Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2014 Environmental Services/Public Safety/Community Assistance Committee minutes MINUTES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES / PUBLIC SAFETY/ COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE COMMITTEE January 22, 2014 A meeting of the Environmental Services / Public Safety / Community Assistance Committee of the Council of the County of Kaua`i, State of Hawai`i, was called to order by Mel Rapozo, Chair, at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 201, Lihu`e, Kaua`i, on Wednesday, January 22, 2014, at 10:38 a.m., after which the following members answered the call of the roll: Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Gary L. Hooser Honorable Ross Kagawa Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura Honorable Mel Rapozo Honorable Mason K. Chock, Sr., Ex-Officio Member Excused: Honorable Jay Furfaro, Ex-Officio Member PUBLIC COMMENT. Pursuant to Council Rule 13(e), members of the public shall be allowed a total of eighteen (18) minutes on a first come, first served basis to speak on any agenda item. Each speaker shall be limited to three (3) minutes at the discretion of the Chair to discuss the agenda item and shall not be allowed additional time to speak during the meeting. This rule is designed to accommodate those who cannot be present throughout the meeting to speak when the agenda items are heard. After the conclusion of the eighteen (18) minutes, other members of the public shall be allowed to speak pursuant to Council Rule 12(e). There being no objections the rules were suspended to take public comment. LONNIE SYKOS: For the record my name is Lonnie Sykos. I would like to address the Civil Defense proposal in front of us today to accept the grant. I am all for Civil Defense; however, I am not all for homeland security, and my question is does the Council have a detailed, written plan that states what it is that is to be implemented? How it is going to be implemented? And how the performance is going to be judged? In particular with the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) program and whatever else this delves into. We would also like to know what has the CERT program actually accomplished that is measurable in space and time? We know that they have received grant money and we know people collect their wages, and people show up to meetings. However, it does not seem like the CERT program actually does much. The Chairman, at the last meeting stated, like myself, that even contacting them, there is no response. EPC COMMITTEE 2 JANUARY 22, 2013 Yes, this CERT thing does exist and yes, we do suck hundreds of thousands of dollars of other taxpayer money into our economy and our budge through the CERT program, but what is it that they are suppose to be accomplishing and how do we measure if it is actually done or not? Without the written plan of what they are suppose to be doing, what they are doing and what is the end game, I cannot say to give them money. Thank you very much. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 10:38 a.m., to convene in the Committee of the Whole. The meeting was called back to order at 2:43 p.m., and proceeded as follows: There being no objections, Bill No. 2516 was taken out of order. Bill No. 2516 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A NEW ARTICLE UNDER CHAPTER 22, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, ENTITLED BARKING DOGS [This item was deferred to February 5, 2014.] Mr. Bynum moved to approve Bill No, 2516. seconded by Ms. Yukimura. Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura as the introducer, do you have any opening comment before we open it up to the public? Ms. Yukimura: No. I think we can go straight to public and I think Councilmember Kagawa has asked for Police and County Attorney. Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you, Chair. Before I start, Councilmember Yukimura, as the introducer, can I ask you a question? Ms. Yukimura: Sure. Mr. Kagawa: I think this is a burning question for me as well as others. I am under the understanding that you had prepared this Bill three (3) years ago, about? Ms. Yukimura: We started working on the Bill three (3) years ago but the final did not come.... We have gotten input from Police, from Prosecuting Attorney, from other Counties, and the Humane Society. Mr. Kagawa: I guess I am mistaken because I was under the understanding that this was ready three (3) years ago and I was just wondering if you had a reason why you held back three (3) years ago and why it is..... EPC COMMITTEE 3 JANUARY 22, 2013 Ms. Yukimura: No, no, no, no. I mean you can look at my files. Mr. Kagawa: I feel like I had it all in my first term and I was thinking that this is the term that we are going to throw out everything at me. Ms. Yukimura: No, no. You are not the target Councilmember Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Okay, thank you. Chair Rapozo: That is not what she told me. She told me she was going to save this until Kagawa got elected. Ms. Yukimura: I want to say that we even tried to talk to the Hunter's Association. They had several meetings. There was some back and forth. That was in the last three (3) months or so. We have been trying to cover all our bases and do our homework before we tossed it to the Council. Thank you. Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura, I see a couple of amendments coming up. Ms. Yukimura: Mainly clarification, technical. Chair Rapozo: Right, so I would ask that we introduce the amendments, get it on the floor, and then we will suspend the rules and have questions or public testimony if there are no objections. I just want to get all the amendments on the floor so we can discuss amendments and ask questions if it is involving County Attorney, if you do not mind. Ms. Yukimura moved to amend Bill No. 2516 as circulated, as shown in the Floor Amendment 1 which is attached hereto as Attachment 1, seconded by Mr. Chock. Chair Rapozo: Any discussion? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. These amendments resulted from the dialogue that has happened so far. Actually Councilmember Rapozo, you asked the question in our discussions on first reading about whether this was a violation, misdemeanor, or petty misdemeanor. So we are clarifying. If you look at the last amendment on page two (2), "failure to comply with this article shall be considered a violation and not a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor. And then the rest happened as staff and I were doing a last look to see whether there were any disconnects or clarifications necessary. Those are the other amendments. EPC COMMITTEE 4 JANUARY 22, 2013 Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Al, a simple nod will do. Is the violation in the Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS), does it conflict with the fines that have been set up in Section C? Ms. Yukimura: That is a good question. Actually, Nick did not get to see these amendments because we made them yesterday from in-house counsel. We can check that. Chair Rapozo: It seems rather easy but I do not know where to look. Ms. Yukimura: Do you think we could continue while they check and then they can come back to us? Chair Rapozo: Yes, please. That is more my concern is that we do not have a section that conflicts with the law. Ms. Yukimura: I really appreciate that you did Chair Rapozo. Chair Rapozo: Only because it has happened here on this floor before that we set a fine higher than what the State statutes allows. It is less? Let us put this amendment on hold. Al, if you do not mind could you verify with our staff because we are going to have to fix that amendment. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you. Chair Rapozo: Do you want to go to your next one (1)? Number two (2). Ms. Yukimura: Okay. I do not know if we can do that with a motion to amend pending. So maybe I should with draw for now. Chair Rapozo: That would be appropriate. Ms. Yukimura withdrew her motion to amend Bill No. 2516 as circulated, as shown in the Floor Amendment 1 which is attached hereto as Amendment 1, and Mr. Chock withdrew his second. Ms. Yukimura moved to amend Bill No. 2516 as circulated, as shown in the Floor Amendment 2 which is attached hereto as Attachment 2, seconded by Mr. Chock. Ms. Yukimura: This is regarding an affirmative defense and it is the section of the Bill that says "a dog shall not be deemed a barking dog for the purposes of this section if at the time the dog is barking or making any other noise a person is trespassing or threatening to trespass upon private property in or upon EPC COMMITTEE 5 JANUARY 22, 2013 which the dog is situated or" and here is where the change comes in. Right now it reads, "for any other legitimate cause which teased or provoked the dog' and with input from a young man named Nalu, we are suggesting the words "reasonable or apparent cause which teased or provoked the dog." Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. Kagawa: Councilmember, I tried to analyze where we got our ordinance from and if you can confirm. We have the purpose part from Kenmore County, New York. We have no provision out of Maui County in ours. The fines and penalties basically came out of City and County of Honolulu. Section 22-3 relating to barking dogs we got it out of the Big Island. Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa, we will hold that question because right now we are on the amendment. The change from legitimate to reasonable or apparent. Mr. Kagawa: Okay. And I thank Nalu. Smart person. Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? The motion to amend Bill No. 2516 as circulated, as shown in the Floor Amendment 2 which is attached hereto as Attachment 2, was then put and unanimously carried. Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa, I know you requested Kaua`i Police Department (KPD) and I know Penny is here from the Humane Society. Does anyone have any questions for either of our resource people? Mr. Bynum: Is that including KPD? Chair Rapozo: Including KPD. Ms. Yukimura: Maybe we can have all three (3) of them come up. Chair Rapozo: All three (3)? Ms. Yukimura: Police, Attorney and Penny. Chair Rapozo: Let us start off with Police and Humane Society and then I hope we can get to that issue with the fine. Mr. Chock: My request is that Penny also shares some of the details within the process because I think that is where a lot of the questions have EPC COMMITTEE 6 JANUARY 22, 2013 been coming up from the community in terms of the details. So, I just wanted to request that please. Chair Rapozo: Are there any questions from the Committee members? Ms. Yukimura: Yes. Why do we not go with Councilmember Chock's question first. Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Okay Penny, thank you. I know you have read the Bill and I guess for the sake of the general public, as well as us here on the Council, if you could give us an overview of what will happen should this Bill pass as it relates to the Humane Society and the process as Mr. Chock has requested. I think there are a lot of confusion in the community and if you could help clarify. You have the floor. State your name for the captioner. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. PENNY CISTARO: For the record my name is Penny Cistaro, Executive Director of the Kaua`i Humane Society. When the Humane Society receives a complaint about a barking dog, our first approach will be to discuss with the complainant if they have spoken with the dog owner and what was the results of that. We will recommend that they speak with the owner if they have not but it is not a requirement for them to leave a complaint with us. We will not be accepting an anonymous complaint because we want the complainant to be a part of the process. The way that the Ordinance is written and for us to be able to determine that there is incessant barking or problematic barking, we do not have the resources to have an officer sit in front of someone's house to determine that it is twenty (20) minutes out of thirty (30) minutes or at odd hours of the day. We do not have those resources and neither does KPD so we ask that the complainant be part of that process by keeping a log sheet of the times and duration of the barking. Once we have the complainant on board to work with us through the process, we will send them a packet of information and we will also sending the dog owner a packet of information that indicates that there has been a barking dog complaint made and that we want to work with the dog owner to help them correct the problem. We are asking the complainant to recognize that this is not going to be an instantaneous process and that we want to allow the dog owner to time to modify the behavior. We are not asking that the dog never bark or that it all ceases because we know that dogs bark for various reasons for short periods of time. Whether it is warnings that someone is coming on the property or the school bus has let off or there is a meter reader on the grounds. There are legitimate reasons that dogs bark. It is the incessant, non-stop, nuisance barking that we are trying to target. So we will be working with the dog owner during this process and asking, I believe there is a fifteen (15) day.....we are going to notify the dog owner that there has to be a noticeable improvement in the instances of barking within fifteen (15) days. So they have two (2) weeks. And then we also ask the complainant not to start using the log until ten (10) days after receipt of it in the mail. So that gives the dog EPC COMMITTEE 7 JANUARY 22, 2013 owner about a week to a week and a half to be making some modifications in the dogs behavior and that is what we are looking for. Is modifications and change in the dog's behavior. We will be working with the complainant to determine if there are any other neighbors in the area that are bothered by the barking. We may end up getting involved with the other neighbors trying to determine if there is a problem between the two (2) parties. Where the complainant is targeting the dog owner for other reasons because a lot of times they use public services to make life difficult for their neighbors and so we will be doing some of that as well. Once we get the log back, we will be talking with the dog owner because we will evaluate the log to see what times and durations the dog is barking to see if we can pin point that the dog is barking at the same time everyday for about the same amount of time so we will try to figure out with the dog owner, okay what is happening at 2:30 p.m. or at 9:30 p.m. whatever that time might be. We want to see if they can target why is the dog barking at these particular times. We will be advising the complainant, based on the log sheet, that we may not find that this is necessarily problematic behavior that warrants a citation. If the dog is barking periodically throughout the day for short periods of time that is not necessarily going to constitute a nuisance that would warrant a citation. If there are situations where we do not believe a citation is necessary but there is still this animosity going on between the two (2) parties, we can refer them to mediation. We can try to resolve it but that part of it is not necessarily our role to mediate a problem between two (2) parties. Ours is to determine whether or not we think there is reason here to issue a citation. That is it in a nut shell. We have a lot of resources, dog trainers that can help people modify the dog's behavior, behavior information as well as a lot of products that the person can provide for their dog whether it is entertainment toys or humane collars that can signal the dog's nuisance barking for them. Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Penny, so if dog barks at 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. every night and the problem is then who is going to do the first interventions? Ms. Cistaro: We would. Mr. Kagawa: I though you folks work till 4:30 p.m.. Ms. Cistaro: We are not going out at 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. at night. We are going to talk with the dog owner for them to figure out what is that trigger that is happening at 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. at night but the dog by Ordinance then would have to be barking incessantly for ten (10) minutes or twenty (20) minutes within a thirty (30) minute period. So if it is barking at 10:00 p.m. at night and it is barking for three (3) or four (4) minutes and then it is quiet, that is not considered a nuisance barker. Something is happening that is triggering that barking and we would try to work with the dog owner to figure out what that is EPC COMMITTEE 8 JANUARY 22, 2013 but we are not going to go and sit on the property for ten (10) minutes at 10:00 p.m. at night. Mr. Kagawa: Alright. Chair Rapozo: Incessantly for four (4) minutes seems like a half an hour to some people. Ms. Cistaro: To some people it does, yes. And that is where we would be working with the complainant saying this is not considered a nuisance problem. It is annoying to you and we have expressed that to the dog owner but again four (4) minutes is not a long period of time for barking. Not when I listen to it for eight (8) hours a day at work. Chair Rapozo: Any other questions for Penny? Mr. Chock. Mr. Chock: I just want to get clear. Will the Kaua`i Humane Society be making recommendations towards mediation if it is necessary? Ms. Cistaro: If it is necessary, yes. Mr. Chock: And who makes that determination? Ms. Cistaro: The Humane Society would. Because we are going to be getting information from the dog owner, the complainant, we are going to have a log sheet, there is going to be more than one (1) staff member involved in this process because the officers are going to get involved, the training staff is going to get involved, customer service is going to be involved and we are going to be evaluating the cases. A good majority of these will be resolved with all of the behavior information that we are sending out and the resources that we have for people, and having worked with this type of program in the past and then talking with Oahu's program and the Big Island, they see a great decrease in the barking problem once people get the education on what to do because their dog is barking. Mr. Chock: So to be clear the Kaua`i Humane Society will be the first line of response. When would the Kaua`i Police Department get involved? Ms. Cistaro: Would you like me to answer that? ALEJANDRE QUIBILAN, Assistant Chief: I will give you the first shot at answering that question. Ms. Cistaro: KPD would be involved if there is a call after hours for us or in the middle of the night and KPD has the option of sending an officer or not. Through discussions with the Police Department it is if the call is coming in at 2:00 a.m. in the morning and it is not a routine place that they are always getting EPC COMMITTEE 9 JANUARY 22, 2013 barking calls, they would respond but they may or may not respond. They will refer the complainant to be contacting us the following business day for us to do our first line. Ms. Yukimura: Just a clarification, even if people call during the day to the police dispatch, they will be referring to the Police Department, right? Whether it is night or day any calls that come into dispatch will be referred to the Humane Society and the Humane Society will take it from there? Ms. Cistaro: Correct. Ms. Yukimura: I know there are no slow nights but if there is a slow night and I know the Chief has said if it might be that there is something of interest to the police that might be also related to a barking dog, they could go out but they never have to. There is no requirement that they have to so that allows them to have their priorities. That is how I understand it and Assistant Chief you can elaborate. Mr. Quibilan: For the record. Ale Quibilan, Assistant Chief, Patrol Services Bureau. Ms. Cistaro's description of our participation in this Bill is accurate, that we have the option. Now there will be certain circumstances that occur where we may elect to check on the barking dog as you had mentioned Councilmember Yukimura. Just off the top of my head some examples would be the officer is just down the street, right around the corner, in the same neighborhood and is not on any assignment and may want to swing by and check on the situation. Also there may be other circumstances associated with the initial call of the barking dog such as the neighbors are outside and they are having a few words. So we want to come in and address this dispute. Another one that is again off the top of my head is we know for a fact that this neighborhood or this area is high crime or we have had a number of burglaries, thefts, car break-ins and we are on alert for this particular area. I think it is our responsibility to follow up and determine what other activities are may be going on but those are some examples that we should check into. Chair Rapozo: Mr. Kagawa. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. First question, I have heard Councilmembers say "we are trying to get this Bill passed for barking dogs because Kaua`i is the only island that does not have one and I am reading Maui's one and I see no provision for barking dogs in Maui County. Can you clarify if Maui.... Ms. Cistaro: I believe that Maui does have one. They have a similar Mr. Kagawa: Well I am reading the whole Bill and I cannot see any provision for barking dogs. There is nuisance but nuisance does not say barking. Excessive barking, if cause is disturbance of excessive barking or noise EPC COMMITTEE 10 JANUARY 22, 2013 making but it does not specify like it does in the Big Island Ordinance, which we have copied. The Big Island one is pretty clear as to what we are describing as our definition of excessive barking. And then when I read the City and County of O`ahu's, of Honolulu's, Ale, I do not know how successful Honolulu Police Department (HPD) is with that definition and I do not know if you have asked your counterparts in City and County how successful have they been with barking but as I read the definition, and Scott will put it up. If you read that it would seem quite a difficult to get something to hold up in court and Al probably has a better idea. If you read 7-2.4, and I will read it, "noise is unreasonable within the meaning of this article if considering the nature and the circumstance around the animal nuisance including the nature of the location, time and day of night, it interferes with reasonable individual or group activities such as but not demitted to communication, work, rest, recreation or sleep or the failure to heed the admonition of a police officer or a special officer of the animal control contractor that the noise is unreasonable." It is just very, it is not descriptive like the Big Island or our proposed Bill. I know we like to always say we have to do it. The other Counties are successful. I cannot see City and County being successful with language like that and I do not know if you have checked with them on Oahu on how successful they are with enforcing barking dog laws. Mr. Quibilan: No. I do not have that information. I have not checked with HPD. Mr. Kagawa: I think last week I kind of requested that. I do not know if we can get that for the next Committee if we defer it. To check with our counterparts on all other islands on how successful is their wording working. Ms. Cistaro: I spoke with the Executive Director from the Oahu shelter and when they were handling the barking dog complaints, they have had a major change to their contract in the last year so barking dogs have been referred to the police department now. But prior to the police handling it, they were successful with the educational approach. The Big Island does the educational approach for the first complaint and they go out and speak with the dog owner, offer all of the information, and if a second complaint comes in on the same dog, it is turned over to the police for them to issue the citation. Mr. Kagawa: I can see that they have some fines in there for City and County. A fine of fifty dollars ($50) for the first occurrence. A fine of one hundred dollars ($100) if it occurs within two (2) years of the previous occurrence. It is not very stiff fines to me but I just really want to find out how successful it is. I know for our police they do see extreme cases where neighbors are not being good neighbors and what they tell the residents is that "we have nothing in our law to let us handle that situation properly." I want to make sure that we are trying to help the police to do their job. Not put some kind of language that will not achieve what we want to or will actually cause more problems with creating more bad neighbors amongst each other. That is what I am afraid of with this Bill. Give the public a EPC COMMITTEE 11 JANUARY 22, 2013 vehicle to go after their neighbor when perhaps the situation is not excessive barking. Do you want to respond to that? Ms. Cistaro: I think by incorporating an educational approach you are minimizing that because you are having an outside agency try to evaluate is this actually a problem or are there issues within the neighborhood. One of the key questions for us is that if it is a residential neighborhood, why is there only one person making a complaint. If the house is surrounded by other residents other people should hear the barking, other people should be bothered by the barking and so trying to get a sense of the neighborhood. They become individual situations that we look at and we have the ability to do that rather than going with just the Ordinance it says on the first occurrence this is what happens and on the second this is. But by looking at each situation individually from an educational standpoint, we are going to minimize the number of citations that are going to be issued because that is really not our goal. Our goal is to help the dog owner quiet their dog and keep the dog because if you come at it from a citation approach, where you are offering no education, we run the risk of the person saying "take the dog, I do not want it. It is more of a hassle and it is costing me money." If we educate the people on how to keep their dog quiet or at least reasonably quiet they are going to keep their dog. That is our goal. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. I worked for the staff here in 1991, I think, and I have come across Councilmembers who have thought about passing a dog or noise Bill. Everybody has been hesitant for all the years I was here. Ale, does this date away from the manpower on the efforts of KPD? Will we need additional workers?That is my real concern. Mr. Quibilan: It is hard to answer the question. It is hard and difficult to anticipate the number of calls that we may be getting in all hours of the day. Mr. Kagawa: I guess, because in the past it was easy for the dispatcher to say we do not have a dog barking Ordinance so we will not be sending out anybody but now we have to make that contact Humane Society, and we have to keep track of when it becomes our turn to write citations up or whatever. So, does that add to your workforce or basically can we handle it for now? Mr. Quibilan: I think it will definitely add to the work that the officers are already doing. The way I see how this thing is turning out is unless we are there for that specific time or period when the dog is barking and pick up the evidence that we need to get this case, even to court, we cannot guarantee a conviction in court but at least enough to bring this person to court with a citation that will increase our workload because we require the evidence to even present it to the Prosecutors. Mr. Kagawa: Thank you. EPC COMMITTEE 12 JANUARY 22, 2013 Mr. Quibilan: Thank you. Chair Rapozo: I know we are set for a tape change, BC pretty soon? BC: Yes, in about a minute. Chair Rapozo: Okay. What we will do is, because if we take a caption break then we have ten (10) minutes in a two (2) hour period versus fifteen (15) minutes and it is always harder to round up the troops after a five (5) minute tape change so let me do this in the last minute. I want to ask you a question now and then you two (2) can think about this because it just came to my mind. This Bill will not prohibit a police officer from issuing a citation at 2:00 a.m. in the morning? Mr. Quibilan: It does not. Chair Rapozo: It does not. If the officer shows up, and the officer for whatever reason is not busy and sits there for ten (10) minutes and this dog is screaming for ten (10) minutes that officer can write a citation? Mr. Quibilan: Yes. Chair Rapozo: Now, same scenario, 2:00 p.m. in the afternoon. Humane Society response and that violator gets an opportunity to go through a process that does not allow him, and the County Attorney is listening to this as well, we will do the answer after the break. I am just thinking about fairness because at 2:00 a.m. the guy gets a ticket and 2:00 p.m. Humane Society shows up, and I met with Penny yesterday and she showed me the products they have regarding some of these anti-barking devices and I was very impressed. But that person at 2:00 p.m. will have an opportunity to avoid a ticket, the guy at 2:00 a.m. does not. That is how I read the Bill so anyway with that we will take a caption break, ten (10) minutes and if you guys can think about that one. There being no objections, the Committee recessed at 3:16 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 3:29 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Rapozo: Welcome back. I had posed a question for you to think about and I guess one (1) of my concerns was the equality of the application of the Bill and that in fact if some violator at 2:00 a.m., the officer had the opportunity to stay there for ten (10) minutes and the dog was barking that officer could in fact write a citation and get that violator though the judicial process versus, I think what I really like what I hear from Penny about the "educational," and I think what you called the social work component where the Humane Society would intervene and pretty much educate the owner on some issues or ways they could stop the barking. But that person would get a different treatment than the guy at 2:00 a.m. so I am thinking the Bill should address that and all calls would go to the Humane Society, if in fact the EPC COMMITTEE 13 JANUARY 22, 2013 intent of this bill is to go down an educational route versus an enforcement route. So just your thoughts on that and I do not think you would have a problem, Penny with that. It is just that these complaints would be dealt with at a later period. Whether it is a 2:00 p.m. call to the Humane Society, Humane Society is not going to go out at 2:00 p.m. to go monitor the dog. Ms. Cistaro: We will not be responding to the initial complaint of a barking dog. It will take the educational approach through the phone and through the mail. We do not respond unless there is a welfare complaint tied to the barking somehow. Chair Rapozo: And with KPD, I am assuming that if, let us just use a 2:00 a.m. call, let us use a 5:00 p.m., 7:00 p.m., "after hours" of the Humane Society....call comes into dispatch, what would that scenario be? I am assuming you would not dispatch an officer. I am hoping that caller would be referred to the Humane Society. Has that been worked out yet? Mr. Quibilan: Yes, that is correct. Our primary roll would to refer the complainant to the Humane Society but let me just go back to your 2:00 a.m. scenario. Similar to any noise complaint whether it be music or machinery, we normally go in and give a warning to the complaint if it is past a certain hour. We will give a warning and then specifically say that if we have to come back then we will take action but traditionally we give that first warning and hopefully the person is cooperative. Chair Rapozo: Mr. Hooser because I know you had your hand up before the break and then Ms. Yukimura. Mr. Hooser: Yes, I have some questions. The educational component and you had mentioned a log. I do not see any of that in the Bill. Ms. Cistaro: Correct. Mr. Hooser: Okay and so if it is not in writing it does not exist. So you will be having an amendment to out that in? Ms. Yukimura: No. My understanding of laws is you do not put in standard operating procedures into laws because you do not to have to change a procedure everytime from what they learned or something to have to come to us to change it. So there is a draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the police and the Humane Society would be signing that embodies the processes will follow together. I wanted to just add to Assistant Chief Quibilan's point..... Mr. Hooser: Okay. I am going to finish my questions if I could first. So, I understand that there is a separate process for a MOU to deal with the log and the educational component. The part about the Bill that says "no persons EPC COMMITTEE 14 JANUARY 22, 2013 shall keep any dog which barks, cries, etc., continually or incessantly for a period of ten (10) minutes" it is pretty clear. But then it says "or barks, bays, cries, howls or makes any other noise intermittently for a period of twenty (20) minutes within a thirty (30) minute period" so to me that seems way broad. To make any noise intermittently is a violation. I do not know if we could think about that language a little bit. I have concerns about it. Do you have any suggestions about other language? Ms. Cistaro: If a dog is barking for twenty (20) minutes within a thirty (30) minute period he is basically barking non-stop. He