Legal & Legislative Committee — 2026-08-10
Attendance
Cal Finocchiaro ; Bradley Freeman ; Maya Jamaleddine ; Manjula Karamcheti ; Kimberly Vandiver
Agenda
Minutes
Legal & Legislative Committee Monday, August 10, 2026, 7:10 PM City Council Chamber, 1st Floor 562 Main Street, Melrose, MA 02176 MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER Manjula Karamcheti Vice Chair Cal Finocchiaro Maya Jamaleddine Kimberly Vandiver William Bradley Freeman President, Ex Officio Member Elizabeth Kowal Chair Meeting was called to order by Chair Kowal at 7:10 PM Non-voting councilors Jason Chen and Christopher Park were in attendance Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Manjula Karamcheti Vice Chair Present Cal Finocchiaro Ward 6 Absent Maya Jamaleddine At-Large Present Kimberly Vandiver Ward 5 Present William Bradley Freeman President, Ex Present Officio Member Elizabeth Kowal Chair Present II. MINUTES APPROVAL A. Legal & Legislative Committee Meeting March 23, 2026 7:00 PM Motion to Approve the minutes by unanimous consent without reading made by Chair Kowal All were in favor and minutes were approved RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] AYES: Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Bradley Freeman, Elizabeth Kowal, Kim Vandiver NAYS: None 1 ABSENT: Cal Finocchiaro III. PUBLIC COMMENT When: Aug 10, 2026 07:10 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Topic: Legal & Legislative Committee Meeting Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://cityofmelrose- org.zoom.us/j/91494962042?pwd=2r6Th3Jt3R4JbQABmpCTlW84jTFmrk.1 Passcode:947646 Webinar ID: 914 9496 2042 Passcode: 947646 Motion to Open public comment made by Chair Kowal at 7:11 PM Comments on the floor: Chris Giles, of a business at 162 Tremont Street, expressed concern over the proposed vaccine requirements for the dog kennel licensing order. She has no problem with requiring rabies and distemper vaccines, but requests that the Bordatella vaccine requirement be removed. She prefers to let the dog owners decide if they want to administer the vaccine. A small percentage of the dogs in her kennel ever get kennel cough and many of those that develop it had already been vaccinated for it. There were no comments via Zoom Motion to Close public comment made by Chair Kowal at 7:15 PM IV. ORDERS
A. (ID # 2026-1530): Amending Article II, Section 93 of the Melose Code of Ordinances to allow for a licensing and inspection process for kennel licensing in Melrose. Anthony Chui, Director of Health and Human Services, proposed amendments based on Ollie's Law, which was first enacted in September 2024. This highlighted statewide oversight in terms of kennel safety and kennel inspections requirements. They are looking to adopt regulations statewide to have the same standards and enforcement for all kennels and different types. The councilors discussed whether Bordetella vaccine (kennel cough) should be required for dogs in kennels, and it was explained that while the vaccine is not harmful to dogs and is commonly required by many kennels, there is no evidence it prevents the disease entirely. More discussion occurred on gathering data about vaccination rates and infection outcomes. It was clarified that while kennels could choose to require the vaccine themselves, removing it from minimum requirements would give businesses more flexibility while maintaining the option for individual kennels to implement stricter policies. There are no known side effects from the Bordatella vaccine and Stoneham and Wakefield have not updated their kennel license ordinance yet, and Bordatella is not dangerous to humans like rabies is. President Freeman then made a motion to remove the Bordatella vaccine requirement 2 from the ordinance. Motion to Amend Section B, (3), i, by striking “all dogs within the commercial kennel shall have current vaccinations for rabies, distemper, and Bordetella”, and replace it with “all dogs within any commercial kennel shall have current vaccinations for rabies and distemper” made by President Freeman Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti Motion passed 4-1, with Councilor Vandiver voting No RESULTS: ACCEPTED (4-1) TO: Amend AYES: Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Bradley Freeman, Elizabeth Kowal NAYS: Kim Vandiver ABSENT: Cal Finocchiaro More discussion occurred about increasing the permission threshold from three to four dogs and transferring fourth-dog permissions from City Council to the City Clerk. The discussion covered different types of kennels, with agreement that veterinary and commercial breeder kennels would not be permitted at this time. The group also addressed inconsistencies in age requirements between sections of the ordinance, and it was clarified that dogs must be registered at 6 months and can be boarded at 13 weeks. Councilor Karamcheti commented that Ollie's Law does not specify much about the square footage of kennels and number of dogs that can be boarded in that space. Anthony explained that the town is working with local kennels to establish appropriate staff-to-dog ratios, currently considering ranges of 1:10 to 1:20, while awaiting potential stricter guidelines from MDAR. Councilor Karamcheti asked about dog walking businesses and the instances where one person is walking multiple dogs, and Anthony clarified that these would not fall under the current kennel ordinance but noted this might be addressed in the future. Motion to Recess to open the Appropriations & Oversight Committee meeting made by President Freeman at 7:43 PM All were in favor and meeting was recessed Meeting was reopened by Chair Kowal at 7:48 PM Motion to Amend Section B, (2), iv to specify “other kennels, including veterinary kennels and breeding kennels are not currently permitted, or not permitted in Melrose”, and to Amend Section B, (3), iv from “private kennel” to “personal kennel” made by Councilor Vandiver Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti Councilor Vandiver withdrew the motion and no vote was taken Motion to Amend Section B (3) iv from “private kennel” to “personal kennel” made by Councilor Vandiver Seconded by Councilor Karamcheti All were in favor and motion passed 3 RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: Amend AYES: Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Bradley Freeman, Elizabeth Kowal, Kim Vandiver NAYS: None ABSENT: Cal Finocchiaro Motion to Amend/add verbiage to Section B, (2), iv to specify “other kennels, including veterinary kennels and breeding kennels are not currently permitted, or not permitted in Melrose” made by Councilor Vandiver Seconded by Councilor Jamaleddine Motion passed 3-2, with Councilor Karamcheti and President Freeman voting No RESULTS: ACCEPTED [3-2] TO: Amend AYES: Maya Jamaleddine, Kim Vandiver, Elizabeth Kowal NAYS: Manjula Karamcheti, Brad Freeman ABSENT: Cal Finocchiaro Motion to Recommend as