Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN PCHSW 2024/03/19 (2022-2024)Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being 1O1" Session West Hawaii Civic Center 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Building A Kailua-Kona, Hawaii March 19, 2024 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and ORDER: Well-being was called to order at 1:16 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Kailua-Kona, by Ms. Jenn Kagiwada, Chair, ROLL CALL: Present: Ms, Jenn Kagiwada, Chair Mr. Matt Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Vice Chair (came in later) Ms. Cindy Evans, Member Ms. Michelle M. Galimba, Member Mr. Holeka Goro Inaba, Member (came in later) Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member Absent & Excused: Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Member Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Member STATEMENTS STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order FROM THE of business, Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to comment on Bill 139 (Comm. 763), and came forward when called by the Chair: Sylvia Dolena (See Comm. 763.3). Shaye Newman. Violet Beatte. John Betlach. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thanks to all the testifiers who joined us today on this important issue. PCIJSW-10 March 19, 2024 BILLS FOR The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, ORDINANCES: Bills for Ordinances. Bill 139: AMENDS CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4-1-1; ARTICLE 2, SECTION 4-2-4; AND ARTICLE 4, SECTIONS 4-4-31, 4-4-34, AND 4-4-35, OF THE HAWAPI COUNTY CODE 1983 (2016 EDITION, AS AMENDED), RELATING TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL AND PROTECTION AGENCY Adds a definition for "Police officer"; repeals definitions for "County animal control service" and "Enforcement officer"; amends definitions for "Animal control officer", "Animals", and "Poultry"; and makes other revisions intended to clarify existing provisions. Reference: Comm.763 Intr. by: Ms, Kimball Motion to Approve: Ms. Kimball moved to recommend passage of Bill 139 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Kaneah' i-Kleinfelder. CHR. KAGIWADA: Council Member Kimball, MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. Just let me start by saying, you know, I appreciate the concerns and respect the concerns of all the folks that testified today. But do want to see better, more action around animal control protection and public health and safety, as it relates to dangerous and feral animals. This bill is intentionally not meant to get into those deeper policy actions at this time. We have just recently had our —well not recently now, I think it was September, that our Animal Control and Protection Administrator came on board, He is on Zoom; I believe to participate as well, But there are plans to incorporate some of their recommendations that were made from the working group, the taskforce, to address some of these other issues. Obviously, we're waiting for legislation to come down from the State level. So, there are substantive amendments and changes that are being thought about and discussed. But actually, you know, people say, oh, you're just changing names and titles of positions? As we know on this dais, that actually really matters a lot. Having the words right and then alignment with State Law and then alignment with the rest of the language in our Code is super important. So, actually this bill is kind of the last wish Leslie Chow had before she retired. She was really frustrated with us when we did the Animal Control and Protection Agency bill that created the office. We failed to identify the definitions section as part of the sections that were being amended with that bill that created the office. Page 2 PCHSW-10 March 19, 2024 So, now we're having to go back and clean up because it bothered her to no end that we were still talking about Humane Officers and the definition —you guys all know what I'm talking about, And in the bill, we're talking about Animal Control and Protection Officers. There is also a lack of clarity around when it was a police officer activity or an animal control officer activity because both were referred to as officers in the language. And Animal Control and Protection Agency Officers are not able to arrest for example, but Police Officers are. So, there was some need for clarity around that. The only substantive amendment that I will draw folks' attention to is at the top of the third page where we talk about ---this is under Section G. Right now, it says, "Medical and inxpound expenses incurred by the County relating to the care and custody of the dog shall be borne by the owner regardless of whether there's a conviction," So, the way that the language is set up right now is that these costs will always be borne by the owner. The Animal Control and Protection Administrator wants to build in some flexibility and give the Animal Control and Protection Agency the opportunity to waive those expenses based on criteria that are outlined in rules that will be adopted by the agency. So, that's the only real substantive change. The rest of this really has to do with making sure that the language is all correct. And as we know, that matters. So, ask for everybody's support. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA; Council Members, any questions or comments? Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS. Thank you. Obviously, as we move with this new agency and the new director, I see us, you know, clearly corne back and rnake it better. When I was reading it, I had some questions about where you were deleting the Animal Control Service definition, Enforcement Officer definition. Then we got into adding a definition of Police Officer. I was kind of curious what was driving that, but then I read further down into the bill, and it talked about —it sounded almost like the agency could maybe deputize someone if they met certain qualifications. So, just to the author, could you explain a little bit more about when meeting some of the enforcement officer language, throwing in police officer, and this idea of —if someone qualifies, they can actually go out and do animal control. So, can you tell me what you were trying to accomplish? Thank you. Is that okay? CHR. KAGIWADA: Are you done with your comments? Okay. Yes? Thank you. Question to the maker. Would you like to respond? Page 3 PCHSW-10 March 19, 2024 MS. KIMBALL: Yes. So, some of these references, like the Animal Control Service when the service was the Humane Society. So, those activities like deputizing in the field were services that Humane Society did that we don't do. So, you'll notice that the language around the deputization in the field is actually removed, because that is not something we do under Animal Control and Protection Agency. I believe we also have Deputy Corporation Counsel, Tiapula, who worked with me on this as well, that can also respond to those questions if that's not sufficient, Council Member Evans. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member Kimball. Council Member Evans, does that answer your question? MS. EVANS: Thank you. Yeah, you struck out in some areas, enforcement officer and then you put in police officer. So, for example on Page 2, I'm looking at Section 6, and you take away the arresting or issuing of a summons and citation, and you're giving it to the police officer, taking it away from the enforcement officer. So, I guess I was kind of thinking that we would want the police officer and the enforcement officer under our agency, both to have if they go out to find a dangerous dog. But it looks like you're further defining, when one does this. So, I'm a little confused. I'm soriy. CHR. KAGIWADA: Go ahead and clarify. MS. KIMBALL: So, you're absolutely right from the standpoint of enforcement officer was kind of used universally to mean police officer and Animal Control and Protection Agency or animal control officer. We split them apart and used the used the proper language in the proper locations because there were times where it was ambiguous whether this was an activity that the animal control and protection officer could do or only a police officer could do. Because of that, just general vagueness in language. So that's, you know, again based on the recommendation of Corporation Counsel, the tact we took, which was to be very specific about which kind of officer we were talking about. And that's why we defined Police Officer and Animal Control and Protection Agency Officer to just really make it clear. And it's in aligninent with the HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes) Code, the positions and the duties that are attributed to each type. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you so much. Council Member Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder. MR. KANEALI`1-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I like the back -story, and hearing they were disappointed with us for not fixing some of the definitions. I Page 4 PCHS W-10 March 19, 2024 appreciate that. I can hear her actually saying that in my car. So, thank you for bringing this forward. Just a few questions on the bill itself. I like the clarification between the animal control officer, police officer, enforcement officer. That always did bug me. I'm glad to see you addressing that. As part of that, my first question, definition of an Animal Control Officer ineans any employee of the County Animal Control and Protection Agency authorized to carry out and enforce the laws, summarizing slightly. Section 4-2-4, Enforcement by animal control officer. "The animal control and protection agency may designate persons." So, that would be specifying persons outside of the County? Or that is specifying a nonprofit organization working on behalf of —just making sure that our ducks are in a row with that language set and everyone's happy with that and the way that it would play out? For anyone out there, whoever's best to answer that, go ahead. CHR. KAGIWADA; Deputy Corporation Counsel, do you want to take that? (Note: At this time, Deputy Corporation Counsel Suzamla Tiapula came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. TIAPULA: Thank you so much, Madam. Chair and Council Members. Deputy Corporation Counsel Suzanna Tiapula appearing to you today with Administrator Matthew Runnells. Just to clarify, animal control officer is an employee of the County and would not be someone who is not a County employee at this point in time, given the statutory framework we have. So, it's definitely a County employee, one who has been trained in significant training. They're actually sworn in as an animal control officer and are only able to carry out those duties after having completed very vigorous training, both in the laws and in the procedures, required of an officer. The animal control officer has the ability to impound animals. So, to address prior Council Members' concerns that they wouldn't be able to address an animal or any issue with an animal, they would be sworn law enforcement, and that would be police officers are required for the arrest of the human being. So the arrest of a person or any kind of stop involving a person requires a police officer, a law enforcement officer. Any activity involving an animal can be carried out by a police officer or an animal control officer. And I hope that clarifies. I apologize for the noise in my background. Page 5 PCHSW- (0 March 19, 2024 MR. 1<ANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I can't hear it. Thank you, that was helpful. In follow-up to that, do we as a County want the ability to have other persons, nonprofits who may or may not be helping us at this time, working in the means of being an animal control officer or designated to work on behalf of the County. Do these sections interfere with that ability? MS. TIAPULA: I think our liability for a non -County employee would be problematic. There is, and I'm going to defer to the Administrator to answer this more fiilly, but at this point in time, we only envision County employees. We do envision partnering with nonprofits to address many of the prevention activities that need to happen in this County if we are to effect changes long-term. MR. KANEALVI-KLEINFELDER: Agreed. That's why I'm asking. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Administrator Rumhells, do you want to add anything to that? (Note: At this time, Animal Control and Protection Agency Administrator Matthew Runnells came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MR, RUNNELLS: Matthew Runnells, Animal Control Administrator. Yes, as far as the wording, you know, it clarifies a lot of details, not just for us, but for the public as well, and for Police as well, for whose job is what. But as you know, we need these in place. And as far as the rules of deputizing individuals, you know, not only would it create liability for the County, but also as far as the public goes, it creates a clear set staff who is responsible for animal control. You know, enforcing and those kinds of jobs. MR. KA,NEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, so within Section 4-2-4, the agency may designate persons to serve as animal control officers. Do we ever foresee nonprofits fulfilling some of those roles? MR. RUNNELLS: As far as our agency goes, I would say no. Like I said, it would just create confusion I think for the public, of which officers are truly County employees. And you know, if we aren't managing those individuals that are "officers" for animal control, then we can't necessarily say whether or not those officers are doing things by the book and according to law. Page 6 PCHSW-10 March 19, 2024 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, thank you. Second question, Section 4-4-31, Dangerous dogs may be slain. When there is a call for a dangerous dog event, and kudos to the testifier who carve, I think her name was Violet. When there is an event like that, which agency is called and who shows up first? MR. RiJNNELLS: That depends on who is called first. A lot of times it is the Police Department that is called first and not Animal Control. And we usually take a backseat to the Police Department when it comes to those calls, because any kind of case process gets processed through the Police Department and then sent on to the Prosecutor's Office. MR. KANEALPI-KLEINFELDER: That was my understanding as well. Do you see any issues with Section 4-4-31 (a), that those dogs are to be tranquilized, impounded, or slain by any animal control officer. Does that limit the Police Department being the first responder in the situation, and then may be a delay in being able to effectually control the animal in a situation, because the police officer is not being allowed to take care of the animal? MR. RUNNELLS: I don't think that it would cause any, you know, as far as delay in response, Most of the time, it is the discretion of the officer that shows up first what initially to do. But a lot of tinges, we end tip getting called in simply for the impounding of the dog for the case purposes. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Okay, I think that may be worth reviewing for you as the Administrator, as well as the maker of the bill. This is coming from about five years of watching different incidents happening and listening to our Police Department and the Animal Control Agency in review of how we deal with cases and how to better serve our public. So, just more food for thought. We're at the Committees level, so this is a great time for this discussion. My last continent is in one of the last hearings, we discussed the length of time that a dog is held in a dangerous dog situation. I would love to see some resolve to that, so that we are not housing those animals for years and eating the costs. I know there was some discussion about who may bear those costs, but I don't think we should bear that animal. There's a point at which we should just be done with it. I'm tempted to say, if you attack somebody, just like you would any other animal, once they have a taste for blood, that is ingrained in their memory. So, I have some strong feelings about how long we should be housing animals that have done something to be qualified as a dangerous dog. I'd love to see some resolve there that is beneficial to taxpayers as well as how to resolve situations in the community and provide some conclusion to an instance that has an effect like Miss. Violet described earlier. Page 7 PCHS W-10 March 19, 2024 MR. RUNNELLS: I totally agree. I mean, you know, as far as our agency goes, we hold on to some of these animals for quite a long time. I think one of the cases we have right now, and our holding is sitting at eight months. So, you know, some of them are quite lengthy. And yes, I do agree that there would definitely need to be some address to the length of stay, and you know, ultimate disposition of these animals once we do get them impounded. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. For Suzanna, is there any requirement that we hold these animals for a specified amount of time? Thank you for the latitude, Chair. MS. TIAPULA: The owner has property rights if they don't relinquish the animal to us, and those can be resolved. Not in the eight -month tinneframe, but you know, there is a process for that. Currently, the longer stays have been mandated in the past where there is ongoing either criminal or civil litigation and there's a desire for the dog to be maintained intact. But we have had very fruitful discussions with the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, and they are amenable to trying to address the length of stays. Honesty, based on the quality of the evidence. If we are able to hold the animal, there are discussions about the utility of that animal as evidence for either side. And the Prosecutor's Office has been very helpful in working with us and as interested in resolving this. I believe our Agency; and the Council; and our community, frankly. MR. KANEALI`1-KLEINFELDER: Those are State requirements or County requirements? MS. TIAPULA: The property right is a Constitutional right. The criminal statutes implicated are HRS (Hawai`i Revised Statutes), but a court can order the animal destroyed. So, that can happen. And we're working with the Prosecutor's Office to ensure that is happens more quickly. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Beautiful. Okay, thank you very much, that answers my questions. I will follow up with the maker of the bill and discuss possibilities if there are any. Thank you, I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Inaba, MR. INABA: Thank you, Chair, The only comment I have is for Section 4-4-31, in terms of who has the authority to slay a dangerous or vicious dog. And I think Mr. Kaneah'i-Kleinfelder might have mentioned it. So, I think that would be my only concern, making sure that we might say both the Animal Control Officer or a Police Officer. Other than that, thank you so much for bringing this forward to clean it up. Thank you, I yield. Page 8 PCHS W-10 March 19, 2024 CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you, Council Meinber. Council Member Galimba. MS. GALIMBA: Thank you. So, yeah, just reading through it I noticed the next part of Section 4-4-31 (b) concerning who gets to slay a dog that's attacking livestock, I know the ranchers will be very helpful about this ambiguous language. However, just sort of looking through it, we have livestock, which actually is not defined in this chapter, which is kind of strange. Farm animals are defined; poultry is defined, and you actually changed the definition of poultry, but actually poultry never conies up any place else in Chapter 4. So, kind of like, why do we have it in there when we're not using it. So, just some little funny things; instead of saying livestock, say farm animals because it is defined. So, just some little things. Thanks. CHR KAGIWADA: Okay. Council Member Evans. MS. EVANS: Thank you. Under the "Dangerous dogs may be slain." Yes, I too was hoping that the police officer as well as animal control officer would have the ability in case they come upon a pack of wild dogs running and harming in danger, I would hope that the police officer has that ability. But I did want to go back to Section 4-2-4, where it says that "The animal control and protection agency may designate persons who possess qualifications and training satisfactory to the County to serve as animal control officers." It still sounds like deputization, and I don't know why you wouldn't leave it just the way it was. That they may designate their employees. CHR. KAGIWADA: To the maker, do you have something on that? MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, it's really just to clarify the process. So, the protection agency goes through the training with individuals and designates them to be animal control officers. So, they're not already employees of the agency until they actually are designated, and then they become employees of the County and officers. It's really just kind of semantics in that you can't hire somebody who's already an employee. you hire people to become employees. MS. EVANS: Okay, I'm just thinking of future people reading this ten years from now or five years from now, does it flow? I don't know, I'm not kind of sure it flows correctly, but I understand what you're trying to do. So, it might be worth looking at the language. Thank you, I yield. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Council Member Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, your light is on again? Okay, go ahead. MR. KANEALPI-KLEINFELDER: Just a comment. In discussing with soiree of the officers, I mean, they're there to help. They want to help, and they're Page 9 PCHS W-10 March 19, 2024 showing up to these cases first. I don't want to speak on behalf of them, but I don't think that a lot of their police vehicles are equipped or perhaps wanted to have a vicious dog in the back of their vehicle. So, I like where this bill is headed, but I just want to put that out there because I think that needs to be part of the realization. They may be arriving first, but maybe not suited to take care of the problem. But if needs be, I want them to be able to put down the animal, if it's required and not be waiting for an animal control officer. So, if this bill detracts from that all, then we need to ensure that we're allowing for those things to happen. That's it. Thank you. CHR. KAGIWADA: Thank you. Anybody else before I say a few words? Okay, I think I neglected to say that we were rejoined by Council Members Kaneali`i- Kleinfelder and Inaba, which is obvious because they already spoke, but for the record. Okay, I'm just going to say a couple things here, then we can take the vote. First, yes, I also really appreciate the testifiers and understand that there is a great desire and need from our community to do more than this does. I also understand from the maker that this is a very specific bill that she is putting forward to correct some of the language that is necessary we have to do. On one specific thing that kind of gets with that but has opened up because of Section 4-4-31, once again. The first part, "If any dangerous, fierce, or vicious dog." Now, we have "dangerous dog" that is defined in the definitions. Dangerous dog means any dog which without provocation attacks a person or animal. Then we have above that, "attack" means, aggressive physical contact with a person or animals. Okay, so my question is, we don't define fierce or vicious that I can see. And going to one of the testifier's comments about, you know, if we know there are dogs that are very aggressive, they haven't actually attacked somebody physically yet, do we need to wait to they actually attack somebody