will stop for maybe a minute, maybe a minute and a half and then pick up again. So that is what becomes most annoying to people. Mr. Hooser: So I guess the definition of intermittently is that the fundamental problem and any other noise so a dog makes a little noise and then ten (10) minutes later the dog makes another little noise I mean that is intermittently. You do not have to answer that any further in terms of our discussion right now because I will think about that myself and how that might be fixed. The other question I had or concern. I will awake in the middle of the night, sometimes and I will hear a dog across the valley barking. It might be barking a long, long time but it is just a distant bark and so there are no proximity provisions in the Bill. I worked on a barking dog measure fourteen (14) years ago or so and one of the big concerns was that people, neighbors do not like neighbors so there are going to complain about the neighbor. So one (1) neighbor will file a complaint and I know you are talking about education but the Bill says there is a violation if a dog barks for a certain amount of time so one (1) prior approach had been, and I would appreciate some feedback from both of you on this. So when the dog barks at 2:00 a.m. in the morning nobody has to go out, basically? Because that is not the type of dog we are looking at. We are looking at the dog that barks all the time, day after day and so one (1) prior approach had been to require for a violation to occur two (2) neighbors or two (2) people had to file an affidavit basically. Fill out a form, the dog was barking and that is used as evidence or violation. Do you have any thoughts on that? No? Ms. Cistaro: If we believe that there is a neighbor dispute going on based on conversations with both the complainant and that dog owner we would look for other people that may be bothered by it. So we could determine from talking with other neighbors that there is a problem or there is not a problem but it was not written that it would require more than one (1) person. Mr. Hooser: I guess the issue is that it is the subjective nature of whether or not there is a violation. When the law says if a dog barks this long then there is a violation and what I am hearing is that the Humane Society would make a subjective decision as to whether they believe there was a violation or not. EPC COMMITTEE 15 JANUARY 22, 2013 Ms. Cistaro: That is part of the log process that we are going to ask the complainant to be filling out so that we have documented times and dates of when it is occurring over a period of seven (7) days. Mr. Hooser: Right. So that would be part of the MOU and not part of the law? Ms. Cistaro: That is part of our educational process. That is part of the Humane Society's process to determine if there is a barking dog problem so that we can make an evaluation. Mr. Hooser: I think, my disconnect is what is presented and what is being explained. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Chair Rapozo: Thank you. I think Mr. Hooser is going and I think he is raising some concerns is if it should go to court, the log in my opinion will not be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Some law enforcement officer is going to testify that they witnessed the elements of this crime or this violation themselves. So I think in cases where it is maybe the Humane Society determines that base on the log there is a very good chance that these violations are occurring based on neighbors as well as the complainant that someone will have to go out, either the police or an enforcement officer with the Humane Society to sign off on that citation. I saw the Prosecutor here earlier today but I am just thinking about years as a cop where it is like somebody reports somebody for speeding or overtaking on a solid line, the fact that someone said they saw it would not be sufficient to get the court to convict that person unless the officer witnessed it. Just things to think about as we go through this process. Counncilmember Yukimura. Ms. Yukimura: So I think there are good questions being raised about evidence but Penny, you have had experience being in court for barking dogs, right? Ms. Cistaro: I have had experience with this process, yes. Ms. Yukimura: The court will allow evidence of a log if the complainant who did the log is in court? Ms. Cistaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: And will also accept testimony from Humane Society or police if anybody had a particular experience at the site. Ms. Cistaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: And the other thing, which I actually did myself once is people can record it on their cell phone, right? EPC COMMITTEE 16 JANUARY 22, 2013 Ms. Cistaro: They can. Ms. Yukimura: And play it in court too. So there are many ways of producing evidence and as is with a traffic violation or any kind of charge leading to a possible conviction, the court will have to judge the credibility of the evidence. Ms. Cistaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: So the first threshold is the Humane Society works with complainant and dog owner through support of log forms and information on how to stop a dog from barking. If it looks like a potentially neighbor clash and not really a barking dogs problem you will check with other neighbors. You are going to make the first threshold decision whether there is enough information to cite a dog owner? Ms. Cistaro: Correct. Ms. Yukimura: Assuming you decide to cite then it goes to the Prosecuting Attorney, right? Well the person can either pay or challenge it in court? Ms. Cistaro: Correct. Ms. Yukimura: So will the Prosecuting Attorney be there, I am sorry. I should know this. Ms. Cistaro: I do not believe so. Ms. Yukimura: It is just going to be the citing officer and the person. Then the Judge has to look at the evidence and decide whether there is sufficient evidence for a conviction, a violation and a fine? Ms. Cistaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: That is sort of the process but at every step there is going to be a weighing of the evidence and the credibility of the evidence and the people presenting the evidence? Ms. Cistaro: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: I hope it helps to look at the kind of step by step process and then I had one (1) question for the Assistant Chief. 2:00 a.m. you respond to the complainant because the complainant is the one that is calling the police department. You go, you hear the dog barking, you think it is worthy of a warning at least so you go to the owner and say "it is 2:00 a.m. and there is some type EPC COMMITTEE 17 JANUARY 22, 2013 of disturbance so please take care of the problem" or something like that? "We are just letting you know this is a problem. There has been a complaint." Mr. Quibilan: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: And then you are also going to tell the complainant to call the Humane Society in the morning? Mr. Quibilan: Yes. We will do the referral. Ms. Yukimura: At every step of the way it is referred to the Humane Society for the educational piece? I just want to verify that the educational piece get in there either way. Whether you just tell the complainant "do not go over there" but dispatch tells the caller "we are not able to send anyone right now but please call the Humane Society in the morning." Mr. Quibilan: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Or an officer goes, makes a warning, tells the complainant to call the Humane Society in the morning. Mr. Quibilan: Yes. Ms. Yukimura: Or somebody calls at 2:00 p.m. to dispatch, and dispatch says to call the Humane Society. They could call at 2:00 p.m., if they wanted. Mr. Quibilan: Yes. Mr. Hooser: It is a question but also a comment. But it is also a question. Because there is so much talk about education, why could we not put the first violation shall result in a warning letter and mandatory education or something besides a fifty dollar ($50) penalty, if education or some kind of outreach is really the objection? Someone calls about my dog, I am gone all day, the dog barks, I get a citation that is a warning letter, "your dog has been barking. This is a warning. Here is some educational materials, please call our office" or something like that rather than start off right away with fines. Ms. Cistaro: The way our process is designed is that is what they would be