Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2010 Council Meeting Minutes COUNCIL MEETING May 12, 2010 The Council Meeting of the Council of the County of Kauai was called to order by the Council Chair at the Council Chambers, 3371-A Wilcox Road, Lihu`e, Kauai, on Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 9.12 a.m., after which the following members answered the call of the roll. Honorable Tim Bynum Honorable Dickie Chang Honorable Jay Furfaro Honorable Daryl W Kaneshiro Honorable Lani T Kawahara Honorable Derek S.K. Kawakami Honorable Bill "Kaipo" Asing, Council Chair Chair Asing: Thank you. Can we have the first item please? PETER A. NAKAMURA, County Clerk: The first item is approval of the agenda. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. Mr Chang: Move to approve. Chair Asing: Can I have a second please? Mr Furfaro. Second. Chair Asing: All those in favor say, aye. Mr Chang moved for approval of the agenda as circulated, seconded by Mr Furfaro, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: Next item please. PETER A. NAKAMURA, County Clerk: Council Chair, at this time there's a request to take up as first on the council's agenda on page 1, communication C 2010-122. COMMUNICATIONS. C 2010-122 Communication (05/06/2010) from Derek S K. Kawakami, Chair, Public Safety/Energy/Intergovernmental Relations Committee, requesting agenda time for SPJ Consulting, the County's retained State legislative lobbyist firm, to provide a concluding report on the 25th Hawaii State Legislative (2010) Session. Chair Asing: Thank you. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Councilmember Kawakami. Councilmember Kawakami. Mr Kawakami. Thank you, Mr Chair I think we have representatives from SPJ that would like to give a presentation, so, the rules are suspended. Chair Asing: Thank you, the rules are suspended. COUNCIL MEETING -2- May 12, 2010 There being no objection, the rules were suspended. RONALD KOUCHI. Mr Chairman and members of the Council, my name, for the record, is Ronald Kouchi. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity this morning to give you a wrap up on the legislative session. The first thing I'd like to just state for people watching who may not be aware of it, SPJ Consulting consists of James Pacopac to my right, Scott Matsuura who did all of the technical report writing and made sure that all reports were filed electronically on time. He extends his apologies for not being here. I know he'd like to be here, but he's having a root canal done today And then the last partner, you know the P is for Pat; he was not used on the contract with the county and instead Mr Pacopac engaged me as a subcontractor to assist on this matter Our assignment was to work on the bills that were jointly approved by the mayor and the council, the bills that were approved by the Council of Mayors, and the bills that were approved by the Hawaii State Association of Counties. Once the session started, it became apparent that we needed to add a fourth category- bills not introduced or supported by any one of the three groups but that would affect the counties that were introduced by some other party And so we started adding those bills that affected the county to our tracking list. First and foremost the number one task that we had been assigned was to try to ensure that the counties would retain their full share of the room tax or TAT bill and we are certainly very pleased to report to you today as it has already been reported that the House and the Senate could not agree on what new bill might be passed and with no new bill passing, the hotel room tax in its previous form will continue going forward and having both bills fail, actually results in a better financial situation for the County of Kauai than the House version of $94 million as well as the Senate version of $50 million. And so with the highlight on the TAT bill, you know, James was doing most of the day-to-day meeting with legislators and so I'm going to turn over the second portion of this report to James, but each one of you should have a copy of what he's going to be reading from which was emailed to the council by Scott which was our final wrap-up. And then if you have questions, you know, James and I will be available. Thank you. JAMES PACOPAC- Good morning, councilmen. Good morning. Mr Pacopac: It's always a pleasure to come to Kauai. First of all, I'd like to thank several people during this session which really aided in my job to pursue the end results that we had. One of them is, of course, Councilman Derek Kawakami who spent numerous times coming up and also lobbying and also testifying in behalf of the Kauai County for HSAC Also in. and appreciation also goes to Representative Jimmy Tokioka, who I think did a terrific job in helping us in getting the TAT Without his help, I don't know where Kauai County would be. So anyway, you have a list of some of the bills that we listed. A lot of them were taken off. We had over thirty-something, maybe forty bills originally starting off. Most of them were killed or taken off, and these are just a compilation of the bills that we felt that was on the list and also some that was not on the list, but we had to pursue it for the purpose of saving Kauai County I'm sure you had this report for awhile. I don't know if you want to go through it individually or you just want to answer ques. if you have questions on any of subjects. There's only a few bills. House Bill 2016 SDI, this was an HCOM bill which was provided by all the Hawaii Council of Mayors and this one is pretty explanatory and this bill was COUNCIL MEETING -3- May 12, 2010 really we had to do a little work on this bill because the bill was actually dead and we had a little confusion because we didn't know that we were supposed to pursue this bill under HCOM. I didn't know I had to do some of the HCOM bills, but in any anyway we got to revive it and then we had it passed. Senate Bill 2849, that has to do with the EUTF This bill went all the way to the end. It was negotiated to the end. HCOM's proposal was to have one, either mayor representative or HSAC representative, sitting on the board. As you know the EUTF was having problems with doing any motion on their trust fund. In any regards, they did pass something that will hopefully make this fund move. One was they changed the structure of the votes. Before it was always a tie-tie because you have six management and six union. And now each one has a vote and you only need six to get anything passed. They also added that any funds to the EUTF gotta go to the EUTF It cannot be transferred out to anyplace else and also requires the Governor to release these funds into the fund and she's been holding it for awhile. Mr Kouchi: Can I add something (inaudible). Mr Pacopac: Sure. Mr Kouchi. I think I'd like to add on the first bill, there was some. I guess some discussion via the Garden Island newspaper regarding, you know, having the police chief be appointed or removed as prescribed by charter There was the impression that if this bill passed that the mayor would have the sole authority to appoint the chief of police and that's not the case All it says now is that each individual county via their charter would have the ability to make that decision. Our charter today currently says that the chief of police is appointed by the police commission and any change to that method of the chief of police being appointed would in fact require the charter to be changed, but Kauai could make that decision for themselves as each of the other three counties would be able to make the decision for themselves as they saw fit. For the newer councilmembers, you know, you probably have come onboard in a time when the stock market and real estate market has been performing poorly and so the EUTF trust fund was not doing well. However, there was a prior statute that said that any earnings over 8% could be skimmed off the top of the retirement fund and returned to the state general fund and to the counties to reduce the contributions that they had to make and in good real estate markets and upstart markets, then money was diverted or skimmed off the top of the retirement fund and put back into general fund use as 8% was deemed to be an adequate or appropriate contribution. So if any of you saw the newspaper this morning, there's articles about the fund now having real good performances over the first three quarters of the year, however, still falling short of the fully funded mandate and so this bill did start out in HSAC and HCOM as adding one county representative onto the board. As things happen in conference and can change in the conference committee, that bill was morphed into this bill, but I do think that what this bill will now say to all of the county and state employees is that, you know, your pension or your trust fund moneys are now protected within the fund and this will help ensure that both the state and counties are making adequate progress to make sure that the fund is, you know, fully... fully funded so that the benefits that the employees have accrued will be able to be paid. Chair Asing: Councilmembers, any questions? BC, Videographer• (Inaudible) check your mike. COUNCIL MEETING -4- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: I'm sorry, councilmembers, any questions? Councilmember Furfaro and then Councilmember Bynum. Mr Furfaro: Yes. Gentlemen, thank you very much, and thank you so much for recognizing Councilman Kawakami. I too think he did an outstanding job for us as being our liaison person at the legislature. If you could, just clarify a little bit more for me the outcome of the county-appointed individual that will be. I mean how Mr Kouchi: It was removed. Mr Furfaro: Oh, it was removed. Mr Kouchi. That's why I said in conference committee, the title was appropriate relating to the EUTF But instead of being a bill about adding one county representative, it wound up now changing where it addressed how the votes were counted, how many people could vote and be a quorum, and then not allowing the transfer of funds to go out of the pension fund. And I do need to state besides Derek, you know, each one of the other six councilmembers had numerous questions and especially where it relates to the TAT bills, also had individual testimonies sent up and you know, each of the councilmembers were very engaged and called the people that they could call. It also helped to have Representative Sagum, who's a member of the Finance Committee on the House side as well. You know, he was a big help Mina Morita, while not a member of the Finance Committee, was supportive of retaining the county portion of the TAT from day one and then certainly on the Senate side our Senator Gary Hooser also said from the very first meeting that, you know, we could count on his vote to be in favor of retaining the full portion of the TAT to the counties and having been a former councilmember for two terms understood, you know, what that impact would be on the county budget. So, you know, we really had great support from the whole Kauai delegation. Mr Furfaro: Well, thank you for that continued explanation of all the acknowledgements, but I did want to point out Mr Kawakami's role rather than have seven of us speaking. It would be better that the six of us channeled or used one conduit and he provided himself to be a very effective conduit. I'm sorry I misunderstood the portion about the council representative. I did hear the other parts as to certain conditions that were put on the fund to manage it, but thank you for that clarification. And Ron, thank you, and Jimmy, thank you very much for all you did and certainly want to acknowledge Mr Tokioka who is sitting behind you today as well. Thank you. Chair Asing: With that, Councilmember Bynum. Mr Bynum. Mr Chair, this is questions about anything on this list? Chair Asing: Yes. Mr Bynum. Okay First of all, I want to say, good morning, James and Ron, and thank you very much for your diligent work on behalf of the county I think it was. you know, we really needed it, particularly this year We need it every year and I felt like our whole team did a really great job, including Councilmember Kawakami and to see Jimmy here this morning is. thank you very much, Jimmy, for your advocacy on behalf of the counties. I know being a former COUNCIL MEETING -5- May 12, 2010 councilmember that you have a real sensitivity to those issues and it's very much appreciated. To the questions, the. related to the police chief, that's an HCOM proposal, right? The council did not take a position on that. Mr Kouchi. No, they didn't. Mr. Bynum. And although you accurately, you know, informed the public and all of us that this doesn't change it for the county, but it does remove an obstacle that in the state law, as I. if I understand it correctly, and allows the charter commission or the mayor or whoever to place that before the Kauai voters. Is that correct? Do I have that right? Mr Kouchi: Yes. Mr Bynum. Okay, so it'll be interesting to see what happens. I believe there was also a similar move for fire chief, planning director, and other other department heads. Mr Kouchi. And. and the personnel director This is the only one of the four bills that passed. Mr Bynum. And so the other ones didn't. Mr Kouchi: No. Mr Bynum. And they were separate bills. They weren't. Mr Kouchi. Yes. Mr Bynum. Okay And then re. just regarding to EUTF, I think this is not what we were seeking initially but still a good outcome in terms of, you know, not having this practice of skimming. So it eliminates that practice into the future. So if the economy is doing well and the investments on behalf of retirees are doing well, they get to keep that in the fund because, you know, we all know that stock markets go up and down, and so to have a thing that says when it's doing well we'll take those funds out, you know, but when it's doing poorly, you take the hit, right. So, I didn't know that this bill had morphed and I. but I think that's still a very good outcome for state and county retirees. Last question is about the land use bill. I followed this a little bit, but I. just maybe from your perspective, what implications that has for the county to shorten that period of time? Mr Kouchi: Well, I think the most important thing to remember is that both the council and the mayor did not want to see the loss of home rule and state or statutory legislation passed that would weaken the current county's housing policies for each of the counties. So much like how the EUTF bill morphed from a county representative to how they call quorums, how they cast votes and prohibits the skimming, this bill started out as the bill that was going to weaken the affordable housing policies of the counties and eventually came out by saying that you need to do a better fast-tracking of dedication of infrastructure to affordable housing. I think each one of you at the table and the mayor had said that you would like to do everything you can to expedite permitting and especially for affordable housing for our residents here. So I think the statute is now holding your feet to the fire, assisting you in helping live up to that commitment and if it can be done, then it will result in a good outcome for Kauai. But more importantly, at least it did not attack the county policy that was intact and leaves that decision making with the county COUNCIL MEETING -6- May 12, 2010 Mr Bynum. So this is that bill. Mr Kouchi: Yes. Mr Bynum. , that morphed and. Mr Kouchi. Correct. Mr Bynum. I know earlier the council asked that you track it and pay attention even though we didn't take a position. Mr Kouchi. And that's why it's on the report. Mr Bynum. Right and I appreciate that because, you know, that's the frightening thing from the. from - I'll own it - my perspective that the legislature, we would hope, would and often does help the counties. But, you know, the fear this year regarding the TAT and this bill which basically in its original form said counties, whatever your housing policy is, we're going to override that and it wasn't even tailored to each county because each county has a different proposal. And so that was really scary and from a home rule perspective, I know when representatives get a call from me it's usually about home rule issues and I appreciate the support that we've gotten from our Kauai delegation for those home rule issues, so. I. very interesting, so thank you very much. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any other questions, councilmembers? If not, I. I'm sorry, go ahead. Mr Kawakami. Sure. Chair Asing: Councilmember Kawakami. Mr Kawakami. No, I just. you know, I want to. I want to just say thank you very much, yeah, for all the help, helping to navigate when I go up there because as much praise as you guys like to sing, the credit is all of yours, it's not mine and it's. its theirs because it's like a labyrinth too, yeah, going up But, you know, the role that they play and our state representatives play, it's an art and a science, and the art side is. is almost the side that cannot be taught, to be able to see the unseen, to be able to hear what's not being said, and to be able to act appropriately to capitalize on opportunity as it presents itself and to be able to go with the ebb and flow of the tide of the state legislature. And, you know, Rep Tokioka, all our reps, our senator up there, they fought hard for the county, and I just want to say thank you so much, yeah, for your support. Mr Kouchi: Mr Chairman, I guess if you were wrapping up, I was focused on the what happened, and the last thing that I was going to report, especially on the most important item of the TAT, and Tim and I had an interesting discussion on this on Monday, but I did tell him while, you know, everybody was making their best effort to educate, you know, our residents about how important the TAT is to the counties and what function it plays to the county's budget and the partnership between the county and the state, and how the counties receive their funding and, you know, what it would mean to the taxpayers if it was lost, and what the additional real property tax cost would be, I did tell him candidly and on the neighbor islands, you know, the message resonates and many of the senators and representatives from the neighbor islands have, like Representative Tokioka, they've served on their respective county councils. But if you look at the votes in COUNCIL MEETING -7- May 12, 2010 the Senate and the House, most of the no votes against the counties retaining the TAT intact were all no votes from Honolulu. And the amount of the TAT as a percentage of the overall city budget is very minimal and so, you know, it was really a good effort by the neighbor island representatives and senators to convince their colleagues and they've made some tough choices on raising some taxes so that, you know, the counties would be left intact. But the job for next year's preservation of TAT begins today or actually, you know, the Friday after the legislature adjourned. There was a good article about what was going on by Richard Borreca in today's Star Bulletin editorial section on kicking the can. And unfortunately, you know, in trying to mitigate the impact on, you know, each taxpayer in this state, they did adopt that lag of the income tax and using some of the funds that are one-time deals, and so if our economy does not turn around between now and the next legislative session, they're going to be right back at the table looking at how they're going to make up for that money that is not available because that income tax refund lag will not be available, that rainy day fund money has been used and will not be available to be used, and so, you know, you really need to use the interim as an opportunity to try and again continue educating. But I will tell you, Mayor Carvalho had a special run of kulolo made and delivered to both money committee chairs because he found out that they like kulolo, you know, found out about Hamura saimin and so I personally delivered Hamura saimin to committees, and we've had Derek bring up poi and you know, other kind of things. James is always stopping to bring things and, you know, but just to have doors open so we're able to carry on that discussion and I know we've already talked with Councilmember Kawakami about how we could start setting up some opportunities to meet with members of the legislature to already start talking about what the county's needs are going to be for next year and, you know, for those of you at home, you know, let our delegation know how grateful we are so that you put them in the box to make sure that they continue to be great supporters of keeping the TAT for the counties. Chair Asing: Thank you. With that, Councilmember Furfaro. Mr. Furfaro• Yes, Ron, thank you for bringing that up and I had asked, going forward, that we put together a county resolution of gratitude to the legislature on the TAT and that will be coming up shortly But as you pointed out, that ratio of City and County of Honolulu allocation, ours is the largest of all as it relates to our total operating budget, ours is almost 8.5%, so your comments are very much appreciated and I did want to point out that we will be acknowledging a resolution thanking them as it relates to our operating budget. Thank you. Chair Asing: Yes, go ahead. Mr Pacopac: I just wanted also, before you end, one of the groups that I haven't mentioned that was very instrumental in helping us also was the administration. We had many of their people come up and testify and they were very supportive just as the council was, you know, and I think it was. for me, working with a group of the council and the administration was much easier than I thought it was going to be because I've worked in this situation before and I tell you when I have to fight with council and administration to agree on what we're going to do at the leg., this session was a joy We had a lot of support from the mayor, administration and then also with Derek and you folks. So it makes our job much easier if you guys are all in tune together. I just wanted to make sure I brought that up for you. COUNCIL MEETING -8- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: Thank you. Any other? Go ahead, Councilmember Bynum. Mr Bynum. Yeah and I just really appreciate your last comments, Ron, and yours, James, because, you know, I think that collectively the neighbor islands and particularly the mayors were very effective in educating the public about and in my view, you know, the county's entitlement to a share of the TAT You know, I know it's tempting because the legislature can take it, they have that ability, but, you know, we host visitors at a very high percentage on Kauai and not only as a percentage of our budget is the highest, but I believe we're the highest in terms of percentage of visitors that are de facto population on any given day, and so it's very encouraging to me that the general public, the Honolulu Advertiser, you know, got it and basically you know, I think two or three years ago nobody knew what the TAT was and now there's a pretty high level of knowledge and understanding at least here on Kauai about how critical that is. So, I concur with you totally that this was a really good team effort and there was a lot. over a two-year period educating people and, you know, making it clear And I. I remember the Honolulu Advertiser I think said, you know, this is like passing the buck, right, and you know, that's. so, thank you again for your efforts. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any other questions, councilmembers, or comments? If not, what I'd like to do is just thank you very much for all the work that you've done. Excellent, good job, can't thank you enough and from all the councilmembers and myself, mahalo. With that, what I'd like to do is I would first like to recognize. thank you, Ron and Jimmy I'd like to recognize our newest staff member and I'd like the newest staff member to stand, Eddie Topenio, Jr., who is our new deputy county clerk. (Applause.) Chair Asing: And at this time what I'd like to do is call on our Representative Jimmy Tokioka. Jimmy, if you could come up please and as it relates to the agenda item, I'd like for Jimmy to make a few comments on any item that was covered by our representatives. Jimmy, first of all thank you very much for all the hard work that you do there for all of us. JAMES TOKIOKA, State Representative: Thank you, Chair Asing, and it's good to be here. I would say home, but it's a new building and it's a big beautiful building. So thank you for working with, you know, the delegation and I just want to echo some of the things that Mr Paeopac and Kouchi said. You know, this was probably the hardest session and the hardest time in government for any elected official to be in government. And, you know, the training that I got here with, you know, Councilmember Kaneshiro, Chair Asing, and Chair Kouchi, and Member Furfaro were a good learning point for me. Having said that, you know the choices that we had to make this year were very, very difficult. I don't think if you asked anyone five years ago if you ever thought that the administration would be or government would be laying off or furloughing teachers 17 days a year, nobody would even think that it would be possible. You know, when I was sitting on the council, I never thought the taking of the TAT 100% of it would be possible, but it came down to the last hour You know, up until the final hour of the session it was still in limbo, and so I'd like to echo a lot of the comments, and I know every single councilmember who is sitting here right now called me and had discussions with me about the TAT You know, I had to share some of the insight of how the process works up there and I think, you know, each and every one of you played a big part COUNCIL MEETING -9- May 12, 2010 in that and so I thank you for that. I know Mr Kouchi talked about Representative Sagum on the Finance Committee, you know, who did an outstanding job as well. (Inaudible) Chair of Energy and Environmental Protection Morita did an excellent job and our Senator Hooser as the majority leader And I can't say it any better than Ron said about the make-up of the legislature. The neighbor island delegations were very, very strong as far as, you know, the impact it would mean to the county, so it is certainly true that for the Honolulu delegation it wasn't as big of an impact and sometimes when you see, you know, a body that you're turning money over to giving tax incentives and granting out money and not suffering the same type of pain that the legislature is going through, it's easy to say well, this is what we need to look at and I know two-and-a- half. two years ago, the Honolulu City Council did that. They did a permanent home use exemption and they knew at that time we were going to go into some tough times and there was some frustration of some of the people at the legislature that how could you be doing this when you know we're going to be laying off, furloughing people. So anyway, thank you all for doing that, and you know, a big push too by the mayors. They came the last week of session to talk to the legislature and to mention. to voice their concerns. So you know, the group as a whole did an excellent job lobbying for the money and you know, I'm sitting there as I'm listening to some of the things happen and I don't want people at home or any of you to get the wrong impression that, you know, the legislature thinks that people have to bow down to us. You know, I came from here. When we were in leadership meetings at the House, I keep getting reminded Rep Tokioka, you're a representative now, you don't. you're not a councilmember anymore, but you know, I served here for 10 years. So I understand, you know, the concerns that you folks are going through and I will continue to try to be that voice if I'm fortunate enough to continue to be there for you folks because I know how important, you know, your jobs are and you know, the $11 million, $12 million hit to you would have been huge and to kind of. to fill that gap, you know, to raise property taxes, we're hurting the same people and that's certainly something that we didn't want to do. I know Chair Oshiro who is. of the Finance Committee, who is Councilmember Chang's classmate, was very attuned to the. the concerns of the county I know that when he's been here, every single one of you has mentioned your concerns to him, and I think that's the important part of just understanding, you know, the roles that all of us play and communicating that to each other So, Speaker Say, he took a tough position. I know I had a conference call with Chair Asing, Councilmember Kawakami and Councilmember Kaneshiro last session with the speaker and the other council delegations. Calvin Say said at that meeting, he said you know we're going to save it this year, which was last year, but next year we're going to have to take the TAT And I know that wasn't accepted very well, but this year he said, you know, Jimmy, it's tough, we have to make tough decisions, but he supported the group So I. I. I. we do want to give a big thank you to the Speaker You know, as you folks know, each body does their own thing. The Senate works with their delegation and I'm just proud of what the House did to resolve some of the issues and I passed out or I emailed over a copy of the ways that the legislature on the House side dealt with the shortfall, the $1.2 billion shortfall, and I think the interesting thing to me is on page 4 when we were working with this budget that only 4.6% of the total $1.2 billion came in increases in fees and taxes because we raised the TAT last year, we raised personal income tax last year, so we tried to minimize that as possible, but if you look at the savings and the cuts, that's where a lot of the shortfall was made up on, whether it was vacant positions, whether it was lapses in budgetary spending, and it's just a good overview of what we had to deal with this year COUNCIL MEETING -10- May 12, 2010 So having said that, I appreciate all of the input that you folks give to all of us and it does make a difference. It, you know, if the counties just rolled over and didn't say anything, I can almost assure you that the TAT would not have been there and I think the way that, of course, Chair Kawakami of the. or President Kawakami of HSAC handled it with his group, you know, was certainly a big key role as well, just, you know, with aloha but with a stern and strong position that, you know, we need the money, so thank you, Derek and every single one of you for making it happen. Chair Asing: Thank you very much. Councilmembers, any questions/comments? Councilmember Kaneshiro. Mr Kaneshiro- Thank you, Chair You know I just wanted to add this because we just completed our budget, part of our budget sessions on Monday, Jimmy, and some of the comments that came out of the paper is that, you know, we kind of did not let the gorilla out, and what they were referring to really was during an election year, it's really probably not a good time to do any real property tax increases. The truth is. is that because of the legislative body that we had there representing the County of Kauai, was really the ones that helped us to lock that gorilla up for another year or so and that's in regards to the TAT tax. Because I can tell you right now for a fact that if that wasn't retained by the counties, the gorilla would have been out running around the islands, so and you know, I just wanted to make that clear because when you look and you read the paper sometimes the Garden Island writes things and they say well, you know, people don't really like to raise taxes during an election year The fact is, man, that would ha. we would have no choice, you know, and I gotta thank you guys. I gotta thank you, Roland, Mina, Gary for really fighting hard for us because it was a really hard time for us to be able to come up and make decisions, but with what you've done, you made it easy for all the people of Kauai and the real credit gotta go to you guys so they can see that. that you were the ones who really helped us to save the tax burden to the, you know, to our people. So I needed to point that out because it's just a reflection of the good work that you guys are doing for us. Thank you so much again. Mr Tokioka. Thank you, Daryl. Oh, I'm sorry Go ahead. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Furfaro. Mr Furfaro• Yes, Kimo, Jimmy, Representative Tokioka. Mr Tokioka. All kind aliases. Mr Furfaro: That was when you was a young kamali`i, you know, so. Mr Tokioka. I was a busboy when Jay Furfaro. I wasn't even a busboy and Jay Furfaro hired me as a busboy Mr Furfaro: Well, you soon became a management trainee and you're doing a fine fob at managing our state's business. Thank you. Let me ask, Jimmy, first of all, thank you and the whole legislative team. But could you just give us a real quick. we ended the legislative session with the $67 million coming from the hurricane fund earmarked for the school. the teachers. Mr Tokioka. Furloughs. COUNCIL MEETING - 11 - May 12, 2010 Mr Furfaro: Am I correct? And how has all of that fallen into place for next year, Jim. Mr Tokioka. Well, now it's on the desk of the Governor and you know, she needs to. to make her choices. You know, we heard from many people and you have many people in this office as well that continuously emailed us and called us up about ending the furlough days and you know, just for the record, it wasn't the legislature who agreed to the 17 furlough days, but you know that agreement happened after the legislature closed last year What we did this year is we had to find additional funding which was the $64 million that we appropriated to end it from the hurricane fund. So, at this point it's with the Governor and I know that's one of the many things that people should be and I hope are calling the Governor and the administration about resolving. Mr Furfaro: I guess that's where I was going with that question, so that you know, those in the audience can also. and now she would have until July 6? What is her timetable now to either veto that bill or just let it go unsigned or? Mr Tokioka. I think it's July 6. She has 45 days. Mr Furfaro: It is July 6, right? Mr Tokioka. Yeah. Mr Furfaro: So it is important that we resolve that and we have some time to continue to send that message out. Mr Tokioka. Yes and what I will do is I will email the link to the administration's email account so that if the council wants to email them and/or the general public, you'll have that information to get in touch with the Governor and I don't say that in any disrespect. I think the more people get involved and especially if it's names that you know and people that you know and people that you've talked to and I know she's spoken to many people as she's been here, especially a group like yourselves, who, you know, touch a lot of people's lives, so I'll get that. that link to you folks and you can. Mr Furfaro: I'd appreciate it. I just wanted to get the timeline correct and. Mr Tokioka. Yes. Mr Furfaro: I think it is July 6, so and again, thank you and to the legislative team for your work this year Mr Tokioka. And 1. and I can't tell you enough about the team, as you say, Jay, because the four of us, although we come from different places, we have different views on different things, we know how important it is to work collectively together for for all of the people of Kauai, so it's a great honor for me to serve on that team. Mr Furfaro: Well, thank you again. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any other comments? Councilmember Bynum. COUNCIL MEETING -12- May 12, 2010 Mr Bynum. Yes, real quickly, Jimmy, I wanted to just thank you for being available and all of the support and information you've provided me. You know I watched you on council prior to being on this council and I really appreciated the work you did here and the way you, you know, handled yourself in treating people with respect and I want to point out one thing that's in your budget and that you also, I know, helped with this year that the legislature restored funding for Child Welfare and Child Support Enforcement positions. There was a proposal to eliminate every single one on Kauai and you know, we were. you were here for hearings, heard from the community how difficult that was and I appreciate your and the House's leadership at restoring those positions and bringing. yeah. to deal with those issues in a more systematic and appropriate way, so thank you for that. Mr Tokioka. Thank you, Councilmember Bynum, and you know, we do have to thank Representative Mizuno, who is the Chair of Health and Human Services and Suzanne Chun. Senator Chun-Oakland from the Senate, who were very involved in that and we just. I think the people who had been following that issue know how frustrated, you know, we all were and the bill was passed and right now it's going to be a pilot project on Oahu and I did on the floor of the House on (inaudible) extend my appreciation to the representatives and senators from Oahu because it's not going to affect any office on the neighbor island, but they are going to look at a pilot project on Oahu. So some of the offices may be downsized or cut on Oahu and the Oahu delegation recognized that and they stepped up to the table and you know, they know that we have to look at, you know, how we manage the system, but to do it the way that it was proposed with the EPOD system was absolutely wrong in my mind anyway and many others. And thank you for, you know, all of you for talking to us and sharing your concerns with that issue. Chair Asing: Any other questions or comments, councilmembers? Councilmember Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara. Thank you, Chair Representative Tokioka, I just wanted to thank you for all your work personally and also for being available for phone calls at any time I had questions and also for your willingness to answer them frankly and honestly and you know, tell me about the environment that you're working in. So I really appreciate that and thank you also to Mr Kouchi and Mr James Pacopac for all their work and the updates. But I know it was really hard this year So I think a big thanks is owed to you, thanks. Mr Tokioka. Thank you, Councilmember Kawahara. Chair Asing: Any other comments, councilmembers? Councilmember Kawakami. Mr Kawakami. Yeah, along with thanking Rep Tokioka and Rep. Morita, Rep. Sagum and Senator Hooser, I'd like to also recognize and I always call her our fourth Representative. Kaua`i's 4th Representative but Representative Har also, you know, she had a very open door for the neighbor island counties, especially Kauai County In fact, she played a pivotal role and I believe it was Rep Sagum had a resolution for DLNR to do and conduct studies for the Salt Pond area and she was very supportive of that. In fact, she was very supportive of an amendment to include the salt makers to be involved in that discussion, so it was one of the meetings that I just happened to walk in on while I was making my rounds up at the leg. and I was just very pleased to see how supportive she is of COUNCIL MEETING -13- May 12, 2010 Kauai. So, I think appropriate recognition is due for Rep Har, who is from the Westside of Oahu representing Kapolei and the Royal Kunia area. So, mahalo Rep Har Chair Asing: Thank you. Any other questions/comments? If not. Mr Tokioka. Chair Chair Asing: Representative Tokioka, thank you, big aloha. Mr Tokioka. Thank you, Chair It's always a pleasure.. Chair Asing: Mahalo. Mr Tokioka. to be here with you folks. Thank you. Chair Asing: I'd like to just make one comment in closing. We talk about the TAT What people don't fully, fully, really understand, the TAT represents between $12 and $16 million a year The way the bill was structured, it was structured that we would lose it for at least a minimum of five years. So, we would not have between $12 and $16 million for at least a minimum of five years. So it's not losing one time, one year, $12 to $16 million. It's five years and possibly more. So that is what is so very, very important to realize that point. With that, the meeting is now called back to order The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Chair Asing: Can we have a motion. I'm sorry We have members of the public who want to testify Mr Taylor, my apologies. There being no objection, the rules were suspended. KEN TAYLOR. Chair and members of the council, my name is Ken Taylor It's been a rough year for those folks that were on the floor at the state house and I certainly appreciate the work they've done and the team of individuals that has represented Kauai, but I think the most important thing that was said here today because. this year we've squeaked by; we've squeaked by The most important comment that I heard this morning from Ron, if the economy doesn't get better, all of this is going to be back on the floor next year We've picked. we've picked from pockets of dollars stuck here and there that has made it possible to move forward this year But I think. I think all of us have to realize that it's very unlikely that the economy's going to be any better next year or the year after and it's imperative that you folks and the administration keep this in mind and start working today on what we need to do to solve these problems next year because you can count on them being back and it's unfortunate, but that's the life of the world economy and there's nothing on the horizon that shows that it's going to be any better And so it's imperative today to start working for tomorrow and how are we going to adjust to these problems next year And I think that's the most important thing that's going to be required of everybody through this next year and the year after and the year after that. But I hope as we move forward that we keep that in mind and really start doing the work that's necessary today so that we'll be able to better deal with these problems next year Thank you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this item? If not, I'd like to call the meeting back to order COUNCIL MEETING -14- May 12, 2010 There being no one else wishing to speak on this item, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Chair Asing: Can we have a motion to receive, please? Mr Furfaro: Move to receive. Mr Chang: Second it. Chair Asing: Any discussion? All those in favor say, aye. Mr Furfaro moved to receive C 2010-22 for the record, seconded by Mr Chang, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: Can we have the next item please. Mr Nakamura. Council Chair, the next items on page 1 of the council's agenda are communications for receipt, communication C 2010-119, C 2010-120, and C 2010-121. C 2010-119 Communication (04/12/2010) from the Purchasing Division, Department of Finance, transmitting for Council information, the Fiscal Year 2009- 2010 Third Quarter Statement of Equipment Purchases: Mr Bynum moved to receive C 2010-119 for the record, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried. C 2010-120 Communication (04/30/2010) from the Director of Finance, transmitting to the Council supplemental information pertaining to the estimated reduction in real property tax revenues based on the real property tax assessment certification for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010: Mr Bynum moved to receive C 2010-120 for the record, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried. C 2010-121 Certification (04/30/2010) of the 2010 Real Property Assessment List within the County of Kauai by the Director of Finance. Mr Bynum moved to receive C 2010-121 for the record, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: Next item please. Mr Nakamura. On the bottom of page 1 of the council's agenda, communication C 2010-123 for approval. C 2010-123 Communication (04/20/2010) from the Executive on Transportation, requesting Council approval to apply for, receive, indemnify, and expend FY 2009 and FY 2010 Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5309 grants relating to capital expenses for the County Transportation Agency in the amounts of $632,833 and $1,139,300 respectively- Mr Furfaro moved to approve C 2010-123, seconded by Mr Chang. Chair Asing: Any discussion? Mr Furfaro: Mr Chair Chair Asing: Yes. COUNCIL MEETING _15- May 12, 2010 Mr Furfaro• I would like to make a note here. It's, you know certainly to expand an effective and complete fleet, but I do want to make note and I want to thank my colleagues as well, although we did not expand the bus in this recent budget, I do want to point out and it might have been an oversight in the media, that we did reinstate the current levels that we had to the tune of $171,000 00 So hopefully again with these additional grants, we can find ourselves with the appropriate equipment to continue to manage expenses and therefore I just wanted to acknowledge why I'm supporting this piece. Thank you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, say, aye. The motion to approve C 2010-123 was then put, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: Next item please. Mr Nakamura. Next matter for approval on the top of page 2 of the council's agenda is communication C 2010-124 C 2010-124 Communication (04/23/2010) from the County Engineer, requesting Council approval to accept and expend a legislative appropriation (Act 162 SLH 2009) in the amount of $950,000 for plans and construction of the Wailua Emergency Bypass Road project. The approximate cost of this project is $1,900,000 of which the County's participating match is $950,000• Mr Furfaro moved to approve C 2010-124, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro. Chair Asing: Any discussion? All right. Let's hang on. I'd like to suspend the rules. There being no objection, the rules were suspended. Chair Asing: Glenn. GLENN MICKENS Thank you, Kaipo, for the record Glenn Mickens. Just a question, is this. the paving of this bypass road, is this going to be a permanent bypass road or is it going to still be just for emergency purposes only? Chair Asing: For emergency purposes only Mr Mickens: Only, there's no plans for making it a. Chair Asing: Not at this time. Mr Mickens: alternate road like the Kapa`a Bypass is. Chair Asing: Not at this time Mr Mickens: So that million nine-hundred thousand is just to repave. to pave the road. I mean, I guess it's, what is it, dirt at this stage of the game? It's not. Chair Asing: Yes, they just to do some work so that it can be used to travel. Mr Mickens: And will it be able to be opened every time there is a wreck or anything on Kuhio Highway? I know there's been many, many problems COUNCIL MEETING - 16 - May 12, 2010 in the past. I heard that it goes through Hawaiian Homelands and when I last asked they said well, they've got the key to the gate and they couldn't get it open. Little things like that, I just wondered if it's going to be, you know, completely accessible to the public so when the traffic is. wreck on Kuhio Highway, it will be open. That's all. Chair Asing: Okay, thank you. Mr Mickens: Thank you. Chair Asing: Is there anyone else? If not, I'd like to call the meeting back to order and with that Councilmember Kaneshiro. There being no one else wishing to speak on this item, the meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Mr Kaneshiro: Yeah, thank you, Chair I just wanted to make some comment with the questions, and basically, yes, Mr Speaker or Mr Mickens, that these. amount is not only for fixing the road, but it's also for fixing the shoulders; you have guardrails you need to put in. There's many other items that need to go in besides just fixing the road or paving part of the road to make it safe so in case of an accident and such where the roads are shut down for awhile, this would be used as a bypass road to bypass the congested area. So this is the purpose of this money that we have here before us. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor say, aye. The motion to approve C 2010-124 was then put, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: Next item please. Mr Nakamura. Next matter for approval is communication C 2010-125. C 2010-125 Communication (04/27/2010) from the Prosecuting Attorney, requesting Council approval to apply for, receive, and expend the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation Highway Safety Grant of $14,440.00, to be used for travel, training and equipment: Mr Furfaro moved to approve C 2010-125, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: Next item please. Mr Nakamura. Next matter for approval is communication C 2010-126. C 2010-126 Communication (05/04/2010) from the Director of Housing, requesting Council approval. (1) to acquire three (3) pending real-estate owned residences (REOs) situated at: (1) 4421 Kai Ikena Drive, Kalaheo, Hawaii, Tax Map Key (4) 2-3-021- 011, (2) 3599 Horita Road, Lawa`i, Hawaii, Tax Map Key (4) 2-5-010-012; and (3) 131 Kahiko Street, Kapa`a, Hawaii, Tax Map Key (4) 4-2-016-032, under the County's Neighborhood Stabilization (NSP) Program Foreclosure Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resale Project with funds COUNCIL MEETING -17- May 12, 2010 received from the State in July 2009 at contracted offer prices not to exceed $450,000 and subject to the one-percent (1%) discount based on receipt of the appraisal. (2) to increase the acquisition price for 3874 Hunakai Street, Lihu`e, Hawaii, Tax Map Key (4) 3-3-008-019 to $413,000, subject to the one-percent (1%) discount based on receipt of the appraisal. (Previously approved by Council in communication C 2010-113, for $399,000) (3) to authorize the County Clerk to sign any and all legal documents relating to the above Mr Furfaro moved to approve C 2010-126, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: Next item please. Mr Nakamura: Next matter for approval at the bottom of page 2 is a Legal Document transmitted by communication C 2010-127 LEGAL DOCUMENT- C 2010-127 Communication (04/30/2010) from the Administrative Assistant, requesting Council authority to execute a contract (right-of-entry agreement) between the County and Princeville Mauka Village LLC ("Princeville Mauka") to secure an area for the Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division's recycling bins on TMK (4) 5-3-01:02 and to indemnify Princeville Mauka for any claims from the County's operations. Right-of-Entry Agreement by and between Princeville Mauka Village, LLC (Grantor) and County of Kauai (Grantee) for a right to use a portion of its property situated in Princeville at Hanalei, District of Kalihiwai, Kauai, Hawaii identified as a portion of tax may key number (4) 5-3-01:02 subject to terms and conditions. Chair Asing: Can I have a. Mr Chang moved to approve the Right-of Entry Agreement attached to communication C 2010-127, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro Chair Asing: Any discussion? Mr Furfaro: Mr Chair Chair Asing: Yes, go ahead. Mr Furfaro: This just might be something for the legal department to look into. This actually might be in the district of Kalihikai, not Kalihiwai. Just. just. Chair Asing: Why don't we send a communication to that effect, to have it corrected. Mr Furfaro: If they could just double check. Chair Asing: if in fact it is an error COUNCIL MEETING -18- May 12, 2010 Mr Furfaro: Yes. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor say, aye. The motion to approve the Right-of-Entry Agreement attached to communication C 2010-127 was then put, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: Next item please Mr Nakamura. Next matter on the top of page 3 are claims, communication C 2010-128, which is a claim filed against the county by Farmers Insurance Hawaii, subrogee for the Estate of Bergonia Bienvenido, and communication C 2010-129, which is a claim filed against the county by Janet Ito. CLAIMS. C 2010-128 Communication (04/23/2010) from the County Clerk, transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kauai by Farmers Insurance Hawaii, subrogee for The Estate of Bergonia Bienvenido, for vehicle damage, pursuant to Section 23 06, Charter of the County of Kauai: Mr Furfaro moved to refer C 2010-128 to the Office of the County Attorney for disposition and/or refer back to the Council, seconded by Mr Bynum, and unanimously carried. C 2010-129 Communication (04/28/2010) from the County Clerk, transmitting a claim filed against the County of Kauai by Janet Ito for vehicle damage, pursuant to Section 23.06, Charter of the County of Kauai. Mr Furfaro moved to refer C 2010-129 to the Office of the County Attorney for disposition and/or refer back to the Council, seconded by Mr Bynum, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: Next item please. Mr Nakamura. Next matter for approval are Committee Reports. From your committee on Parks/Transportation, committee report CR-PKT 2010-02. COMMITTEE REPORTS PARKS/TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE REPORT: A report (No. CR-PKT 2010-02) submitted by the Parks/Transportation Committee, recommending that the following be approved as amended: "Bill No. 2354 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 19-1.3 AND SECTION 19-1.4 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION," Mr Furfaro moved for approval of the report, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried. (See later for Bill No. 2354, Draft 1) Chair Asing: Next item please. Mr Nakamura. Next committee report for approval from your committee on planning, committee report CR-PL 2010-10. COUNCIL MEETING -19- May 12, 2010 PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT: A report (No. CR-PL 2010-10) submitted by the Planning Committee, recommending that the following be approved as amended. "Bill No. 2339 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 8 OF CHAPTER 8 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE OPEN DISTRICT," Mr Furfaro moved for approval of the report, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried. (See later for Bill No. 2339, Draft 1) Chair Asing: Let's take a short recess. There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 10.10 a.m. The meeting was called back to order at 10:29 a.