physically before we do anything at all. Is that what we're saying here based on these words? That's what it reads to me, Then specifically, does fierce and vicious --do those terms help with that situation, and maybe open up for, if there is a fierce or vicious dog, meaning that a dog that maybe hasn't without provocation physically attacked a person or animal. So, I'd just like some clarification around the words there since we are talking about redoing Section 4-4-31 and the definition section. So, not sure who wants to take that. Page 10 PCHS W-10 March 19, 2024 MS. KIMBALL: I can start. So, you know, both vicious dog and dangerous dog are defined in Chapter 4. A vicious dog includes ones that place a person or other animal in eminent danger of bodily injury. So, it doesn't necessarily require the actual bite but eminent danger of bite. Of course, that's a harder legal thing to wrap around. Fierce is, of course, not defined. You don't have to define like every word. Like certain words, you just go back to their common language meaning, and I think fierce falls within that, So, I think fierce has an even broader definition from a, you know, standard language than vicious or dangerous because we've defined those, So, it does kind of have a broader meaning. But I'd be happy to have our Corporation Counsel or Animal Control and Protection Agency pitch in. CHR. KAGIWADA. Yes, Deputy Corporation Counsel, I would you love to hear you weigh in on, and does that mean that currently, the way we're talking about amending, that if a dog is fierce of vicious; fierce in the general terns, vicious as defined, I guess in the HRS, we can impound these dogs and they may be slain by Animal Control. And I guess the follow-up would be with Administrator Runnells, do we ever do that? Is that something that has been done, or do we wait for them to attack before we actually do anything like that? MS. TIAPULA: I'm actually going to defer to Administrator Runnells. I do know that there's significant expertise with respect to animal behavior that he brings to the table. But I will address the legal definitions provided in the statute. Fierce isn't defined in our Code, It is a term of art, in the world of animal husbandry. For dogs, it's not one that we would be relying on before we reference the definitions available for both dangerous and vicious. There are many different criteria for establishing whether an animal is dangerous or vicious, not simply a prior attack on a human. The animal's behavior, and this is actually where I need to turn it over to our Administrator who has significant expertise. We have talked about having that evaluation for animals in place where we are making decisions about the dangerousness of an animal. And I will turn it over to the Administrator. CHR. KAGIWADA: Administrator Runnells, MR. RUNNELLS: Yes, thank you. You know, it is hard to define that as far as aggressive and vicious. As far as you know, animals that may not have necessarily attacked somebody. Those criteria for dangerous and aggressive are, many times, based on behavior. And people in general, a lot of times have a hard time judging what an animal's behavior is to begin with. Page I I PCHSW-10 March 19, 2024 So, you know, it is a matter of opinion based on professional training of what that aggressive behavior is. You know, if a layperson were to see the average dog and it's sometimes considered aggressive. But I mean, I've had dogs that are playful and just trying to have fin with me and at the same time, you know, scratched down my face. And to someone walking by it would look like this dog is attacking me. But you know, as far as animals that we encounter in the general public that are stray and show aggressive behavior, if we collect those animals and they have no owner, no microchip, no way of tracing back to a single person; those animals usually do not fair well in our facility. And so, yes, as far as whether or not those animals get put down, the majority of time, the aggressive animals that we encounter and collect up off the streets do get put down, you know, they do not leave our facility. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay. Alright, well I would love if you do end up going that way, which I think could be good to have some kind of evaluation put in place, and it seems to me that should be added somewhere in here, Maybe it's in your rules, I'm not sure. But that's, I think, important for, not only for it to be somewhere written down but for the public to understand exactly what you're doing and what you're saying you're doing. MR. RUNNELLS: Yeah, whenever we evaluate animals that will have the option or the opportunity to be adopted out of our facilities, they do get evaluated heavily by not just us but also our partner organizations for any kind of opportunity to be adopted out of the facility. And those that are deemed unadoptable do not leave. CHR. KAGIWADA: Okay, thank you so much. Alright, I think we've gotten our questions answered, and we're ready to take a vote about moving this forward. All those in favor of moving Bill 139 to Council with a favorable recommendation, please say "aye." Any opposed? Vote on Bill 139: The motion to recomnnend passage of Bill 139 on first (Approved reading was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada — 7. Noes: None, Absent: Committee Members Kierkiewicz and Lee Loy — 2. Excused: None. Page 12 PCHS W-10 March 19, 2024 ADJOURN- There being no further business, at 2:03 p.m., Ms. Kimball moved to adjourn MENT: the meeting. Seconded by Mc. Inaba and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members Evans, Galimba, Inaba, Kaneali`i-Kleinfelder, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Kagiwada — 7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Kierkiewicz and Lee Loy — 2. Excused: None. CHR. KAGIWADA: We are adjourned at 2:03, thank you. Approved: Ms. AlKagiwact, Chai Policy Committee on Health, Safety, and Well-being �t:f (Date) Page 13