Amended made by President Freeman Seconded by Councilor Jamaleddine All were in favor and motion passed RESULTS: ACCEPTED [UNANIMOUS] TO: City Council as Amended AYES: Maya Jamaleddine, Manjula Karamcheti, Kin Vandiver, Bradley Freeman, Elizabeth Kowal NAYS: None ABSENT: Cal Finocchiaro 4 V. ADJOURNMENT The City of Melrose does not discriminate based on disability and is committed to hosting accessible meetings and events. Individuals with disabilities who need auxiliary aids and services for effective communication, written materials in alternative formats, or reasonable modifications in policies and procedures, in order to access the programs and activities of the City of Melrose or to attend meetings, should contactthe City’s ADA Coordinator, Polina Latta platta@cityofmelrose.org. Motion to Adjourn made by Chair Kowal at 7:56 PM Seconded by Councilor Vandiver All were in favor and meeting was adjourned 5 Amending the Code of the City of Melrose, by deleting Section 93-5, renumbering, and amending Section 93-9 as follows: A. DOG LICENSING (1) Any and all persons who are owners or keepers of dogs residing within the City of Melrose shall register each dog which is six months old or older with the City Clerk and shall cause said dog to be licensed, numbered and described. The licensing period shall be on an annual basis commencing on January 1 of each year and ending on December 31 of each year. (2) The City Clerk shall not issue a license to any dog unless the owner or keeper thereof provides the City Clerk with a veterinarian's certification that said dog has been vaccinated in accordance with MGL c. 140, § 145B, or has been certified exempt from this provision due to a finding of the Board of Health that, due to infirmity or physical condition of said dog, inoculation is deemed inadvisable, or has a notarized letter from a veterinarian that a certification was issued or a metal rabies tag bearing an expiration indicating that said certification is still in effect. (3) The City Clerk shall charge the following fees for the issuance of dog licenses. Said fees shall not be reduced or prorated in the event that the license is issued for less than one calendar year. Spayed or neutered dog: $20 per year; an intact dog: $23 per year. A late fee of $15 is to be imposed if not licensed by March 15 annually. No fee shall be charged for a license issued for a service animal as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act or regulations promulgated thereunder. [Amended 12-17-2012 by Ord. No. 2013-69; 8-21-2017 by Ord. No. 2018-4] (4) The owners or keepers of the dog shall cause the dog to wear a collar or harness, of leather or some other suitable material, to which shall be attached a tag issued by the City Clerk at the time of licensing. Said tag shall contain the name of the City of Melrose, the license number and the year of issue of said license. B. KENNEL LICENSING (1) In accordance with G.L. c. 140 Section 137A of the General Laws, any and all persons maintaining a kennel in the City of Melrose shall obtain a kennel license from the Licensing Authority, who is the City Clerk. A Kennel is defined as a pack or collection of 5 or more dogs on a single premises. The licensing period for all kennel licenses shall be on an annual basis commencing on January 1 of each year and ending on December 31 of each year. (2) There are three types of kennels that may be licensed in Melrose: i. Personal Kennel (5-6 dogs): Anyone wishing to keep more than four dogs, three months (13 weeks) or older, kept under single ownership for private personal purposes, shall apply for a personal kennel license. The maximum number of dogs allowed to be kept under a personnel kennel license is six. The City Clerk shall charge the following fees for issuance of Personal Kennel Licenses: Fee: 5-6 dogs - $75.00. Copy of a Rabies Certificate for each dog over 6 months must be provided with any license application or renewal. ii. Commercial Boarding or Training Kennel: An establishment used for boarding, holding, day care, overnight stays or training of animals that are not the property of the owner of the establishment, in exchange for consideration and in the absence of the owner of any such animal. These facilities do not include animal shelters or pet shops licensed by the state Director of Animal Health. It also does not apply to a facility operated solely for the purpose of grooming animals. The City Clerk shall charge the following fees for issuance of Commercial Kennel Licenses: up to 5 dogs - $75.00; 6 to 10 dogs - $100.00; 11 to 20 dogs - $125.00; 21-25: $150.00; 26+- $300.00. iii. Domestic Charitable Corporation: Any facility operated, owned or maintained by a domestic charitable corporation registered with the Department of Agricultural resources, an animal welfare society, or other nonprofit organization incorporated for the purpose of providing for and promoting the welfare, protection and humane treatment of animals. No fee shall be charged for domestic charitable licenses per MGL c. 140, s. 137A(c). (3) General License Requirements i. Any application for a kennel license shall be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on a form provided by the City Clerk. Before a kennel license can be issued or renewed, the kennel must be inspected by an Animal Control Officer to ensure that it is being maintained in a sanitary, safe and humane manner in accordance with standards and requirements set by the Animal Control Officer, and that all records are up to date and on file as required by law. All dogs within a personal kennel shall be vaccinated for rabies and certificates must be produced for inspection when requested. All dogs within any commercial kennel shall have current vaccinations for rabies, distemper and Bordetella. If, in the opinion of the Melrose Animal Control Officer or the Director of Public Health, additional vaccinations are necessary due to animal or public health concerns, additional vaccinations may be required. If additional vaccinations are required, license holders will be notified in writing by the Animal Control Officer or Director of Public Health. ii. No new kennel license will be issued unless the Melrose Animal Control Officer, Melrose Building Department, and City Clerk review and approve the application. iii. The City Clerk, as the licensing authority, shall specify on every kennel license the maximum number of animals that may be maintained by a licensee following an initial inspection, and each annual inspection thereafter. Such number shall be determined by the City Clerk and Animal Control Officer following the required inspection. For commercial boarding or training kennels, the number of animals shall be determined following the required inspection and in accordance with regulations promulgated pursuant to section MGL c. 140, § 174G of the General Laws to ensure the property can support the number of animals while ensuring their health and safety. iv. A kennel license may not be used in lieu of individual dog licenses. All dogs in a private kennel must have individual dog licenses and tags. v. Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, all kennels shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 140, Sections 136A through 174G of the General Laws. vi. The City Clerk shall deny a kennel license until a kennel has passed inspection by the Animal Control Officer. If the City Clerk denies a Kennel License application or renewal, the Applicant may request a reinspection of the Kennel after reasonably demonstrating to the Animal Control Officer that the proposed Kennel has been brought into compliance with the requirements of this section and applicable state statutes. The Animal Control Officer shall then make a report to the City Clerk, who shall, within a reasonable time, review the application and make a determination. (4) Inspection Authority. i. The Animal Control Officer may at any time inspect any kennel located in the City of Melrose. If, in the judgment of the Animal Control Officer the kennel is not being maintained in a sanitary or humane manner, or if records are not being properly kept as required by law, the Animal Control Officer may by order, revoke or suspend the license for the kennel. ii. Depending on the severity of the offense, a license may be suspended or revoked on a first violation of applicable laws or this Ordinance. iii. If a licensee or applicant refuses to allow the Animal Control Officer to enter and inspect a kennel, the refusal shall also be grounds for denial, suspension, or revocation of a license. (5) Resident Complaints. i. Twenty-five residents of the iC ty may file a petition with the Mayor, to the attention of the Melrose Board of Health, stating that they are aggrieved, or annoyed to an unreasonable extent, by one or more dogs at a kennel maintained in the City, because of excessive barking or vicious disposition of said dogs or other conditions connected with such kennel constituting a public nuisance. ii. Within seven days after the filing of such petition, the Board of Health shall give notice to all parties in interest of a public hearing to be held within 14 days after the date of such notice before the Board of Health. iii. Within seven days after such public hearing, said Board shall make an order either revoking or suspending such kennel license or otherwise regulating said kennel, or dismissing said petition. (6) Penalties; violations; appeal rights. i. Any person or entity who violates this section shall be assessed a fine by the City Clerk of $500 for a first offense and a fine of not more than $1,000 for a second or subsequent offense, or otherwise be subject to an order revoking or suspending their license. ii. Any person or entity maintaining a kennel after the license to maintain a kennel has been revoked or suspended shall be assessed a fine by the City Clerk of $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and by a fine of $1,500 for a third or subsequent offense, pursuant to allowable fines under Chapter 140, Section 137C of the General Laws. iii. Within ten (10) days after issuance of any Order revoking or suspending the license, further regulating the kennel or dismissing the petition, licensee may file a petition in district court seeking review of the Order, as outlined in MGL c. 140, § 137C. The decision of the court shall be final and conclusive upon the parties. iv. This ordinance may also be enforced through appropriate criminal or civil process under Massachusetts General Laws. CITY OF MELROSE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DEDDDDDEPTDEPARTMENT DDEPARTMENT HERE Board of Health Health Director City Hall, 562 Main Street Frank Brincheiro, MD Anthony Chui, MPH Melrose, Massachusetts 02176 Lillian Kelly R.N. Telephone - (781)979-4130 Dawn Jacobs R.N., MPH health@cityofmelrose.org To: Melrose City Council From: Anthony Chui, Health Director Date: July 15, 2026 Subject: Updating Melrose Code to Comply with Ollie’s Law Ollie’s Law1, first enacted in September 2024, was created in response to serious safety failures in dog boarding and daycare facilities, including the fatal incident involving “Ollie,” a dog killed in a dog fight at a doggie daycare, whose death highlighted gaps in statewide kennel oversight. For the first time in Massachusetts, this law has established state oversight of commercial kennels, including daycare and boarding facilities by the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (“MDAR”). The law also required MDAR to adopt regulations related to standards and enforcement, which are expected sometime in 2026. The Melrose code of ordinances currently has no process for the licensing of Kennels (currently only a “Special License” exists to allow for licensing of more than three dogs- and no one currently has a “special license” allowing for 5 or more dogs which would now be a private kennel under state law). Ollie’s Law now requires that cities and towns develop local processes for licensing and inspecting of any operating kennels within their municipality. There are generally five types of kennels now acknowledged by this new law: 1) Personal Kennel, more than 4 dogs on a single premises for personal use; 2) Commercial Boarding or Training Kennel; 3) Commercial Breeder Kennels; 4) Domestic Charitable Corporation Kennel; and 5) Veterinary Kennel, a vet hospital or clinic that provides boarding for reasons other than medical treatment or care. After review by our new Animal Control Officer (“ACO”) and my department, we do have existing businesses in Melrose that now meet the new definition of “commercial kennel” under these new state regulations and we need a local process for our ACO to inspect and the City Clerk to license them. As mentioned above, this law expanded the definition of “kennel” under state law, and now includes doggie daycare and training facilities which currently exist in Melrose. The City needs to ensure these facilities are following the regulations and inspections required under state law which is why this ordinance is coming before you now for your review and approval. As with dog licensing, under state law, the City Clerk is the licensing authority. All kennels- including dog training, daycare, boarding facilities- must now be inspected prior to any license being issued or renewed, and are subject to inspection at any time by the ACO to ensure they are being maintained in a sanitary and humane manner and that records are being kept as required by state law. They also must be reported to the state on an annual basis, once licensed, by the City Clerk. 1 Signed into law as “An Act to Increase Kennel Safety” – Chapter 213 of the Acts of 2024. The attached ordinance was developed by myself and our new Animal Control Officer, with assistance from the City Solicitor. The City Solicitor has reviewed and confirmed this amended Ordinance meets the requirements of the state law for kennel licensing and the City’s responsibilities. Passing this Ordinance will ensure compliance, improve local safety measures, and position us to adopt the forthcoming state standards of MDAR related to Kennel safety- expected sometime this year- without delay. Our ACO already has a draft application she has worked on to send to the City Clerk for review and approval, and has begun to develop an inspection checklist and requirements for these types of Kennels moving forward in the Melrose community. For these reasons, I respectfully request Council approve the amended section of Melrose Code of Ordinances, Chapter 93 Animals, Article II Dogs, as set forth in the text provided. Sincerely, Anthony Chui Regional Health and Human Services Director achui@cityofmelrose.org (781) 979-4130
