PHOTO BY GREG WALTERS

A Christmas Gift
from Us to You!

This week's Christmas advert features Edgar the Dragon . . . Enjoy!

USE THIS LINK . . . 
MERRY CHRISTMAS!

I received a call this afternoon from Raytown Fire Board member Richard Tush. He asked if there was something wrong with the blog portion of the Raytown Report. I had noticed that there were not any comments coming in – but chalked it up to the Christmas season, which is often a slow time for this type of social media.

So I ran a few tests and found Richard was right. The blog portion was not accepting comments.

I am pleased to say the problem has been resolved.

Greg Walters

BY GREG WALTERS

Tethering Ordinance Brings a Healthy Debate to Meeting

Last Tuesday’s meeting of the Board of Aldermen was typical of the last meeting of the year. A short agenda, something you would expect to be over in relatively short order. Usually you would be right. But Tuesday night’s meeting was not a typical end of the year meeting.

It started out benignly enough. The Mayor gave a very detailed report on the Annual Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in Downtown Raytown. My wife, Mecee, and I were in attendance and really enjoyed the evening. It was a good sized crowd. I would estimate to be somewhere between 200 to 300 people in attendance. A pretty impressive number when you consider how cold and windy it was that night.

As the Mayor is fond of saying, it was some "good, positive news” for Raytown.

However, last Tuesday’s meeting did have a couple of moments that are noteworthy.

TETHERING ORDINANCE: Raytown’s tethering ordinance was the spark that started the fire. The ordinance brought on a healthy debate with its fair share of drama.

The issue is simple. Some Aldermen (I being one of them) have received complaints of dogs being tethered outdoors for extended periods of time. The City Prosecutor has told the Board the current ordinance is difficult to enforce to the point of being useless. The head of the city’s Code Enforcement Division concurs.

So at the request of a number of Aldermen a meeting of the Municipal Committee was convened to recommend changes to the Tethering Ordinance. That recommendation required the following change in the ordinance language to make it more enforceable.

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A FEW WORDS MAKE! The City Prosecutor recommended the following changes in the wording of the ordinance.

The language change (new language shown in bold type, stricken language in red) is shown below:

Sec. 6-103 (c) It shall be unlawful for an owner, keeper or harborer of an animal to tether the animal outside except when the owner, keeper or harborer of the animal is visibly supervising the animal, whether outside or from inside a residence outside and in the same vicinity as the animal and within visibility range.

It did not take long for divisions on the Board to begin to manifest over the tethering of dogs in Raytown. Some Aldermen were upset because the new language required the “owner, keeper or harborer” of accompany the dog while it is tethered.

They complained that senior citizens (or as they  referred to them, “the elderly”) were not able to stay outside with a tethered dog.

In the previous meeting, Alderman Jim Aziere had argued pretty persuasively that code enforcement officers, like police officers, could exercise their judgment to determine if an animal is being abused or neglected. Such as extreme weather conditions (hot or cold) without water or any protection from the elements for the pet.  

Despite that simple explanation, some members continued to press their objection. Ward 5 Alderman Bonnaye Mims said, “her mother and grandmother would not allow a dog in the house”. She said she could not understand why this was being done.

Alderman Ryan Myers asked if a residential subdivision would be affected y this if they did not allow fences in yards. One member of city staff investigated and did find one neighborhood that does not allow fencing. Mr. Meyers seemed to think the proposed change banned tethering. It does not.

The proposed ordinance does not address fencing. Only the humane treatment of an animal when it comes to tethering said animal

At this point the Mayor ruled he would allow more comments but limit the time period to speak to two minutes. Alderman Bill Van Buskirk had the floor. The Mayor and Alderman Bill VanBuskirk got into quite a shouting match when the Mayor told him his time was up. After much gavel pounding and shouting between the two men, the Mayor gave the floor to Alderman Aziere.

ANALYSIS: There seems to be a rush to judgment by some members of the Board over what amounts to 11 words being changed in the current ordinance. In earlier testimony before the Board the head of the City’s Code Enforcement Division said his department had only received two complaints on tethering in the last year.

At the meeting last Tuesday, he told the Board they often receive complaints and promptly send letters to the pet owner.

The proposed language change, which was drafted by the City Prosecutor, allows for tethering. It also requires the tethered animal be supervised.

Some Aldermen have suggested a time limit be set for how long an animal can be tethered. I think it is fair to say that there is room for compromise on this issue.

One thing is for certain. The current ordinance needs to be changed.

Some members of the Board have expressed they are confused by the intent of the ordinance. They have three weeks before the next Board meeting to make themselves familiar with the problem.

Hopefully, they will come with solutions rather than excuses for not making worthy changes to a law that is not working in Raytown.

Speaking of Dogs . . . The Board also considered some fee changes charged to the public for certain services. One fee suggested by city staff was to charge the public for “replacement dog tags”, for those occasions when an animal loses its dog tag.

Staff’s plan was to charge $10 for an un-neutered dog and $5 for a neutered dog (replacement tag).

Ward 5 Alderman Derek Ward asked why there would be two rates for the tags. Staff’s explanation was that the original cost of a dog license was $20 for an un-neutered animal and $10 for a neutered animal. They  correctly pointed out that they had cut the fee in half.

Alderman Ward persisted. He said the dog has already been licensed, had its shots, etc., so why would a replacement tag cost more for one dog over another?

He then made a motion to lower the cost of a replacement dog tag to $5. The motion was seconded by Alderman Greg Walters.

The vote passed unanimously 10 to 0.