getting. On the first complaint it is not an automatic citation. On our first complaint, they get the educational packet and the warning that you need to modify the dog's behavior. We are here to help you do it. Here is how you can do it. If there is not a change in the dog's behavior then you have the potential to be issued a citation so that piece is already in place. Mr. Hooser: But it is not in the law? EPC COMMITTEE 18 JANUARY 22, 2013 Ms. Cistaro: No it is not. Mr. Hooser: It is not in the law so it is possible that we could put it in the law to require first violation would be a warning and educational outreach or something would be one (1) option that we would have, or an additional option. Thank you. Chair Rapozo: It would be like how we have our code violations in the County code regarding like a planning violation. You get a cease and desist letter. I think that is what I am hearing. We want to go down that road where compliance versus enforcement. I think that is very possible. Whether or not this law passes, I think the activity of the Humane Society is not going to change. The packets will still go out. The one thing that will happen if this law does pass is that the citizens on Kaua`i will no longer get the response "call your Councilmembers because we do not have a law." That is what is in place now. That is a big complaint I keep getting from constituents. They keep saying to call us because they do not have a law. That is what this law does. It takes that away. Questions? Mr. Chock: Just clarification. What I heard earlier is that it is to the discretion of the officer if he or she wants to issue a citation at 2:00 a.m. Does that mean that we are bypassing the educational process because maybe it is something they feel strongly about and they have that ability or are we deciding here that there is always a warning and it will always be deferred to Kaua`i Humane Society? I am hearing two (2) things. I just want to clarify that. Mr. Quibilan: For KPD and our patrol officers if this Bill passes and the Ordinance is established it is going to be an educational process for us on how to deal with this particular situation. We still, as I mentioned fall back on the noise complaints that we get at neighborhood centers, from neighborhoods, large gatherings, music playing, someone fixing their car, running an engine late at night and we normally do give warnings. We would like to still stay on that same path of establishing warning but we have had instances where our warnings have gone unheeded and the noise continues, the complainant calls back and we take the next step which is to issue a citation of whoever is making the noise. If we look at the same methodology of how we deal with noise complaints with the barking dogs if we get a second complaint later that morning once we have already given the first warning the officer has that discretion to issue a citation. The drawback in this whole situation would be that the complaint would be on us now. That KPD did not act upon my complaint and we will look like bad people because we are trying to go into the educational side but this person insists that we do something about that barking dog because nothing has occurred in the next hour, or two (2) hours that the dog continues to bark. That is our position is on this. Chair Rapozo: I think this is a good segway into my next question. As the way the law is written today I think you are right Chief, the EPC COMMITTEE 19 JANUARY 22, 2013 complainant has every right to file a complaint with the Commission that the police did not do their job because in fact the violation did occur. I think Mr. Hooser's comments about setting up the Ordinance in a way that you would require that intervention by the Humane Society initially and upon a second call and the person has not gone through that process that it would trigger that enforcement mode. I think that can be fixed in here. You talked about the engines, the noise, the music that all falls under what section? You folks go under the Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS). Mr. Quibilan: Disorderly conduct. Chair Rapozo: So right now as you respond to a noise complaint, let us just say noise, whether it is music, engine, people talking, motorcycles, you are responding under the HRS? The State law that says you cannot bother your neighbors. Mr. Quibilan: Correct. Chair Rapozo: Barking dogs obviously do not fall under that, under "disorderly conduct" and that is why you are saying the people are told "hey, we do not have a law." Because if you read the statute it does not cover the activities of a dog, it covers the person that is making the noise. Unless you are pinching your dog's ear to bark so your neighbor gets upset then you may be able to cite them for disorderly conduct. But if your dog is barking for whatever reason, I do not think the disorderly conduct stretches that far where you could cite the owner. Mr. Quibilan: I believe you are correct. Chair Rapozo: I do not know how you would because it is the intent, it is the fact that you did not heed the officer's warning. Let me ask this question, would it not make your job easier as a police officer that we had a County Noise Ordinance? A County Noise Ordinance that would cover all sorts of noise, all sorts of nuisances, whether it is the motorcycles, the music, the band, the loud party, the barking dog, the screaming parrot.....what do you call it Penny? What does a parrot do when they yell? Ms. Cistaro: They squawk. Chair Rapozo: Squawk. Ms. Cistaro: Do not put that in the Ordinance. Chair Rapozo: My point is now you really have two (2) standards for different types of noise nuisances. I know a lot of jurisdictions have gone with these comprehensive noise ordinance. Mr. Hart had brought it up at the public hearing. But if you could put all of the nuisances or possible/potential EPC COMMITTEE 20 JANUARY 22, 2013 nuisances under a County Noise Ordinance that would all be treated the same way. Would that not make your job easier? In other words, you show up whether it is a stereo or a dog or a parrot squawking. Within the department you have your own policies on how you handle each one but would it not make it easier for you as a department to enforce if you show up and they all get treated the same now? And it is not a criminal matter. It is not a disorderly conduct. You violated the County's Noise Ordinance. I was just told that the violation penalty is up to a thousand dollars ($1,000). Not more than a thousand dollars ($1,000). So you could set it however you want but would it not make your job easier as far as responding to these things? Mr. Quibilan: Yes. Chair Rapozo: And Penny one way or another, whether it is a barking dog or a comprehensive noise ordinance that incorporates the barking dog as a component of it would that change the way you operate? In other words, the language of this Bill would show up in a comprehensive noise ordinance but it would be in addition to loud music, and the other types of nuisances that we often have to respond to. Ms. Cistaro: We would be responding to the barking dog portion of that ordinace. Chair Rapozo: And the squawking parrot? Ms. Cistaro: No. Chair Rapozo: The nice thing is that would give the department the ability to enforce all of the nuisances in the same way. However, their policy for barking dogs would be sending it over to the Humane Society. Ms. Cistaro: There would have to be something in there that differentiated the barking dog portion but not the squawking parrot. Chair Rapozo: Any questions? Mr. Kagawa: Just to reiterate. My plan is to ask for a deferral. I am not ready to support an Ordinance like this right now. Real important for me is having that questions asked to Maui County and the Big Island. They have similar language in theirs which defines excessive barking as basically "barking for ten (10) consecutive minutes or intermittently for twenty (20)." Basically the same definition so I do not know how much cases are handled by the Humane Society in the Big Island and Maui. Hopefully, there is a log going there and being settled at that level. That is what we want to achieve. But I want to know how it is working overall for Maui Police Department and the Big Island Police Department as far as when the Humane Society cannot achieve what they want and it goes to trying to approve and go to court. I know that the police, what they hate is when they have