Transcript
▶ 13:34 Elizabeth Kowal: President Freeman is somewhere, and non-voting members Shen and Park. This constitutes a notice of quorum for the record. In accordance with the Massachusetts Open Meeting Law, this meeting is being broadcast and recorded by Melrose Cable Access TV and will be available for viewing in its entirety on MMTV and through the city website link. At this time, I will motion by unanimous consent to approve without reading the minutes from our meeting on March 23rd, 2026. Seeing no objection, those meetings are now approved. I will motion by unanimous consent to open the floor for public comment. Seeing no objections, we are open for public comment. This is the portion of the meeting where the public may speak on any item on
▶ 14:19 Elizabeth Kowal: tonight's agenda. Comments expressing any viewpoint on other matters are also welcome. Is there anybody here for public comment? Yes. Okay. So just a reminder that the public comment period is an opportunity for the public to share comments. Councilor will not respond. Yes. Okay. You have up to five minutes for comments. And is there a piece of paper up there for- There is, yeah. If you could sign. If you could just state your name for the record, but also if you could just write down your name and address for the record, that would be great. Okay. Thank you. My name is Chris Giles. I own a business at 162 Tremont Street in Melrose. I am here for the kennel licensing. And I had spoken to Anthony this morning about it, and I had a couple issues with
▶ 15:14 the paperwork on the kennel licensing. Not really the procedure, because I really am looking forward to regulations. I'm looking forward to putting some things down to make the dogs safer. A lot of places aren't doing what they should be doing. A lot of dogs are at risk. I want to see them safer. I don't want to see more accidents happening that have been happening in the media. So that being said, I am in agreement with almost everything on here. The issue that I have is there's one thing on here about, it says that all dogs within commercial kennels shall have rabies, distemper, and Bordetella vaccinations. Rabies and distemper I have no problem with. The Bordetella vaccination I have a huge problem with.
▶ 16:03 I've been in Melrose for 25 years, and I have been tracking-- Bordetella is also known as kennel cough. I have been tracking it with my business since 2008. And every time it comes through my shop, at least 80% of the dogs that have it have been vaccinated for it. My dogs have never had that vaccine or the virus in 25 years. Now, I've been watching it, and we have on the average, some years it's like five or six dogs. One year we had up to 17 dogs come down with it, which it's okay, but I have 200 dogs a week in my shop, so it's still a small percentage. But out of that percentage, most of them had had the vaccine. So I really don't want to require that of my own dogs or my clients' dogs. I feel it's not necessary. It's not as life-threatening as they say it is.
▶ 16:54 If it's as contagious and as life-threatening as they say it is, I would have more than 17 dogs out of 200 come down with it. So I leave it up to my clients. I give them all the information they need. I tell them that they and the vet needs to make the decisions themselves. And that's been working for us so far. I can't talk for the other daycare in Melrose, but for me, that has been working. And the dogs that don't get vaccinated, don't get it. So, that and it says in here that the kennel license will be 26 dogs plus. I had spoke to Anthony about that. I guess you guys are going to adhere to what the state says because the state has not actually come up with a figure for how many dogs can belong in a kennel. So whatever the state decide, I guess we'll do
▶ 17:44 Elizabeth Kowal: that. But, yeah, I would like to not see Bordetella in that if possible. And if you want, if anyone has any questions later, I have all the records from past years. I didn't Xerox them yet, but if you guys want them, let me know. I can give copies to everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Anyone online? No one online. So if there's no objections, I'd like to close public comment. Seeing none, we are now closed for public comment. So in front of us is ID number 2026-1530. Amendment Article 2, Section 93 of the Melrose Code of Ordinances to allow for a licensing and inspection process for kennel licensing in Massachusetts. So, the Director of Health and Human Services, Anthony Chu, is here
▶ 18:43 to speak on that. Thank you for having me tonight. I just wanted to give a quick introduction to why we're looking at this part of the ordinance. So, this is based on Ollie's Law, which was first enacted in September 2024. This highlighted a statewide oversight in terms of kennel safety and kennel inspections requirements. This has been done in partnership with MDAR, the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. We are looking to adopt regulations statewide, related to having the same standards and enforcement for all kennels and different types. We recently hired an animal control officer. It's been going very well. We've been able to work with our dog owners here in the city to do work on bite reports and making sure they
▶ 19:40 have the information they need. The next step would be to implement a process for licensing of kennels. And so currently, the city of Melrose has a special license through the city council that would allow for the licensing of three or more dogs. But this does not include the different types of kennels that we generally see, which we can cover, including a personal kennel, a commercial boarding or training kennel, or domestic charitable corporation kennel. So before the city council tonight, there is a proposed amendment to the current city code that includes the three major types of kennels that we see, and I'm happy to answer any questions relating to these. Thank you. Any questions from the committee?
