't want to speak for anyone else.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, great. I'll share the red line and the versions of these from last week are again on our public portal if anybody wants to look at those. And Director O'Connor, I'm sorry that these weren't over to you before the meeting. I shared the red line versions of both of them with you during the meeting as well. So, I need to start screen sharing. Okay, so again, we've already talked about why we're updating this. It's to strengthen the city's ability to intervene to control our rodent population and to make sure that fees and fines both that are collected in association with this ordinance can go into the rodent control revolving fund. So again, the solicitor has wordsmithed part of this ordinance, which I appreciate. So there's some language changes. And at the end of this meeting, I'll make a motion just that I review the kind of like garden variety language changes and anything that seems like it should be run by a department head, I'll run by department head before accepting or otherwise I'll just accept the language changes that are just meant to tighten how this is crafted. So just to go from top to bottom, some I think inconsequential language changes, the solicitors added a couple of definitions for us on the difference between private backyard composting and curbside composting. Again, not being an attorney I didn't want to take a stab at defining those myself, even though I know what they are, not a lawyer. The solicitor has some suggestions for how the requirements for private property should be phrased. For example, the original writing in subsection A was all properties within the city. Um, must be maintained free from rats, mice and other rodents. And it is unlawful for a property owner to fail to take such reasonable preventative and remedial measures for such purposes as prescribed by the Board of Health. Um, that's kind of a mouthful. I think again, we just see some language changes to just sort of shift the onus there and remove that, um, free from language. The updated suggestion is all properties within the city, including private property, must be maintained to reduce and eliminate the threat of infestation by rodents, and property owners must take reasonable preventative and remedial measures when ordered by the Board of Health. For me, personally, I think that makes sense. And I think, again, it seems to me that what the solicitor is driving out here is trying to get away from this language that says all property must be perfect, and rather, property owners must be responsible, and they must make changes when the Board of Health tells them it's important to do so. So we have some changes that are kind of along the same lines. Here, the suggester suggests removing a reference to the overgrowth ordinance and the wildlife feeding ordinance, just saying that's unnecessary, which is probably true. I think some inconsequential language edits throughout this section. A large change occurs in subsection C, and this is again under general requirements on private property. The solicitor has suggested originally in the draft, the draft ordinance kind of enumerated more details on if a rodent infestation occurs, if the Board of Health observes one, what must a property owner do? And I think that the solicitor's suggestion is to make that language a little more general and to point towards Board of Health regulations, have those requirements kind of housed within Board of Health regulations as opposed to inside of this ordinance, which I don't necessarily disagree with. I would be interested to hear Director O'Connor's feedback on that, either at this meeting or when you've had a chance to review this more closely. And just to spell it out a little bit more specifically, originally this language said, if evidence of an infestation occurs, a property owner shall take all necessary measures at the expense of the owner and or occupant to eradicate the infestation and prevent future infestation. In addition, catalog this to the Board of Health. And the solicitor suggests kind of, I think, essentially simplifying this, keeping the gist of it, but having more of the details live outside of the ordinance with language such as property owners may be required to respond to infestation or rodent burrows when evidence of an infestation occurs, including evidence of untreated burrows. Property owners must take all measures required by the Board of Health at owner's sole cost and expense in order to eradicate the infestation and prevent further infestation. So I don't think that this, in my read, I don't think that this weakens what we are trying to do here at all. I think it just lets more of those details live under the jurisdiction of the Board of Health, as opposed to in our municipal code. One other edit that I want to flag for my fellow committee members, oh, and just to put it in Solicitor Foley's own words, he states here in a red line, prefers to have the Board of Health order what's required rather than dictate it in the ordinance. And I think we've seen in other ordinances, there's a benefit to that in terms of, for example, if the Board of Health's road and control policy should change in the future, that could be a vote that the Board of Health takes as opposed to having to request a legislative change. So I think that's worth considering. Um... Originally, the draft included subsection D, which said that rodent poison should be avoided in favor of any and all other non-rat poison prevention and mitigation strategies. The solicitor suggests taking that out. I suspect, again, it's his recommendation that it's not that we shouldn't be suggesting people don't use rat poison, because people should not be using rat poison. That's extremely bad for the ecosystem, but rather that that should live in a Board of Health Ordinance. Sorry, Board of Health Regulation. And just to finish the review here. Sorry, there's a lot of comments. I'm scrolling through. I think this is one for the follow up we had discussed. requirements around having compromised compost bins, which is obviously if your compost bin has a hole in it, that's a vending machine for rodents. So it's very important that damaged compost bins or any trash receptacle be promptly replaced. We also talked about a program to make sure that like especially our senior residents don't have to pay the replacement fee. The solicitor suggests removing that. So I think I want to follow up with him about if that's just something that he wants to have in regulation or if there's some other reason to take that out. And then finally, we have, I believe, the same issue as we just talked about with the overgrowth ordinance in terms of fees and fines associated with this ordinance going into the revolving account. That's a crux of a lot of what we're trying to do here. So I think that we need to get on the same page with the solicitor about what is needed to make sure that those fees and fines can be deposited into the revolving account. I just spoke a lot, so I'll pause there to see if there are any preliminary comments or questions or clarifying questions from my fellow councillors, or if Director O'Connor would like to mention anything at this time.