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Asing: The council meeting is now called back to order With that, Mr Clerk, can we have the next item please? Mr Nakamura. Council Chair, next matter.. next matters are Bills For Second Reading on page 3 of the council's agenda. First bill for second reading is Bill No. 2339, Draft 1. BILLS FOR SECOND READING Bill No. 2339, Draft 1 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 8 OF CHAPTER 8 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE OPEN DISTRICT Mr Furfaro: Move to approve. Mr Kaneshiro: Hold on, hold on. Mr Bynum. Second. Chair Asing: Hang on, please Councilmember Kaneshiro first. Mr Kaneshiro: Mr Chair, I have a circulation or a memorandum that I want to be excused or recuse myself from this Open District amendment as possible conflict of interest because I do have land that contains open district. Mr Kaneshiro promptly left the meeting before any discussion on this item and was noted as recused. Chair Asing'. Thank you. With that, can I have a motion to approve? Mr Furfaro moved to adopt Bill No. 2339, Draft 1 on second and final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Mr Bynum. Chair Asing: Any discussion? Councilmember Bynum. COUNCIL MEETING -20- May 12, 2010 Mr Bynum. Yeah, I'll. this is a bill that changes the density in the Open Space on agricultural land. It came from the administration. It was first contemplated in the General Plan and I wanted to just bring the attention. our attention to the map that's on the back wall here, which is the area of the island from Kealia to the North Shore. During the co. you know, I believe that it's accurate that at this time we're the last county in the State of Hawaii that allows subdivision of agricultural lands for de facto residential where very little agriculture occurs. And the General Plan anticipated us passing this bill that I hope passes today But the. currently in this area of the island, the orange on this map is agricultural land that's divided into CPRs. The yellow parcels are subdivided agricultural land with less than 15 acres. parcels less than 15 acres. There are 1,895 parcels on this map that are CPR'd and 1,445 ag parcels or agricultural subdivided lots that are less than 15 acres and I think that the concern in the General Plan was that we were using agricultural land for residential purposes without really having a requirement that agriculture be done and that it would impact prime agricultural land and eventually but also put development onto large lots that, you know, are not really no longer affordable for working people who live on Kauai. You know, if you. you know, in 2000 there still were these parcels available that working class people and, you know, middle income people could afford, but that ship has sailed. And so this bill is a very important part of addressing that issue. It reduces the density bonus that. in the Open District. But it's, I believe in my opinion, not the only step that needs to be taken. There's been a discussion at this council for many years about density and use, and we have yet to address the issue of use that when you subdivide agricultural land, there should be. it should be demonstrated that it's for agricultural use. So there may be future bills in the future to help, I think, fully close this loophole in our planning process. So. and I'm going to be in support of this bill today, so thank you very much for that opportunity Chair Asing: Thank you, any other discussion? Go ahead, Councilmember Furfaro. Mr Furfaro: Yes, I appreciate the map being up there, but I do also want to point out that, you know, Kilauea Sugar closed in August of 1973. The areas in Kilauea identified in this map, as well as 1978 areas identified within the Princeville Ag area, these were things that happened in 1976 and 1978, so it is a long time coming. And as a member of the General Plan in this decade, it is something that was put on the radar screen to address and what we're addressing here is open districts will be treated as ag districts when it comes to what Mr Bynum referred to as the density bonus. This was a very interesting and longly (sic) debated item in the General Plan. It is something that is in the General Plan, the 2000 General Plan, and unfortunately we've got a lot of work yet to do because it all was subject to approval under the real estate commission, which has controls over the CPRs and not our local zoning. What will help us as we go forward in local zoning would be dealing with use, as Mr Bynum pointed out, versus zoning densities. I would also like to point out in this bill and thank you to the county attorney's office, we have some preliminary definitions that would work where those that were in process and had preliminary subdivision approvals for this zoning change, the line was, you might say, drawn in the sand going forward, so this is about items that go forward, and as I said I served on the General Plan when this was suggested. It came from Mayor Baptiste's office and later from Mayor Carvalho's office, and I will be supporting these district changes, but again, you know, these are items that go back almost 34 years. So, it's been another accomplishment in the General Plan and I will be supporting it. Thank you, Mr Chair COUNCIL MEETING -21- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: Thank you. Any further discussion? Councilmember Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara. Thank you, Chair Asing. I'm very happy to support this bill and for the same reasons that Councilmembers Bynum and Furfaro have spoken about. It's been a long road to get here to do one of the items at least that the General Plan has asked to take away or reduce that density bonus, so I'm very happy to support this bill. Thank you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any other discussion? If not, I would like to make a few comments. Before you put that map up, Steph, let me just make a few comments. Now, in reference to maybe ...let me have the mike. In reference to the comment that was made about the 15 acres here in the yellow, it doesn't matter It doesn't matter whether it's 15 acres or not because it still comes under state jurisdiction. You can say the county, yes, but the laws on 205 still stand. So you cannot take that away, so you should not be discarding the yellow and say 15 acres under county State law still applies. So I want that clear Could you put up the map, please? And I agree with all the things that was said by Councilmember Bynum and Councilmember Furfaro. What I want to show you is the real impact and the real impact, of course, was what Councilmember Furfaro talked about, and here's what the bill does. As an example, this is over 350 acres here, this is the Kulana subdivision here, and in the Kulana subdivision, there happens to be an area that is zoned open. The purple area here is the open area and because it's such a large area within the confines of the entire parcel, the bonuses that come out of that area is huge, huge in number and that is the reason these lots here were. were subdivided into approximately 20 subdivided lots. Then the CPR process got in and then if you see all of the CPR lots here, they total approximately 93. So, you have 93 units on this property here. Now, what you're really saying is that what this bill does is it takes away the bonus coming from this open area and treats this as though it was ag. And because of that, the estimate right now, I worked with the deputy planning director yesterday so that we can get some numbers, let's look at numbers approximately what we can do. It is not easy to work out. The formula is not simple and easy because you can take. you use ratios and you can take these ratios and the developers are smarter than us. They find the loopholes; they know what to do; they know how to maximize things. So, they will take it and use the ratios to say this lot, I'll make it this size because I can get that many CPR units. This lot I'll do that size so I can make so many units. This one I'll do it smaller, this one larger, and they will work those formulas out. So that's what the smart people will do and that's the reason I say, be careful of what we do here because they will find the loopholes if we're not careful. So, the deputy and I worked on this yesterday and so what we're really saying is under today's rules, so to speak, the developer was able to get 93 units, Jots.. subdivided lots - that's not the right term, it's really units because it's CPR'd. So all we're saying is this parcel here, they used their ingenuity, creativity, and so this whole thing here amounted to approximately 93 units. Under the law that we're going to pass today, the maximum amount they can get is approximately 45 So you can see the reduction, 93 versus, we pass this, approximately 45 is the most they can squeeze out. But like I say, it's not that simple and easy to do. There's a lot of calculations that you can do on sizing the lots so you can maximize, but this bill will do that. I will be supporting this bill. It's a long time in coming. We tried many years ago, the votes were just not there. The developer, the brokers, the realtors put so much pressure on councils before that the votes was just not there. So, I'm just pleased and happy these types of what I call motherhood and apple pie, it's simple, easy, do it, we should have done it a long COUNCIL MEETING -22- May 12, 2010 time ago, but it wasn't easy to get here. Times have changed and so I will be supporting the bill. Thank you. Chair Asing: With that I'd like to call the meeting back to order Any further discussion? Yes, go ahead, Councilmember Furfaro. Mr Furfaro: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair, for referencing, you know, this goes back to 1973, closing of Kilauea Sugar, 1978 and it was just another item we can address that dealt with, you know, some of the things that came out of the General Plan. I just wanted to revisit again it basically makes the open district in the way of density the same cap as we have in the ag districts. And that's a major change. Chair Asing: Yes. Mr Furfaro: So, thank you again. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any further discussion? Oh, I'm sorry, the rules are suspended. There being no objection, the rules were suspended. GLENN MICKENS. Thank you, Kaipo, for your presentation for informational purposes. I live right beside that Kulana development. It's been there for like seven years or more and it's just sitting. It's a real inconvenience to the people in that area. Maybe you can refresh me and the people as to when that thing is actually going to be. and you're saying that now that they can only have 45 units in there as opposed to the 92? Is that what I. Chair Asing: No, I did not say that. Mr Furfaro: I can answer that. Chair Asing: Go ahead. Mr Furfaro: If you don't mind, I'll answer Chair Asing: Councilman Furfaro, yeah. Mr Furfaro: This. Mr Mickens: I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Mr Furfaro: This bill cannot go retroactive. This is going forward so that this would not happen to us where they got the double bonus that Mr Asing mentioned or the bonus density that Mr Bynum mentioned. Going forward, no projects that do not have preliminary subdivision approval can seek this. Mr Mickens: So those people that bought those lots under the other old rules, you can't change those. Those are. those are. Chair Asing: No. Mr Mickens: static. COUNCIL MEETING -23- May 12, 2010 Mr Furfaro Unfort. un. Mr Mickens: But Mr Asing, maybe you'd.. do you have any idea when that subdivision will be finalized? When are they going to ever finish it? There's a road going through there, there's Hauiki that comes around the other side That's going to have to be ironed out, but the developer had to put that road, which is fine, it's a 20-foot road going through the subdivision, and you know, the people up there just continually wonder when, when and what is going to happen with that. Chair Asing: Let me just answer it this way, Glenn, you know, the developer was in there, is in there to make money, that's his job, his function. I don't have anything against him, that's his job, that's his work, that's how he makes a living. It's up to us to put laws in place to prevent people from abusing the system. Now I want to also tell you that under our system presently, we have no control on the CPR portion. It is not the county's function. It is within the state's jurisdiction. So, that's why we need to be careful on what we do on what we allow knowing that they can do this additional piece. So we need to strengthen our portion and that is what the bill is trying to do today, strengthen our portion, so that they cannot abuse it. They've abused it; we fought it; and because it is a state function, it's very difficult for us. So, thank you. Mr Mickens: But. but there is nothing that the county can do as far as mandating or anything, getting them to open that subdivision then, right? Chair Asing: It's possible. Go ahead, Councilmember Bynum. Mr Bynum. Yeah, I just. I want to say start by saying I agree with everything the Chair just said. You know, this particular subdivision, like a number of situations on Kauai, is impacted by the change in the economy and there's a lot of complex issues that we can't go into, but the subdivision is done The lines are drawn and you know, we can't undo that. It's very difficult for county government to try to undo what's already been done, and we have to be very careful because once you take a big chunk of land and divide it and draw lines and have separate ownerships, that virtually forever., that's gone. You can't. I mean, it's possible, but short of purchasing every lot, it's very difficult. So this is a step that was called for and it's. and there are others. Mr Mickens: I understand that, Timmy, I understand exactly what you're saying, what Jay just pointed out, and what Kaipo. you're going forward. That's not the issue that I'm concerned about. Mr Bynum. Right. Mr Mickens: I'm just wondering whether or not anything can be done to mandate that they open up that thing in a certain length of time, seven years. Chair Asing: Glenn, not. not at this time. Mr Mickens: Okay Mr Bynum. These are pretty complex issues, so. Chair Asing: Thank you. COUNCIL MEETING -24- May 12, 2010 Mr Mickens: Okay, thank you, Kaipo. Chair Asing: Is there anyone else? If not, I'd like to call the meeting back to order We have a motion to approve on the floor Is there any further discussion? If not, all those. I'm sorry, roll call, please. The motion to adopt Bill No. 2339, Draft 1 on second and final reading was then put and carried by the following vote: FOR ADOPTION Bynum, Chang, Furfaro, Kawahara, Kawakami, Asing TOTAL - 6, AGAINST ADOPTION None TOTAL - 0, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING None TOTAL - 0 RECUSED & NOT VOTING Kaneshiro TOTAL - 1. Chair Asing: Can we have the next item, please? Thank you, Imai. Mr Bynum. Thank you, Imai. (Inaudible.) Mr Furfaro: Thank you, young man. Councilmember Kaneshiro was noted to have returned to the meeting at 10:51 a.m. Mr Nakamura. Council Chair, my apologies, next bill for second reading is Bill No. 2354, Draft 1. Bill No. 2354, Draft 1 - A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 19-1.3 AND SECTION 19-1.4 OF THE KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED RELATING TO PARKS AND RECREATION Chair Asing: Thank you. Mr Bynum. Move to approve. Chair Asing: Before. before we entertain a motion, what I'd like to do is. I'd like to call in someone to make a presentation first. With that, could I have the chief, could you come up please? There being no objection, the rules were suspended. Chief Westerman. Aloha, Chair, Chief Westerman, County of Kauai. Chair Asing: Yes. Chief. Chief Westerman. You want Norman to come up too? Chair Asing: Yes, please. Before we start, what I'd like to do is I'd like for the councilmembers to listen to a report that was made that I was made aware of a few days ago and I think it's very, very important to this bill that we're about to enact, and with that, I'd like to have the testimony of Norman Hunter, who is the supervisor of the lifeguards at the Lydgate Station. With that Chief, I'll leave it to you. COUNCIL MEETING -25- May 12, 2010 Chief Westerman. I'll just leave it to Norman to impart to you the information that he provided us the other day, so Chair Asing: Okay, thank you. NORMAN HUNTER, Lifeguard Supervisor, Lydgate Station. Good morning. We. Chair Asing: Let me just do it this way There was an incident that happened at the area, and I'm going to show you the area now, can. we'll have just a short minute or two of recess so we can set up, please. Steph, you can show the. Can we have the lights off and move in the screen. I think. Steph, could we... Okay, that' s a little better, but what I'd like to do is first explain the area. I think it's very Hello, hello, am I on? Okay, I want to explain the area of this incident and before I do that, I think, Steph, could you show the other slide, please. Ooo. Okay Let me do it this way This is. (inaudible) let me start off with the pavilion area. This is the Lydgate Pavilion here. This area here is the sewer station. This area here is the soccer fields. So, you get from the Kauai Resort area here and the road comes along here, this is Leho, I believe, and you enter the grounds to the Lydgate Park area here. If you keep on coming down, you enter the other roadway that comes down in this section and this area here in red is the Kamalani Bridge area. Now, what you need to know and understand is under the current ordinance, all of this entire area is where dogs are not permitted currently, they're not permitted. Under the present proposed ordinance, only this section from here to here will be no dogs allowed. Everything else dogs would be allowed. Now, what Mr Hunter is going to discuss today and report is this section here. This section here is the Kamalani Bridge area and with that I will open it up to Mr Hunter Go ahead, Norman. Mr Hunter: Good morning. The incident involved has been. Chair Asing: Pull the mike up close to you, please. Mr Hunter- The incident involved has been an ongoing process throughout the past year-and-a-half or so due to the fact that the population has moved farther south. The playground was set up for children. (Inaudible.) Chair Asing: Maybe you ought to throw up the other slide (inaudible) no, the other one. Mr Hunter Okay, down in this area here is. our lifeguard tower is down in this area here. The majority of the population stays down in the major part of the park. Through the last year-and-a-half or so, the population, since the. everything has been cleaned and the sidewalk has been very well used, the Kamalani Bridge area is a very popular place on the weekdays and weekends. There are baby parties now that are set up down in that area. It's also in the makings of a campsite. So, as our lifeguards run the beach and we do periodic checks down in this area, we have had reports of people that run the beach down here, come down by the Kaha Lani condos, and they run the beach and the dogs have been coming out of the parking lot on the far south by this bathroom and the playground area, the bridge. We've had incidents, this last one was reported to me last week Thursday of a resident that has pretty much been attacked more than once. This is the first time that I've witnessed a bite. I have seen the bite on his COUNCIL MEETING -26- May 12, 2010 arm, he didn't want to make any kind of police report or anything. He just wanted to find out why the dogs were allowed in this portion of the park. And being lifeguards, we're not. we try to help with the park keepers, we try to help with the park rangers, but we. we don't really know the rules or if. why the dogs were allowed in that area. But the dogs have been coming out of the parking area. According to him, the dogs came out of the parking area, down by the bridge here, and they run right onto the bridge. The owners might be taking them off the leash or might not have them on a leash, but they've been running off the park area and down onto the beach. Our lifeguards have also run the beach for exercise and they have also been attacked, not by the same dogs, but by many different owners. From the. there are good owners and there are some that just don't pay attention to the rules. But from this dry river bed here on the opposite side, the Lihu`e side of the bridge is where we understand is that the DLNR takes over from that portion down. The county side is from the dry river bed back towards Kapa a. But we've had many reports and incidents of people that run the beach or not too many people are very easy around dogs. But our portion of this is basically public safety So we take the reports and we try to follow up on them. This particular individual was pretty upset and he had. I witnessed the dog bite on his elbow just below his elbow and he said it was a German Shepherd. We witnessed other dogs that have been attacking our lifeguards as they've been running the beaches. Most of the area and the people can't get on that beach from there, so they park their car and they stay on the south end of the. by the Kamalani Playground, Kamalani Bridge. We've noticed the population moving south. On the weekends there are big luaus that are set up, up to 300 people or so, that are set up in this area down by the new south bathroom. So between where they are stating that they're trying to make the dogs allowed on the path, in the past granted that there hasn't been too many people down there, but nowadays the local people really use his portion of the park because the major portion of the park is so crowded. The lifeguards take counts and some of our counts come up to two thousand or more and it's only in the areas that we can see, which is the main pavilion and down to the baby pond, back towards where Mr Asing said is the big pohaku there with the Lydgate, where they're planning on opening. As far as public safety-wise, we've had many people that are very nervous about it opening up because of the fact that they're not too sure they're so far away from help in case of a dog bite or a case of somebody being attacked down there. We're probably a good quarter mile away from any of the closest incidents. So, our portion of this is just to report a public safety side of it all, and that's really what we're mostly concerned about is whatever the people think is right for them, but we're. the population definitely on the weekends can get up to a thousand people from where the pohaku is, the great. the big stone, down towards the Kamalani Bridge. And we had to call Mr John Martin to find out some of the rules and regulations and Mr Martin has been very cordial with us. We are only trying to report this, not because we're against dogs or anything. We're. once again, just basically we're concerned for the public's safety, and as far as this situation, that's all we're really concerned with and we're just reporting it because if it does open, we m. there could be many potentials for different incidents that arise down there. Not only would it be dog bites, but it could be confrontations between partygoers or people, and dog owners because like we were saying, not all dog owners are responsible and some are very responsible, so. We're stuck in the middle and all we want to do is state that we are concerned for the public's safety And that's all we're looking for This incident did occur and it occurred to the same person more than once, which is why he came up to ask us that day, and it just. I just so happened to be there and be the person to have received the report. COUNCIL MEETING -27- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: Thank you. You can turn the lights on. Mr Nakamura. Sammy, could you drop the captioning to the bottom? Chair Asing: Any questions? Any questions, councilmembers? Yes, Councilmember Bynum. Mr Bynum. Hi, Norman, thanks for being here. Mr Hunter Thank you. Mr Bynum. This incident that you're talking about where dogs that were off-leash. Mr Hunter- Yes, sir Mr Bynum. and your I think you know better than most because you spend a lot of time down there. Mr Hunter- Yes. Mr Bynum. But people access that whole state portion of the beach fronting the golf course from that end of the park. Mr Hunter- Yes, sir Mr Bynum. And so it's generally on that end of the park where loose dogs have been an issue. Mr Hunter- Yes, most people are very respectable about the major portion of the park and there are signs posted. So, the park rangers have been real good about following up and they're very limited in staff. So some days on the weekends we easily, Mother's Day I think wasn't too busy, but most of our weekends we have big parties and now a lot of the other families are starting to set up on the south side which is a very good area for them. We've seen situations up to maybe three, four hundred people set ups, sometimes two luaus that are set up in that portion and the Kaha Lani, which is all of the tourists come out of there. So a lot of the tourists actually walk the beach from the Hilton all the way down to Lydgate. So that portion back there has been a concern for us and more so with the animals, the ones that aren't. the owners aren't very responsible. But the ones that have been, you know, there's no problem with them. Mr Bynum. So, you know that the bill that's currently before us would allow owners to walk their dogs on a leash on the path and within 6 feet of the path. Mr Hunter- Yes, sir That's really whatever the public would like. We're with the public and we agree with. we respect the council's decision. Ours is basically a public safety issue. Mr Bynum. And I think we've definitely learned over this last couple years that dog owners that are disobeying the leash law and allowing loose dogs are a significant issue on this island. You know, a lot of the testimony we received from people who walked the path is that because of the attention that COUNCIL MEETING -28- May 12, 2010 there are fewer loose dogs on the area where people are walking their dogs. And owners are, you know, dog. responsible dog owners are drop on a dime and you know, and even encouraging those owners to get their dogs on a leash and so, you know, I appreciate the testimony I think that's a separate issue, just my opinion about loose dogs. Mr Hunter Yes, sir Mr Bynum. that clearly are an issue, not only along our beaches but in neighborhoods. We heard testimony during this time about folks feeling safer to walk their dogs on the path because they are less likely to encounter loose dogs than they are in their own neighborhoods, so Mr Hunter Yes, sir Mr Bynum. One of the clear messages I've gotten over the last couple of years with these issues is that we need to enforce the leash law, which is the primary law that communities use with.. to set expectations for dog owners, that you take your dog in public, they have to be on a leash, it's the law That's right. Mr Bynum. So, thank you for your testimony Mr Hunter You're welcome. Thank you. Chair Asing: Any other questions, comments? If not, I'd. Councilmember Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony and it's good to see you here and I appreciate the presentation and I understand that there ha. that it's a difficult thing to be in when people aren't behaving responsibly with their dogs. I'm. I was happy to hear you say that you make a distinction between responsible dog owners that do have and do use leashes versus the ones that run loose that nobody seems to be around watching them, yeah? Mr Hunter- Yes. Ms. Kawahara. So, Mr when you were talking to parks and recreation, were they able to tell you what the laws were? Mr Hunter Yes, ma'am. Ms. Kawahara. and if those were illegal as. as. and should have been prosecuted or whatever? Mr Hunter Up until this point, Mr Martin has been very cordial with us and he's very informative. We understand that it hasn't opened yet, it's still part of a county park, so at that point it would still be illegal for dogs to be down in that area. He's been really informative to us. So, we're just passing it to our guys in the tower because