▶ 20:27 Bradley Freeman: President Freeman. Thank you very much, Director Chu. I appreciate you being here, appreciate all the work that went into this. I do want to start just by asking one question based on the public comment we just heard. Is the requirement for the three different vaccinations, is that tied into state law, or is that best practices or something Melrose would like to see moving forward? So it's not required by state law, and one of the amendments to the proposed amendment that I would like to suggest is that we might strike bordetella from the required vaccinations list. As we can see in Section 3, Subsection I, it says, "All dogs within any commercial kennel shall have current vaccinations for rabies, distemper, bordetella." And it says also, "If in the opinion of the
▶ 21:07 Bradley Freeman: Melrose Animal Control Officer or Director of Public Health we can require additional vaccinations." Should there be an issue if we see some sort of uptick of bordetella and we receive any kind of guidance officially from MDAR that would require us or that would be a best practice for us to require it in the future, we may consider that. But for now, I know that rabies and distemper is a pretty standard set of vaccinations that are required, and we would be okay with having just rabies and distemper as the required vaccinations. Okay. Thank you. I'll plan to make a motion or someone can make a motion later on to that effect. Another question I do have is, in looking at the three types of kennels, personal, commercial, and domestic, I do think it obviously all ties
▶ 21:51 Bradley Freeman: back to Mass general law, which is the overarching authority here. I do think it tends to be a little confusing for folks referencing the ordinance or bouncing back and forth. I know you've done FAQs on the Board of Health and Health Department website for other issues like this. Would there be something like that for residents to know, I have three dogs, I have four dogs, this is what I need, or this is what I don't need, maybe I'm fostering a dog or something like that? Absolutely. Yeah. So, with the evolving guidance from MDAR as well as locally, I think it'd be in our best interest to release a frequently asked questions document that would cover all three types of kennels, and possible questions that might
▶ 22:28 Bradley Freeman: arise. So we'd be happy to generate that afterwards. Thank you. And my last question is, as it relates to homeowners who are establishing kennels in their house. Yes. Is there any requirement under the current zoning in Melrose that regulates that in addition to their need to get a license through this process? Are they able to start kennels in their houses? Yeah. So that's something that we have talked about. I believe if you're starting a kennel, that would be considered commercial use. We would have to work with the zoning board to see whether or not that would be allowed in their current zoning districts. There's also, on top of that requirement in Section 5, resident complaints. There's also a section should that process go through, there's
▶ 23:10 Bradley Freeman: also recourse for residents in the area. 25 residents may file a petition with the mayor, with attention to the Board of Health to express concerns with that. And that's actually a state law required by MDAR to allow for that process. If it's okay with the chair, I would like to make the motion on the vaccine policy, and then we can open up for discussion. So at this time, I will make a motion to amend Section 3, Subsection 1 by striking, "All dogs within the commercial kennel shall have current vaccinations for rabies, distemper, and bordetella," and replace that with, "All dogs within any commercial kennel shall have current vaccinations for rabies and distemper." Is there a second? Yeah, I'll second.
▶ 24:02 All those in favor? Point of order. Should we be on discussion of that? Oh, yes. Councilor Van Vorst. I guess on discussion, I wouldn't support such an amendment. I think the large percentage of dogs that are currently vaccinated is likely keeping the numbers down, and I'm happy to entertain more information before the next meeting, but at this time, I wouldn't vote for that amendment. If you don't mind explaining for us and for the people and the public any side effect if this vaccine was required. Not that I'm aware of that there's any life-threatening or any kind of quality of life issues with the vaccine side effects. The reason we are requiring rabies and distemper, those are pretty serious
▶ 24:57 conditions for dogs to get. Bordetella is pretty common as a vaccination for most places, and a lot of private kennels do require that. But this is meant as a minimum requirement for kennels, and so many kennels that we work with or that we're going to be working with, we've spoken to. A lot of them already require bordetella. That's a choice that they can make at their kennel. But at this time, rabies and distemper are the two that we're most concerned about, so that's why we're requiring those. Any of the neighboring towns or cities have adopted or required this vaccine? We are still working with our two neighboring towns, Stoneham and Wakefield, to pass changes to meet the requirement. Neither of which we have finished passing on this, so this will be our first
▶ 25:46 Maya Jamaleddine: community to move forward with this. Well, I'm just trying to find a reason not to adopt or make it a requirement for this vaccine. So what would be any reason that this should not be a requirement? There's no real public health reason. There are other vaccinations and other medical provisions for dogs that we don't explicitly list here as required before boarding. There's no real public health reason as to not require it. But rabies and distemper are the ones that we are focused on. But bordetella is one of the other ones that you can vaccinate for. We do generally recommend that if you can, you vaccinate your pet for all those conditions, including bordetella, but it's not something that we would require
▶ 26:38 Manjula Karamcheti: necessarily. Okay. Thank you. I guess sort of along those lines of questioning, even though I made the second. What I think I'm curious about, maybe this is in line with what Councilor Demaldien is asking. Is there any risk to dogs of getting the vaccine, and is that why people wouldn't do it? Or would people not do it because there's a financial impact, and that's why people choose not to get the kennel cough? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of why it is not something that we would want to require. I think. What are the impacts? Not that I'm aware of. There's no evidence that bordetella vaccine is harmful to dogs. I think there might be questions about whether or not it prevents--
▶ 27:33 Manjula Karamcheti: Generally, as a theory, vaccines are not meant to necessarily prevent animals from getting the disease. It is meant to decrease the amount of serious side effects that they could get after getting the condition. So our recommendation is always to get as many vaccinations to cover as many things that are known. We At this time, we don't think it would be required to include bordetella, but that's not something that... We would still recommend that they get it. Do you have any sense of, and it's totally okay if you don't, the percentage of dog owners whose dogs get the kennel cough vaccine? Because I guess for our companies, for the businesses who have kennels, they would have to turn away dogs who didn't have the
▶ 28:26 kennel cough vaccine, and that would directly impact their businesses as well as families whose dogs then couldn't be cared for. So- Totally ... I guess that's just I'm curious if you have a sense of this. Is there any data around that? I don't have any on hand right now. I know bordetella vaccine is very, very common. So I don't have that data right now, but I would say the vast majority of the kennels that we work with do require them as an internal policy. Thank you. Yep. Council Chen. Thanks. You are our health professional here, and- Yes ... I have not even heard of bordetella before- Yes ... about 15 minutes ago. So- More commonly known as kennel cough. Yeah ... I think the data we need before we vote on this is to look at the correlation
▶ 29:17 Jason Chen: between vaccination rates and how much infection rates happen, and then when you have infection rates, what percentage of those are serious, and if you have more vaccinations, if those become less serious. And so if the case is that it's never serious and it's not worth the cost burden on people to have to go through this extra thing, and there's really no benefit, then I could see, okay, we just take it off the table and there's no real benefit. But if there is some benefit to having more vaccinations, even if it's small, then we have to weigh do we want to make everybody or a lot of people do this as a requirement to get their dogs kenneled, and then it prevents a few, I don't know, it might even be
▶ 30:01 Jason Chen: less than 1% cases of becoming serious. Or if it's a couple hundred dogs, it might be one dog every couple of years, right? So- Sure ... I think maybe that would help us figure out the actual policy implications of doing or not doing. So maybe we could have that before the committee vote? Yes, we can absolutely do that. I might have already said this before, but the reason that I was comfortable with moving forward by striking bordetella from the requirements was because we don't generally see-- Again, we can get more data on this. We don't generally see kennel cough being a major health issue that lasts a long time for dogs. So that's why it's not sometimes considered life-threatening. That's why we didn't include it.