to do the leg EPC COMMITTEE 21 JANUARY 22, 2013 work and prosecuting office does not do anything about it. I think one (1) or two (2) times is fine but when it becomes a continuous thing then the police will say "the law is weak. Why are we even doing it?" If you can check on that end and at least ask the Chief of both counties if they can tell us how effective that has been because I think Maui and the Big Island are good gauges for us. Our language is pretty similar. I do not know how their Humane Societies are, if there as good as Penny. I think Penny is a good leader for us here and I feel she really wants to do it a different way. Not through KPD but through Humane Society. That kind of legislation I can support. Thank you. Chair Rapozo: Are there any objections to deferring this Bill today? Ms. Yukimura: No, but I would like to get the answer from the police and there might want to be people who want to testify. Chair Rapozo: I am just trying to mentally plot out the rest of the day because we still have the Special Council Meeting that we need to address, that is going to be a deferral so my plan is to take public testimony on this Bill, before we go to the Special Council Meeting, then we will go to the Special Council Meeting and get that deferral of the Environmental Public Health Impact Study (EPHIS) and then we can come back. I want to dispose of that but I want to make sure that we get the public in because it is 4:00 p.m. and I know some of them want to go home. I just wanted to make sure there is no objection to the deferral so they know that it is not going to be voted on today. They are comfortable, they can go home and there will be an opportunity to come back. Ms. Cistaro: I had a question for Councilmember Kagawa. Did you want me to get additional information from Maui and the Big Island, from the Humane Society's perspective? Mr. Kagawa: That would be great. Just a simple it is working. The Bill is working for them or it is not working for them, what could be better. Thank you. Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura what was your question? Ms. Yukimura: It was the answer to your question about the violation that is not a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor. Chair Rapozo: It was confirmed that the fine in H.R.S. is not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) so your amendment is fine. Ms. Yukimura: Thank you for your question. I would like to get that amendment passed if you do not mind. EPC COMMITTEE 22 JANUARY 22, 2013 Chair Rapozo: We might as well. Ms. Yukimura: Okay. Chair Rapozo: Any more questions for the Chief or Penny? If not, thank you very much. You guys can go sit down. There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Ms. Yukimura moved to amend Bill No. 2516 as circulated, as shown in the Floor Amendment 1 which is attached hereto as Attachment 1, seconded by Mr. Kagawa, and unanimously carried. Chair Rapozo: So we have the two (2) amendments that have been passed and we are back at the main motion. Before we take action on the main motion is there anyone in the audience wishing to testify? LORI L. MARUGAME, Council Services Assistant: There is one registered speaker. Alice Parker. Chair Rapozo: Alice Parker. There being no objections, the rules were suspended. ALICE PARKER: As far as the dog barking issue, Mel has a good point. I had a parrot, an African Grey that picked up all kinds of noises; kids in the street. Luckily the dog I had then did not bark but before that my father was parrot sitting for a friend and this parrot, I think it was a red cheek or yellowed cheek, it was not the African Grey but at 5:00 a.m. it would start yelling, screaming at the top of its voice, "Fire! Fire!" and my neighbors complained. We had to cover that cage up with a blanket. But anyway, parrots can make a heck of a noise. My daughter rented a place in Lawndale and on the rental agreement it says "no parrots." They can make noise too. Include noise making critters of all types. The other thing is recording the barking, that is an excellent idea. I was thinking, and I am old fashion, tape recorder or cell phone, but leave it on continuously so the time and the date is there. Also note that the barking, as discussed here is usually close neighbors but I lived in Sun Village and on the "C" building side, which Mel is familiar with, there is a ravine, the Hanamd'ulu place and there were hunting dogs down there. We were trying to play cards and we could not because the dogs were so noisy. We played cards for about two and a half (2.5) hours and the dogs were barking at least two (2) of the hours. They were hungry, they were not fed that is part of the problem there. So they do not have to be close to a residence. What I do with my dog and I have done with the one before is leave a radio on or a t.v. for music and reassurance. I discovered that when I was doing census work in 2000. I EPC COMMITTEE 23 JANUARY 22, 2013 went into `Oma`o or Lawa`i someplace down there. I went down the hillside, had to walk down a long driveway because nobody answered the front door and here was this big dalmatian lying there, sunning. He was chained up. He just looked at me and sort of smiled. There was a radio going. I think it was the sports program but they have company then. And my dog knows, I turn on the radio and she puts her tail down and heads for the bed. It is something to reassure them. Cats, unfortunately Councilmembers, do scream when they are fighting or mating and it is extremely frightening to kids. When I was a kid there were cats outside the window and my mother and aunt would say "hush" trying to pour water on them and we kids, my cousin and I, and they scream, so any animal noise. I know it is not twenty (20) minutes, usually at a time but it is pretty high pitched. Kaua`i Humane Society (KHS) empowered to issue citations. My daughter worked in South East Animal Control in the Southern California area, it is Downey and Fullerton and that sort of area and those agents, she worked for the South East Animal Control and those are pals, I suppose with the Humane Society but I am not sure there is much difference. Ms. Marugame: Three (3) minutes. Chair Rapozo: I am sorry, Alice that is your three (3) minutes if you could wrap up real quick. Ms. Parker: Okay. Anyhow, they could issue citations. But when she worked for Lawndale, they did not let her. What she found was with the dogs that she would pick up, ninety-nine percent (99%) of the time it was the owners, so I think education really help and if that does not work fine them. Thank you. Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Alice. Anyone in the audience not registered that would want to speak. Mr. Hart. BRUCE HART: My name for the record is Bruce Hart. I just want to say that I have stayed all day and I have been really glad that I did. The whole other subject that came up the drug addiction and everything was really educational to me. This entire process is new to me. I have to confess, somewhat shamefully that I have never been here before. Now I am interested in everything you do. Councilmember Hooser brought up something, often times it is difficult to define something and when I was putting together my thoughts on this issue, I went to the American Heritage Dictionary and I looked at a definition of nuisance. It says "one that is inconvenient, annoying, vexatious, a bother." "An illegal," from the American Heritage Dictionary, "a use of property or course of conduct that interferes with the legal rights of others by causing damage, annoyance or inconvenience." That is pretty clear to me. When I first came an gave testimony I think I made it clear, but just to make it clear, I am not against this Bill. The way that Councilmember Yukimura and the Humane Society laid it out, the part that they play, is all very close to what I envisioned just under an Ordinance that will EPC COMMITTEE 24 JANUARY 22, 2013 address, other than specifically barking dog noise. I would like to give personal experience. Usually neighbors want to get along. I know that in my experience of this issue I wanted to get along with my neighbors. The neighbor wants their dog to not be a nuisance and there is usually a course of action and it was spelled out by the Humane Society. Usually once another party gets involved in the issue it goes away. People begin to behave responsibly and so it ends at that stage. But sometimes, I