we are the public safety people. Ms. Kawahara. Yes. COUNCIL MEETING -29- May 12, 2010 Mr Hunter- and we're the only ones in that area. So they'll come to us for medical or information and if we don't have the information, we have direct connection with Mr Martin in parks and rec. Ms. Kawahara. Okay, so the bill itself would be saying that dogs on the leash, under control of their owners or their people would be allowable, yeah, not loose dogs running free. Mr Hunter Yes, ma'am, we're not really against or for, we're just basically concerned for the public's (inaudible) Ms. Kawahara. And thank you, I appreciate it. I just wanted to see that you were getting information that you needed or wanted from parks. Mr Hunter Yes, ma'am, we have Ms. Kawahara. Okay, thank you. Mr Hunter- Thank you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Chang. Mr Chang: Thank you, Chair Norman Hunter, great to see you and thank you for your testimony You know I think the key here is what you witnessed and what your lifeguards been seeing is the fact that there are sadly irresponsible dog owners that are letting their dogs off the chain. This is all about responsible dog ownership and walking the dogs. I had a brief moment prior to your testimony to let you know there is an amendment that where the pohaku stands, as you mentioned, opposite the Kamalani Kai Bridge, Kaha Lam, from that quarter of a mile heading toward your tower till the end of the road prior to the heiau, that is the area that's going to exclude dogs. You cannot walk your dogs there even with the. with a chain. Last week I had made mention because I was not in and around the area when soccer games were going on with the kids. So a lot of times you think about a soccer field, this is a field, but a lot of people don't realize the ball goes out of bounds, so that consequently may cross the path. But what I had asked the responsible dog owners is, you know, there are going to be times that the park is going to be utilized heavily There are going to be times that the Kamalani Bridge area is going to be utilized heavily During the weekdays, from what I had witnessed, it's almost underutilized. Would you agree with that? Mr Hunter Yes, sir Mr. Chang: Okay, so those are the times that I would like to let the public know and, you know, ask them. there are times that make sense that you don't walk your dog, ride your bike, do a picnic. I mean when you know places are crowded, in most cases you try to avoid those areas. And I'm hoping that because the path, what we're proposing, is so wide open that there may be times that an isolated area that is "an isolated area" such as Kealia to Kuna Bay could be a little bit more utilized or the other parts of the path could be pretty much more utilized. So I'm hoping. and I'm glad you brought up those concerns because during the weekdays from what I had witnessed and what I've seen, the majority of the people, weekday, weekend, what have you is by the pavilion, by your Lydgate pond, by your lifeguard tower, by your shower, by the comfort station and that was the area that I had the most concern with because as you know, many of the picnic COUNCIL MEETING -30- May 12, 2010 tables are right up against the sidewalk and as you mentioned the luaus and the tarps, it's right up against the sidewalk. So there's no 6 feet here, no 6 feet there, and I believe that was a compromise that a lot of people could understand why we were doing what we're doing. So from what I witnessed at the times that I go there in the morning or the latter part of the afternoon on a weekday per se, I think it's a very, very therapeutic area because nobody is around that area, and also do think that the Kamalani Bridge area is also underutilized. I don't think as much people treasure that. that gift by walking in the maze as much as the playground. I used to be the activity coordinator from. for Pahio Resorts way back when it was Pahio, so I did the morning sunrise walks from the then Hilton to the Kamalani Bridge and the Kamalani Park area, and I guess those were the days that people would drive their trucks behind the golf course or what have you. But I do understand trucks on the sand is illegal also. Mr Hunter No, Dickie. Mr Chang: . unless for fishing purp Mr Hunter- Unless for fishing. Mr Chang: Yeah. Mr Hunter- but a lot of that has been. gone out the window because there's not very much enforcement down there. So there are quite a few trucks back there now Mr Chang: And that point that we're making reference to is DLNR versus the county, correct? Mr Hunter- Yes, sir Mr Chang: So I'm hoping that, you know, when we can get our ranger staff up to full capacity, I'm hoping that that area of concern during a crowded area would be easily easier to enforce because if that quarter of a mile of Lydgate is off limits to the dogs, the concentration can be in and around the area of the soccer fields, Kamalani Bridge area for enforcement. And we hope that that would be an easier area to keep an eye out of because obviously they got the whole island to take care of. Mr Hunter- Yes, yes, Dickie, the one thing that and the only thing that really sticks out in our mind, like I said, was public safety We don't know how to follow through on a dog bite. We don't know what type of liability it stands for us or the county if we don't follow through on the dog bites. Our basic concern is the ocean and we. anybody behind us or around us is a possible victim for us if something happens in a party or then we are called first and then Station 2 will be called. But the only thing that we're stuck in the middle of is, are public safety issues and that really is all we're really worried about is if somebody does get bit and if our lifeguards are busy doing a rescue or if they're doing something else and they don't get directly to this dog bite, could it affect us as safety officers. Mr Chang: And.. and again, thank you for bringing up that concern because we're equally as concerned and we. we know that your job as a water safety officer goes way beyond being a water safety officer as you also deal with, you know, sadly theft or break-ins and dogs and that, so thank you for your testimony COUNCIL MEETING -31- May 12, 2010 Mr Hunter Thank you. Chair Asing: Councilmember Kaneshiro. Mr Kaneshiro: You mentioned at one point that you did a count roughly? I didn't get the number You said. Mr Hunter We have a what we do daily logs and on the weekends from the pohaku that Mr Chang's talking about down towards. we get counts of up to, but it's not on our log because it's kind of out of our area, we can get up to a thousand people back there on the weekends. The bridge is. Mr Kaneshiro• On the weekends. Mr Hunter Yes, sir Mr Kaneshiro: using those places. Mr Hunter Yes, weekends, yes, sir Mr Kaneshiro: Okay, thanks. Mr Hunter You're welcome. Chair Asing: Thank you. You know, we're due for a caption break, so. Mr Furfaro: I just want to ask one question. Chair Asing: Okay, sure. Mr Furfaro• When I was with the City & County of Honolulu, we did beach counts every hour I want to make sure you're talking this is a thousand count in an hour Mr Hunter Oh no, sir, probably in a day Mr Furfaro: In a day, okay Mr Hunter In a day Mr Furfaro. So, it's not peaked at a thousand, say at one o'clock when everybody's. Mr Hunter No, most of the population hits a thousand at the major part. Mr Furfaro• For the day? Mr Hunter Yes, sir, yes. Mr Furfaro: It's not on an hourly basis? Mr Hunter No, we do do counts on an hourly basis. COUNCIL MEETING -32- May 12, 2010 Mr Furfaro- You count hourly Mr Hunter but for our area, yeah. Mr Furfaro. Okay, thank you, Mr Chair Chair Asing: Okay, let's take the caption break now and then we'll be right back. Thank you. The meeting was recessed at 11.16 a.m. The meeting was called back to order at 11.35 a.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Asing: The meeting is called back to order With that, the rules are still suspended. Chef, Mr Hunter? Thank you. The rules were still suspended. Chair Asing: Norman, when. when did the dog bite occur? Mr Hunter- Last week Wednesday I think it was the 5th or 6th of the month. Chair Asing: Did I hear you say that it is. it was the second time that the individual was bitten? Mr Hunter- This was the first time that he showed me the bite and I witnessed it. He had said that he's been approached a few times before by dogs, but this was the first time that I actually saw a bite on him. Chair Asing: Did you actually see the bite on the individual? Mr Hunter- Yes, sir, I saw the bite. It was puncture wounds just below his right elbow Chair Asing: Okay So in. in your responsibility in the area there, would you say that it would not be in our best interest for the safety of our community members to allow dogs to be walking in the area of the Kamalani Bridge and that. those areas? Would you. what is your opinion as a safety officer in the area? Mr Hunter- As a safety officer, I see more than one issue towards safety It would sound like it would be a personal opinion of mine, but I'm strictly here for public safety and I don't really know how to answer that question. Chair Asing: Okay, okay, yeah, I don't want you. I don't want to put you on the spot of trying to do a personal opinion. Mr Hunter- Yes, sir Chair Asing: What I was looking for was as a professional safety officer is what I was looking for and not a personal opinion. Mr Hunter- Okay COUNCIL MEETING -33- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: I believe your function there is for the protection and safety of our community members. So that was what the question was. Mr Hunter Yes, I agree on that statement. I would say as a public safety officer I would not think it would be a safe issue. Chair Asing: Thank you. That. that's all I have Is there any other questions for Norman? If not, thank you very much, appreciate it. Mr Hunter Thank you. Thank you for all your help Chair Asing: And appreciate that. What I'd like to do now is I'd like to read this report into the record. This is the report from Norman Hunter to Chief Westerman. 5/11/10, that's the date. Report on dog bite. On the morning of 5/6/10 (May 6, 2010), Thursday, I was approached by a resident who frequents Lydgate Beach Park. He was very frustrated about being bitten by a German Shepherd on his morning run. I personally witnessed the bite on his forearm right below his elbow on his right arm. I asked him if he needed assistance with his bite. He did not want assistance, but asked why dogs are allowed on the Kamalani Bridge end of the county park for this has been the second time he has been attacked running on the beach. The dogs and their owners were coming from the parking area fronting the south bathroom. Owners are releasing their dogs and they are chasing after beachgoers and people running the sidewalk and the beach. This has happened to lifeguards when they are running on the beach for their morning workouts. We have warned owners of putting dogs on leashes. I did not have any answers and told him I would seek information on the matter I will call Mr John Martin, who is the head of the park rangers for information, and the notation. called John the afternoon of Thursday, 5/6/10, the date May 6, 2010 with the bite information, and it's signed by the water safety officer, Norman Hunter So I wanted to read that into the record. With that, what I'd like to do is now open it up to the public for the public's comments on the bill. With that, the rules are suspended. Chair Asing: Mr Mickens. GLENN MICKENS: Thank you, Kaipo, for the record Glenn Mickens. Thank you, Ricky First I really want to thank my friend Norm Hunter for his fine testimony I've had tremendous respect for Norm, for Bob and all the water safety people. I've known them for many years. I would ask that Bill 2354 be carefully reviewed by this council. You have a copy of my testimony I'll read it for the record. Before it's passed, I believe a lot more research should be done on what the 18-month study showed before allowing dogs or any animals, because I presume if it says dogs. I presume that's going to give the right for any animals can use that park on this total path. The 90+ percent of those asked and approved they wanted dogs on this path were people with dogs. That makes this poll very skewed. It would be like asking the foxes, who wants to guard the henhouse if that's what they want to do. When the workers, the rangers, the worker's union, the mayor and director of parks and recreation was asked if dogs belonged on the path, they either said no or agreed to let the northern section of the path be used for dog walkers, a far more neutral poll than the other one. Actually this poll was a realistic one where those that had to clean up and maintain this path were quizzed and the administration, knowing the liability problems that could be faced, opted to let only the northern COUNCIL MEETING -34- May 12, 2010 portion of the path be used for the dogs and as you just heard Norman testify, somebody was already bit. But somebody was bit with the law now not allowing animals. Can you imagine what's going to happen if you allow all animals, dogs on that path? Can you imagine the liability problem? I heard over and over that animals were not allowed in parks by ordinance. Since I believe that since this law prohibiting dogs in parks is on the books, the proposed ordinance, Bill 2354, should state whether it's meant to supersede the existing ordinance and I don't believe that this bill does that. Also under Section 19-1.4 Article 10 which says, no person at a park or recreation facility shall drive or park motorized vehicles etc., etc., etc. unless authorized by the director or his designated representative by signage or on a permit. By the Kapa`a Neighborhood Center vehicles drive on the bike path and park on it to use their residence and I presume they have a right to do that. Even if this person or persons has a permit, isn't just. this just an accident waiting to happen if young kids or older and ADA people feel this path is safe for their use, and fishermen drive across that. their vehicles across the path at that same location - more ill planning. And finally, I would encourage everyone to read Andy Park's blog of May 10th regarding this path. It's outstanding and factually informative. I'm sure you guys have seen it on the computer before. He's got windows. The other thing about the concerns of the original 18-month trial period that you guys issued, grievance filed on March llth, employees are not comfortable evidenced by the staff survey Additional maintenance concerns, staffing shortages, meeting public. none of these things have been addressed. All I heard was, you know, where you're going to introduce this Bill 2354, dogs are going to be able to walk on the total part of the path. Daryl, I thought made an excellent point. Certain places may go through the wetlands on this thing. That's going to be a huge issue. You're not going to get.. you know, you're going to have to come back and revise this, put some kind of a rider on this thing and say it. Mr Nakamura. Three minutes, Mr Chair Mr Mickens: Anyway, this is my opinion. Any questions, I'll be happy to answer Thank you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any questions? Councilmember Chang. Mr Chang: Thank you, Chair Good morning, Mr Mickens. Mr Mickens: Good morning, Dickie. Mr Chang: Have you been on the path recently? Mr Mickens: Not just recently, no. Mr Chang: When was the last time you were on the path? Mr Mickens: About a month ago COUNCIL MEETING -35- May 12, 2010 Mr Chang: Okay, can you tell me where. the areas you biked/walked along the path. Mr Mickens: Basically in Lydgate Park from where the lifeguard. where Norm's lifeguard station or whoever the lifeguard happens to be, from there up to north and from there down to the Kamalani Bridge by the golf course. Mr Chang: So the current existing path from the boat harbor to south Kealia, when was the last time that you walked that portion or biked it? Mr Mickens: By Lihi boat ramp? Mr Chang: Yes. Mr Mickens: It's been several months ago that I was there, but I used to. before that. before the. soon that path was put in there, I used to jog from Pono Kai up to Donkey Beach on that same route. Mr Chang: Okay, and then have you ever been up to. so you've been up to Kuna Bay area itself? Mr Mickens: Yes, yes. Mr Chang: Okay, because what I would like to report from what I've been saying, I think the shared-use path is respected amongst walkers, joggers, bikers, people that are walking their dogs and unfortunately there is an issue about unleashed dogs, but the walkers that I have seen doing their thing, are very compliant, they're law-abiding, many of them gave testimonies that they themselves needed to learn about the law, they themselves were issued citations, they paid their citations, they understood they made a mistake, and they went about doing what was responsible for almost 18 months. So, one of the things that you are concerned with is maintenance and not being able to maintain it. From what I've seen, many walkers, joggers, people with their dogs have really, really, really cleaned up the area. So as far as maintenance concerns, I believe that that path is one of the cleanest areas on the island of Kauai because it's so well traveled and people are concerned and they pick up a lot of the `opala that either blows from the cars or unfortunately are left behind, but you know, I believe that we have picked up conservatively hundreds of additional maintenance workers that are seriously going above and beyond with what they're asked to do. So if you do have a chance. I know you exercise and I know just to familiarize yourself or maybe even to talk to everybody on the path, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised how responsible and compliant and how law-abiding and above and beyond the people are going in terms of sticking to the rules of the path or abiding and listening to the signage and probably warning other people about where and where not. presently is not permitted. But I really do feel that one of the bigger issues as far as safety is concerned is the problem with those that would, excuse me, the problem with those that would unleash their dogs and just let them run rampant. Mr Mickens: But the enforcement mechanism is the other thing that I have big concerns with. You've got what, four park rangers to cover this whole island, and if there's a problem down there and like everybody goes to the lifeguard first, you know, whether it's a sting by a fish or what it happens to be. The lifeguard's the guy on the spot. Sure, he'd probably pick the phone up and try and get a hold of a park ranger, but if Mr Martin happens to be up in Hanalei or something, to get down here it's going to take him an hour By that time, you know, COUNCIL MEETING -36- May 12, 2010 hey But everything falls on these safety guys and basically, Dickie, all I'm looking at is the hierarchy, the workers, the mayor, the parks director and stuff. These guys are opposed to this. animals, dogs on the path and all I'm saying is I basically support what they do. I have no qualms with what you're saying about, you know, the responsible people with dogs on leashes and stuff are going to be responsible. It's the irresponsible and one. one lawsuit against this county, somebody gets bit, a million-dollar lawsuit or something, you know, I think that's a big concern to the taxpayers on the island for the sake of somebody having to walk their dog on that path. Mr Chang: And obviously it's a huge concern for all of us here including the, you know, the administration, the taxpayers, and this council. Do you have any knowledge as to if any suits or anyone filed anything against the county recently? Mr Mickens: No, outside of, you know, what Kaipo just read from Norm, the guy who got bit, I presume he didn't have a lawsuit. It doesn't mean he can't turn around and finally go ahead and sue us. But again remember that again the big point here is there is no dogs, no animals allowed in parks. That's by ordinance now until this ordinance is changed they still can't be. So, the people are restricted to how many are going to be there. Once you open the gates and let these animals all walk on this thing, now I'm saying it's going to really open the gate for possible, not maybe, but possible lawsuits to happen with more dogs on the path, whether they're older people or kids or whoever happens to be on this path. For this path to be multi-use, it's going to. I think it's going create problems. Anyway, you're going to find kids roller boarding, skating and stuff on that path down there. Mr Chang: Okay, and I appreciate that and I again want to just say it again that I believe that they've been very compliant, they've been law abiding, they've been responsible because I know the dog owners probably know their dogs better than anybody else. They know their temperament. They know if and when they should be walking in public. They know if and when they should be walking around a crowded area. Mr Mickens: Right. Mr Chang: And just as a little FYI and somebody can correct me if I'm not right, since 1996, fourteen and a half years ago, there's never been an incident that was reported or never been a lawsuit that came to the attention of the county that we needed to address. So, maybe public education, maybe somebody didn't step forward, but for the most part, as the population grows and more dog owners are. become pet owners, it seems as though it's remained in check because I do a lot of walking and unfortunately I don't live on the bike path side, but in and around the area here within the industrial area or within the residential areas that are county properties, you know, people also do walk their dogs. So anywhere on the island and I guess that's why a lot of people feel safe about being able to walk on the path as such because they feel that they're with, again, responsible people, a nice clean wholesome setting that's a shared-use multi-path for everybody to enjoy Mr Mickens: With that caveat again that animals at this stage of the game are not permitted in parks. That will restrict any incidents from happening, right? Mr Chang: Can you. I'm sorry, can you repeat that again? COUNCIL MEETING -37- May 12, 2010 Mr Mickens: The restriction at this stage of the game that animals are not permitted in parks, county or state parks, that restricts incidents from happening. In other words, if you op. give them the green light to people to bring their animals, dogs or whatever into the parks, that's going to open the gates for more incidents to happen. Like you said, nobody has reported, that doesn't mean they haven't been bitten. Maybe they didn't want to have a lawsuit. But it doesn't mean that the incidents haven't happened. But because of the restriction of people not being there, if they had a dog there they're going to get arrested, they're going to get a ticket for it. Mr Chang: Okay, but we're talking not about the parks, we're talking about the path. Mr Mickens: Yeah, well the path goes through parks. Mr Chang: I'm sorry Mr Mickens: The path goes through parks, whether it's Lihi, that's the boat ramp, I think that's a state park, isn't it? Mr Chang: Yes, but you. but you would be walking your dogs on the path. Mr Mickens: Right. Mr Chang: You got 6 feet going this way, 6 feet going this way Mr Mickens: Right. Mr Chang: Which is why again I had an amendment last week because I was concerned because many picnic tables, many luaus or tents are right up against the sidewalk. Mr Mickens: Yes. Mr Chang: And the only thing that I could say again, and I'd be happy to go with you, I know you like to exercise I'll go with you, we can talk story, but I'd like to walk the path with you to asses and talk to people. Mr Mickens: Love to. Mr Chang: I think you'd feel a lot more. Mr Mickens: Right. Mr Chang: Yeah, okay Thank you, Glenn. Mr Mickens: Thank you, Dickie. Chair Asing: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Dr Rhoades. BECKY RHOADES, Director of the Kauai Humane Society Aloha and good morning. You know as our one of our duties or work here on Kauai is to provide the county's animal care and management services and those include the leash law enforcement as well as investigations of all dangerous dog reports. We have an MOU with Kauai Police Department and they may be first responder, but all the COUNCIL MEETING -38- May 12, 2010 cases are turned over to us to investigate the dogs that are biting or being aggressive towards people on the island. It's key that people report problem, bad dog owners. I'm just going to call it that, okay None of us want bad dog owners and I think that. what I propose is going to happen which we have already seen happen in the 18-month trial period on the 2-mile stretch of the path is good dog owners turning in bad dog owners, okay That's what we've seen happen and we've seen better enforcement. I don't care how much.. there's no way we can have enough enforcement people on this island for drunk drivers, for speeders, for dogs off leash, for not picking up poop, for all kinds of things. There's just no way The key is the community awareness and the community working to help protect our community Just as the incident that was described by the water safety folks, it should have been reported, and if it's reported, then we can do something. I propose just like Mothers Against Drunk Driving that we are good dog owners against bad dog owners and we're going to see better activity on this path and a better model of dog stewardship by opening up the path, limited to just the path for responsible dog walking. That message is getting made clearer than ever before. We have bad dog owners. We have some, we do, just like we have bad people. The key is reporting. The key is enforcement, education and letting people know the rules, and I firmly believe that this area will be better than its ever been before for loose dog problems, any dog bite issues, aggressive dogs, all of that by passing this ordinance and I strongly urge you to pass the ordinance. Thank you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any go ahead, Councilmember Kaneshiro. Mr Kaneshiro. Thank you, Chair So you're pretty confident that in an area where Norman talked about almost upwards of a thousand or more and I even heard two thousand people on any given day and an area up to thousand something or whatever, that you're pretty comfortable that we won't see any kind of incidents like this happening, where dog bite would occur with that amount of people? No, I'm just saying that in this particular (inaudible) Dr Rhoades. I think we have a very dog loving community, you know, 47% of our households have a dog, and we have very Mr Kaneshiro: I have. Dr Rhoades: We have very few problems when you look at that number of dogs on Kauai. I can't say there's not going to be an incident, okay Mr Kaneshiro. Yeah. Dr Rhoades: I can't say that. Mr Kaneshiro: Yeah, I know Dr Rhoades: I can tell you that we've had five, seven hundred people in an acre park with two hundred dogs at a time. We just did a dog walk with 200 people and half of them had dogs. We didn't have any incidents. It's about being responsible and it's about demanding that. Mr Kaneshiro. And I. yeah, and I understand that, but in certain areas where you have a concentration of people, you know, that's the problem I've been having, as you know, you know, through all my discussions. It wasn't about COUNCIL