▶ 30:40 Elizabeth Kowal: Anyone else? I have a question. Yeah. Is kennel cough dangerous to humans? Not that I'm aware of, no. Rabies is, however. Rabies is very much so. And distemper- And distemper is the other one? Distemper. Distemper is the other one that's dangerous to humans, correct? Correct. Yes. So people can choose by themselves whether or not to give their dogs these shots. There are some that are dangerous to humans. Bordetella is not. It's not. It is restricted to the dog community. That's correct. And so what you're saying is people can also choose to work with or not work with kennels who either require this or don't. If people are afraid of that, they can choose to not work with a kennel that- That's correct
▶ 31:21 Elizabeth Kowal: ... doesn't require it. Right. So all that we would be doing is putting, I'm going to use the word burden, on kennels that may not require it and not giving people that choice about whether or not to do business or not do business or vaccinate or not vaccinate their dogs for something that's actually not, really from what I'm understanding, certainly not a threat to humans- Correct ... and a minor, I'm not going to use the word minor, but a smaller threat, a less dangerous threat to dogs. Yes. Is that correct? That would be correct, yes. Thank you. Councilor Marolda. Thank you. Actually, that's why I need to ask this question. If one of the businesses, even if we pass this amendment, decided that they wanted to make it a requirement
▶ 32:06 Kimberly Vandiver: for their shop- Yes ... would it be against the law or- Absolutely not ... they have the right to make that requirement? They do. Yep. So this is very much a baseline minimum. This is at least what you have to do. You can require above and beyond, especially for other kennels, you can require bordetella as a prerequisite. That's absolutely allowed. All right. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else on... Councilman. I guess to that point, though, a business, as kind of was discussed here, a business may not want to require something because that may turn away some customers, right? So it might be something that the business is not incentivized to require extra vaccinations, right? They would really have-
▶ 32:44 Kimberly Vandiver: Sure ... to have a pretty strong opinion on it to do that. So, I don't know. It might be something better legislated at the local level. Although I'm hearing what people are saying, that this is relatively minor, not a huge health risk. My other question is, I believe, did you say there's one other business in Melrose- That we are aware of, yep ... that have given any feedback along these lines or? I know that this other business does require bordetella shots for their clients before boarding. They have indicated that they will continue to require it after this passes, regardless if we require it or not. Okay. Thank you. And just for the record, we do very much suggest that dogs get fully vaccinated for everything that's possible right now,
▶ 33:29 Elizabeth Kowal: so. Anybody else? All right. We have a motion to amend on the floor with a second. So with no further discussion, all those in favor to amend? Aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Nay. Okay. We will amend it. It is passed, so we will ask you to amend it and bring it back to us. Thank you. Wait. One more. What was the vote count? It was four to one. You want- You voted yes? Okay. Thank you. Okay. I have some other questions. Okay. Now we are back to the actual ordinance at hand. Yes. Councilor Vanderberg was first in the queue for the overall ordinance. Okay, great. So other comments and questions I had. So just wanted to state for the record that this is a change from previously we required special permission for people after three dogs.
▶ 34:33 Kimberly Vandiver: Now this would be after four dogs- Correct ... when they get the fifth dog. And previously the additional permission to get the fourth dog was granted by the city council. Now this will move to the city clerk. That's correct, I believe. Yes. So just wanted to put that change out there on the record. I don't have a problem with that. And then there were a few kind of just markup things in the ordinance that I noticed. So there are three types of businesses that are in this new ordinance for Melrose, the personal kennel, the commercial boarding or training kennel, and the domestic charitable corporation. And there are two other ones in your memo that are not called out here, the veterinary kennel and the commercial breeder kennel.
▶ 35:21 Kimberly Vandiver: Yes. So one thing I was-- I'll kind of go through all these and then maybe make one collective motion, but I was thinking that we should amend this just to be very clear, and if those two types of kennels are not permitted, just call that out in that list. Is that the case that we don't intend to permit those types of kennels or might be in the future? That's something that we could discuss in the future. I think currently we have no information that those exist right now, so we're not looking to include those. I think commercial breeder kennels also come with a host of other conditions that we'd have to look into more closely. So for now, we wouldn't look to allow that. Okay, great. And then
▶ 36:07 Kimberly Vandiver: in A and B, there's a couple places where we talk about six months and where we talk about 13 weeks, and I was wondering if we should change one of those to be consistent. Let me see where exactly that was. It looks like section A1, six months old or older. Is that correct? Mm-hmm. Yeah. So A1, six months or older, and that's as well in B2, each dog over six months. But then we also talk about in B2, 13 weeks. So I just wasn't sure if it would make sense to change. I guess what I would probably change is I'd change A1 to be 13 weeks, three months. Because it looks like we want them to register once they're 13 weeks, and then they get the rabies certificate when they're three months presumably because they can't
▶ 37:05 get it right away. Is that- Is that the case? I believe so. Actually, if I'm reading that correctly, I think that might have been the reverse. So we generally currently require all dogs to be licensed after six months. Okay. And then I think the reason we kept six months as the registration requirement and then the section B, the personal kennel for 13 weeks or older, I think dogs can be boarded at 13 weeks generally in the industry. So that's why we included it at 13 weeks instead of the six months. So I think that's generally earlier than the six-month time period. That's why we lowered it for that one. Oh, okay. So within a personal kennel, it's six months that they have to register, but...
