The Edmonds City Council on Tuesday night will reconsider its decision two weeks ago to approve an amendment to an “animals at large” ordinance essentially repealing a 2007 requirement that Edmonds cats be leashed.
Council President Strom Peterson said he was asked by Councilmember Diane Buckshnis to reconsider the June 5 vote the council took, because it made additional amendments to the 2007 ordinance that went beyond what she originally intended. The original ordinance made it against the law for pet owners to allow their animals “to run at large during any hours of the day or night,” and cats were included because they weren’t exempted from the law in the first place — a requirement that Assistant Chief Jim Lawless told the council was basically unenforceable.
The changes Buckshnis proposed were solely meant to address problems that were being experienced at the Edmonds off-leash dog park — requiring dogs who enter the park area to be licensed, current with vaccinations and wearing a collar and identification at all times — not to change the intentions of an earlier council to prevent cats from wandering unattended. “Given that a previous council spent a lot of time on this (the cat leash issue), I think we should respect their work and the compromises that were hammered out,” Peterson said. “I will make a statement at tomorrow’s meeting regarding this.”
The council is also scheduled to:
– swear in Edmonds Police Sgt. Mike Richardson.
– hold a public hearing for the City’s Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program (2013-2018).
– appoint three new members to the Citizens Economic Development Commission.
– hear a presentation on how residential car washes pollute area waterways.
The meeting begins at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, 250 5th Ave. N. You can see the complete agenda here.
With the budget problems looming, the Council took the time to rewrite an unenforceable ordinance only to replace it with an equally unenforceable ordinance ( how can the dogs vaccination status be determined? Agressive tendencies? Under control at all times? ) on a beach that is also a marine sanctuary. Dogs are, afterall, just happy to do what dogs do ( chasing birds, challenging seal pups when they find them, peeing and pooing where-ever, and not recognizing boundaries) It is just what they do.
Requiring cats to be on leashes is simply silly. Repealing that portion of the ordinance was the only part that made sense. Dedicating one of Edmonds most interesting beaches to the dogs and ignoring the environmental impacts on a beach that is posted as a marine sanctuary ( or inventing specific unenforceable ordinances to “deal” with the very real problems it creates) is simply hypocritical in a town obsessed with its appearance of “green-ness”.
How about charging an entrance fee for the park and dedicating those funds to pay for the supervision and management of the park? It would free up our law enforcement folks to deal with other issues, and would be a better solution to the issues of that dog park than unenforcable ordinances. It could also go a long way toward making the park much more environmentally friendly. Let dogs be dogs and cats be cats.
Back to the budget?
Interesting food for thought in many ways Diane.
I’ll be interested in this item related to the points you make, but also from a procedural standpoint.
As a citizen who has requested City Council Reconsideration on an occasion in the past, it will be interesting to observe the procedures followed by the Council related to tonight’s Reconsideration Request.
Item AM-4925 on this evening’s City Council Agenda indicates that:
“Since amending the language to ECC 5.05.050, Subsection A, there has been concern among the public and members of the Council that the action was taken without a full understanding of the impact. The proposed amendment would remove the phrase “with the exception of cats” from Ordinance No. 3887.”
Citizens are entitled to make a Reconsideration Request, as discussed during the December 1, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes:
“Councilmember Plunkett asked the process for asking the Council for reconsideration. Mr. Snyder responded it could have been done via email or letter to any Councilmember. Councilmember Plunkett asked what obligation the Councilmember had to make a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Snyder answered any Councilmember on the prevailing side could bring it forward but was not obligated to do so. Councilmember Plunkett clarified if Mr. Reidy sent an email or letter to a Councilmember, it is his obligation to find a Councilmember willing to pursue reconsideration. Mr. Snyder agreed the person would need to identify a Councilmember willing to make a motion for reconsideration and for a majority of the Council to support reconsideration. Councilmember Plunkett concluded an email or letter asking for reconsideration did not guarantee reconsideration, only an effort for reconsideration. Mr. Snyder agreed.”
Based on the December 1, 2009 City Council Meeting Minutes, I believe a Councilmember will need to make a motion for Reconsideration and that a majority of the Council will need to vote to support Reconsideration as a first step tonight.
The evening my Reconsideration Request was finally on the Agenda, November 2, 2009, the City Council walked out of Executive Session and voted immediately to remove my Reconsideration Request from the November 2, 2009 Agenda.
Even though there is no Executive Session scheduled tonight, I advise citizens SUPPORTING tonight’s Reconsideration Request to email their Councilmembers and respectfully request the following:
1. Please do not vote to remove Item AM-4925 from tonight’s Agenda when this evening’s City Council Meeting Agenda is approved.
2. Please make a motion or second a motion to Reconsider the item discussed under Item AM-4925.
3. If a motion is made and seconded related to the Reconsideration discussed under Item AM-4925, please vote to approve Reconsideration.
4. If Reconsideration is approved, please vote to remove the phrase “with the exception of cats” from Ordinance No. 3887.
I advise citizens AGAINST tonight’s Reconsideration Request to email their Councilmembers and respectfully request the following:
1. Please take steps to remove Item AM-4925 from tonight’s Agenda when this evening’s City Council Meeting Agenda is considered for approval.
2. Assuming tonight’s Agenda is approved with Item AM-4925, if a motion is made and seconded related to the Reconsideration discussed under Item AM-4925, please vote to not approve the Reconsideration.
3. If Reconsideration is approved, please vote against removing the phrase “with the exception of cats” from Ordinance No. 3887.