MEETING -39- May 12, 2010 dogs on the path at all, which I have no problem, but it's just that there's certain places where, you know, when I was quite amazed when Norman brought up the number of about a thousand people. Dr Rhoades: You know in some situations where people have big events, we hire secur you know, we hire people to assist us with managing large crowds. I don't want ever to have that to happen, but we've had to do that for some of events is to help have security to manage issues that may come up I don't know Mr Kaneshiro: And not only that too because on the weekends probably where it is currently right now, you have the soccer players all out there, you have kids out at the soccer fields, then you have the Kamalani campgrounds and the playground and so forth, so. Dr Rhoades: I think we have to. I think we have talked that signage will be key Again, awareness and letting people know who to call and who to call is the Kauai Police Department dispatch, that's who to call. And we work with them every day It's. it's. you have an incident of an issue whether it be related to a dog or a person or a car or a truck or whatever, you call and you'll get a good response. There's just no way we can have enough enforcement for anything to prevent everything from happening. The key is response time. The key is education, and I do propose this similar type of situation like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, I think that's what we're creating and that's something we can promote Mr Kaneshiro: And. and. you know, I'm glad you said that that there's no way that we can predict something like that from not happening because I can tell you, you know, I've own dogs all my life, as you know, and you know, I think my dogs are really mellow too, they're real nice and I always say, yeah, go ahead you can touch `em, you can touch `em, and sometimes, you can touch `em but he might snap, so. Dr Rhoades: Yup Mr Kaneshiro- You know what I'm saying. So it's just the experience, so me being a dog owner that I see and this is why it's been really hard for Dr Rhoades: I appreciate it. Mr Kaneshiro for me on my part too. okay Thank you. Dr Rhoades: That's our world. that's our world. We deal with them and it's about making better island dogs and better island dog families. Mr Kaneshiro• I absolutely agree. Thank you. Dr Rhoades: You're welcome. Chair Asing: Councilmember Bynum. Mr Bynum. Hello Dr Rhoades: Hello COUNCIL MEETING -40- May 12, 2010 Mr Bynum. So, we currently have an MOU between the Humane Society and the county? Dr Rhoades: Kauai Police Department. Mr Bynum. Kauai Police Department. Dr Rhoades: Yes. Mr Bynum. So it's, you know, it's an expectation that any dog bite gets reported and investigated. Dr Rhoades: Well, fortunately on Kauai, not all the other islands have this, but if anybody seeks medical attention for a dog bite, it's mandatory to have it reported to the Kauai Police Department. Mr Bynum. And so I hear your testimony that you think that allowing responsible dog walking in an area actually improves the safety of that area. Dr Rhoades: Yes. Mr Bynum. And that frankly was a surprise to me. It's not something I expected, but I heard that overwhelmingly from the people who came and testified that. and that was a big surprise to me. I feel safer on the path than I do in my own neighborhood because I know that. you know, and so you're talking about community norms, I think our community norms are changing. I know they are. You know, when the parks department did a presentation here, they showed a picture of somebody at Hanalei, way far away from the path, you know, who ran, put their dog on a leash, and escaped enforcement. I think we all know that three years ago they wouldn't have even worried if somebody came into the park because enforcement wasn't occurring and so those new community norms, I think, are a very positive thing that has come from this whole discussion and debate, and I appreciate the Humane Society helping with our park rangers, which we're fortunate to know that we're down two, we're going to hire those soon they just told us during budget. Dr Rhoades: We work with them every day Mr Bynum. And so, thank you for your testimony Dr Rhoades: You're welcome Chair Asing: Thank you, any other questions? Councilmember Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara. Thank you. So, you're. you're our assigned dangerous dog enforcement agency Dr Rhoades: Yes. Ms. Kawahara. So, I mean, obviously we have mechanisms that deal with any situations or incidents that come up with dogs on a county level. Dr Rhoads: Right, if a dog bite's reported, we actually meet with the owner, we look at the dog, examine the dog, we investigate the case, meet COUNCIL MEETING -41- May 12, 2010 with witnesses, and we may take the dog immediately for pro. into protective custody to provide public safety until we can establish anything else. It may wait till the trial because there is a citation issued or that it may wait for the owner to build a child-proof escape-proof kennel that the dog can be kept in. But we do the investigation in partnership with Kauai Police Department for the dangerous dog cases. Ms. Kawahara. And the person.. the owner of the dog is the one that is the responsible person that we actually prosecute. Dr Rhoades: The owner or the agent, meaning who had control of the dog at the time of the bite, who is responsible. Ms. Kawahara. Okay, okay, thank you. Dr. Rhoades: You're welcome. Chair Asing: Any other questions for Dr Rhoades? Dr Rhoades, thank you. Dr Rhoades: Thank you all and just on the side.. Chair Asing: I have one question, doctor Would you agree that if there are areas that are crowded, I'm going to use crowded as up to a thousand people a day even if you take the entire day, I would consider that fairly crowded in an area like Lydgate because it is not that big an area, would it not be wiser in that kind of situation not to have dogs in those areas because of the possibility of people maybe not securing their dogs or possible dog bites? Would you agree to that? Dr Rhoades: I say that. my experience here on Kauai is that path. the 2-mile section where we've had dogs allowed for the past 18 months, we've had some big crowds and we've had dogs on leashes, we've had children, we've had elderly, we've had all kinds of folks and we haven't had an incident. The key is the leash. That is the key, and I would say that as long as the dog is. the dog owner is complying with the laws and the rules we've created, it minimizes any risk. Chair Asing: You know when.. when you say we've had the trial for an 18-month period and we haven't had any incidences, could it be perhaps it was not reported and. Dr Rhoades: Sure, I mean. Chair Asing: possibly? Dr Rhoades: It might have been. Chair Asing: Yes, as a matter of fact, the report that was just made today was not reported. It was only reported because someone asked the question what happened and why, and that was why the report was made. Other than that, the report would not have been made and for your information, there is another report that is forthcoming, I believe it will be coming from the county attorney's office, of a dog incident in an area, I believe, that dogs are allowed. So, 1. you know, want to kind of let you know that perhaps these people just don't report and these two instances that are now being reported were really not reported incidents. So I want to let you know COUNCIL MEETING -42- May 12, 2010 Dr Rhoades: You know, stuff happens and dust. 1, you know, just as I explained to the chief, you know, we had a case of a lifeguard who took his pit-bull to work with him, let it go and it bit on the beach. We have issues. We have stupid dog owners. We have irresponsible people just like we have irresponsible drivers and irresponsible everything else. The key is reporting. The key is good dog owners helping us just like the commu. helping us protect our community and that's what I feel is really key with this whole issue since it started is we didn't have any enforcement before really That cane haul road, you could do whatever you wanted on it. This is the key to helping protect our community more and provide better public safety That's my opinion and this is my position on allowing responsible dog walking on the path. Chair Asing: Okay, I guess one last question. Would you be in favor of some areas for dogs and their walkers and some areas for people who are afraid of dogs and people who got bitten? Would you be in favor of something like that, one area for people who are afraid and all the dog walkers have an area and the parks division as an example like the Lydgate area, you know, for the park users? Would that be a fair way to treat everyone, the entire community gets a part of the. to use a part of the path? Would you not say that is fair for everybody? Dr Rhoades: I think that it's really difficult when you start separating out dog zones, no dog zones, this is a dog zone, that's a dog zone. The key is being polite, good etiquette. The path is plenty wide enough for people to be able to bike and walk by each other just like walking down the street in your neighborhood. If you're walking down the street, there's a dog, you might choose to go to the other side. It's the same kind of thing and that's where I feel that it's. it's important to promote good dog ownership, promote the rules. I think there's plenty of room for people to all share the path. That's. that's my opinion. Chair Asing: Thank you. Dr Rhoades: You're welcome Chair Asing: I appreciate that. Dr Rhoades: You're welcome. Chair Asing: Okay, any other question? Councilmember Chang. Mr Chang: Dr Becky, through your newsletter and through your networking with those that, you know, the active dog walkers, if you were to put out a news..1 don't know how you do it quarterly or what have you, how effective would it be to say to the people, look we're in this together, we want to compromise, but there are places of concern. The sports complex, Kamalani Bridge area, do you feel that the majority of the dog owners will abide by perhaps some recommendations that this might not be the ideal time to walk the dog because there may be a high concentration of picnickers or families or youngsters? I mean, is. would that be one of the things you feel that you could convey to the owners to say that? Dr Rhoades: Sure, I mean, I think that the key is being a good dog steward, managing your dog no matter where you are when you have a dog on a leash and to manage that dog to prevent problems, and I think we've seen that and we will see more of it. We can sure message that, you know, don't go out on weekends when there's soccer tournaments or whatever, but the key is if they do go out is that they comply with the. they comply, and I don't feel there will be. it COUNCIL MEETING -43- May 12, 2010 minimizes the risk when they comply with the 6-foot leash and they manage their dog when they're walking and they're polite. And we've been talking to Kauai Path about good etiquette and defining what is that good etiquette and promoting that. Mr Chang: Because. because you know, the path is very big; it's a large wide open path and if people want a little bit more of a serenity or more privacy, obviously, you now have the option of going up to Kuna Bay And I think a lot of the dog owners understand that there's a difference when you get up to Kuna Bay When you have an opportunity if you go to Kealia, the northern restroom comfort station, that is where you have the split between the white asphalt and the black pavement. Dr Rhoades: Right. Mr Chang: So if you did this on the white side, you did this on the. Mr Furfaro: It's the other way around. Mr Chang: No, the white is on the Kealia side, the south side, the concrete and the black is going up north. I'm sorry if I confused you. But if you put your hand on this side and you put your hand on this side, especially at this time of the day, that's going to be 15-20 degrees hotter The dogs are closer to the ground. You make up your mind whether you want to go there, what time. But it just seems it's very open. Because the reason being is that when the good responsible dog owners gotta squeal on the bad dog owners, you know, most local style, you know, you don't ring the bell as Councilmember Kawakami said you don't toot horn, and you know, I don't want to say in fear of retaliation, but that's just not the way that you're going to pick up the phone and kind of. so it's more like you have to ho`oponopono and try to do it with tact. But it's an education process, so that's why I was saying one of the ways could be through a newsletter or through your network of people that there are times and places that, you know, it's so wide open and large that there are obviously better, smoother transitional areas to be at. Thank you. Dr Rhoades: Great, you're welcome Ms. Kawahara. I have a question. Chair Asing: Yes, go ahead, Councilmember Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara. Thank you, thank you. I really appreciate what you're saying and I agree with you. It's. it's good dog owners. responsible dog owners taking responsibility for being able to u. walk their dogs where they want to and also the education that it gives and provides for the whole community in a raised expectation of behavior So, if by disallowing dogs, would it be kind of creating a kind of bad cycle where you wouldn't have a place to take dogs, you never have an opportunity to exercise them appropriately or train them in social skills and then people don't learn how to manage their dog and then the dogs behave badly? Dr Rhoades: Well, I think what we're. what we're trying to do is. Ms. Kawahara. If you disallowed. COUNCIL MEETING -44- May 12, 2010 Dr Rhoades: Yeah, I don't think that's the right way to go. You know, the number one biting dog is the dog on the tether, lives on the tether, lives in the cage. What we want to do is promote more dogs, more social dogs, and we spend a lot of time at the Humane Society promoting that and training and doing. teaching people, and we will continue to do and hope to do more messaging on that, but it is the way to make better dogs on the island and better dog people. Ms. Kawahara. Okay, thank you. Dr Rhoades: You're welcome. Chair Asing: Any other questions? If not, thank you, doctor Dr Rhoades: Thank you all very much. Chair Asing: Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this item? Mr Rosa. JOE ROSA. It's noontime already, so good afternoon members of the council. Ms. Kawahara. Good afternoon, Mr Rosa. Mr Rosa. Good afternoon. Basically here before me I have this booklet on a survey that was taken from December 2008 until March 31. The figures that I see here need to be looked into before anything is done about this so- called dogs on the pathway For the period of December 2008 until March 10, I see there were 28,187 walkers compared to 2,804 plus the bicyclists and the joggers, with dogs came up to 3,000 plus. So, where's the justification that the dog owners are taking a great percentage making use of that path? In fact the last couple of months, there was a low in March of 2010 of 43 walkers with dogs, and it's been going down one, two, three, four months. It's showing that this is going to be another white elephant. Here on Kauai everything.. when the broom is here it sweeps (inaudible) You take the highway adoption, same thing. When I was working we had people coming on Saturdays, oh, picking up rubbish, getting a shirt, getting a plate box lunch, well, they're all there, but look now I don't see the signs on the highway where the people used to adopt it. This is going to be the same principle. (Inaudible) getting to be dogs, bicyclists, when you're walking, there's this traffic jam. There's no enforcement. You know, they talk about safety, but safety is something you look ahead and prevent it from happening, not an after-the-fact thing. The fact is last week's testifier said he's a cyclist, but he's says he encountered (inaudible) a case where he got into an accident. This path started out as a way, a sort of transportation in that resolution that I have and I told Tim Bynum last week, this is not the way it is. The dogs are coming in the picture, and today it seems that they value animal life over human life. A dog don't belong I'd like to say like Dickie Chang I'm going to quote what you say about bikes in the parks. There's no reports from way back because no animals and dogs were allowed in parks, so how where you going to get reports? So that was carried out. Mr Nakamura. Three minutes, Mr Chair Mr Rosa. Think about those things. We prevent accidents from happening before it happens, not after the fact where you get sued. COUNCIL MEETING .45- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: (Inaudible) three minutes are up Joe, I'll let you. the last three minutes. Mr Rosa. Well I got. take my other three because almost lunch already, you guys going caption break and all that, so I want to finish up Like I see over here, the dog bite reported by the parks just recently by the previous speakers, you know, it's something like as I say, it happened but in this report I don't see if they had any other previous attacks by dogs on victims on the path there. A walker, as I say I mentioned about it, he said it's getting too crowded and there. the dog owners sometimes they don't stop for the cyclists, whatever, so Where's the rules? Who has the right-of-way? What's the speed limit on the path for the bicyclist? Some of them they said they doing faster than 15 miles an hour Those are the kind of things that before anything else, you're supposed set your rules or guidelines on that pathway, not until after-the-fact something happens and the liability of damage suits come in. That's why as I said that an ounce of prevention now prevents a pound of damages in liquidation and suits and whatnot. So, I'm not really totally against it, but like as I said, the intent of this here, according to the resolution that was drawn up by Mr Tim Bynum and also with Ron Kouchi was strictly for a sort of transportation, but it's turned into a multiple path of various things, dogs, cyclists, joggers, and even like as I say Mr Tim Bynum, you come with your you say you ride a bicycle, but I still see your bicycle sometime in the back of your pick-up truck. You're not riding it from Wailua Homesteads to come to work, but I doubt if it ever will, even though you put the bike path from Wailua to Lihu`e here because this is not a metropolis area and the towns are too far in-between for cyclists to use it. And also like I heard Becky Rhoades say here that the bike path is wide enough for people to be together and also like it is in the neighborhoods. So why don't they use the neighborhoods? Up in my place people walk with dogs, night and day they come around walking with dogs. So, it's all possible. Don't blame something that. it can be done safely in the neighborhood because the dogs have its place. To me it's safer in the neighborhood if you walk because you don't speed in the neighborhood because speed limits in the neighborhood is 15 miles. So, who's been driving more than 15 miles? Like they say enforcement. Think about it. A lot of that is hot air (inaudible) coming out here, they say oh, they can't do it in my neighborhood. Maybe at Kawaihau Road, yeah, but there's other subdivisions that they don't drive more than the speed limit of 35 miles. Residential is 15 miles or the minimum may be 15 or 25 So those are the kind of things you look at it. This thing that they cannot walk their dogs in the neighborhood is a lot of hot air like as I say Mr Nakamura. Six minutes, Mr Chair Mr Rosa. . because they can walk their dogs because speed limit 15 miles per hour in subdivision residential. Chair Asing: Joe. yeah, are you through? Mr Rosa. Think about it. What I have to say is. Chair Asing: You wrap up (inaudible) Mr Rosa. things of principle that can happen and you don't want it happen before it happens. So do something about it. Chair Asing: Thank you, thank you. Mr Rosa. Thank you. COUNCIL MEETING -46- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: Any questions for Joe? Yes, Councilmember Furfaro. Mr Furfaro: Thank you. Joe, you are correct that. and I think everybody should realize that that walking a leashed dog in a subdivision is a approved now Mr Rosa. Yeah. Mr Furfaro• Okay Mr Rosa. It has been all along, Jay, from as far as I know because. Mr Furfaro: I understand that, Joe, I just want to kind of go through this, so we're very clear You are allowed to walk your dog in your neighborhood on a leash. But you are not allowed the benefit of the open space in any community park. Signage restricts dogs in parks. Mr Rosa. That's right. That's why as I say it's been (inaudible) Mr Furfaro: We're in agreement, Joe, we're in agreement. I want to read this. The trial evaluation - this was a bill introduced by Mr Bynum, it was signed off by myself as the presiding officer and chairman, it passed on a trial period on a 5-2 vote. The trial period addresses the following: The purpose is to provide a safe and enjoyable recreation experience to dog owners, handlers and their dogs while not adversely impacting other park visitors in a way that is functionally maintainable. A committee of stakeholders shall be established by the director of parks and recreation and shall include but not be limited to the Kauai Humane Society, Department of Parks & Recreational Advisory Committee, relevant unions and others. An evaluation period shall be established by the committee of stakeholders providing ample time for consideration of the outcome prior to the end of the 18-month period. That report you read from is the outcome And the outcome basically indicated that there was a lot of mutual respect that occurred for the animal owners and I think I just want to say in community building, there is the need to have this time to build relationships and for each person participating to intimately care for the other one's requirements in a most respectful way The intent of that report was only dependent on the fact that there seemed to be what I heard at least mutual respect from bikers, dog owners walking their dogs as well as joggers, and so forth. There wasn't any major issues about those conflicts between those groups in that report. Now, you can interpret numbers and say yeah, there was 6,000 of this, 28,000 walkers, the ratio was only 1.4 on the dog owners and so, but what I'm trying to share with you is if we allow from Kuna Bay all the way to Lydgate or to Wailua Bridge, that now makes 6.2 miles of walkable area (inaudible). The issue I think we're discussing now is not so much the performance that was relatively good between all stakeholders on that path, but the question is how do we deal with the current prohibition on parks and in particular Lydgate. That was my concern from the beginning and it still is my concern. But that report is only reporting the issues on the path and it seemed to be relatively a good relationship. We never had in this piece, which is referred to the trial period, we didn't have a trial period in Lydgate, you know We had a trial period for the part of the parks that are there, it was relatively good. If we open up all that area up to COUNCIL MEETING -47- May 12, 2010 Lydgate, it gives dog walkers 6.2 miles. It gives them areas to park along. whether it's the pool and so forth. But I think I don't want to mix the two or loosely interpret the report that has been given by the parks department on what their finding is. I think unleashed dogs is a separate issue and there needs to be enforcement, but we're all going through very difficult times financially You may have not seen it, but we reinstated lifeguards at $171,000 for the purpose of being. preventing life safety issues from the water, not to police the animals. We added money in dispatch and in the jail block in the police budget so that people could make certain they received a dispatcher if in fact there was an issue. But I don't. I don't want to necessarily, you know, mix the two. There are responsible dog owners that that report reflects seems to have done well. Nothing in there really references the outcomes in the park that the lifeguards spoke to us today because currently right now those dogs aren't allowed, you know, and it's not. Mr Rosa. No, it's been on for years, over 50 years. Mr Furfaro• And it's not. it's not for the lifeguards to be enforcing that. So, just. I just want to make clear, to me the issue is the net outcome of the survey and in Mr Chang's amendment, are we prepared to lift the prohibition along the park or into the campgrounds or anything and I don't. I don't believe we are. Mr Rosa. I don't think so either Mr Furfaro: I don't believe we are and I just wanted to make sure I clear this with you. And also, I'm not sure we really understand where the path is going within the golf complex to be able to give that green light. That's what I wanted to hear about. I think the survey was presented to us factual from the parks and recreation department, and we have to. Mr Rosa. And whatever staff committees that you had. They had various committees that made the survey Mr Furfaro: That's all I have to say Thank you. Chair Asing: Okay, thank you, Joe, appreciate it. Thank you, Joe Mr Rosa. So, but. Mr Furfaro: No more questions are being asked, Joe. Chair Asing: No more questions, Joe. Mr Furfaro: And your time has expired. Mr. Rosa. I know it has, but, you know, that's the thing I want to say too. People ask for public comments. Chair Asing: Joe, Joe, let's follow the rules. Joe. Mr Rosa. No, no, yeah, wait. This is. Chair Asing: Joe, don't let me do it. Please follow the rules. Let's be fair to everyone. COUNCIL MEETING -48- May 12, 2010 Mr Rosa. Well, like people tell me. Chair Asing: Thank you, Joe, thank you, Joe. Mr Rosa. They don't want to hear me because I speak the truth. Chair Asing: Thank you, Joe. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak? We're going to take one more speaker and then we're going to break for lunch. Yes, go ahead. MARCIA McPHAIL. Very quickly, councilmembers. Chair Asing: Excuse me. Ms. McPhail. I'm sorry Chair Asing: The gentleman I was going to recognize. stay right there, stay right there because I'm just going to say this. I'm going to recognize you and I'm going to recognize the speaker behind you and then we're going to take a break for lunch. Ms. McPhail: Very good and I just want to be very brief. And I just want to thank you for all your time and. to listen to all of our testimony I really appreciate it and I really just want to see this ordinance go through and give us people who are responsible, we'll watch other dog owners, we'll make you proud. Thank you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Mr Furfaro: May I ask her a question. Chair Asing: Yes, go ahead, I'm sorry Mr Furfaro: State your name and (inaudible). Chair Asing: I'm sorry, for the record. Ms. McPhail. I'm sorry, but I'm very nervous. My name is Marcia McPhail. Mr Furfaro: Hi Marcia, thank you for your testimony Ms. McPhail. Thank you, Councilman Furfaro. Mr Furfaro: Let me ask. as I just explained the area from Kuna all the way to Lydgate, but if we maintain the prohibition on dogs in the parks in that area, campgrounds, Lydgate Pavilion, down by the bridge, would you find that acceptable? Ms. McPhail. I would honestly find that acceptable. I will not use that area. When you talk about densities that high, I just wouldn't even take the chance. I love my dog and I really appreciate being able to take her on the path in areas that I'm also comfortable with and like Councilman Chang was saying, we'll police our own and make note of where we should and shouldn't be, but like I said I wouldn't have a problem with that, Councilman Furfaro. COUNCIL MEETING -49- May 12, 2010 Mr Furfaro: Thank you very much. Chair Asing: Thank you. BLAKE RAFAEL. For the record my name is Blake Rafael. I work at Lydgate as a park caretaker Chair Asing: You want to pull the mike up to you, please. Mr Rafael: I work at Lydgate as a park caretaker I know everybody's hungry right now, so I'll make this short and sweet. Every time I weed wack I get a face full dog feces, so what about my health? That's all I got to say Chair Asing: You want to repeat that again now, I. Mr Rafael. Every time I weed wack the park, I get a face full of dog feces, so what about my health. That's all I got to say Chair Asing: Hang on. Councilmember Furfaro. Mr Furfaro. I just want to make sure you heard what I said earlier My comment was about prohibiting, not allowing dogs in the Lydgate area. Mr Rafael. Oh, prohibiting. Mr Furfaro: Prohibiting. Mr Rafael. That's what I meant. Mr Furfaro: Okay Mr Rafael. Because I get a face of dog feces when I weed wack. That's what I meant. Mr Furfaro• Understood. Mr Rafael: Yeah. Mr Furfaro Thank you, Mr Chair Chair Asing: Yes, I. how and it's going to be difficult, but you try to answer it as best as you can, how often do you weed wack and run into this condition of doing weed wacking and having the doo-doo fly on you or someplace else? Mr Rafael. At least two times a week, around there because I also have to line the soccer field, yeah. Me and my co-workers line the soccer field. Chair Asing: It's nearly every time you spend a day weed wacking that you will in fact find that you'll be faced with that problem? Mr Rafael. Yeah. Chair Asing: And that has occurred. COUNCIL MEETING -50- May 12, 2010 Mr Rafael. On a weekly basis, yeah. Chair Asing: Thank you. Mr Rafael. Thank you. Chair Asing: Any other questions, councilmembers? Yes, hang on. Councilmember Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara. Just. I wanted to thank you for coming up and the dogs aren't allowed in there right now, right? So we don't have any resp. we don't have people walking their dogs through there legally, yeah, at your area where you work. Mr Rafael. Just today I got a map from John Martin. Ms. Kawahara. What's that? Mr Rafael. I got a map from John Martin indicating where the dogs are allowed. Ms. Kawahara. Okay, but right now, every you have that happen to you even though they're not allowed there now Mr Rafael. Yeah. Ms. Kawahara. Okay, okay, I just wanted to check on that. Mr Rafael. Okay Ms. Kawahara. Thank you. Mr Rafael. Thank you. Chair Asing: Let me, yeah. I think that's all for you. Thank you very much. I'd like to just make a comment to that question. And the comment that I need to make to that question is that, you know, they're not allowed there anyway So, if you allow them, then your problem is going to be multiplied. I just want to clear that. If you're not allowed there, you have that problem, when we allow dogs there, your problem is going to be multiplied. So I want you to know that. Thank you. Ms. Kawahara. Mr Chair Chair Asing: We're going to take a break for lunch. We're going to go. for all of you here, when we come back we need to go to the public hearing first as scheduled and after that we are going to go into executive session. We have the attorney from Honolulu and then we will continue with the bill. Thank you. There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 12:34 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 1.48 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Asing: The council meeting is now called to order With that, county attorney? COUNCIL MEETING -51- May 12, 2010 There being no objection, the rules were suspended. AMY ESAKI, First Deputy County Attorney- Okay good afternoon, Amy Esaki from the county attorney's office I'm going to request to go into Executive Session for ES-438, 439, 440, and 441. ES-438 Pursuant to Hawaii Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92- 5(a)(4), and Kaua'i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Council to provide Council a briefing, update, and to request authority for a possible settlement proposal in the case of Coconut Beach Development LLC vs. Bryan Baptiste, et al., CV08-00036 SOM KSC (U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii) and related matters. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item. ES-439 Pursuant to Hawai'i Revised Statutes Sections 92-4 and 92- 5(a)(4), and Kaua'i County Charter Section 3.07(E), the Office of the County Attorney requests an executive session with the Council to provide Council a briefing in 1000 Friends of Kauai vs. County of Kauai, et al., CIV 07-1-0007 (Fifth Circuit Court) and 1000 Friends of Kauai vs. County of Kauai, et al., SC-30348 (Intermediate Court of Appeals for the State of Hawai`i); and related matters. This briefing and consultation involves the consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item. ES-440 Pursuant to Haw Rev Stat. §§92-4 and 92-5(a)(4), (6) and (8), and Kauai County Charter section 3.07(E), the purpose of this executive session is to provide the Council a briefing on Planning Department of the County of Kauai vs. Patricia W. & Michael G. Sheehan Sr. Permit Numbers: Special Management Area Use; Permit SMA (U) 87-8, Use Permit U-87-32; Special Permit SP-87-9; Class IV Zoning Permit Z-IV-87-40, (Planning Commission of the County of Kauai, State of Hawaii) and related matters. This briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item. ES-441 Pursuant to Haw Rev Stat. §§92-4 and 92-5(a)(4), (6) and (8), and Kauai County Charter section 3.07(E), the purpose of this executive session is to provide the Council a briefing, update and to request authority for a possible settlement proposal on County of Kauai vs. Lady Ann Cruises, Inc., et al., Civ No. 09-1-0165 (Fifth Circuit Court), and related matters. This briefing and consultation involves consideration of the powers, duties, privileges, immunities and/or liabilities of the Council and the County as they relate to this agenda item. Chair Asing: Thank you. With that, I'd like to call the meeting back to order and have a motion to move into executive session. The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Mr Furfaro: So moved. Mr Chang: Second it. Chair Asing: Excuse me, is there anyone here who wants to speak on these items first? COUNCIL MEETING -52- May 12, 2010 There being no objection, the rules were suspended. Chair Asing: If not, thank you. The meeting is called back to order Motion again. The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Mr Furfaro So moved to enter into executive session. Chair Asing: Second please? Mr Kaneshiro. Second. Chair Asing: Any discussion? All those in favor say, aye. Mr Furfaro moved to enter into executive session, seconded by Mr Kaneshiro, and unanimously carried. Chair Asing: We're going to move into executive session. When we get through we will come back and have the dog bill on the agenda. Thank you. The meeting was recessed at 1.51 p.m. to move into executive session. The meeting was called back to order at 3:46 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Asing: The meeting is now called back to order We will continue the process on the dog bill and we will now open it up and continue receiving testimony from the public. So is there anyone else who did not testify this morning who wants to testify now? Alice. There being no objection, the rules were suspended. ALICE PARKER. Okay, good afternoon, council. Alice Parker, Lihu`e. This is regarding Bill No. 2354. Allowing dogs on the multi-use path especially encourages our elders, kupuna, to exercise on a smooth, safe, paved area that is not suffused with automobile exhaust fumes but with fresh ocean air As we all are aware, the chronological age of our residents is projected to keep increasing. Better health physically by walking and mentally/emotionally by caring for our canine household members will decrease medical health cost to each resident and to the insurance companies, both individual and federal such as Medicare. So, please open the entire multi-use path to leashed, trained canines and their responsible owners. Mahalo Mr Bynum. Mahalo. Chair Asing: Thank you. Ms. Kawahara. Thank you. Chair Asing: Is there anyone else? Mr Taylor KEN TAYLOR. Chair and members of the commission or council, my name is Ken Taylor You know this morning you had some testimony from the lifeguard and I certainly don't want to belittle somebody getting bit by a dog, but dogs off-leash are against the law and somebody. somebody is not enforcing the law To try to relate that kind of a situation to what we're talking COUNCIL MEETING -53- May 12, 2010 about. responsible dog owners with leashed dogs on the path is a completely different issue and it really saddens me to think that we would try to mix the two because that's not. that's not what it's about, and it also became apparent that our lifeguards, I guess, need a little better training to know who to call when these kinds of problems come up and unfortunately it wasn't. wasn't said this morning that the training of these individuals that do a horrendous job and.. but they have to be trained and be made aware of who they should call when these kinds of activities take place and it was. it was obvious this morning that they called the park department which might have been a second call in requirement, but it became obvious in later testimony that the county has a working relationship with the police department and the Humane Society to deal with these issues. And all of the lifeguards should be made aware of who they call when these off-leash animals are encountered and so I hope you'll pass that on to. to the right people, but to mix this kind of situation is really sad. I mean it's like saying, well nobody is going to drive any more down the highway because somebody was driving drunk. That would be ridiculous, but that's just about the same kind of thing you're talking about here, dogs off leash, people not taking care of their animals and following the rules and regulations, and then trying somehow to say that's what creates the problem and so we're not going to allow dogs on the leash. So I hope you'll separate those two issues and move forward with approving the bill before you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to speak on this item? Come up. Yes. Mr Rafael. Hi, for the record my name is Blake Rafael. My main concern is public safety I think about three or four different times I had to bury dead chickens when the dogs attacked the chickens. I could imagine if one day that chicken ends up to be one of my nephews playing on the playground. That's about it. My main concern is public safety Chair Asing: Thank you. Any questions, councilmembers? Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here who wants to speak on this item? If not, what I'll do is let me set the process down so that we. we can follow the process. What I'll do is first entertain the bill to approve and then I believe there are some amendments. So, why don't we do that first. Mr Bynum. Move to approve. Mr Furfaro: Second. Mr Bynum moved to adopt Bill No. 2354, Draft 1 on second and final reading, and that it be transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, seconded by Mr Furfaro. Chair Asing: With that, I'm going to ask that those that want to do amendments, I'm going to take a 5-minute recess and for those of you that want to do amendments, let me know so that we can set the amendments in order and who's going to do which amendment first and... Mr Furfaro: Mr Chair, I am prepared on my amendment. If there's others you might want to check with, if not I don't think it's necessary to take a break. Chair Asing: Okay Mr Kaneshiro: I don't have any problems. I'm prepared to go. COUNCIL MEETING -54- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: Okay With that, there is a motion on the floor to approve and the motion to approve the bill as it was amended on the committee level and brought up here. So basically what the bill does now, it allows dogs in the entire path, the entire path meaning whatever is not built at this particular time will also be included and the dogs will be able to walk. So, it is both the built and unbuilt portion. There is one area that was amended and that is the Lydgate area. In the original bill, the entire Lydgate area was prohibited. Under the amendment by Councilmember Chang, it is limited to a short portion of Lydgate. Basically it is the portion as you drive down to Lydgate Park and make that left to go to the pavilion. It is from that point to going north and that's the portion that dogs will not be allowed. So that is the bill as it stands now that is up for approval. And I will entertain amendments that councilmembers have, so the first amendment that is being proposed is by Councilmember Furfaro Would you like to make the amendment and get us. Mr Furfaro: Surely My amendments are ready and if the clerk's office could pass them about. Chair Asing: Why don't we follow the rules and you make the motion to amend and have someone second, okay? Mr Furfaro. I'll make a motion to amend as I have an amendment to introduce. May I get a second. Mr Kaneshiro. I'll second the motion. Mr Furfaro moved to amend Bill No. 2354, Draft 1, as shown in the amendment attached hereto (see Attachment No. 1), seconded by Mr Kaneshiro. Mr Furfaro• Thank you very much. Chair Asing: Thank you. Mr Furfaro: I would like to bring our attention back to this original purpose of the trial period that we have as I was active as the chairman of the council at that time, and I want to make sure everybody understands. I believe, you know, we do need to approach this from a standpoint of perhaps being mutually aware that there are people in our community that are not as aware of dog activities as, you know, perhaps someone like myself. I've raised dogs, I've raised a couple Shepherds in the American Kennel Club as well. But I want to read from the original trial period, the purpose: to provide a safe and enjoyable recreation experience to dog owners, handlers and their dogs while not adversely impacting other park visitors. And this was signed by me when I was the acting chair of the council. Now the reason I wanted to revisit that, as my amendment is being passed out, I don't want to find us over promising and under delivering in anything that we do here in the county So my amendment deals with a couple yet uncertain items. For example I had written in to the county attorney's office to find out if there are any consent issues from the state should we actually have the right-of-way over the bridge at Wailua. Unfortunately, I did not get a response to that and I do not want to find myself holding up this bill waiting for that response, but it is a question that still is on my mind as to the state's consent to travel the bridge and parallel to Coco Palms in their right-of-way I don't think we have that answer COUNCIL MEETING -55- May 12, 2010 I also want to say that we have certain phases of the path that are in this increment of A, B, C, and D phases, which I think will be complete, thanks to Mr Haigh, over the next 12 months. So my amendment basically keeps Lydgate in a prohibition state at present, but it does allow dogs shall be permitted on the shared-use path beginning at the former Sea Shell Restaurant before we get up on the highway through and to the north end of the Wailua Beach, extending all the way north where towards the end of the shared path at Kuna Bay, including the parking lots and the pathways from the trail head at Kealia Kai to the comfort station, down to the coastal shared-use path. The county engineer shall post the appropriate signs to designate the appropriate areas where dogs are allowed on the shared-use path system. This totals 6.2 miles. I would like also to point out and I will leave this if anyone wants to share, so this includes the in-progress area of the Sea Shell Restaurant, that whole Waipouli area, and all the way to Kuna. It is my hope that this is permanent in my application or my amendment, I'm sorry, and it is something where it will allow us maybe in a year and a half to revisit this, not in the sense that it's time sensitive, but that we could just bring it up In other words, there is no termination or a trial period that ends, but that there is a period of time in 18 months that we would revisit this. I do think, you know, mutual respect goes a long way The dog owners have demonstrated that, but I do think a prohibition at Lydgate at this time would be appropriate, and I do concur with Ken that, you know, unleashed dogs seem to contribute to a lot of the problems we've been having. I also want to say, though, I am actually a young man when I had a little more hair and a thinner body, I was actually, believe it or not, a water safety instructor for water safety instructors for the City & County of Honolulu. I am extremely concerned that we have lifeguards that could be deterred from keeping an eye on the coastal areas, the shoreline, especially with Lydgate, with families and so on. That's me speaking as a water person, as a waterman. I don't want to see the guards getting in a role that they would leave their station to police another activity, especially after getting support yesterday or Monday from the mayor's office to reestablish the, you know, the lifeguards without furloughs. I think water safety, an activity along the shoreline is the best form of entertainment for families right now because in our county it costs nothing and Lydgate is, to me, a wonderful spot. I also want to qualify that because in my mind there is nothing that is going to deter this council from moving on Kaipo Asing's earlier request to get an eastside dog park and that is in addition to this piece So, you know, I'm very sensitive. I don't know where the dog path is going to go in the golf areas. I don't know if it's going to go along the shoreline, if it's going to go near the road, if it. You know, I think that discussion and those approvals should come up later But I am certainly prepared and, based on the information I have mister from Mr Haigh's office, feeling comfortable about Kuna all the way to the Sea Shell, 6.2 miles. I don't have an answer back on the questions regarding the Wailua Bridge and so I will refrain from any further comments. I also want you to know I would like you to consider my comments, but in no way do I feel that I wouldn't support responsible dog owners as the proposal is, but I would issue some caution that we don't over promise what we may not be able to deliver. Thank you, that's my amendment. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any discussion? Councilmember COUNCIL MEETING -56- May 12, 2010 Mr Kaneshiro: If I may, Mr Chair, I may have prematurely passed an amendment out also, very similar to Mr Furfaro's amendment. The only difference was that I can support. I will support Mr Furfaro's amendment. My amendment actually was a little more, you know, we. what I was going to do was really start it off on the current path system and go all the way north and just leave the Lydgate area out. But what I see here is Mr Furfaro is proposal is starting from the Sea Shell going all the way north and pretty much leaving the Lydgate area out. So I'm not going to pass my amendment out just to let this body know even though it's circulated among our members, but it just shows that we're not, you know, we're not conspiring to say whose amendment goes because I didn't even know he had this amendment out to the amendment I was doing. So it shows that we're all working diligently to address some of the concerns that was brought up today And the main concern I had is when I heard that there would be about a thousand people on any given day, especially on the weekends, at the Lydgate Park area and possibly later on when the campgrounds is there, the soccer field and soccer is back in full swing, you may find upwards to maybe more than a thousand people all congregated in a small area, and I do have some concerns about that. I don't have any concerns about good dog owners, good handlers, walking the path on the island no matter where. I don't have a problem with that. I'm. as all of you know, I'm a great. I'm a dog lover, you know, I've owned dogs ever since who knows when and it's just that there are some concerns that were brought up when we talked in regards to parks. When you talk in regards to soccer parks, talk in regards to campground parks, talk in regards to swimming area parks, so and, you know, I have little concern and a typical concern like this that I know can happen and I'm just relating to Mr Furfaro's amendment of staying away from the parks is that. is that you can have a soccer game going on. The way the bill reads right now, the way it's been passed, and I don't have any problems with that. I know you get good legitimate dog handlers like that. But you can have a dog handler right now along the path, set his chair into the park, sits down, leaves his dog sitting on the path right now and watching the soccer game. It's not impossible with the bill we're passing right now So these are small things that we gotta, you know, watch out for, small things. But that.. what we're doing is that can legally hap that happen. You know, the guy can say well sit right here and the dog can sit right there and he could have his chair. he's in the park watching the soccer game because there's nothing in the rules or this to say that he needs to keep walking on the path with his dog. So, you know, and I see nothing wrong with that, but I mean, at some point, you know, how you know the dog's going to sit there for a long time. I mean we all expect that once in a while. So these are things that come through my mind as a dog owner and as a dog handler So, I support this part about, you know, about having dogs on the path as such, but in an area when we have soccer games going on, in an area where you have a lot of children activities going on, soccer balls being hit here and there, and I just have reservations about that and perhaps I'm a little too cautious about it, but, you know, that's just my opinion, so. Chair Asing: Okay Mr Furfaro: I just want to clarify one more comment I made. When I referenced the 18 months revisit, I want to make sure I wasn't talking about a sunset. I was just talking about a revisit. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Kawakami. Mr Kawakami. Thank you, Mr Chair And just the scenario with somebody tying their dog up and leaving `em there. we. I guess it depends on how you interpret this provision that's in the bill. It says you have to be in command COUNCIL MEETING -57- May 12, 2010 and control of the dog at all times, so I personally wouldn't consider somebody tying their dog up as being in command and control. But, you know, maybe that is going to require some kind of clarification from the enforcers out there. Mr Kaneshiro: Well, let me clarify that. What I was specifically stating is that he could hold the leash but be sitting down in the park, its only six feet away or wherever, the dog can be right there on the path, but he can hold the leash. It's not necessarily meaning he's tying the dog. What I'm saying is that he could still hang on to the leash but the way the. the way the path goes around the park, it adjoins the park. You're right there by the park. So you can sit in the park. the guy can sit in the park in his chair and his umbrella and probably hold the leash in his hand with the dog on the path, and there's nothing that we see in the rules or this law that can prohibit that. So, you know, I mean that's going a little bit beyond, but it can happen because I think I can do it with my dog, I know I could, you know I know I could. And I'm just using this as an example and I just have some concerns about that because if it can say well, you got to continue to be walking your dog so we don't have your dog distracted by the ball being hit here or hit there or something like that happen, it's not a problem, but we don't have that in this bill. So that's. that's for clarification purposes. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Bynum. Mr Bynum. Thank you, Mr Chair I just want to start with that where I'm coming from is that virtually every municipality and virtually every one handles dogs through leash law They don't restrict dog walking in public areas. They say you have to be in command and control, you have to carry a bag, you have to. they give rules for dog owners. This amendment. you know, the amendment that Mr Chang did is eliminated from this in the way this is written. So the section that says, dogs shall be permitted on the shared-use path system provided however, and then Mr Chang has the restriction. So it starts from the premise that dogs are allowed and then limits that. This amendment, however, says dogs shall be permitted on the shared. this amendment would eliminate that whole section and then would say dogs shall be permitted on the shared-use path beginning at the former Sea Shell Restaurant. Well, what that means is my friends at Kaha Lani, that live at Kaha Lani, cannot walk their dog to Monicos for dinner or they can't take them in Monicos but you can get take-out. They can't walk, you know, to that. to those commercials. My friends who live in the Wailua River houselots. Mr Furfaro: You know, I have friends at Kaha Lani too and Wailua houselots, so. It's not about friends. I just want to make sure I interject that. I'm sorry, Tim. I've been quiet for six weeks and when you imply it's about friends, no. It's about delivering something we can deliver in fairness to as many people as we can, and I apologize Mr Bynum. I don't think I was implying anything. I just was saying I do know people at Kaha Lani that. Mr Furfaro• Okay Mr Bynum. that could not walk their dogs from their own home. I know people who live in the Wailua River houselots who could not walk their dogs, you know, so I won't be supporting this amendment because I don't think it's necessary to do this. I did support Mr Chang's amendment because I thought there was. it was a specific area for a specific reason. It seemed like a reasonable compromise, but I don't think we need to get into this micromanaging of saying, COUNCIL MEETING -58- May 12, 2010 here's. and it's a big very fundamental difference to say here's where you can than saying here's where you can't. And so the other point I wanted to make was. yeah, I don't think the state highway is an issue because we allow dog walking everywhere on state highways now, so I don't think it will make a difference whether it's along there, but that's a reasonable question to. to look at, but I just don't. I also think that Mr Chang has talked eloquently about my experience of human beings that they're generally reasonable, generally probably not going to choose to go dog walking in Lydgate on a Saturday when there's a soccer game and lots of things. they're. they're going to make that choice. they're going to self-select that. But even if they do, I think it's not a serious problem to have a dog walker walking through even a congested area because we know there are many paths that have 10 times the volume that our paths will ever have that allow dog walking. The. and that's my experience of. and I think a good example is the Wailua corridor where we have changed community norms. I think the good news is the norm. community norms about dog ownership are changing. The expectations are changing. That's a very positive thing that has come from this whole debate. But in Wailua, we came to a consensus as a community that we were concerned about safety on the highway in Wailua and we made a change and lowered the speed limit and my experience of driving that twice a day is that almost everybody has changed their behavior Our new community norm is to go slow Now occasionally there's that knucklehead that goes weaving in and out of traffic and creates dangerous situations, and we have enforcement and laws to deal with that, but we don't ban driving through the Wailua corridor because there are some irresponsible people. You know, there is some risk involved in any activity and dog walking in public with regulations is a liberty that's enjoyed in our country and I don't know why we would restrict that liberty here. And so I won't be supporting this. I'll be supporting the bill as written with the. and if. And my last comment and then I'm not going to talk about this again I don't think would. is that, you know, Mr Chang made a strong argument about why we should consider a restriction in this area and I supported that. As we go to future segments of the path, if there's a compelling reason that we need to address this, we have that opportunity, but I don't think we should set ourselves up to have to come back and as each new segment of the path is developed, so. I appreciate that this. there are different opinions and I've shared mine and so I'll. thank you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Any further discussion, councilmembers? Mr Furfaro: Yes, Mr Chair, and my colleagues here. Let me first apologize for interrupting because politics is personal, you know, and there are situations here that I am promoting that deal with us revisiting this in 18 months and I want to make sure, not sunsetting, just revisiting it because there were some assumes and there were some questions here that still exist in my mind. As I stated earlier, I'm going to support this. I'm just offering some caution going forward that, you know, we need to cross all the T's, we need to dot all the I's. I'm not sure that we have all of that. But I also do want to ask that you try to at least give me an opportunity to have that 6.2 miles that we know is pretty much in place or is going to be completed in the next 12 months as the designated area and then after that revisit it. I do think, you know, we have many good parts to this bill as I said here, but I also said when I signed off on this training period that I wanted to make sure that it didn't impact other park users and, you know, I'm not sure. I'm not sure exactly what places we have in there. So. and before you respond I just want to let you know I won't say anymore. I hope people could consider my two COUNCIL MEETING -59- May 12, 2010 amendments, but I will be supporting the whole thing if that's not the case I think 6.2 miles of path is a pretty good token until we get the rest built and we should revisit it. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Kaneshiro. Mr Kaneshiro: And if I may, I just wanted to add onto Mr Furfaro's concern is that my part was about a compromise. l had thought and I know there are people that would walk the Lydgate area feeling comfortable without dogs on a leash currently I know of some people that do that. I know some people will not go to the Lihi side but would go to the Wailua side or the Lydgate Park to walk. So, it's a matter of compromising, being able to give the opportunity for people that want to do that, we can help it. You know, even though I can stay here and tell them how safe the dogs are, no matter how I can keep on preaching how safe our dogs are, you know, there are some people that want to walk but just has this phobia in them and my and if you look at Mr Furfaro's amendment, basically we're giving those people an opportunity also to enjoy the path where, you know, where people like that even though it might be a small percentage as there is a small percentage using the dog path, I mean using the path with dogs, there is a small percentage of that amount of people that have that kind of a phobia. And, you know, with this amendment here, I'm hoping that we would allow them to be able to do that. And I can say that because I know people that have called me and have some concerns about that. I can't say whether it's a small percentage or not, we haven't done any survey, the survey was done only on the 18-month period on the specific area that we talked about. But if I can tell you if you were to go out there today and try to do the survey or try to, you know, let's. I think the survey would be very different. I'm just talking about the Lydgate Park area. I'm not talking about anyplace else, you know, just that area on people that walk that areas or the small percentage, even one or two, that makes a difference, one or two has a phobia of that makes a difference because this path was built for everyone to enjoy Chair Asing: Thank you, any further discussion? Councilmember Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara. Thank you, Council Chair Asing. I dust spoke with Mr Kawakami and we agreed that we would go ahead. I would be okay to say this. I had a wager with Mr Kawakami, Councilmember Kawakami, that there wouldn't be any amendments because I so diligently tried to get the amendments in when. in the last two meetings and I have to say that I owe him a lunch because there are two amendments here after after all the discussion we had and after all of my requests for getting them in in committee So I owe you lunch and you get to pick where it's going to be at. My concern. my the thing that's important to me about this is. and I'm glad Councilmember Kaneshiro talked about it, the two different groups of people, the people that have. that may be scared or have phobias of animals and then the people that don't. To me, by saying that one group of people. we're going to limit one group of people for the sake of another group of people in this sense, it. .1 think it comes down to the quality of life, quality of life for the people with the animals is being traded off for the people that have a quality of life without animals on the park. on the path. L. because it's important to me and because I worry that this is kind of like a restriction and a deprivation of a right that has been proven to be something that is doable, something that over a year and a half has been shown that there. that we're able to do, to me and I'm going to take this out of this book. It's a philosophy of legislation and law "The right rule of conduct and a just civil law command actions that ought to be performed and prohibit acts that ought not to COUNCIL MEETING -60- May 12, 2010 be done." And that's exactly what this bill does. It says everybody can use the path and if you have a dog, these are the things that you have to do, so it discusses it in the positive and talks about the things that ought to be performed. And then we also have on the other hand the laws that says these are things that ought not to be done and those are the things ought not to be done are enforced by the dangerous dog law, the leash law, and all the things that the Kauai Humane Society is tasked to do for us. So, it. well, it came up in somebody's testimony that they felt as though their quality of life was being restricted because they had a dog and that the quality of life for the people that were scared of dogs was going to be more important and that was my feeling is that it should be equal access for everybody and that you. you. you legislate what ought to be done, which is what we have done here. be in command or the control of the dog at all times, have no more than two dogs, immediately remove the dog if it exhibits aggressive behavior, visibly carry necessary instruments required for the removal. So there's seven items of what ought to be done and that's what's in this law And then there's things that prohibit acts that ought not to be done. To restrict a group that has. that I have not seen any proof or any report that says they are not able to do the eight things or seven things that are in the law that are being asked to be done is something that.. that troubles me and that's why I wouldn't be able to support any limiting beyond what we had amended earlier to where people can go because they have an animal or not. And I'm just going to quote one more thing, if I can because I want to be sure to get it in, this is Aristotle: "The virtuous does freely what the criminal does only from fear of the law, fear of its coercive force and of the punishment that may result from violating the law The criminal, however, does not suffer any loss of liberty when he breaks the law " He doesn't lose any liberties because he's breaking the law and doing something that he shouldn't be doing. When you. and then I'm going to finish this. " refrains from breaking the law for what he wishes to do. Being unlawful and unjust is something he ought not to do anyway even if he were not constrained by the law His license to do as he wishes, not his liberty, has been taken away " But if you do it vice versa and these people are following the law, to me you are taking away a liberty for something that they have worked on and have proven and have shown that good people will do. So I thank you for that time and I hope my fellow councilmembers understand that I just have a different view of coming out with the legislation. Thank you. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Kaneshiro. Mr Kaneshiro: You know, as part of the procedural process, if you notice as we conducted the meeting through committee meetings, I didn't make any amendments because I knew I wouldn't get a second on my amendment and therefore, that would have left me out the opportunity to be able to present what I wanted to present today And part of the reason is simple. I mean, you know, as the chair said. as. well, she. as Councilmember Kawahara previously stated, you know, if I had put out probably an amendment like this at all or even. I probably wouldn't have a second at all because we've already had something on the table which is dogs throughout the whole path. So, it's just a procedural move and therefore, when I voted no on the amendment, it was because I had my amendments that I wanted to bring up here to the full council and I don't like doing amendments in the full council to tell you the truth. In all my years I've been on the council, I don't like to do it. But if I had any indications that I would have a second so we could have some discussion purposes, fine, but I know how to count. I know the numbers. There's only a couple of us on the committee and it's easy to count, and I, you know, and like I said I don't like to do it here on the council, but at the same time, you know, I respect what the rest of the committee did. I. you know, I can move on and I mean we can move on and I would call. tell the Chair we COUNCIL MEETING -61- May 12, 2010 should call for the vote, take the vote, and let's move on, you know I've made my point and I feel good about making my point and I'm ready to move on if the amendment passes or not. Chair Asing: Councilmember Chang first, and then Councilmember Furfaro. Mr Chang: Thank you, Chair First of all, Chair Asing, I want to thank you for bringing up a lot of really important points this morning and I want to thank Councilmember Kaneshiro and Councilmember Furfaro for introducing these amendments. One of the things that I became aware of is I believe I. I didn't really think about the population moving south toward Kamalani Kai Bridge and I acknowledge that I didn't really pass the times that there were soccer games going on, so don't. that is a consideration for me to be concerned about that population base with everyone going on. But I do want to quote from our April 21st meeting of our minutes and what I mentioned to everyone is my concern and I quote "is quite honestly about the various places on connectivity, in other words, there are parts of the path that is obviously planned but not built presently So there are people in the wildlife, conservationists, I mean the people that have concerns within the secluded areas of Nawiliwili, the backside of Hanama'ulu, which many of us are not aware of what even the backside of Hanama'ulu looks like." So consequently we needed to get community members of Lihu`e and Hanama'ulu involved and last week I hope everybody remembers that I also did have a concern within the golf course area. However, thanking my councilmembers, I will not be supporting any .the amendment and the reason being is that what I've been hearing is mainly the concern about the unfortunate bad dog owners with dogs not being on the leash and we've heard islandwide and I believe from the testimonies from Kekaha, Hanapepe, Koloa, the Lihu`e area, for them to be able to utilize the Smart Growth purposes, they are able to drive past the golf course and take a quick turn into Lydgate as does the people from the homesteads or the houselot area and they can enjoy that area and as I mentioned, please, I don't know if it's possible at all, but we all need to make our discretion when places are overcrowded. I mean during shopping season you don't go to Kukui Grove, you know, in the peak times. There's other examples that we could give. But, you know, one of the concerns that the community raised was when the proposed path was going to go from Kealia to Kuna, those that were used to Lihi to Kealia were now forced to get in their cars and drive up to the Kealia area, consequently getting yet again involved in traffic. And there is one of the things that I did do was stand at the intersection if you turn into Kealia, and as most people know, the cars are going at least 50 miles an hour if not more, so you got cars trying to not only get out with two different ways of traffic. So you know I am pleased with all of our discussion and I have been assured and reassured that if any members of the council and any members of the community at any some time or another has a concern and is. wanted to bring up a discussion about places that are not yet currently funded, studied or built, there is a mechanism to have that discussion so we can write the deal. But I am going to be supporting the bill as amended and I want to thank my fellow councilmembers for giving me this opportunity Thank you very much. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Furfaro. Mr Furfaro: Yes, I just want to summarize. My first amendment again was put out there based on. and I want to make it very clear I don't want to over promise and under deliver That's what I said. I have a couple of nephews that are lawyers, I have a nephew that's a judge, and so forth and there's so many ways to look at the law and I just thought again let's. you know, my COUNCIL MEETING -62- May 12, 2010 position has been clear for that area from the very beginning and I think everybody here knows that. But I'm also a big boy and I know how to speak when it's my turn and it wasn't my turn until now because I'm not a committee member So let's say I appreciate your offer to let me have somebody else introduce it, but you know, I feel it was appropriate for me to share that 6.2 miles. I think the responsible dog owners earned the 6.2 miles. My second amendment which hasn't been on the table. Chair Asing: Hang on. Mr Furfaro: Are we going to vote on the first one? What are we going to do. Chair Asing: Let's do this. Is there further discussion on the amendment that is on the floor now as proposed by Councilmember Furfaro? If there are no discussion, let me just make a few comments. First of all the comment made by Councilmember Bynum regarding all over the country and the paths dogs are allowed, I want to tell you that there is a difference between the path when it goes through a county park, that is a difference because we do not. currently our rules do not allow dogs in the county park, so that's our law today So when the path goes through the park, it is that portion that is prohibited because it goes through the park. So I just want to clarify that and perhaps we can move on. Let's take a vote on this amendment. So, all those in favor of the amendment say, aye. Those opposed say, no. The noes have it. It does not pass. The motion to amend Bill No. 2354, Draft 1, as shown in the first amendment introduced by Mr Furfaro (see Attachment No. 1) was then put, and failed 3 to 4 (Councilmembers Bynum, Chang, Kawahara, and Kawakami voting no) Chair Asing: Is there further amendments? Mr Furfaro: Yes, I have another amendment. Chair Asing: Fine. Mr Furfaro• Thank you. Chair Asing: Can you make a motion to amend? Mr Furfaro: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to attempt to amend again. Mr Kaneshiro: I'll second the motion. Chair Asing and Mr Furfaro: Thank you. Mr Furfaro moved to amend Bill No. 2354, Draft 1, as shown in the amendment attached hereto (see Attachment No. 2), seconded by Mr Kaneshiro. Chair Asing: The floor is yours. Mr Furfaro: Thank you and I think this is bung circulated. This is a general prohibition applicable to all parks and recreation facilities in section (e), but it. .I want to make sure everybody understands. it is asking the parks and recreation department to come back and make another presentation to us COUNCIL MEETING -63- May 12, 2010 as it deals with the 18 months of the approval of this ordinance for the "evaluation of allowing dogs on the path. The report shall include, but not be limited to, any concerns regarding incidences of dog bites, citations, etc." But one thing that is also very clear, I have no idea where we're going to be budget-wise in 18 months and how many more park rangers we can put on and so forth. This is not a sunset. This is only a revisit of our procedures. There might be some things that parks and recreation wants to point out to us that we need to revisit on. So, that's all I'm asking for in that. Chair Asing: Thank you, Councilmember Kaneshiro. Mr Kaneshiro: I also concur to Mr Furfaro's amendment. I was in the process of putting an amendment like this together also and basically all it's saying is that, you know, let's just go reassess the effectiveness of this whole ordinance. As stated in my previous arguments is that this ordinance allows dogs, even on unimproved path, remember that. It allows dogs anywhere on multi-use path, whether it's in Wailua, whether it's in Nawiliwili, whether it's in Waimea, whether it's in Koloa or Kukui`ula or to the Spouting Horn. So, the bill we just passed allows that to happen and basically all it's saying is that as time moves, as Mr Furfaro pointed out, Phase 2, Wailua to Papaloa, probably, you know, up to Kawaihau will be completed by the fall 2011 with additional miles of added path. It may be a pretty good idea to just go look back. We're not saying. I'm not in favor of sunsetting this ordinance, I'm telling you right now I'm not. if there was a sunset clause in this, I would not approve it. But it's just reassessing, looking at it, see where we're at, and if everything is as well as we did have in the 18-month period, there would be no problems at all. I think, you know, it would be a great thing. But it would be a great time to reassess and just, and we're not (inaudible) you know, we're not asking. I don't think I see anything about asking for surveys and asking for all kinds of, you know, way that we implemented the trial basis. Basically it's just, you know, if there are. there were some concerns, some incidences of dog bites, citations and so forth, it gives us this time to reevaluate this. council, let's reevaluate this as we move on and I can surely support this amendment. Chair Asing: Thank you, any further discussion? Ms. Kawahara. Can 1. Chair Asing: Councilmember Kawahara. Ms. Kawahara. Thank you, thank you, Council Chair I understand that. I understand why this. why Councilmember Furfaro is asking for this and I think it is the reas. you know, it's reasonable because we don't know where the paths may go But we do know what responsible dog ownership is and what it looks like on the paths that we have now and that's what it would look like wherever the path may go and whatever whatever, wherever it goes. That's why I was in support of the bill for being there for all future paths because I believe the work done, the studies and the records show responsible dog owners, responsible dog walkers are capable and have every right to be on the path as much as anybody else that's doing something that's legal and appropriate. So, again, I understand we don't know where the paths are going, but we do know by the law what we want responsible dog owners to do and what we want them to emulate and what is. what they have been doing for a year and a half. So, I can't support this, but I do understand where it's coming from. But I do see that we may not know where the path is going, but we do know what responsible dog owners would be doing on that path and their behavior COUNCIL MEETING -64- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Bynum. Mr Bynum. I appreciate this dialogue and I. like I said I think that it's very positive as a community and I didn't support the trial period when it happened. But I want to acknowledge that good things have come from that in terms of focusing our community on good stewardship and making those behavioral changes and although this amendment is fairly benign, it says that the parks department will give a report and then it also says that. but it also says that. something I don't really understand what the implications would be "at such time the council shall reassess the effectiveness of this ordinance, which allows dogs on the path." So even though this amendment is fairly benign, I don't think it's necessary to put it into law If in 18 months any councilmember wants the parks department and it's part of their routine to do these things this bill says, to monitor, to look at a s. you know, to record any incidents, to keep a record of citations, and so I think if any member wants the parks department to come back in 18 months and provide an assessment, that they can. It's not necessary to place that in an ordinance. So, I don't think I'll be supporting this. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Furfaro Mr Furfaro. Yes, I just. maybe I need to clarify that. It's not any councilmember it's any member with three other votes that can change things. But I want to say that the intent, since you know sometimes I speak in pidgin tones and I don't articulate as well in writing, my concern was since I didn't hear from the county attorney, when we go along, if we go along Coco Palms, you know, what is the barrier between the walkers, the dog and the road? I don't know that. If. Mr Bynum. I do. Mr Furfaro: I'm glad you do What., when we do get to Lydgate, if we go 6 feet on either side of the path and yet we're going by the pavilion, baby luau, so forth, you know, would we need a fence, you know, with some gates? Those are the types of things and Mr Bynum I'm speaking to you because you asked the question, those are the kinds of things that I just suggest that need revisiting, you know Most of my life I constantly worked in resort areas where part of the yearly review was to make upgrades to the facilities to meet the demands of customers and the needs of operations. So, I hope I answered your question. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Bynum. Mr Bynum. And I understand that. I. when I. if I understand this amendment, it doesn't anticipate any vote on anything in 18 months, it just asks the parks department to give an assessment. Mr Furfaro That's right. Mr Bynum. and I think any of us could ask that if. assuming we're here. I may not be here 18 months from now Mr Furfaro: But I didn't want to portray it as if there was a vote that could change something. It is only asking for an updated "and shall consider these things" or may want to have some things. They are only in consideration of what we may want to constantly make improvements on. COUNCIL MEETING -65- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: Thank you. With that, Councilmember Kaneshiro, and then Councilmember Kawakami. Mr Kaneshiro: Thank you, Chair Let me go straight to the point on this. My intent was basically so if you do have a whole new council that is reelected or comes back in November, you people don't have to deal with this issue at least now for 18 months because we have something in the law that specifically states, that gives you guys the time to say, let's look at citations and so forth. So, I'm fine whichever way it goes. What I'm trying to prevent is this coming back to the table in 6 months. We may have a whole different council here in committee. we might have the same council but a whole different committee that can bring this back on the table right after election in 6 months. That's the reality, you know, and I said I support dogs on the path, I don't have a problem, but I don't want to be dealing with this again in 6 months time, I mean, you know This has been a long debatable issue that we've had. I mean, it's been, you know that's what this here will do, will allow you to do that, will allow even to reassess in 18 months and I'm certain with the way that you. it's been proven what the dog owners have done in the past that it's not going to be an issue. But, you know, I'm just putting a warning sign up there so if this doesn't fly, that's fine, but I can tell you it can come back in 6 months. Chair Asing: Thank you. With that, Councilmember Kawakami. Mr Kawakami. Thank you, Mr Chair, and so what I'm understanding is this is just a report back after 18 months, and so, you know what for me, this. it's not a big deal. I'm going to support it because it's really not that big of a deal. In fact, I think it's a good idea and. Mr Furfaro• Oh, thank you, thank you. Mr Kawakami: in fact, L. no, well, you know what, quite frankly right off the bat everybody knew my position and I've been strong to the position. But this. this is a good thing because where I'm coming from is I think in 18 months, I'm confident that the reports are going to be positive. You know, if I didn't feel that way, I wouldn't be. you know, I wouldn't have taken the stance that I took, so I have nothing to be afraid of, I think, after 18 months, and if I'm wrong, so what? Then I'm wrong. But you know what? We cannot be basing our decisions on the fear of failure, you know, and if we base our decisions on the what-ifs and what if it fails or what if I took the wrong stance, man, I'm dust going to walk the easy way down the middle of the road and then nothing happens. So, this really is not that big of a deal. I don't know why there's such heated debate on it, it's 18 months, hey, give us a report, let us know if there's dog bites or not. Let us know if there's incidences or not, and it's good for us. It lets us know, well, lets us know where we stand if we made the right decision. We're not going to always make the right decision, okay, but we cannot be basing our actions on the fear of failing because then nothing gets done, okay So this really does nothing, 18 months they report back, I can support it, okay Let's move on. Chair Asing: Thank you. Councilmember Bynum. Mr Bynum. I don't think this part is heated. I think we did that already, but we.. you know if there's votes for this and it's the consensus of the group, I can support it because I think it's pretty benign. I don't think it's necessary because we can accomplish it anyway, but I do, if the committee will be patient with me for one minute, I do have just one question about the final sentence that perhaps I could ask the county attorney COUNCIL MEETING -66- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: I'm not going to hold you back. Whatever you want, Mr Bynum, is open for discussion. Mr Bynum. If I could. I just. the last sentence says. if I could just read this, "it's anticipated that" well, no. it says we're going to get a report from the parks director in 18 months. I got no problem with that. I just have a minor concern. It's probably not anything real. The last sentence says, "At such time the council shall reassess the effectiveness of this ordinance which allows dogs on the path." I'm coming from the assumption that a reassessment means a discussion, you know, that we have a dialogue and so I just want to ask the county attorney if this language would require a vote from the council or is my assumption correct. Chair Asing: Can we have the county attorney up, please? There being no objection, the rules were suspended. AMY ESAKI, First Deputy County Attorney- Amy Esaki. Chair Asing: Hang on for just a little while. We have some technical problems, I believe, and I want to make sure that it's okay We're going to take a short break, technical problems. There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 4.47 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 4:56 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Asing: The meeting is called back to order, with that we have the county clerk up and I believe there was a question. The rules were still suspended County attorney Chair Asing: County attorney, I'm sorry Ms. Esaki: Okay, I'm going to ask Councilmember Bynum to repeat his question. Mr Bynum. The last sentence says, "At such time the council shall reassess the effectiveness of this ordinance which allows dogs on the path." I'm operating from the assumption that that means the council will decide what reassess means, but it doesn't require a vote on the bill. Ms. Esaki. That's correct. The council at that time will. the word is shall, so you'll be reassessing at that time and as to how the council will dispose of the matter will depend on the discussion that takes place in the future. Mr Bynum. Okay, thank you very much for that. Ms. Esaki. You're welcome. Chair Asing: Thank you. With that, I'd like to call the meeting back to order COUNCIL MEETING -67- May 12, 2010 The meeting was called back to order, and proceeded as follows: Chair Asing: We have a motion on the floor to amend. Any further discussion? All those in favor say, aye. The motion to amend Bill No. 2354, Draft 1, as shown in the second amendment introduced by Mr Furfaro (see Attachment No. 2) was then put, and carried by a vote of 6-1 (Councilmember Kawahara voting no) Chair Asing: Thank you, the ayes have it, the amendment passes. Is there any other amendments? If not, we're on the main bill as amended. Is there any further discussion? If not, I'd like to take a few minutes of recess while I set up Thank you. We're in a short recess. There being no objection, the meeting was recessed at 4:58 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 5.12 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Chair Asing: The meeting is now called back to order and I believe I asked if there was any other comments for discussion purposes before we take the vote, am I correct? Is there anyone else who wants to make any comments, councilmembers? If not. Ms. Kawahara. Will you be doing a presentation? Chair Asing: Pardon me? Ms. Kawahara. Will you be doing a presentation? Chair Asing: Yes. Ms. Kawahara. Oh, okay Chair Asing: That's the reason I asked if anybody had any Ms. Kawahara. And then we get discussion after that? Chair Asing: comments. Ms. Kawahara. Oh, I thought I might have discussion after that if I had comments. Chair Asing: Pardon me? Ms. Kawahara. I might. I thought I might have comments after it, but no, you're not going to take comments. Chair Asing: Yeah, I mean we're done Everybody did their comments. My turn to do my comments and then we'll take the vote. Ms. Kawahara. Okay, okay Chair Asing: Okay? You know 1. first of all I would like to commend all of you people who have worked so hard, diligent, spent the time and effort to do what you felt in your heart was right, and I commend you for doing it. There is a little bit of a difference between what I feel and my convictions are, and I COUNCIL MEETING -68- May 12, 2010 will explain my reasoning, my conviction and where I stand on the issue and why I owe that to you as your representative on the council, and I do represent all of you. Issues: honesty, integrity, accountability, openness, transparency, the little and big things that administrators and politicians know about but don't talk about because of fear fear fear of the unknown, what would happen, what could happen, should happen to me or others. Fear, what's the upside, what's the downside, what's the future for all concerned, for me? Is there another way? I've spent sleepless nights thinking about the zillions of possible consequences. Then I do a full circle and get back to honesty, integrity, accountability, openness and transparency How important are these values in life to me? Is it worth it? Then something else hits me. What's the big deal? Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm the problem. Then I start the sanity check and I look at myself and the zillions of questions again repeats itself. Maybe I'm the problem and it's me, and I'm the guy that's off base, unrealistic, unreasonable, and just plain wrong. Then after doing these series of doubtful questioning on myself, guess what? I end up back to square one again. I'm okay I'm not way off base on the accuracy and truthfulness of the information and my conviction. I want to start by saying (1) there was an issue about dog attacks. There is.. there was one that was reported and you heard it this morning, an attack that happened at the Lydgate area. I want to read you another one. Let me read you this letter and I don't have to name names. I don't think that's important. I think the letter is more important. It's dated Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Council Testimony- I am not for dogs on bike trail. I am writing concerning the issue of dogs on the bike trail. To give you my background, I am the original person who got attacked by a dog on a leash on the bike trail at Lydgate Park. I had no insurance due to pre-existing-and I'm not sure what that was meant for-and was unable to get medical attention. Mistake number one, I should have sued the county and the dog owner From that experience I shall have fear of dogs and do not feel relaxed when walking or biking. I want to know when the safety of our citizens, human beings, become less important than the rights of dogs. Granted most dog owners can control their dogs; however, there are many who cannot and there is ample island to walk dogs. This is one. I have a number of correspondence with the same fear of dog, not people who got bitten, but just fear of dogs on the path, and therefore, I have some concerns. What about those people? Do they count? Or me as a representative of the people of Kauai, it is only dog owners on the path is okay, the rest of you don't count. If you have these problems you don't count. We don't have a place for you. I think that's wrong. That's not fair That's not representing the entire island, our community It is so unfair There should be places for people to walk with their dog. Yes, I agree 100%. But what about those that are afraid? Do they count? Or shall we say, you don't count. You have to walk. if you're going to walk, you have to walk on the path, the dogs are there and you just don't count. So, I have some concerns, some problems, who do I represent? What do I do? Is it right? That's the first item. The second item. original dog owner is. let me do this, let me say and I'm going to read this first. We, you know, Councilmember Chang mentioned, you know, the survey and everybody lived by the rules and abided by the rules, let me read you this. This is to the Mayor I'm not going to mention names, who wrote this, but I'll read it to you. "Dear Mayor, I have already written the county council regarding my voice for dogs on the path, but I feel in light of your recent testimony at the parks and recreation committee meeting, I would like to express my feelings to you also I am wondering if you could help me understand why you would limit dog owners to the thinnest and hardest accessible portion of the path when, in fact, we were supposed to be allowed the entire path if we all followed the rules for the COUNCIL MEETING -69- May 12, 2010 sunshine period. I want to emphasize this point to you if we all followed the rules for this sunshine period." This is in the letter "Also, why does this continue to be an issue when clearly the results show that the people are for continued allowance of dogs on the multi-use path? Do you represent the people, those who voted. all those who voted all of you into office? And if so, then why do our voices have a good chance of being overlooked in what appears to be private platforms?" Now, because I'm not going to mention the author of this, I will now tell you that this individual here happens to be an individual that was on your committee and on top of that, this individual here did surveys, did the logs, 31 on the log, and 34 on the survey But I want to read this to you. Citation Number 314340MK. Date. 2/14/2010. Time: 11:05 Location: Bottom of trail coming down Donkey Beach Parking Lot on bike path. Synopsis: Patrolling bike path on mule-and I'm not going to mention the ranger's name or number-observed (the name) walking two dogs on leashes down the paved path from Donkey Beach parking lot onto the bike path. Following the rules, the letter to the mayor says following the rules. I follow the rules. This person here was cited. This person here is one of you on the path. Citation, two dogs. Fair, right, honest, I don't believe so You know, this is, this is not easy for me. It's not as easy as you think it is. I did a little review of the. the study, the survey Let me show you the results of the survey because I hear my good friend Councilmember Chang says 97% of the people agree according to the survey Let me show you the survey Mr Furfaro. Excuse me, Mr Chair Chair Asing: Yes. Mr Furfaro: Do you not think you should turn this over to me since you're making a presentation? Chair Asing: Yes, I'm sorry My apologies, I will turn it over to you while I make my presentation. My apologies. Mr Furfaro: (Inaudible) you have the floor Chair Asing: Yes, thank you. What I want to show you here is. this survey here, there are really two surveys in here, one done by all of you volunteers and I commend you for your work, for doing your hard work. But I want you to look at that. It is very odd. It is very odd because. Can I have the pointer please? The question: Are dog feces on the shared-use path currently a significant problem? The path volunteers 90 1% said no, no problem. Why is it that another survey, same group except it was done by staff here says 20.7% said no problem. Look at the range. How can it be so far off? One group says no problem by 90% and the other group says 20.7%. Something is wrong. Is that right? (The next one on.) Question again. Do you feel safe with the leashed dogs on shared-use path? This is the volunteers, 51.7% says no. Look at the disparity The other survey, no is 2%. Something is wrong. Mr Chang: Chair excuse me, I think. Chair Asing: Yes. Mr Chang: when you made reference to the 51.7% that would have been reversed. If I. if. COUNCIL MEETING -70- May 12, 2010 Chair Asing: No. Mr Chang: Did I hear that correctly? Chair Asing: No, no, no because here's the staff is the 51.7 and the path volunteers is 2%, okay So, I want to just show you that something is wrong. Then I will do one more thing to say, I wonder, maybe they're wrong too. So let me show you another piece. This happens to be. the blue is the path volunteers on a question of do you think the county should continue to allow leashed dogs on the shared-use path. Look at the yes. The path volunteers 97.2% says yes. Look at the staff 20.7 versus 97.2. Why is it so far off? Now, I took the Ward Research information which was done by the Humane Society I believe, Dr Rhoades, you commissioned that group to do a survey also and if you look at their survey, you will find 43.0%. But look at the disparity between even 43.0% and 97.2%. Why disparity? Something is wrong. It does not add up Thank you. Can you turn the lights on again? Turn the lights on, please. Mr Bynum. It takes a minute. Chair Asing: Now, I want to make reference to one of the survey reports. On one of the survey reports, what we have is a volunteer group person surveying each other Why is that, one person surveying the other person? And when I look at the results, I see it's beautiful and that's the way it should be, but that's what is shown on the report. Now, let me do this. Let me show you the last slide. Put the last slide on, please. This slide here will show you in red the way the bill is today on the floor as amended. The red represents the area that the dog can walk. The yellow here is where the dogs are prohibited from walking. This portion here is unbuilt yet, and that's from the Lihi all the way back to the Wailua Bridge area, so that's unbuilt. Now, the question that I have that bothers me is again, here's what you have here and Councilmember Furfaro, I want you to know that the miles that I have is accurate. What you have here is in the red, you have the area that the dogs can walk is 6.2 miles. The area that is being prohibited in here - Steph, that's wrong, it should be one quarter - is one-quarter of a mile. The red is 6.2 miles. So, for me, what is very difficult is simply this: for the dogs you have 6.2 miles that you can walk. For the park system, your protection is you have one-quarter of a mile. The next question is what about those that are afraid of dogs? They have nothing, nothing. In other words, if you were afraid of dogs, sorry, but I can't allow you. nothing for you. Maybe down the road some time, but today nothing. Is that fair? Is that right? I don't believe so. I think they deserve a portion of the path and I agree with the mayor that the portion of the path from this point here to this point here is approximately 2.5 miles. Why shouldn't this be an area that would be reserved for those that are afraid of dogs? What's wrong with that? Isn't that reasonable for those people or they don't count? And that's the difficulty that I have. In all of the things that I brought forward to you because I do not see that there is a fairness and representation of all of the people. I do have information on those that are opposed to dogs and I have information on those that support dogs. So, I want you to know that I do support dogs on the path. But please have some empathy, have some courtesy for others who are afraid and if they don't count, then I don't feel comfortable that I am not representing all of the people of the island. I believe that I want to represent all of the people. There is enough space for everybody, so why shouldn't we share this and you get a portion of it, they get a portion of it, the parks department is protected. I think that's a fair way to go. With that, thank you, Councilmember? COUNCIL MEETING - 71 - May 12, 2010 Mr Taylor- What about the 62 parks that don't allow dogs? Mr Furfaro. You're out of order, I'm sorry Mr Taylor You bet I am. Chair Asing: With that, I just want to make one comment. Mr Furfaro: Go right ahead, Chairman Asing. Chair Asing: Thank you, put the light on. And that one comment is that. you want to put that slide back again. When I made reference to this portion here to the end, both Councilmember Furfaro and myself did a trial run from the Lihi Park on three. two. two golf carts we had, right. on two golf carts. It's a program that was budgeted, that we put money in the budget and we had the golf cart for, again, others that should be considered. Who's the others that should be considered? The elderly, the handicapped, those that cannot gain access or walk. They need some exercise, some outlet and we did a proposed ordinance. Now, we did go from this point all the way through and I'm sorry I don't have the pictures, but to Lihi, and we did a picnic lunch at the pavilion there and then came back again. I thought the program was very successful and so one of the proposals that I had proposed was to have that begin at this point here and it would be for the older kupunas with the golf cart and they would travel in this area here. The timeframes would be adjusted so that they would go only hours that would be limited. In other words, as an example, it would be maybe twice a week at 10 o'clock in the morning. That's what we did on the trial program that we did. And that would be in this particular area here. So, the thought process, as far as I'm concerned, what I was using was everybody gets a share. On top of that, you also get a dog park. That is in the budget. The budget that we passed has money in there for that. They are in the process of doing that. So, I just want to let you know that that's where I'm coming from. I. 1 can count. I'm not, you know, that naive. I will lose and I won't win, but I want you to know my thought process and how I feel and why I feel the way I feel. So, I will be voting against it. It'll pass and life will go on. It is the process and I accept the process. I am not going to fight the process. But it is my duty to tell you as your representative why and what I do and what are my reasons for doing what I do. So I want to be upfront and honest with you. So with that, I'm going to be calling for the vote and can we take the vote now? Go ahead. Mr Kaneshiro• Mr Chair? Chair Asing: Yes. Mr Kaneshiro: If I will. if I could, this has nothing to do with the presentation. You know, I gotta tell you, you know, I'm really disappointed that we have people sitting in the audience, sitting here while you're making a presentation and making loud comments. You know, I just gotta let you know that I have to let it be known on the record that, you know, it's. it's uncalled for because you were making a presentation with what you believe in and I find that very disrespectful. Chair Asing: Well, sometimes it happens. You know tensions are up and I understand it, you know I've been around a little bit and this is not the first time I've been on. I don't know what the vote is going to be, but my vote being cast on one side. This is not the first time. I've made these stands before, but COUNCIL MEETING -72- May 12, 2010 believing in what I did was right and you decide on my reasonings whether I'm wrong. If you think I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But you have my reasoning anyway and you have my feel on why I do the things I do. So with that, call for the vote. Mr Nakamura. This is on Bill No. 2354, Draft 1, as amended. The motion to adopt Bill No. 2354, Draft 1, as amended to Bill No. 2354, Draft 2, was then put, and carried by the following vote: FOR ADOPTION Bynum, Chang, Furfaro, Kaneshiro, Kawahara, Kawakami TOTAL - 6, AGAINST ADOPTION Asing TOTAL - 1, EXCUSED & NOT VOTING None TOTAL - 0. Chair Asing: Thank you. ADJOURNMENT- There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, PETER A. NAKAMURA County Clerk /wa ATTACHMENT NO 1 (May 12, 2010) FLOOR AMENDMENT Bill No 2354, Draft 1, Relating to Parks and Recreation INTRODUCED BY Jay Furfaroa) Amend Bill No 2354, Draft 1, Sec. 19-1.4 to read as follows: "Sec. 19-1.4 General Prohibitions Applicable To All Parks And Recreation Facilities. (a) No person at a park or recreation facility shall. (1) Abandon any vehicle or other personal property (2) Leave any vehicle or other personal property unattended for longer than twenty-four (24) hours. (3) Operate or use any audio devices including radios, television sets, musical instruments or noise-producing devices such as electric generators, or other equipment driven by motors or engines, in such a manner and at such times that produces unreasonable noise as defined in HRS Chapter 711-1101, unless authorized by the Director or his designated representative on a permit. (4) Use utilities and appurtenances for non-recreational, commercial, or other activities, unless authorized by the Director or his designated representative on a permit. (5) Install aerial or other special radio, telephone, or television equipment, unless authorized by the Director or his designated representative on a permit. (6) Operate or use public address systems, whether fixed, portable or mounted on a vehicle, unless authorized by the Director or his designated representative on a permit. (7) Disturb or interfere with any other person occupying an area, or participating in any authorized activity (8) Lead or let loose any dogs or other domestic animals, unless authorized by the Director or his designated representative on a permit, except for as set forth in Sec. 19-1.4(a)(21). (9) Use, carry or possess firearms and weapons of any description, except for bows and arrows for archery competitions and air rifles for air rifle competitions when authorized by the Director or his designated representative on a permit. (10) Drive or park motorized vehicles, including dune buggies, motorcycles, minicycles, and scooters, or ride horses, except on designated roads and parking areas, unless authorized by the Director or his designated representative by signage or on a permit. (11) Mark, deface, or remove any natural feature or natural resources. 1 i i ATTACHMENT NO 1 (12) Destroy, injure, deface or remove in any manner any public building, sign, equipment, monument, marker or other structure. (13) Destroy, dig or remove tree, shrub or other plant, unless authorized by the Director or his designated representative on a permit. (14) Construct or erect any building or structure of whatever kind, whether permanent or temporary in character, unless authorized by the Director or his designated representative on a permit, except for a pre-fab and manufactured quick tent no larger than 20 feet x 20 feet for an event or gathering. (15) Start a fire except within designated grills, portable grills, and fireplaces. No fire shall be left unattended and all fires shall be fully extinguished after use. (16) Throw or drop a lighted cigarette, cigar, pipe heel, match or other burning material, except to start a fire within designated grills, portable grills, and fireplaces as allows in paragraph 15. (17) Use roller skates, roller blades, skateboards, or bicycles except in designated areas authorized by the Director or his designated representative through signage. (18) Dance on any gymnasium floor while wearing shoes, provided that dancing with shoes shall be permitted if a protective covering over the floor is used. (19) Dispose litter in other than designated trash receptacles. (20) Operate or use air-horns, unless authorized by the Director or his designated representative on a permit, or to start or end events or races. As used herein, air-horn means a device intended to produce a sound signal by means of compressed air or gas or exhaust gas. [(21) Dogs shall be permitted on the shared use path system provided, however, that dogs or other domestic animals shall not be allowed on the path system beginning at the makai end of Nalu Road (entrance to Lydgate Beach Park) to the end of the path system fronting Hikinaakala Heiau (see Exhibit A attached) The County Engineer shall post signs to designate the appropriate area where dogs are not allowed on the shared use path system.] (21) Does shall be permitted on the shared use path beginning at the former "Sea Shell" restaurant at the north end of Wailua Beach extending northward to the end of the shared-use path at Kuna Bay including the parking lot and pathway from the trail head at Kealia Kai Comfort Station down to the coastal shared-use path. The County Engineer shall post signs to designate the appropriate area where dogs are allowed on the shared use path system. 2 ATTACHMENT NO 1 Any dog handler with a dog utilizing the shared use path system shall comply with the following: (i) Be in command and control of dog at all times. (ii) Have no more than two (2) dogs under his control. (iii) Immediately remove his dog if it exhibits aggressive behavior (iv) Visibly carry the necessary instruments required for the removal and disposal of dog feces. (v) Pick up and dispose of any and all feces left by the dog. (vi) Have the dog wear at all times a valid current dog license tag that is clearly and visibly attached to the dog's collar (vii) Have the dog on a leash that is no more than six (6) feet in length at all times. Retractable leashes shall not be allowed. (b) Entering or remaining in a park area when manifestly under the influence of alcohol, narcotics or other drugs, to a degree that may endanger oneself or other persons or property, or unreasonably annoy persons in the vicinity is prohibited. (c) County Employees authorized by the Director shall have the authority to issue citations and charges for any violations of the provisions of this Section. (d) It shall be unlawful to not comply with any provision of this section. Any person violating any provision of this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for the first offense. For the second violation of like offense, the punishment shall be a fine of not less than Two Hundred Dollars ($200 00) For all violations in excess of two (2) of like offense, the punishment shall be a fine of not less than Three Hundred Dollars ($300 00) and not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500 00) In addition, the County shall have the right to avail itself of any civil remedy appropriate under the circumstances." (Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material is underscored.) (V-\CS OFFICE FILES\AMENDMENTS\2354 dl\FA--JF Bill No. 2354, D1 dog on path 5-12-2010.doc) 3 ATTACHMENT NO 2 (May 12, 2010) FLOOR AMENDMENT Bill No. 2354, Draft 1, Relating to Parks and Recreation INTRODUCED BY Jay Furfaro Amend Bill No. 2354, Draft 1, Sec. 19-1.4 by adding a new subsection "(e)" to read as follows: "Sec. 19-1.4 General Prohibitions Applicable To All Parks And Recreation Facilities. (e) As it is anticipated that Phase III A (Wailua to Papaloa, including Kawaihau Spur) will be completed by the Fall 2011, which will provide approximately one (1) additional mile of paved pathway, the Director of Parks and Recreation shall submit a report to the Council within eighteen (18) months of the approval of this ordinance, providing an evaluation of allowing dogs on the path. The report shall include, but not be limited to, any concerns, incidences of doe bites, citations, etc. At such time, the Council shall reassess the effectiveness of this ordinance which allows dogs on the Rath:, (Material to be deleted is bracketed. New material is underscored.) (V:\CS OFFICE FILES\AMENDMENTS\2354 di\FA--DR Bill No. 2354, Dl dog on path (PN) 5-122010 REVISED.dm) 1