Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PRPSC 2022/03/08 2020-2022Committee on Parks and Recreation and Public Safety 25th Session Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai i March 8, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Parks and Recreation and Public ORDER: Safety was called to order at 2:04 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards, III, Member Absent & Excused: Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to speak in support of Bill. 125 (Comm. 642), and came forward when called by Chair: Margaret Bartelt Eileen O'Hara Ravi Singh BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 Bill 125: AMENDS CHAPTER 4, OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO ANIMALS Amends and adds definitions relating to injuries caused by Dangerous Dogs, revises penalties for those who are convicted of negligent failure to control a Dangerous Dog, adds provisions for habitual negligent failure to control a Dangerous Dog, and adds additional penalties for violations of Dangerous Dogs regulations. Reference: Comm. 642 Intro by: Ms. Kierkiewicz ; and Comm. 642.1: From Council Member Ashley Kierkiewicz, dated February 24, 2022, transmitting a revised table of contents for this chapter of the code. Motion to Approve: Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to recommend passage of Bill 125 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Lee Loy. CHR. INABA: Ms. Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Mahalo nui, Chair. I come with great humility in offering up Bill 125. And it's really to address long standing cry from community to increase accountability and justice, in the event of vicious dog attacks. And this was purely community driven. And before I get into the nuts and bolts of the bill, I just want to take a moment to acknowledge the mana wahine who reached out to me, and took the time to ground me and my team in what we were doing. Because this is a really traumatic and sensitive topic. I first want to acknowledge that. I really want to acknowledge that. I first want to mahalo Maya, thank you for bringing us together. Loki, Alicia, Shalaye, Darlene, or can't be with us today, and Margaret who we heard on zoom. Thank you for reaching out to me and beginning the conversation about how we can again increase justice and accountability. Before I get into the nuts and bolts of the bill, I wanted to call each of you forward, because you have really important and critical experience that led to the design. And eventually the legislation that we are going to be discussing today, you've either unfortunately suffered through an attack, or you've suffered the loss of a loved one who lost their life, or has sustained life altering injuries because of dog attacks. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Maya. If you could please come forward introduce yourself for the record. And share with us your story. I know that Shalaye couldn't be here today, so if you offer up her story on behalf of her keiki that would be an incredible way to kick things off. Thank you, Maya. Page 2 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 (Note: At this time, Sylvia Maya Dolena came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. DOLENA: Aloha, Council Members. My name is Sylvia Maya Dolena, commonly known as Maya. After Dolores Oskins died of her dog attack injuries, the family reached out to Darlene Makaena. And Darlene reached out to me, to see what we might be able to do. And before I go into this, I really want to thank the courageous victims for showing up and for telling their story. Because each time they tell their story, they have to relive the pain and the tragedy that they experienced. It was very, very traumatic. Shalaye Newman whose six year old daughter was mauled by two dogs cannot be here today, because all three of her daughters are very traumatized. She can't even tell the story again, so I will tell the story for her at the end of this. But I did want to thank very much, Ashley, for all of the work you and your team put into this, because it was a tremendous amount of work. And I did send in written testimony, but I wanted to make a few points clearer in the testimony I submitted. Because from the data on social media, there were over 100 reports of dog attacks in the last 10 months. Some of the reports were from prior years, but most of them were recent. It seems like the attacks were increasing, and also increasing in severity. Most of the attacks were on women and children. And many of the attacks go unreported, because fear of retaliation or because the laws are so weak right now that HPD (Hawai`i Police Department) and Animal Control basically have their hands tied. They can't do much about it, according to the law. So people are feeling like they're stuck in a place in fear, having to be prisoners in their own homes. Not being able to go out, and walk their dogs, ride their bikes, or anything in their own neighborhoods. And that is pretty sad, that they feel that way living in this beautiful paradise. Also there's a gross misunderstanding of the laws the way they were written, so thank you for all the clarity that you're putting in and reorganization. Because many people are told different things according to the laws. I mean the laws are misunderstood by the residents, their misunderstood by Animal Control, and some of the Police Officers. Because many times when something happens and there's a dog bite, and the person needs some kind of restitution, you know, vet bills paid, typical answer is it's a civil matter. Without looking at the criminal side of what actually happened. So many of these dogs—although the data that I've received didn't specify breed or anything like that, because I don't want to put a breed saying these dogs are all bad or anything like that. But it has to do with dogs that are more or less conditioned to be aggressive. And these dogs are typically guard dogs, or they're hunting dogs, or dogs of that nature that are typically prone to aggression against humans and other animals. And when those dogs get loose, it is a very dangerous situation very dangerous. And also I did want to reiterate the two districts in Puna Page 3 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 and Ka`u have the most dog attacks in there. And right now in Ka`u, it seems like it's more than in Puna from what's coming in. Shalaye Newman is the mother of six year old Violet, whose was mauled by two dogs when she was let off the bus with her two older sisters 11 and 13 years old. They were walking home. The dog owner left the gate open, and the two dogs came out and attacked Violet. The sisters were walking ahead and Violet being six years old was falling behind, and then they heard screams they turned and look and the dogs had Violet. They had her by the neck, by the face, and she had dog bites on her leg. Six years old. And now that child has permanent vision impairment. And the doctor said, had the bite on her neck been half an inch more to the right or left I'm not sure, I don't remember. She would have died, it would of hit the juggler vain she would have been dead. But fortunately her 11 year old sister pulled her away from the dogs, it was very traumatic. Shalaye couldn't be here today, she wanted me tell her story, because her three girls almost can't even go to school. When they go to school, they have to go by this person's house who had the dogs just to get on the bus. So they have a daily reminder, it's very traumatic to all of these victims and the victim's families. The victim's families have an impact that's unimaginable. These people that have been attacked they may get over their physical injuries, but I'll tell you, years and years later they're not getting over their emotional injuries. It's permanent PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), it's permanent emotional damage. So I strongly recommend changes to the laws, I strongly recommend Bill 125 to be passed. And thank you for all of the work you and your team did, Ashley. And we need to give HPD (Hawai`i Police Department), Animal Control, and the Prosecutor's Office, something to work with. Because we have to get these cases prosecuted. Because I'll tell you some of those people that have those dogs—actually in Ocean View, take their pack of dogs to the fence line of their neighbors that have sheep, goats and all of that. Just to get the dogs in a frenzy. The dogs do go into a frenzy, and one time these dogs got lose and went under the fence and they killed 10 of the sheep. And that woman has not gotten restitution for that. So it's very sad that we have laws that are very weak, and some unenforceable. But I'm sure all of you will make the right decision and help us with the safety of the public, and especially the children and women that are victims. Thank you. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Maya. CHR. INABA: Mahalo, Maya. And Ms. Kierkiewicz before you go on, I just, just out of fairness for those who testified via Zoom. It's my understanding that those of you who are here today, helped Council Member Kierkiewicz with the bill. So if we could keep it to the way in which, you know, working together with Page 4 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 Council Member Kierkiewicz, in fairness to those who were not able to come into the chambers due to our restrictions right now. We want to keep testimony, testimony, and the work you've done with Council Member Kierkiewicz, recognize you for that, and share that part of the process. So Council Member Kierkiewicz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Loke, if you could come forward. You know, high-level overview of your story, which is again one of the many stories we kept in mind as were designing and crafting the legislation. Thank you for being here. (Note: At this time, Janice Loke Keihanaikukauakahihuliheekahaunaele came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. KEIHANAIKUKAUAUKAHIHULIHEEKAHAUNAELE: Thank you. Good afternoon Council people. CHR. INABA: Loke, excuse me but if you'd like to take your mask off and speak close to the mic, so we can hear you that's fine. Thank you. MS. KEIHANAIKUKAUAUKAHIHULIHEEKAHAUNAELE: Sounds good. Thank you. Okay. The incident that happened wasn't the beginning, and it's not the end of the story. My dog that was one of the dogs that is once in a lifetime kind of a dog, was mauled to death by three pit bulls from across the street. And those three pit bulls have been left, and I didn't know this before the situation happened that the people had moved out of the house. And they have left the dogs there for over four months, to guard a medical marijuana order. And those dogs were not contained, they could get out of their fence, they could get out of their gate. And over the course of those four months, I had called HPD several times. I was going through a very difficult lung treatment at the time, and so it took a lot of energy to do this. Because you had to fight, to get anybody to listen to you. And there wasn't—no one was equipped to handle this situation, nobody wanted to go over to the gate where those pit bulls were. I didn't know the person's last name, we didn't know how to get in touch with them. There was no Animal Control ever involved. The dog was my husband's therapy dog. He's a Vietnam Veteran, with severe post-traumatic stress that he has nightmares every single night from Vietnam, and so he suffers. And this dog was his companion and was the closest being, you know, he really helped her—she really helped him so much. And so it's been very devastating for him, first of all to see her being mauled the way she was. And the dogs actually didn't kill her, and we had to take her to the vet afterwards. And in the meantime, Animal Control was called because there was still a dog on the property, one additional dog. There was four pit bulls all together and three Page 5 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 had attacked, and there was one left on our property that we discovered after the police came. There was no Animal Control available to come at all, and they didn't come. And they didn't come take that dog, and no one made sure that dog was off the property. So we come home from the vet at midnight, and we don't know whether that dog is still on the property. And that was terrifying. Later I found out the law allows that if the dog attacks now they can go on to the—if they go back to their property, the law does not allow the police or Animal Control to take that dog away. To seize that dog, as being a dangerous dog. And so we need that in the law. They need to be seized, they need to be educated, they need to be—you know, it doesn't matter that the owner was taken to court. If they're not educated, now he can easily have his second offense. And so I was terrified that this was going to happen to me, because these dogs were growling at me, every time I opened up the gate to leave our house. And so I was actually terrified that this was going to happen to me, and I couldn't believe it actually happened to my dog. But it did, I didn't even think that was going to happen. They came out of their gate and under our gate, and into our property. And that's where it was done. And my other dog was injured in the process as well. And so I think it's very important that people get educated, if they've had an offense so that they don't have face a second offense. And then start escalating in terms of how they can be prosecuted. I agree that we need to have all of what is in the bill, because people are not taking this seriously. And what is there isn't satisfactory, in terms of dealing with this situation. Nobody's taking any effort, and it's hard to actually get police to act on it. And that's because the law isn't really helpful, at this point. And so I really urge you to pass this bill, and to continue to consider other aspects that need to be taken care of. Such as Ocean View itself, needs an Animal Control center. Where animals can be taken, there's so many dogs out there. And an education center, where people can learn how to properly take care of their animals. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Loke. Thank you. I want to be really mindful of the scope of our bill. And we all know the need for Animal Control facilities, but we don't have the subject matter experts here today, and the public wasn't notice about that conversation. So thank you for being here, and to share your story and your mana`o. Alicia, Kaleonani? Alicia if you could just, sorry, there's a button on your base. (Note: At this time, Alicia Kekela and Kaleonani Kalauokaaea-Kahele came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. KEKELA: Is that okay? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. Page 6 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 MS. KEKELA: I'm going to let my daughter Kaleo speak, it's still very hard for me to talk about this. Thank you. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Kaleo if you could just introduce mom and yourself, full first and last name for the record. Mahalo nui. MS. KALAUOKAAEA-KAHELE: This is my mom, Alicia Kekela. And my name is Kaleo Kalauokaaea-Kahele, her daughter. And I'm speaking on behalf of mom, and grandma. I stand here today in full support of Bill 125. My `ohana humbly and sincerely thanks everyone involved, in the drafting of this legislation. Our prayer is that something, anything be done to make changes in our present laws so that this tragedy that happen to our ohana will never happen again. "My name is Alicia Kekela, and I'm the daughter of Jack and Dolores Oskins. On August 14, 2021, my mother Dolores Theresa Oskins while walking down the road was viciously attacked by six of their neighbors unleashed dogs, on the side of the road. My father came upon this brutal attack, on the love of his life. Who in a fetal position on the ground, was being mauled by these six dogs. He attempted to pull the dogs off, and chase them away. "And my Uncle Ernest who was doing yard work at their house, and heard the cries for help climbed over the fence to help. But these dogs just turned on them too, and they were also brutally attacked. Thank God, a brave Samaritan happened upon this horrific scene. And even though he had to continuously jump on top of his own car to avoid being attacked too, he was finally able to stop the alpha attack. And chase the dogs away. "No one ever came out from the neighbor's house to stop. They said that it was as if these dogs were hungry, as they bit and tore at my mother's flesh. We truly believe that if this angel David had not come to their rescue, we would have had three funerals instead of one. For you see my mom fought hard for 22 days with the help and excellent care of the nurses and doctors, in the ER (Emergency Room), OR (Operating Room), and the ICU (Intensive Care Unit), Departments at the Hilo Medical Center. "My mom died on September 5, 2021, as a result of the many injuries she suffered from this horrific unimaginable tragedy. My father and uncle must struggle the rest of their lives, with not only their physical scars from this brutal attack but also their emotional scars. Constant nightmares having to relive this attack, and the hopelessness of not being able to save Dolores. The people who own these dogs, have never taken responsibility for this dog attack. "Due to our present laws, the Police Department was able to remove only two of the dogs involved in this attack. The other four dogs remain next door to my father, living in the same conditions. Tied to short chains, barking at my father. And at times running out on the road, fronting his yard. And this was not the first Page 7 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 attack on my parents. These dogs have forced their way into my parent's fenced yard, about two years prior and attacked them. The dogs were younger then, and chased home by my parents. But they still had bite marks all over their arms, hands, and legs. The police were called and they too were attacked by these dogs when they went to the neighbor's to investigate. "Only warnings issued, no fines, no changes in the neighbor's or dogs actions after that. When we met with police after this attack that resulted in my mother's death, we were informed that due to the current law not much could be done, period. This is unacceptable, we as a community must make changes. We must take more responsibility, we must do better. We cannot allow this to happen to anyone else." Mahalo. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Alicia, Kaleo, for being here. It's so hard not to cry a waterfall right now. My heart goes out to each and every one of you. Everybody that submitted testimony via email, for your courage in having to relive this traumatic experiences. I cannot even imagine the psychological impact that you're having to push through. But I also wanted to recognize your strength, through these really unfortunate tragedies. There was a willingness on your part to do something about it, so that we can prevent more senseless tragedies in the future. Chair, if I could just have like a three minute recess to wipe my face and give people some hugs I'd really appreciate it. Thank you. CHR. INABA: We're in recess. Recess: At 2:36 p.m., the Chair called for a recess Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 2:38 p.m. CHR. INABA: We are out of recess. And Council Member Kierkiewicz you have the floor to explain the bill before us, and the work that you and those who are here today in chambers have put in to make these amendments to our code. Go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Chair, I really appreciate that moment of personal privilege. This is a very sensitive emotionally charged topic. And it all comes down to this. You should feel safe walking in your neighborhood, shouldn't feel like you're walking the gauntlet. You shouldn't have to carry pepper spray or a bat, or anything because you're scared. Your kids should ride their bike, they should be able to go scooter, rollerblade, skateboard, whatever they want to do, and they should feel safe doing that. And that can be achieved, if dogs are properly secured. Over the last six months our office has worked in partnership with Corporation Counsel, Police Department, and Prosecutor's Office. All of you wahine here, Marge on zoom, Darlene Makaena who couldn't join us today, Shalaye. To help Page 8 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 design and craft this really important legislation, which aims to increase accountability of dog owners as well as delivered justice through increase in criminal liabilities. In the event of a vicious dog attack, local data confirms this is a top issue. Our Prosecuting Attorney's Office conducted a legislative priority survey, over 1,400 local residents completed that. Of that 81 percent of response said, "We want harsher penalties if a dog attack happens, and a person suffers bodily injury or dies." There is significant support for this. One of the exhibits I transmitted is a letter both from our prosecutor with this data, as well as our Police Chief Paul Ferreira who is integral part of this but could not join us today because of other commitments. This bill is very, very, laser focused, and that was intentional. There's a lot of ways in which we could have gone down the rabbit hole, and tried to address everything. But when Maya, Alicia, and others came forward, it was to ensure that this doesn't happen again. If there was an attack, there's penalties, and we see these as motivating factors to be a responsible dog owner. Here's an overview, Definitions. It specifically defines bodily injury and it doesn't just refer to our statute. It also defines serious and substantial bodily injury. We create sections proposing penalties for negligent failure to control a dangerous dog. And there are tiers here. Depending on the kind of injury that triggers potential penalties. Petty misdemeanor, Class C felony, Class B felony. There also penalties for second bites, habitual failure. Habitual negligent failure to control a dangerous dog, automatic misdemeanor. And that second incident had to have occurred within the last five years, of the dog bite. I really want to just acknowledge the brilliance of our Corporation Counsel Deputy Cody Frenz in, you know, just taking a lot of our mana`o and making sure that everything that was put forward, every single word was in alignment with our statute. And so if anybody has questions, she's the genius in helping us to identify how we might be able to take these ideas and put them to paper. So mahalo nui Cody. I want to stress these penalties are not automatic, a crime needs or occur. There needs to be evidence, the police need evidence. But this gives them the ability to track that. From there the Prosecutor's Office can levy charges, and then everybody has their day in court. From there a judge makes a ruling, and any of the penalties subscribed here could be put on to the responsible party. This bill does a couple of other things. It clarifies language around seizure of dogs. And I'll ask Captain Scott Amaral, Captain of Pahoa Station. Chair, I'm almost pau. To just provide a little thoughts around this, because right now there isn't really clarity within the code in terms of which situations a dog should be seized. And this makes it very crystal clear. There's a bite, you seize. Page 9 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 And finally, because of the wisdom and the support and collaboration from our Legislative Review Branch, Leslie Chow and our very own Clerk Henricks. They recommended some, I think very thoughtful reorganization of Chapter 4, so that there is clarity for the reader. And this sets anybody up with the ability to then further make adjustments to the code. I think we saw that in the email testimony, we heard it today. There is a need and I think a desire, to make some changes. But one bite at a time. We've got to start with what we have before us today. And so again, I appreciate everybody's collaboration in helping to design what we have before us. And I just want to stress, we've could of gone down many rabbit holes, many different angles but we wanted to be very clear about what we were looking to address today. And so I'm hoping the scope of the conversation is going to stay on this. I do have Corporation Counsel and police available to answer any questions folks might have. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Mahalo, Council Member Kierkiewicz. At this time I'd like to open it up to our colleagues, for any questions or comments. Mr. Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Yeah, mahalo to everyone who submitted written testimony. We have a stack of testimony. And mahalo to Ms. Kierkiewicz, for bringing this forward. Our district and Ka`u, I mean across island it's been bad, it's been really bad. And trying to find some way forward, I've seen stuff going back to the 90's the 2000's on how to get this resolved and how to find solutions. And Ms. Kierkiewicz really nailed it, so thank you for bringing this forward. And I really hope that this stops what we've been seeing, it's just this unnecessary blight of attacks on people. And I don't want to use this example, but your mom is the shining example of what we need to do better, and you said it. We have to make sure this doesn't happen again. So I'll be supporting this today. I do have a minor amendment, which I'd like to bring forward. But I think we can do that after everyone has had a chance to talk. So thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. INABA: Mahalo, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Anyone else at this time? Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. And thanks, Ash. This is a tough one and I'm not going to, it's a tough one. I completely support increasing the penalties. You may or may not know, I'm also a veterinarian. And so I deal with a lot of the other side, and have with for almost 40 years. I have a couple of questions, not the intent behind this, because I fully support it, but I want to be sure when we do it like you said, this is a first swing at it. And there's going to be some refinement of it. And maybe it's just how I'm reading it. And please forgive me if this sounds objective, because we want to have good legislation coming through this. Page 10 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 Concerning the impoundment, historically on the mainland where they have rabies, that's what triggered the enforcing of seizing. Because we have a health concern, and I think that's why we haven't had that in the past here. But for a variety of reasons, we need to have that. And maybe I'm missing something in here, but do we have the authority to seize it upon viciousness? And what I'm referring to, and Chair little latitude when we have this conversation. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Richards. And if you could let us know where you are, so that we can all be on the same page as you. MR. RICHARDS: It's going to be under 9(a), we talked about the impoundment, "an enforcement officer shall have the dog seized and impounded," but I think we're referencing after an attack occurs. So if we just have a vicious animal we are not giving the authority to seize it, because this is where we're trying to prevent something from happening. And maybe we don't have the language available to us to better our articulate that, but do you understand where I'm going with the questioning? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I do, and I'm going to lean on Corporation Counsel for a little bit of guidance here. I'm going to do my best to answer, but Cody if you want to just be in a position to add a bit more. So this addition and the refinement of that section, is specifically related to a dog attack, so a bite. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: So when you talk about seizer, there is some language in code right now that provides authority to enforcement officers to seize and impound a dog up to 48 hours, or until the dog is claimed. So that exists within our code right now, but because how everything is organized, it's all kind of jumbled and hard to find. MR. RICHARDS: Right. And so that's why I'm asking for clarification, because we have a track record of potentially vicious dogs. And if we have to wait until something happens, that's the problem. And we need to get something done first, and if we need to refine this coming forward I'm very happy to work on that. Because that's what frustrates me on the other side, not be able to do something when we know the problem is coming. So please. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Right. And with 9 (a), there's no minimum day, no minimum period. It's very clear. The animal is held until there is a determination by the court as to what to do with the animal. MR. RICHARDS: And that's where we've got to lean on the legal side on this. (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Dakota Frenz came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 11 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 MS. FRENZ: Good afternoon, Cody Frenz, Deputy Corporation Counsel. I think the difficulty to response, Dr. Richards, to your question and inquiry, is in order for there to be a finding of viciousness, as Council Member Kierkiewicz indicated, there has to be some sort of action, unfortunately. Otherwise to be proactive as you're indicating, which is always a great thing. The only other option as I currently see within our statute, is a loose or a stray dog for example. But that dog has done anything other than being loose or without a leash, for example. MR. RICHARDS: Okay. I don't want to get stuck in the weeds on this one, because we've got to get something done. But I think you know where I'm going with this intent, because if we can prevent something from happening that's what we're trying to get done. So okay, I don't want to get stuck in that one. Chair, I'm going to yield and let other people talk story. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Richards. Council Member Chung, go ahead. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, thank you. And in addressing Council Member Richards concerns, you know, I mean I had those same concerns when I read the bill itself. Because it seems to focus mainly on, you know, you having to get hurt first. But when you look at it in the context of the entire chapter, that's why I had to pull out this County Code. You know, there are other provisions within that chapter that relate to taking—well yeah, and it could be made better. But this is a terrific first start for sure, right? And I've really got to take my hat off to Ashley in putting this thing together, you know, in conjunction with everyone else. And what is made very clear to all of us, we knew it already even before all of you came. You know, these dog attacks are real life -changing experiences, right, and there never life changing for the good, right? So it would behoove us to do something to make it better. I would like to call up our Police Officer, maybe I could get—and this is? (Note: At this time, Police Captain Scott Amaral came forward to address the members of the Committee.) CAPTAIN AMARAL: Captain Amaral. MR. CHUNG: Thank you, Captain. You know, what's your perspective of this, not just the bill itself but the chapter in totality? We need to know from your perspective the enforceability of this. Because we can put together all these laws and we might think they're good. But if you guys have a problem with it, then we'd like to know sooner than later, right? Because it's going to come down to you guys, now. CAPTAIN AMARAL: Yes, sir. I think first and foremost, I'd like say that this bill is specifically to deal with a dangerous dog bite and the repercussions of what Page 12 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 happens when somebody gets bitten. I think we should really center our attention on this act, instead of everything else that may lead up to this act. Because I have some information for you folks, okay. I ran some statics this morning. So from December 2019 to current island -wide, we've had dangerous dog calls. This maybe calls where we actually had an incident of a dog bite, and we were able to speak with a victim, have a suspect. Some of these we don't know who the owner of the dogs is, but we still had a dog bite. Island -wide we had 243 calls since the end of September 2019, so that would be almost 243 criminal cases of this. Now when you're looking at the other aspects, I think you're getting at the totality of the section. Permitting dog to stray calls, we had 109 island -wide. So as you can tell we have twice as much bites, compare to people reporting the dog loose. Why that is, I cannot tell you. But that is the statistics that the Police Department has. So I think in totality, we have to look at the section as needing some revisions. But specifically for this, I think we need to just stay on track and realize this is a bill that is going to significantly help. The revisions to this bill would significantly help our victims, the community who do not feel safe when acts like this occur. And first responders, who also respond to these calls for service. In the case of what had occurred unfortunately with Ms. Oskins, you know, I have officers who have been on the road for a while have been to multiple very serious calls up to murder. And they come across something that is so horrific to them, that they have never seen it before. And that says a lot, you know, so I can only imagine what the family is really going through in trying to get this bill passed. For us we will continue to do the criminal cases, as we get called to those calls for services. The fact that you now have serious bodily injury, and substantial bodily injury defined significantly and you have felonies attached to it, "significantly" does help. I think Council Member Kierkiewicz asked earlier about me speaking a little bit about the "may" verses "shall." Currently the law says you may, we may seize the animal. Every call for service an officer goes through, is different from the next. We can go to 200 dog bite cases, and all 200 will be different. This change to the law would actually specifically spell out that you can just take the dog, you can seize the dog. That takes away any possibility of a statement from a victim or a witness, making us believe we shouldn't grab the dog at this point and time. It takes it out of the equation, we take the dog. The classifications by having that to a B and C felony, what it does is that we will treat this more as a formal investigation. Meaning that physicians will have to be contacted, medical records going to have to be obtained; and all these other information diagrams of the scene, photograph of the scene, everything else leading. Just like if it was a person who hurt somebody else in the same type of, you know, if a person hurts somebody else or assaulted somebody and the severity of the injuries were the same. We're going to follow that track. And so Page 13 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 this won't be just a citation, to show up in court down the road. It's going to be an involved investigation, going to take some time. But it's needed. I mean sometimes it's too little too late, but in this case, you know, I think we really trying our best to get this addressed, and help these families. And like Council Member Kierkiewicz said, you should be allowed to walk on your street and not be afraid. When has it gotten to where we're afraid of neighbors and everything else, and now we're afraid of our dogs? And we're afraid of being attacked by a dog, as we walk past the fence. Our kids are screaming as they're riding their bikes past this house, because they're getting chased by this dog. We need to hold dog owners accountable, for the actions of their dogs. MR. CHUNG: Well I like what you've said, and the most important thing was that this piece of legislation will help you guys, right? And that's all I wanted to hear really, but you gave us way more information and all good. You know, of those 200 -plus calls that you guys got in regard to dog bites since September 2019, can you describe what kinds of actions were taken on the part of the Police Department? CAPTAIN AMARAL: I didn't get to go through all 243, you know, this is something that would have to be broken down significantly more. MR. CHUNG: But were there arrests made? CAPTAIN AMARAL: Right now it's a petty misdemeanor, most likely wouldn't have been an arrest. MR. CHUNG: Oh, so this is really giving your teeth, I mean no pun intended. So this is making it CAPTAIN AMARAL: Oh, yeah, this definitely would. But one thing we have to remember with this law, I mean I don't want to also sugar coat too much. But what's going to happen with this law, is that because we need to physician information to make a determination if it's a substantial serious bodily injury. If it would cause long-term disfigurement and everything else, that's going to take some time as well. MR. CHUNG: And manpower maybe, and resources. CAPTAIN AMARAL: That's not an issue, we can do it. But the issue is that we're going to have to wait on others to make a determination, that it has hit the classification of a C felony, as substantial or serious. So we're going to need a medical doctor to render that expert opinion. Page 14 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 MR. CHUNG: Well I'm putting my money on this thing really giving our community a peace of mind, yeah. So I really wanted to congratulate, and thank Ms. Kierkiewicz on this matter. You know, this is a real minor thing, and I'm almost embarrassed to bring this up. But you know, for Section 7, starting from (c), (d), and (e), at the very end. And I never was good at punctuation when I was in grade school, and still yet. But you know, under each of these number tools, it says a period of imprisonment of up to 30 days, or in lieu of imprisonment, a period of probation. But shouldn't the comma go after or, you know, this is going to be in our County code that's why, yeah. I mean if we could kind of take a look at that, because the clause that's within the commas reads, "or in lieu of imprisonment." So if you take that clause out then it's going to read, "a period of imprisonment of up to 30 days, a period of probation of not more than six months." I think that it's after the "or," but I could be wrong. CAPTAIN AMARAL: I think that's something that would be good for Council to review. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, right. If somebody could take a look at that, I mean it's such a minor thing, I mean given the importance. CAPTAIN AMARAL: I'm in the same boat as you, I'm not very good at punctuation. MR. CHUNG: Yeah, but it just kind of stood out in my mind. But hopefully this provides you guys the necessary tools, to go and enforce. But it's also going to put the public on notice that there's stiffer penalties coming down the pipe, and people have to be responsible. CAPTAIN AMARAL: Yes. Responsible pet ownership is key. Fencing your property is great, but if you don't maintain that fence that's a problem. I mean there's a whole realm behind it, but it should help the community significantly. MR. CHUNG: But thank you. Thank you, Ashley. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Chung. Ms. Lee Loy, go ahead. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Ms. Kierkiewicz, this is a wonderful piece of legislation to provide our community a way to stand up. And have the courage to address what has been a lingering problem in our community for far too long. So I commend you, and congratulate you for forwarding this piece of legislation. I just had some quick questions that I just wanted to understand a little better. And this is in regards to Section 10(b)(3), related to negligent behavior to control a dangerous dog and penalties. And I just wanted to understand number 3, because there's restitution piece for individuals who have suffered this negligence. But it reads, "Restitution to any individual who has suffered bodily injury or property damage." Page 15 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 And I was just curious. We get it. If they attack a family member, an individual, or another pet. But I didn't understand where this property damage came in, if you could help me understand that. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, sure. And again, I'm going to lean on Corporation Counsel for guidance here. But in the events of that situation occurring that attack in fending off the animal if there is damage to your property, such as your housing infrastructure, or fence or whatever that you would be able to seek restitution and damages for that. Cody is there anything else to add? She's shaking her head, no. MS. LEE LOY: And then just along those same lines as we collect restitution, and I understand right, it will be levied against them, but I was just curious as to like how that mechanics happens, and walk me through. If not you Council Member Kierkiewicz, Officer Amaral or Cody, like we suffer this injury and you're going through the process. The judge makes a determination, how does that next function of restitution apply, and how does that work? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: I am sorry, I'm not an expert on the court system. I'm certainly going to rely on Corporation Counsel for this one. But I think in the course of police's investigation, they would document all of the damage that is occurring on the property and to the individual. And maybe Judge Strance, and Deputy Frenz, if you could walk us through and help answer the question that Council Member Lee Loy has. MS. FRENZ: I apologize, if you could repeat the question. MS. LEE LOY: Sure. Under section, of the Habitual, Section 4-31.1 Habitual negligent failure to control a dangerous dog, it walks through the guilt and the misdemeanor piece, but it also talks about the fines. But then there's later restitution how families can seek kind of financial restitution for the injury, the doctor bills, right? I just wanted to walk through that, how this piece of legislation is intended to walk us through what is a horrific incident for a family. Because that will come so much later, right? MS. FRENZ: So that's the unfortunate reality, you don't get there until you have the conviction. And otherwise the unfortunate reality is that somebody I believe indicated earlier, the general response is that a civil matter, right? Without a conviction proceeding through criminal justice system and court issuing, certain orders after there have been evidence submitted to the court to substantiate the basis for the restitution request. Then and only then, will the court have the ability and authority to issue such restitution. MS. LEE LOY: And then that restitution could be garnishment of wages? I mean, help me. Page 16 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 MS. FRENZ: So when you have criminal matters in the district court for example, criminal matters return on the proof of compliance calendar. At least they did before, I'm not sure whether or not things have changed in the last couple of years. But criminal matters have a proof of compliance calendar, so you continue to return to court until payments have been made. And if it takes 10 years, you are on the calendar for that period of time until payments has been made in full. MS. LEE LOY: Great, thank you. I'm looking at Section 44-31.3, Additional penalties. Section (b) it's says, "Unless the dog has been or is ordered to be humanely destroyed in addition to the provisions of subsection (a), the dog owner may also be sentenced to any of the following terms or condition." But it mentions in (9), "The dog being neutered or spayed at the owner's expense." But I'm not understanding this piece, because this is all framed around the dog attacked someone or another animal. But second chance? MS. FRENZ: That's already language in our current statute, in our current code. It's already there, it was just copied and pasted into this provision as well so it already exists there. We can look and see whether or not we have something that contradicts itself, but this already applicable code language currently in existence, yes. MS. LEE LOY: Thank you. Thank you again, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Congratulations, I'm putting this forward. I'm going to be supporting this, this is a bold step. It might feel like a very small step, but I think it is a very bold step to bring a lot of awareness around this issue, but start having, as Mr. Chung said, some of the teeth that needs to happen to provide our community that sense security and safety. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz, for all the work that clearly went into this. I'm going to have a question for you. And thank you to the folks that came in, and were here today. I can tell how hard it was. I've been sitting here trying to think of the right word. The fact that we've had so many attacks, and then some of them so brutal. The word I want to use is grotesque, it is grotesque that our code is such that those sorts of things can happen. And even that's not quite the right word. Like this is a visceral thing in my gut that tells me, you know, this is just wrong, that we not have done more before now. We have two little corgi dogs at home. And we had a dog in the area bust through the door to get one of our dogs, and he's a little notch out of his ear, right now. And you know, nothing happened. But what did happen is that couple months later that dog bit my daughter in the hand. Had to go to the hospital, had to get stitches. And still nothing happened. The dog that bit my daughter is gone now, Page 17 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 but that was just a bite in the hand, there was a puncture wound through the hand with a few stitches. I can't imagine the feelings that these families have that have had much more serious altercations, incidents. And as soon as I saw this come through, Council Member Kierkiewicz, I called all the folks that have called me in Hamakua about this. And I said, this is coming forward send in the testimony. Ravi, somebody I've been working with for a while now to figure out how to address that particular problem here. I am just so grateful that all of you worked together, to put this forward. So a lot of the questions I had technically, have been answered. The question I wanted to ask you, was about this sort of limitation that we have on us to have to actually wait for an incident to occur. Is that tied to HRS, is that something that is controlled at that level? Where does that limitation come from specifically? MS. FRENZ: Legally it's the way the statute is currently written, and it's just the realities of life. In a sense that when you think of, I think, I don't recall if it was Council Member Chung, or Dr. Richards, that brought it up or maybe it was Council Member Lee Loy. But the realities are we have a lot of statutes, whether they're Hawaii Revised Statutes, County Code sections for example, that prescribe and make things illegal, right? So you have violated the law, the police are called they respond they investigate, and they decide whether or not an offense has occurred. That takes an action to result in that reaction, right? Whether or not a violation of a particular statute has occurred. Our criminal statutes as I discussed briefly, Betsy was discussing with me briefly, to provide for attempt statutes. You have to be able to articulate that someone was taking substantial steps necessarily to be able to, or intending to commit a certain offense. Because they didn't actually commit that. So what would that look like realistically for a dangerous dog attempt? Theoretically the dog has lunged at someone but didn't actually bite them, is that necessary to be considered a substantial step for there to be an attempt? So we wouldn't need to include language for an attempt. But those are the realities. You have a dog that is stray not on a leash, on the side of the road that has not done anything yet, right? The hope is that they don't. If and when they do then it changes the category of what that dog has—what laws the dog has in fact broken, which means the owners, right? Because we can't charge the dogs. So it would be the owners responsible for their animal. The way the statute is written it requires the action, or the only other remaining statutes would be leash law violations, stray dog violations for example. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you. Thank you for that clarification, and Council Member Richards and I have talked before about needing to be preventative with some of the stuff, and so I think that's a further conversation for down the road. Page 18 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 But that kind of leads me to the next part which I think is this particular law allows us to—increases those penalties and ability to enforce when an incident has occurred. And since that preemptive piece is not quite there, we also have to focus in terms of its position as a deterrent, right? And so I'm just bringing this up from the context of—for a police force, Prosecutor's Office. Those of us here, I would love to see an educational campaign about this once it goes through. To make sure that all the dogs owners know this is what happens. You know, we need to make sure that we're using this tool in that way. I wanted to ask Captain to come back up, just to answer some questions. I just wanted to delve a little bit more into the enforcement prosecution piece. I just had a meeting with folks last night on Ag theft in Honomu, and I bring that up in context. We do have laws around Ag theft, but the process to go through collecting evidence, and what the evidence has to be and prosecuting those. It's very difficult, and you've talked a little bit so far about the challenges. What I would love to have you do right now, isI think it would be helpful, is to kind of express to us and the community what sort of actions need to take place on the side of the person calling in and incident that would help you under these new guidelines, be better able to effectuate the law, and bring it to a successful prosecution. Does my question make sense? I want to use this platform that exists right now to talk a little bit about how to make sure we report well. CAPTAIN AMARAL: It doesn't, but just exactly that you said to be a good reporter, to be a good witness to what actually happened is key. When you're in times of trauma and things are happening, it's very easy for you to shut down and forget things that are happening. The best thing that anyone can do is just remember as much of the incident as they can, and provide that to the officer. The officer is going there to take their initial report, they may not all the time ask the right questions, but don't be afraid to tell them the whole story. Tell them what happen two years ago before with the same dog, tell them everything you can at that point and time. It gives a better and a more clear picture of what you've been going through. Also if you have video surveillance at your home, let the officer know that. I mean sometimes the video surveillance might just be that ring doorbell, but it may catch something. So come forward let the officer know that, "I have video of this through my surveillance." And another part of that is, if you do have surveillance please know how to actually view it or send it to somebody. Because that's usually a big problem that we have as well. But just being a good reporting party, and telling us what happened. And also not letting—making sure that you just don't let it go. If something happens, if more happens down the road, call it in. Our job is to response to calls for service. We also try to be proactive. But if you're a victim of a dog bite, please just continue to call us whenever you see this dog out. If you do in fact see this dog out, sometimes we're not going to know who the owner of the dog is because it might not be your neighbor's dog, it might Page 19 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 be a dog from two streets away. But as you can see by the statistics, we're getting less than half of the calls for permitted dog to stray dogs, somebody seeing a dog running loose. Compare to the dog bites. We need people to not feel like they're brothering the police, call us let us know. We will make checks in the area. If we come across the dog, we will contact our Animal Control. If we are able to contain the dog, to come and pick up the animal. And so yeah, it's just a process, be involved in your own process. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah. Thank you, Chair, for the leeway to explore that question. It just was so critical in our conversation last night to just make sure people are calling these things in. Make sure they have the reporting, especially if it's a scenario where we're ultimately—may have to look at revisions to State statutes we want to have the statistics to have those conversations with our legislatures, is why that might be necessary. Thank you for that response. And I don't have any further comments, other than to say I think Council Member Chung is correct about the comma and it having to move. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Chair David, you had your light on earlier go ahead. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Inaba. First of all I just really want to express my sincere heartfelt sorrow for your loss, and your experience in this. And number two Ms. Kierkiewicz, this has been such a long time coming. I can't tell you how many calls we've been getting, at least I have in the Ka`u District, especially in Ocean View. And up until this point, I think what Captain has been referring to, your hands are tied. And that is so unacceptable, especially when people get hurt, right? That government cannot do a single thing. So Ms. Kierkiewicz, I really applaud you for doing this, because this has been over a long-time coming. Although it's something that unfortunately is driven by someone getting hurt, it is so much better than what we already had. I really believe and I'm hopeful that the attention of this bill will get people especially the noncompliant ones, the ones that keep doing this, and keep dogs that are vicious out in the public and without regard for safety. That's because they know they can get away with it, and that's because they have been getting away with it. This I think aside from education, that I think is a great addition to this, just getting it out there. And word of mouth travels especially when somebody is going to suffer the consequences for their irresponsibility, and they're putting other people in danger. And that travels fast. Legislation gets processed very slowly, because you have all these other rules and laws to abide by. But this is a great start, and I really, really, want thank Ms. Kierkiewicz, because at least this will get the ball rolling and force the people that are just soI don't knowI can't describe people that behave that way, okay. Because it's just not humanly acceptable. Aloha to all of you, and I don't really have any questions. But I just Page 20 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 wanted to express my sentiments about this, and congratulations. I yield. Thank you, Chair. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Mr. Richards, your light is on. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Again, striking for that good legislation that we always seek. Couple of quick comments. First of all on the Animal Control, I think this really tees up what we are setting up in our County. With the Animal Control under the Police, because that gives the enforcement side a lot more. And I think they'll be a lot more synergy, especially when we support this like this. Second thing, I am concerned on the Section 13, where it talks about under (b) number (9), Ms. Lee Loy mentioned this about neutering or spaying as one of the orders. That is well documented, and it doesn't reduce the aggressiveness of an animal. And so I don't want to get bogged down on this one, but I think we should talk about that. Because I don't want that to be viewed. I'm thinking about five years from now if it comes before a judge and they rule that is the solution. That may not be a very good solution. It works if you have situation where an animal is in heat there's aggressiveness going on there, but it does not reduce the aggressiveness of an animal generally. So that's not a solution. And I think we should talk about that. And then finally, I really like this part about tracking with the microchips. And I don't know how to phrase this, but I'm going to put this out there. Because again, being on the other side if we have an animal come in and we scan it, and then it flags as an aggressive animal or something, or it's been under this as a vet. I want to know this, because my staff and my hospital, people don't get hurt. That's the primary thing we function on. So I think with our Animal Control coming under the police, and they do have a situation, I'm going to work on seeing if we can do something, because we as a County if our vets here have access to that data base and we can flag it, so we know it's coming forth. Or if it's a stray and it gets brought in because it's been hurt and then we flag it, and realize it's one of these repeat offender types of dogs. It's kind of likeI don't want to equate it, but it's like the sex offender registration, meaning we need to know if this is out there. So I like this idea, and I'm going to further explore it. But definitely can support this, well done. Thank you. Well done. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Kimball, go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Just as a quick question, Council Member Richards, based on his comments about spay/neuter. I'm going to ask if you have any information nature verses nurture, you know, one other argument for requiring a spay/neuter Page 21 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 would be to ensure that the off spring of a particularly vicious animal is not what is the probability that same character trait will be passed on? MR. RICHARDS: It is there, inherit aggressiveness can get passed on. And I did think about that before making the comment, that okay, we are going to terminate that genetic source going forward. But it doesn't deal with that animal in and of itself. In my mind I don't want to be seen as a solution, for this animal going forward. Now genetically speaking yeah, if we're dealing with an aggressive animal. And there's also misnomer that a lot of these guard dogs the true—like if you look at the German, the Shih Tzu, those aggressive dogs are taught to be aggressive they are not inherently aggressive. Any aggressive dogs actually remove from the program, only really quiet tame dogs that are taught to be aggressive go further. So it's the taught, not an inherent. And so you do have a point on that. I don't disagree, but I don't want it to be seen as a solution. And that's a further conversation later, I don't want to get bogged down. Great swing at this. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Anyone else at this time? Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, go ahead. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: If I can, I'd like to make a motion to amend Bill 125 with the contents of 642.2. Motion to Amend: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder moved to amend Bill 125 with the contents of Comm. 642.2. Seconded by Ms. Kimball. CHR. INABA: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Does everyone have a copy, it's in our pinky folder. I mean, I totally agree with the purpose of this bill. I mean in all honesty, I think a lot of people working on this. I did meet with our Prosecuting Attorney, and our Police Chief as well just to discuss what we could do to make this better. And Ashley beat me to the punch, good job. What I came across in really trying to nail down what happens after—it's probably the most important pieces, what happens after an attack? What I noticed was that "may." That "may" be removed, that animal "may be removed." And that's a killer. Because for someone like Marge where she's dealing with the same animals after an attack, there's no real recourse for the community. The community doesn't feel heard, Police Department feels stuck. And so that "shall." "Shall have the animal removed." It immediately resolves the situation for the community. And basically it makes everyone take a break, yeah. It's like a required break from what happen, and provides everyone a little bit of an area where they can heal. Or come to amends with what happened, whatever might happen. Page 22 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 So that is incredibly important. But what I felt was important as well is to clarify they got to hold that animal for a set amount of days, a minimum. And from the conversation I heard earlier I don't know if there's a State statute, may be you can help me. But I wanted to add we hold the animal for no less than 10 days. So there's not a one day, two day return the animal back to where it happened. And that there's a timeframe, we're actually going to lock in and say you cannot have the animal back, for a period of no less than 10 days. Unless there's something that says we can't. I feel good about this, because it really protects the community and everyone's interest. And allows for a period of relief, from any event that does occur. That's one change. To kind of go the full spectrum, the second change is very minimal. But being that the County of Hawaii actually is our Animal Control department right now, and not an outside nonprofit. To add that impoundment can be at a County Animal Control facility, which will allow for our department to put it in our Animal Control facilities that we're running currently. Because right now, that's not one of the options. We have a licensed veterinarian or a commercial kennel, but ours is actually a County Animal Control facility. So I thought it was important to add that. Very small changes, but I think really important if we the County are running an Animal Control center. But for that period of no less than 10 days. Is there anything that precludes us from doing that? MS. FRENZ: I'm not aware of anything that would preclude us from doing that, I guess I'm concerned with specifying a period such as 10 days respectfully. Because it begs the question, I think there maybe owners that would say, "Oh great, on day 11 I get my animal back." What happens on, you know, the morning after day 10. So I'm not completely sure why this specific 10 -day period for example, why 10 days as opposed to 15 or 30? That would be my only hesitation, in specifying something that specific such as 10 days. The reality is as Captain Amaral has already indicated, cases like this do take time to investigate, right? And the nature of one's injuries following an unfortunate attack can change, right? So you may start with a potential substantial bodily injury, that later becomes a serious bodily injury, right? And that can happen at any time if the animal has already been potentially returned, because there's confusion about a 10 -day period that would create quite the dilemma. So I'm hesitant, because I fell as though it may mislead or confuse some people. Maybe you could help with why this specific 10 -day period, for example. I have no concerns, about adding the language about a County Animal Control facility. I think that's more than fine. It does provide some clarification, right? That we have other options, then just the two that are in here. But the 10 days does cause some pause, as far as including something that specific. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. Reason being and then clarify to no less than 10 days. So not at 11 days you get your dog back, it's we're going to Page 23 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 hold this animal for a set amount of time. So there is no immediate return back to someone's yard where you have a family in mourning, or you have someone who's been a victim and is just getting back to the house and they go out and there's the dog, to and behold, at the corner barking at them again. That 10 days would just give that rest period, for the community. And really just set that time solid, it can be more. It can be six months, could be a year, it could be 15 days. But just to set a really clear time table, this animal got to be removed for at least that long. Kind of like a timeout. I get kids, I need a timeout and you need a timeout from whatever is going on. That means we're going to hold this dog for that time period done. So that was my reasoning. MS. FRENZ: So Chapter 7-09 in the Hawaii Revised Statute, 709-906 already provides something similar, right? So that's your domestic violence abuse section it provides for 48-hour warning period. A warning citation is issued to someone in that sort of domestic situation, and they take that timeout sort of speak, right? That's provided for us, so it sounds like that's what the rational was, right? To provide some break for the victim, the complainant, as well as some stability for the situation. I think my preference would be again, because what day is the right period of time. I don't know the answer to that, right? And I don't know that there is one, because every case is so different. Maybe the remedy that I would suggest consideration on is resolution of the case for example. CHR. INABA: Excuse me, sorry. Can you verify that your mic is still on, it might off shut off on its own. MS. FRENZ: I'm sorry. CHR. INABA: No, go ahead. MS. FRENZ: I don't know if that was picked up. So my thought would be the smarter way to do that, and I would just propose that. I apologize in advance. But if the point is to provide separation between the complainant, the victim of the dog attack or the animal for example, right? If it's a neighboring situation especially, 10 days wouldn't probably necessarily do that. I highly doubt. I grew up at the Kekela `ohana right, small kid time so I'm very familiar with them. And that's probably not going to be sufficient, it's a great intention. My thought is if you really want to provide that separation, then consider some language that keeps the dog impounded until that case is resolved. There is a potential for that, it's going to be a very long period however. However the statute already does provide for who's kuleana who's responsibility those expenses would be that's in the statute already, right? So whether its 10 days or it's a year and half, the owner of the dog is to bear those expenses and reimburse the County of Hawaii. That's one idea. Page 24 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I think another point, and then Mr. Richards brought this up too. Mainland there's a rabies concern, and Mr. Charles Brown was a previous Director for Humane Society. Actually brought this up to me, like look when a dog attack happens there the animal is removed immediately because we have to test for rabies. And that actually allows—it's an instant relief period, kind of one timeout break, whatever you want to call it. And I like that, but we don't do that. And that period tends to be about 10 to 14 days, that's how long it takes to run the test and get the animal tested, and get the results back. So that was my reasoning for this, you know. I don't want to belabor this. I'm not stuck to this, I think that County Animal Control facility is important. The time period to me it justI'd like to set something there to protect the community. It may not be enough, but just something to offer that relief. MS. FRENZ: Then my recommendation would be, that it would be termination of the case. One way or the other. Better than 10 days would be my thought. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. And that could be very, very, expensive, yeah? MS. FRENZ: It could potentially be. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: But we're not limited to 10 days, it's not 10 days and then it's released, it's a least 10 days correct? That's the way it's worded. MS. FRENZ: That's the way yours is currently written. So my recommendation if we're not going to say the duration of the case, or till a judgement for example has been issued in a case, or a dismissal, one way or the other. Then something a little bit more than 10 days. I will admit, I'm born and raised from the Big Island, right? So I'm not familiar with rabies, i know about it, right? And everyone has seen Cujo, but the reality is I trust and rely on what you say. I just think if the point is a timeout more than 10 days will be necessary. Just my thought. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay. I'm going yield for now, that was my time. Yield for now, but open to comments from the Council on the amendment. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Again, please focus our discussion on the contents of the amendment, because that's our motion on the floor right now. Mr. Richards, go ahead. MR. RICHARDS: Thank you, Chair. Just a quick comment to respond to Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. Concerning the timing I'm hear what you're saying about that, but I think and this is probably for Corporation Counsel to dig into. No, don't answer, just to talk story on. And please families don't take this as Page 25 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 anything other, I'm trying to get good legislation. We can't talk about this unless we're in front of the public, so that's why we have to go through all this. In dealing with all the Animal Control things, I think there is something about a 48-hour maximum holding of animal. So it may have a little bit of conflicting regulation here, I'm not sure on that. But to that point I know if we have a case animal we can hold it for a while. But if it's not technically a case animal yet, I don't know how that plays. So just again, trying to get good legislation coming forward. CHR. INABA: Mahalo. Council Member Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, similarly, I think just again to be cautious from the legal angle we don't want to have anything that could be considered arbitrary. I like cooling off, time out concept. I think we want to specify the length of time based on some sort of leverage thing right, like the length of a rabies test, or like the extent of the case. Just thinking about what sort of things people can potentially sue around if they feel the law is arbitrary. Without the 10 days having any sort of bases that would be my concern about that. Happy to agree to the idea of an Animal Control facility. Just because it was brought up in this context to our Captain here, do we collect any blood, saliva, samples from the animals during these dog bites. Where the time period to test those sorts of things, would be the type of cut off or something along those lines. CAPTAIN AMARAL: I am not aware of that. I personally myself have never done something like that, where we covered any type of DNA off an animal. So I would not want to guess, for sure. MS. KIMBALL: Okay, thank you. Council Member Richards suggested that Corp. Counsel kind of ruminate about that, and I would do the same. Maybe there's a way that we can tie that to some meaningful reasoning for a length of time. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you. Council Member Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mahalo nui for putting this forward so that we could have the discussion on it. When we were first working on this legislation, it was before any talks about the County acquiring facilities to have its own Animal Control facility, which is why we didn't include that language here. But since then the Council has appropriated funding to be able to do that, and so I completely agree with the language. I hesitate around the 10 -day piece, because I think it muddies the waters. I can total understand the intention with the explanation here. But I think it's much Page 26 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 cleaner to talk about the resolution of a case, because we certainly don't want there to be any misinterpretation. By anybody with this language. We certainly don't want to be putting a dangerous dog back to a property owner, before the court can rule and prescribe what exactly to do with that animal. So with all humility really appreciate the intention, but if you are able to withdraw, so that we don't vote this measure down. We understand your intention, and we'll work with Corporation Counsel to ensure that, you know, language that is really appropriate, that gets the intention of what you're trying to do, and I think with what we all agree with. We'll put that forward at Council for first reading. Thank you again, for elevating that. CHR. INABA: Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I'll make the motion to withdraw. - will come back with the just that simple amendment for a County Animal Control facility. But I do really feel that there needs to be some kind of marker for that wait period incorporated. I think resolution of the case, that's lengthy. mean it depends on the dog owner, depends on the dog, it will depend on the situation. You know, I'd really like to see something there that locks in, something for the families who go through this kind of trauma. There's got to be a break, there's got to be a guarantee, rest period, so the animal is not back out within days to terrorize the community. Which is what I've heard again, again, and again. I'll bring this back, I'll amend it. Almost like we do a floor amendment, but I'll clean it up and make it pretty and bring it back for that County Animal Control facility aspect only. I don't want to belabor the point. Thank you. Withdraw Motion Mr. Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder withdrew his motion to amend to Amend: Bill 125 with the contents of Comm. 642.2 CHR. INABA: So we are back to the main motion, which is to approve Bill 125, as it was submitted by Council Member Kierkiewicz. Council Member Kierkiewicz, did you have anything you wanted to add before I get to say my piece. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yes. Thank you, Chair, for the latitude and your patience. And mahalo nui everyone, for your contributions to this discussion. We were swinging really hard with this one, so we appreciate your comments and your support. And again thank you to all of you, the ohana, friends, and community, everybody really for your contributions. Cody, Chief, Kelton who couldn't be here. This was a really collective effort, to the point that Council Member Kimball made about education. That is absolutely something that we've talked about every single time we convened. Page 27 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 We didn't just want to introduce legislation and assume people were streaming our Council meeting, or reading the Tribune Herald on a specific day. There is a PIO (Public Information Officer) within police, and so we're really going to be leaning on her, because she is really excellent, to ensure that we have a year-round campaign to educate folks around how to be a responsible dog owner. So that is something that is in the works. Thank you, Captain Amaral, for really emphasizing the point that this bill provides you the tool to do something. It provides really clear direction, in terms of what is in the wheelhouse of your officers to respond in the event of an attack. And it gives something to the Prosecutor's Office to prosecute on, right? And so these are tools that were missing from our tool box that we have now with the adoption of this ordinance. Finally I just want to say this process I hope for all you Alicia, Maya, Marge, who's on Zoom waiting patiently. Mahalo nui Loke, Darlene. I hope this has restored a little bit of your faith and trust in the process and in government. I was flipping through chapter four and a lot of these sections of the code from 1983, I wasn't even born yet. That's how long this hasn't been touched, and so it was way long overdue for us to be taking a look at this. It pains me, it's grotesque, it's disgusting that we had to have unfortunate events really spur action. But here we are now, and so now we have something in place to keep folks accountable and really ensure justice. So mahalo nui for your partnership and collaboration in this, community members and our County `ohana. Mahalo nui, Chair. I yield. CHR. INABA: Thank you, Council Member Kierkiewicz. And for bringing this forward and working with our Prosecuting Attorney, to get that data that was provided with our community members here. And I'm sorry that you folks are having to be here, but thank you for being here to make sure that the community's voice is heard. Council Member Kierkiewicz, you know, I think we all have gotten emails as Council Members, whether individually or in addressing all Council Members regarding vicious dogs. And you know, just probably a couple months back had looked at the chapter and it's not an easy chapter to deal with. Especially because like you said, it hasn't been touched in so long. And what you provided us here is really a goodI wouldn't even say, a starting point, but it's really heading us in the right direction. And hoping that, you know, with police being here and being a part of it along the way. You know, if it's not exactly as we need it to be, and we need it to be better. We're ready and we will make it better, to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. I will just share a quick story, is that our, you know, everybody sharing the story of how their dog was bit, or their neighbor was bit, or you were bit. Our dog bit somebody walking on our road. As traumatizing as it is for the people being bit, it was traumatizing to us because we're responsible dog owners. And if you're Page 28 PRPSC-25 March 8, 2022 not able to take responsibility and our code doesn't force you to take responsibility right now, this kind of thing will force you. Or you won't have that dog, and that dog won't be around. So our dog is still alive, but it's nowhere near the road. And it can't do what it did even though it never had done that before, but it's not be trusted apparently. Just want to mahalo you Council Member Kierkiewicz. And again, Mr. Kdneali' i-Kleinfelder, your intentions I think are good. The best we can make this, is all the best for our community. So with that, there's a motion on the floor to forward Bill 125 to the Council with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor pleas say "aye." Vote on Bill 125: The motion to recommend passage of Bill 125, on first (Approved) reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kdneali`i-Kleinfelder Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, and Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Villegas —1. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: This brings us to the end of our agenda. ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 3:47 p.m., Ms. David moved to adjourn the MENT: meeting. Seconded by Mr. Richards and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Chung, David, Kdneali `i-Kleinfelder Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Lee Loy, Richards, and Chair Inaba — 8. Noes: None. Absent: Council Member Villegas — 1. Excused: None. CHR. INABA: The meeting is adjourned at 3:47 p.m., mahalo. Approved: WiToleka Goro Inaba, Chair Parks and Recreation and Public Safety Committee HI/rk Ll 12 lcq4 (Date) Page 29