▶ 37:53 Bradley Freeman: No, I'm sorry. I think the personal kennel is 13 weeks or older. That's generally shorter than the six months, because it's likely that people can board dogs under six months. Mm-hmm. But the personal kennel, that's in a house, right? Can I-- Point of clarification for the council member, if you don't mind. Yes. What I think it's trying to refer to is the 13 weeks or older is to allow puppies to be born into a house- Uh-huh ... and then given up for adoption within 13 weeks, and those wouldn't be required to be registered or clarified as a personal kennel. And then the six months is to allow someone to adopt a dog at the general 12 to 13 week period, and then have a little bit of a grace period before you register said
▶ 38:38 Kimberly Vandiver: dog within by the time the dog reaches the age of six months, was my reading of it. Okay. Yeah, and that was actually my other question around that. Yes. So the consistency between the numbers, and then I know that is around the time period that dogs go. Would we want to actually relax that to 16 weeks because some dogs might not get transferred to their new home right at 13 weeks or something like that? I don't think you would ever come down and say, "This dog's 13 and a half weeks-" Right. I see. "... and this dog's out of line." But, just to give people the leeway if they need it. I see no reason not to increase that by three weeks. If we do 16 weeks, that could give it some leeway as well.
▶ 39:13 Kimberly Vandiver: That wouldn't be a problem, I don't think. Yeah. Okay. Sure. That sounds fine to me. I'd be happy to hear other Councilor discuss. I don't have a strong viewpoint on exactly how many weeks. I just was noticing those kind of comparative numbers there. And then in 3B- Excuse me. Can I speak? You can't. Public- There's a- Public comment is actually over. But thank you. Oh. So the last thing in three, so number iii, roman numeral little four, "Kennel license may not be used in lieu of individual dog licenses. All dogs in a private kennel must have individual dog license and tag." I believe, should that be personal kennel in that specific instance? Just a minor thing, but if so, I'll propose that amendment.
▶ 40:11 Can you repeat what section? Yeah. It's letter B, number three, little roman numeral four. Kennel license may not be used in lieu of individual dog licenses. Private kennel must have a... Was the proposed change the wording, "All dogs in a private kennel must have individual dog-" Yeah, I was just proposing private becomes personal. Is that what we're calling that type of kennel? I could be wrong. No, I believe that refers to... License may not be used in... Private kennel must have... I believe it does refer to the personal kennel, but I believe that also, even if they are staying in a commercial boarding or training kennel, that would not suffice. They would still have to have their individual dog licenses.
▶ 41:15 Manjula Karamcheti: So we can change the private to personal. Okay. Yeah. I see what you're saying, because this would require anybody with four or more dogs, if they have them, they would have to have their own individual license. Correct. That's right. So private should be personal there. Okay. So I'll end my comment and see if anyone has comments on that comment, and then I'll come back and propose those amendments. If that's what the committee would like to do. Next in line is actually Councilor Karen Shady. Oh, beautiful. Well, first I want to say thank you because we had a long conversation when this first came across my desk. Yeah. So really appreciated the time you gave me there. I think something that you'd mentioned in our phone conversation is that Ollie's Law
▶ 42:08 Manjula Karamcheti: actually doesn't come with a lot of specific recommendations from MDAR. And I think the one I would love for you to speak to a little bit is around the numbers that the bigger boarding kennels can have. Sure. And why I would love you to speak about it a little and what your approach will be is, Ward 1, where I am, actually has one of these boarding kennels, and it has a wonderful reputation. And has a certain amount of dogs that are taken in to be a profitable business, and the changing of those numbers can actually really impact businesses. And so I'm just wondering what your approach will be now in terms of those kennels, but also, how will you work with kennels in the future if MDAR does come out with specific numbers that kennels are allowed to
▶ 43:11 have per square footage? Sure. So currently, we have been in touch with our kennels here in Melrose. I think they do a wonderful job. This is kind of an iterative process for us, so we are still trying to figure out what the best practices are. There are general guidelines through MDAR. There are general guidelines through animal societies out there. So we are looking at, as a whole, at all these businesses, what their current practices are, and based on that, what can each business support safely? Some of the things we've been talking about in terms of ratios have been somewhere in the ballpark of 1 to 10 to 1 to 20 staff to dog ratios. Again, the reason we don't have that set in stone right now is because we are first
▶ 43:57 Manjula Karamcheti: waiting to see if MDAR will release more strict guidelines for us. And should that be the case, then we will have to adhere to those as a minimum standard. But in the meantime, this gives us, an animal control officer, time to do research, working with our kennels, and hopefully causing as little disruption as possible to current businesses. So our job is to both protect the safety of the clients and their dogs as well as working with our businesses and making sure they're sustainable. Thank you. I really appreciate that- Absolutely ... in terms of your philosophy and stance on how to move forward. I have one other question that's a little weird- That's okay ... so forgive me. But the ordinance really is around kennels.
▶ 44:39 Manjula Karamcheti: But often in Melrose and other places, I'm a big hiker, so- Yes ... depending on where we're going, there's also dog walkers who have a lot of dogs that are- Sure ... personal, private businesses. I'm just curious if this expands at all into that arena, or would that be just a completely separate thing? Yeah. Because sometimes you wonder how safe it is for one person to be walking 10 to 12 dogs- Absolutely. Yeah ... around other people and that kind of thing. So I'm just curious about that. Yeah, that's a really good question. That is something that we have received some questions about. This would not necessarily expand to that. That's more of a temporary stay when they have a different amount of dogs, depending on how many
▶ 45:27 they're walking. That is something that we would probably like to address in the future in terms of safety. I've anecdotally seen people walking 10 to 12 dogs going to the dog park. It seems pretty difficult to control all of them, getting them all together. So that's something that we would have to do a little more research on. I don't know how many ordinances there are out there in other seasoned towns, but that would probably be a good place to start. And definitely working with our dog walking community to see what the practices are currently and what some barriers might be to that, so yeah. Thank you so much. I'm all set. Okay. Appreciate it. President Freeman. Point of order. We do have an appropriations meeting that's supposed to start about
▶ 46:07 Devin Romanul: 7:30, so I'm making a motion for a brief recess to allow ANO to start, and then we can resume this conversation. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Good evening. The time is 7:44 on Monday, August 10th. This is a meeting of the Appropriations and Oversight Committee. My name is Devin Romanul. I'm the chair. I'm joined this evening by Vice Chair Vandiver, Councilor Chen, Jamaluddin, Karemčadi, Kowal, Obremski, Park, and President Freeman. This serves as a notice of quorum for the record. In accordance with open meeting law, this meeting is being broadcast live on MMTV. At this time, I'll motion by unanimous consent to approve without reading the minutes from our most recent convening.