think what this Ordinance would do is deal with the hard cases. It would deal with those people that selfishly do not seem to care about their neighbors and they continue to party when you talk to them. After you have talked to them, they continue to allow their dogs to bark even though you have asked them politely and explained to them it is keeping you from sleeping and things like that. So again, just to close, I think there is a really good dialogue going along here. It is not a monologue and I think that if I would let everybody know that yesterday I had a appointment with Councilmember Rapozo and I think he has a real good clear mind about what is needed. I also think all of you do. I really do. Ms. Marugame: Three (3) minutes. Chair Rapozo: Mr. Hart that is your three (3) minutes. Hang on. Is there anyone else wishing to testify because you have two (2) three (3) minute segments. Alice, did you want to testify one more time? Ms. Parker: No, I am fine. Chair Rapozo: Is there anyone else in the audience wanting to testify? Okay, Mr. Hart you have three (3) more minutes. Mr. Hart: I think if the dialogue continues along what I have heard here today that you will be able to come an understanding. I want to give you one (1) point that the comprehensive noise issue would deal with that does not have to do with what we are talking about. It does not specifically. The news has come to me recently, it may be rumor that, as most of you are familiar there is a subdivision out in Moloa`a, Falko Partner Brothers and you have talked about it before. News has come to me recently that there is a proposed or actually permitted already heliport out there. That part of this community would involve a heliport. I do not know if it is proposed or whether it is already permitted but this comprehensive noise ordinance would deal with that kind of issue. It is disturbing to me that there would be the flight patterns, it is not just the noise at the heliport, it is the flight patterns. Where are these helicopters going to and from this heliport. Chair Rapozo: Bruce, I just have to let you know that the topic on the agenda is the barking dog ordinance. There will be an opportunity to discuss, should we get into a "Comprehensive Noise Ordinance" discussion that that would be appropriate. I hate to interrupt. EPC COMMITTEE 25 JANUARY 22, 2013 Mr. Hart: I misunderstood. I understand what you are saying. In closing, I just want to say that I am really pleased with having been here today and see how hard you work, how difficult it is at times to be able to do what you do but how rewarding it is. And the work I do is often times difficult too, the decisions but it is often rewarding. So thank you very much. Chair Rapozo: Thank you, Bruce, and just so that you know it does not work unless we get people from community that come and offer their points of view. It does not work. So, thank you for being here today. Anyone else wishing to testify? There being no objections, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Mr. Kagawa: First of all, I would like to thank Councilmember Yukimura, and Penny from the Humane Society. We do not duck from any issue. That is a good thing for the people of Kaua`i. There will be no complaining that Council did not want to pass it. We put it right in front of you and the millions watching on t.v. can see that. We take on the tough task and in the end I think the process will work. Four (4) votes are needed to pass it or not. I kind of been against it from the beginning but I am open minded. I do not want cases that are not worthy to become part of Humane Society and KPD's task. I think they have enough to do. It should only be for extreme cases. There are a few, we all know. We know there are some people that deserve some relief and this is the intent of this Bill but whenever you have a Bill it always does not work as planned. You have the frivolous ones that will come up and will be like trying to pit neighbor against neighbor. That is not what I am trying to achieve. I just was recently talking to a friend who lives nearby, he has a dog, his two (2) neighbors do not have dogs and they were both robbed recently during the day. So the dogs do provide a valuable service for a lot of us who work. Thank you. Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Any more comments? Mr. Chock. Mr. Chock: I just wanted to clarify. For the deferral is to gain more information from the outer island and address some of the questions Councilmember Kagawa has as well as the possibility of an umbrella noise ordinance? Can I get clarification on that? That is what I heard. Chair Rapozo: Obviously if we go with a Comprehensive Noise Ordinance it would require a new Bill so as the Chair of the Committee, I intend on completely vet out this Bill and if the Bill passes the Bill will pass. If it does not pass, then I will probably be looking at a Comprehensive Noise Ordinance. The intention of the Chair is to allow the discussion to continue all the way through and get as much information to answer everyone's questions. Councilmember Yukimura. EPC COMMITTEE 26 JANUARY 22, 2013 Ms. Yukimura: I concur with the Chair's vision of how this will unfold and just based on my experience with a lot of big Bills, a noise Bill would take a lot of work. It would take a lot of time. I have really appreciated the dialogue today, both from the audience and from Councilmembers. I am impressed by Councilmember Kagawa, how he did his homework. Checking on all of these Ordinances in other places but that is the kind of work we should do. I am hoping that as we go for one more deferral, get some answers to the questions that have been asked today, think about it more, propose some amendments, whatever and hopefully be able to resolve this Bill one way or another, hopefully next committee. Thank you. Chair Rapozo: Any other discussion? If not, likewise, we will move this thing through the process and get as much information as we can. I will say that I am very impressed with the Humane Society. Penny, we met yesterday and had extensive dialogue on what they are planning to do and not just with the barking dogs, but with other parts of their operation. As Mr. Kagawa said, there are people in the community that need the relief. Many people in the community are suffering from barking dogs. For my own sake, I want to make sure that when we come up with Bill it is one that is fair and equitable and that provides that necessary relief without causing more problems in the neighborhood. That is what I am looking for. With that, can I get a motion to defer? Upon motion duly made by Councilmember Kagawa, seconded by Councilmember Yukimura, and unanimously carried Bill No. 2516, as amended to Bill No. 2516, Draft 1 was deferred. There being no objections the Committee recessed at 4:16 p.m. The Committee was called back to order at 4:22 p.m., and proceeded on its agenda items, as shown in the following Committee Reports which are incorporated herein by reference: CR-EPD 2014-01: on C 2014-14 Communication (12/06/2013) from the Civil Defense Manager, requesting Council approval to receive and expend grant funds in the amount of $475,000 from the United States Department of Homeland Security via the State of Hawai`i, Department of Defense, for the Fiscal Year 2013 State Homeland Security Grant Program for the following: 1) Continue to enhance the capability of State and local units of government to prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from threats and incidents of terrorism involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological, EPC COMMITTEE 27 JANUARY 22, 2013 nuclear and explosive weapons, and cyber attacks, in addition to day-to-day all-hazards scenarios; 2) Continue to provide support to Citizen Corps Councils with planning, outreach, and management of Citizen Corps programs and activities, such as Community Emergency Response Teams and Neighborhood Watch. [Approved.] CR-EPC 2014-02: on Bill No. 2515 A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 219.2 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO INTEGRATED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT [Amended to Bill No. 2515, Draft 1; Received for the Record.] There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lori L. Marugame Council Services Assistant I APPROVED at the Committee Meeting held on February 19, 2014: NARLOAL—ari MEL RAPOZO CHAIR, EPC COMMITTEE