This evening’s Agenda Item AM-4925 relates to the long controversial cat leash law and will provide an interesting example of municipal governance.
I believe that the city council, at its June 5th meeting, improperly dealt with the amended animal control ordinance.
Councilmember Fraley-Monillas mentioned during the discussion of this item that there were considerable inputs from citizens, during public hearings, when this ordinance was amended a few years ago to include cats. The amendment made it a violation for cats to roam at large. This change was made because of citizens’ complaints that cats came onto their properties and dug up flower beds, defecated, spread disease, etc.
Like virtually all other ordinances, this ordinance would only be enforced when complaints are received. Without this ordinance, Police are unable to act on complaints from citizens.
I recommend that the proper way to now deal with this amended ordinance, so that city council doesn’t have to waste time on a public hearing – which they should have (as Councilmember Fraley-Monillas had recommended) if council chooses to allow cats to roam at large – is to remove the clause “with the exception of cats” from Section 1 paragraph A of the ordinance.
The MEN story indicates that Councilmember Buckshnis has requested that the ordinance be brought back for reconsideration. She voted in the majority, so she is eligible to introduce a motion for reconsideration that can be seconded by any of the other six councilmembers. I expect that that’s what will happen tonight.
Well Said, DIANE T! I would add that the Dog park should be turn into an optional clothes beach and admission charged. SERIOUSLY! Why are we still talking about this leash ordinance when we have bigger problems to solve?!
I regretfully say I strongly disagree with Ms. Buckshns. The cat leash law may not be totally unenforcable but it is certainly selectively enforced, and treats citizens unfairly and disparately. It is repugnant, illogical and is resented by a substantial number of citizens. The Council can do far better!!!
My recomendation to the Council is simple and would entail something along the following lines:
Take advantage of this unuusal public relations opportunity to show the electorate you have compassion, are human, and that you truly want to serve ALL the folks who elected you.
1. Leave the repealed ordinance alone and as is for say 6 mos or a year.
2. Ask Asst Chief Lawless to encourage cooperation between neighbors as a first step
in neighborhood disputes over cats. That will require a bit more diplomacy on the part of Officer Dawson in her attempts to bring people together.
3 At the end of your period schedule a public hearing while first listening and receiving input from Asst. Chief Lawless and perhaps Dawson.
4. Follow the Chief’s recomendation. Either re-institute the cat law or not or replace it with something that is more workable and fair.
5. Throughout the process ask Chief Lawless for his input and ideas. I know from experience that Edmonds Police are very very good in public relations!!!
Ron’s suggestion that a public hearing is a waste of time is the exactly opposite of common sense in this situation. And his vote for the original law is one really big reason he is no longer on the Council himself. The Council needs to identify with the citizens, and not shove the cat leash garbage down our throats without at least first and thoroughly checking out the facts.
CM Strom Peterson tells me he was confused and that he flubbed or was confused or something. Whatever happened, why can’t the Council could take advantage of this situation? I believe they can. They can bring credit upon themselves as well as to bring people together. We could use some of that.
Just maybe then this relatively new and excellent Council could surprise themselves by passing a few need levies.
And don’t forget that the original ordinance was passed after a very good dog and pony show cat organized by a cat hater. Hopefully the Council will set the hate and spite stuff aside and approach the questions in a more pragmatic manner.
Ray Martin PS. to Teresa: Maybe My Edmond News could assist the Council and community with a poll or two? And thank you for your coverage.
Ray:
We have had many public hearings on this issue. You obviously will not be satisfied that there’s been a sufficient number of them until the council gives you what you want.
At tonight’s Council meeting (June 19) The Edmonds City Council voted 5-2 to not cancel the recent repeal of the cat leash law. So its over, our cats can now roam freely, just like the majority of the other Puget Sound residents I would caution cat owners, however, to listen to and work cooperatively with those who are bothered by their neighbor’s cats.
Voting to maintain the repeal was Joan Bloom, Frank Yamamoto, Adrienne Fraley Monilas, Kristiana Johnson, and Lora Petso. Voting to reinstate the cat leash law was Diane Buckshns and Strom Peterson.
Asst Police Chief Lawless was asked “How many violations have occurred since the implementation in 2007” His answers was “two”. It was perhaps the key question, as the majority felt there was more important issues to spend their time on. It was also pointed out that the ordinance pitted neighbor against neighbor. Asst Chief Lawless remained totally neutral by indicating the police would work with either decision..
On a personal note, I publicly wish to apologize to my friend Ron Wambolt for my cheap shot mocking him for voting for the original cat leash law. I was wrong in doing that. I have no excuse. It may have been truthful but it was hurtful, out of line, and in bad taste. Ron served faithfully on the Council for four years with perfect or near perfect attendance. And that’s something that far outweighs any small contribution I could ever claim. You are a big credit to this community Ron, keep up the good work and ignore me if I behave like a jerk again.
Thank you, Ray; apology accepted.
Does anybody know how this was handled procedurally? It appears the Agenda was approved with the Reconsideration Item on it. Was the motion that passed 5-2 the only motion made last evening related to this Agenda Item? Thanks.
Yes; it was the only motion.
Thanks Ron. I’ll record and try to watch later tonight. I’m glad the Council was able to experience the “Reconsideration” process as the process can be a valuable tool to use in appropriate situations. With Council packets sometimes hundreds of pages long, I believe it is very reasonable for the Council to consider “Reconsideration” from time to time.