▶ 50:06 Bradley Freeman: President Freeman. Thank you very much. Through the Chair, I just want to address a couple of comments made by Councilor Vandiver. I agree with her catch of the private versus personal and needing to maintain consistency throughout the order and would certainly support that. I do want to caution when we start talking about 13 weeks, six months, all that, we got to remember this all links back to the master laws, which does have definitions in there that we are being consistent with, and one of the definitions for a commercial kennel does use those 13-week definitions. I would be concerned about changing anything without running that by general counsel. So I would recommend that we hold off on those and
▶ 50:48 Kimberly Vandiver: present it to Councilor Phillips prior to this being taken up in the actual meeting. Solicitor Phillips? Solicitor Phillips. Yeah. Anybody else? Councilor Vandiver. Okay. So through the Chair, point's well taken, and so I will make a motion to make a couple of amendments, but not the one about the number of weeks. So I would motion to, in section B, number II, small iv, I would specify other kennels, including veterinary kennels and breeding kennels are not permitted in Melrose. And then if we want to come back and permit those later, we can come back and find those. And then I would specify in B III, iv, I would change private kennel to personal kennel. Is there a second to that motion to change those two?
▶ 52:00 Second my amendments. Okay. Upon discussion? I'm supportive of the second half of the amendment. I am concerned about the first half without more information about it. If Councilor Vandiver were willing to separate the two amendments, I would be happy to support the second one. I would have concerns supporting it with both motions attached. Councilor Manthri? I think we have to do one amendment at a time. Okay. So... Okay. I'm happy to withdraw that, and so I'll make the one that sounds like it has more agreement first. So I make a motion to, in section B III, iv, amend private kennel to personal kennel. Second. Upon discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes.
▶ 52:57 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay, and then I'll put the motion out there to add verbiage specifying that other kennels, including veterinary and breeding kennels, are not permitted in Melrose. Is there a second to that? Through the Chair, do you mind explaining? Oh, yeah, absolutely. So, there are five types of kennels specified in Massachusetts general law. They're listed in the memo in the second paragraph, and the ordinance that we're talking about describes three of them. It describes personal kennels, commercial boarding or training kennels, and domestic charitable corporation kennels. But I believe this is because we don't currently have any of these in Melrose, and so we haven't gone through thinking through all the rules about them, but this
▶ 53:59 Manjula Karamcheti: doesn't talk at all about commercial breeder kennels or veterinary kennels. And so the reason I'm putting it out there is just to clarify, since it lists those three and it's kind of silent about the other two, it's kind of a gray area, I believe as written. And so I think it would be helpful to either include them or to specify that they're not included. But- I'll second. Upon discussion? I think what just, I guess, makes me nervous, for lack of a better word, is by saying they're not included, are we saying no one could ever open one in terms of that? And I don't know that we would want to forbid a veterinary clinic from having boarding. I'm thinking about the Melrose vet, if they decided that that is something that
▶ 54:51 Kimberly Vandiver: they wanted to expand or provide. So I would be hesitant to say it's not allowed in this document without more conversation. Councilor Vandiver. Through the Chair, I think that's reasonable, and I also wouldn't want to say that we have a strong point of view that it shouldn't be allowed. I guess I see this as kind of similar to when we were talking about food trucks a while ago, where if there's a gray area, people kind of operate however. And so I guess the question is, if that were the case, if the vet wanted to open a boarding kennel, would we want them to proceed in the gray area, or would we want them to run into this rule and then come to us and ask us to change it, or how would we want that to work?
▶ 55:32 Maya Jamaleddine: It could go either way, but that's kind of how I see it. If it's helpful, the latter part of that was kind of what we were thinking when we didn't include them originally. I think we wanted to have more of a discussion if there was interest in doing either the veterinary kennel or the commercial breeder kennel. Any other questions or discussion? Councilor Chen, hold for one second. Councilor Marolda, do you have- Yeah. My question is, so this amendment is actually to invite everyone, possibly even the veterinarians, to abide to those law and not to exclude them from following these law. So, I think this is extra safety. Hold on one second. Anybody of the voting members of the committee before I
▶ 56:32 call on Councilor Chen? I'll just say real quick, I'm open to any suggestions for wording that makes that more clear. Councilor Chen. Question is answered. Okay, we have a motion on the floor to amend with a second. Any other discussion? All right. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? No. No. So it's three yes, two no. Who was no? That counselors Karen Cheney and President Freeman. Point of order, so I believe for an amendment, I believe it's majority. Someone else can correct me if it's otherwise in the rules. Okay. Any other discussion on the ordinance as of itself? All right, seeing none, what is the will of the committee? Motion to recommend. Motion to recommend. Is there a second?
▶ 57:37 Motion to recommend as amended. As amended. Yes, sorry. Thank you. Second. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion to amend. Motion, whatever you just said. Recommend as amended. Sorry, correct, as amended. Point of order. I think it's also, I believe with ordinances, we take a voice vote just to be clear that everyone's vote was specified. Through the chair, I believe that has to be done in- In full council ... in full council in when actually passing ordinance. Okay. Okay. With no other business, thank you. All right. Thank you, everybody. I will now make a motion to adjourn. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We are adjourned. All right. Resuming our Appropriations and Oversight Committee, first item on our agenda is