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, Vice President Collins. Do any other councillors have any comments or questions? Seeing none, Vice President Collins, if you have more you'd like to address here, you can carry on.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you. I will... Thank you, and just to make sure that I note it, we also updated the fee schedule for this ordinance, and I think it's... No, I guess I was... I was going to say, I think that's an appendix A, but I think it's actually just attached to the ordinance. So it's not a separate section. In Unicode, we also updated the fee schedule for roading control fees in Article 4, Section 6. This was with consultation from Director O'Connor just to make sure that we brought those fees kind of into the 21st century. Some of them for commercial owners were very low, especially compared to other communities. And again, this is not to be punitive or to charge people for problems that haven't yet occurred. It's just to make sure that the city has the bandwidth that it needs to prevent rodent proliferation for everybody. So to summarize, I think that the main things to do on this ordinance are to assimilate the language changes that are just kind of inconsequential, that are just language improvements, to run the consequential language changes by Director O'Connor to make sure that they still capture the intent of what we were trying to do here. And I think the big piece of that is making sure that it makes sense what to take out of the ordinance and put into Board of Health regulations and just make sure we're aligned on what should be in the ordinance, what should be in the regulation. And then really to nail down this piece around, are we already enabled to collect fees and put them into the revolving account? Is there something else that we need to tweak so that we can do that? Or is that something that we're already clear to do and we can full steam ahead?
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: Director O'Connor. questions. I had a couple of quick comments when I was going through it, and again, I happy to go to the red light version and follow up with you and the city solicitor. But I didn't notice under section on the road ordinance. Under sex section 6-1 24. A talks about landfills or transfer stations. We may be able to revisit that because we currently don't allow basically of alcohol and other offensive substances, provide a copy of their pest management plan for the facility where the vehicles are garaged. I just think we need to specify if garaged in Medford. So not necessarily needing their IPM if they're garaged elsewhere. So that's only if they're garaged in Medford? Yeah. Great. Thank you for the close read. And then the last thing I will bring up quickly is the fee schedule. And the food establishments, it says food establishment, food processing, our storage facility, all at $25. I think we may want to look at breaking out food establishment versus the food processing and storage facility.
[Kit Collins]: Oh, OK. Do you suggest that food establishment be one category and food processing or storage be? OK. Yes.
[MaryAnn O'Connor]: OK, great. And a higher fee for the processing and storage facilities.
[Kit Collins]: Great. That's a good catch. I'm just going to make a quick note of that.
[Emily Lazzaro]: That's it.
[Kit Collins]: Great. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you very much. Councilor Callahan has a comment.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. Mostly I just want to really thank you, Councilor Collins and also Director O'Connor for all the work that you've done on this. I know it's been a long time. I think we're nearing the final stretch. You know, this really is what it looks like when you have a city council and administration working together to tackle the problems that matter to people here in Medford. And I'm glad we're getting the final legal review. And I really look forward to seeing the final results. and getting you the sort of legislative tools that you need to be able to take care of our residents in the way that I know you want to. Thank you so much.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Are there any motions on the floor about these two papers? It seems like we cannot move them at the moment. Vice President Collins?
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. I'm just finishing typing out my motion. I would make a motion to review. I would make a motion to for myself as the ordinance sponsor to review the solicitor's red line and incorporate any minor language tweaks to work with Director O'Connor and Commissioner McGivern on other edits, and then to resubmit the updated drafts to solicitor fully for additional review and feedback and to keep the paper in committee.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Do we have a second? Seconded. Fair.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, yeah.
[Emily Lazzaro]: British language tweaks. On Councilor Collins motion seconded by Councilor Callaghan.
[Kit Collins]: I can email this to you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: She will email to the clerk, assistant clerk. All in favour? All opposed? The motion passes. Do we have any other motions on the floor? on the motion of Councilor Tseng to adjourn seconded by councillor Callahan. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? The motion passes.
|
total time: 28.27 minutes total words: 782 |
total time: 3.65 minutes total words: 338 |
total time: 1.11 minutes total words: 113 |
total time: 3.13 minutes total words: 271 |