Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0796.006 2000-2002 FC-45 November 7, 2002 Committee Members Arakaki and Safarik. CHR. CHUNG: Motion carried. Can I have a motion to approve Bill 264. Ms. Leithead-Todd moved to recommend passage of Bill 264 on first reading. Seconded by Mr. Tyler. Mr. Tyler moved to amend Bill 264 with Draft 2, as . circulated. Seconded by Mr. Elarionoff and carried by the following vote: In favor: Committee Members Elarionoff, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio, Tyler, Yagong and ..,.....v, . Chair Chung. y: Opposed: None. T s. Absent & Excused: Committee Members Arakaki and Safarik. The motion to close file on Comm. 758 and to recommend passage of Bill 264, Draft 2, on first reading was carried by the following vote: In favor: Committee Members Elarionoff, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio, Tyler, Yagong and Chair Chung. Opposed: None. Absent & Excused: Committee Members Arakaki and Safarik. RETURN TO The Chair directed the Committee to return to the agenda and take up AGENDA: Comm. 796 (Bill 277). Comm. 796: A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 4, HAWAII (Bill 277) COUNTY CODE, 1983 (1995 EDITION), AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ANIMALS AND THE REGULATION OF DANGEROUS DOGS From Councilmember Nancy Pisicchio, dated October 24, 2002, transmitting the above bill in order to address an immediate public safety issue and establish clear steps and conditions to better assure the safety of the public, as well as other animals, subsequent to a dog attack. CHR. CHUNG: Ms. Pisicchio. comm. Nos 6-16 File No. . Ref. To Ref. Date-40141- 1,207- Page 84 FC-45 November 7, 2002 Ms. Pisicchio moved to close file on Comm. 796 and to recommend passage of Bill 277 on first reading. Seconded by Ms. Jacobson. Ms. Pisicchio moved to amend Bill 277 to Draft 2. as circulated. Seconded by Mr. Tyler. CHR. CHUNG: Discussion? MS. PISICCHIO: The amendments specifically, in the Draft 2 version, were as a result of the Draft 1 being circulated to the Prosecuting Department and the police, and they had a few---they wanted to raise the minimum fine from $50 up to $200, which I think everybody that saw it agreed with it right away. Also, some of the sections on provocation, they wanted some alterations to that. So, they're not anything substantial. So that was put together yesterday, actually. CHR. CHUNG: Thank you very much. Mr. Tyler, relating to Draft 2. MR. TYLER: Yes, related to Draft 2, may I address Ms. Pisicchio? CHR. CHUNG: Certainly. MR. TYLER: Thank you. Ms. Pisicchio, so on this Draft 2, 1 had a question about the second item there on page three, it's Section 4-1(p)(8). Okay, is that to be completely taken out of there, is that the plan? MS. PISICCHIO: Yes. MR. TYLER: The reason for it is---why? Why is it being taken out of there? MS. PISICCHIO: That recommendation was made by the Police Department and my understanding was that---maybe, Connie talked to them more specifically. Can you explain what they told you? MR. TYLER: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, it's the bottom of page---let's see, I'm sorry. It's actually, it's on page three, number (8) was taken out. MS. PISICCHIO: We've got the Legislative Auditor, Connie Kiriu, to--- MR. TYLER: Yeah, Ms. Kiriu, can you tell me about that? Because it seems to me that they're proposing to take out "The dog was responding to a command or encouragement to attack the person or animal." Page 85 FC-45 November 7, 2002 MS. KIRIU: Yes, that was recommended by Mitch Roth. lie felt that's going to be hard for them to defend anyway. I mean, it would be something that's--- MR. TYLER: So, in other words, if somebody actually does that, if they actually do that, they're not---they don't fall under provocation? MS. KIRIU: I think you'll have to talk with him more directly on that. But I think he felt that was covered under a different section and not under this dog section. MR. TYLER: Okay, because I didn't understand why that would be taken out. I mean, obviously, if the police had a concern, you know, they're not going to be siccing the canine patrol on, you know, somebody that are not trying to defend themselves, so I don't think that's the issue. Okay, well that was the main question on--- So then, on page eight--let's see, there was on other question I had--to take out number (g), if I understand correctly. That would be on---yeah, we had a former (g) on there, after (fj, and it said that, "The court shall hold a hearing on the alleged violation of subsection (a) as soon as practicable." Subsection (a) has to do with, you know, bodily injury and serious, serious problems. Is this because the Council has no authority over the courts, or what---? MS. KIRIU: The County has no authority over the courts, that is one reason. The other reason is that it would place the burden on the Prosecuting Attorney and give an opportunity for the defense to claim that the Prosecuting, Attorney didn't act, or didn't press the court to set he date as soon as practicable. MR. TYLER: Okay. So, Ms. Pisicchio, the reason those two phrases were put there in the beginning was they were in another ordinances, or what? MR. PISICCHIO: I don't know. Rory Flynn originally generated the first draft and h>a's not here. .1 know he got some guidance from talking to the people on Oahu who crafted their ordinance, but I don't know if that language actually existed. Do you know if it existed in the Oahu ordinance? MR. TYLER: Ms. Kiriu, do you know? MS. KIRIU: Yes, it did exist in the Oahu ordinance. Actually, (g) was more specific. I think there was, like, a 30-day date to set a hearing. So, they felt that was not---the Prosecuting Attorney didn't want that language in there, and so we said, "as soon as practicable," and they still didn't want it in. Page 86 FC-45 November 7, 2002 MR. TYLER: Well, but if this is---I mean, we want to get this thing taken care of as soon as possible so it doesn't malinger it, you know, go on and on and on. How long has this City and County of Honolulu ordinance been in effect? MS. KIRIU: One year. MR. TYLER: One year? Did they say they had a problem with these two over there? These two items? MS. KIRIU: Not in particular. They do say they have a problem with the courts in general, and the judges, yes. MR. TYLER: Okay, okay. MS. KIRIU: That's more a problem of education, I think. MR. "TYLER: Alright. Well, I see there's some other lights on. I thank you, Ms. Kiriu. Thank you, Ms. Pisicchio. CHR. CHUNG: Ms. Jacobson. MS. JACOBSON: I support Draft 2 over Draft 1. I think I appreciate the taking out number (8). I think our Deputy Prosecuting Attorney was on the right track with that, because I think his point is that if you're not in the field of law enforcement, you don't have business ordering a dog to attack. I have some other questions with this section, but I'll take it up when we take up the main bill. But I think each of those changes is an improvement. I guess, to me, a lot of questions revolved around the whole concept of provocation and it's a little too loose for one. I think, you know, a cat running by is a provocation to a dog. A child with just a high, shrill voice could be considered a provocation. A special ed student with erratic behavior. So, to me, it should be to prove the intent of the individual, whether they were teasing or provoking, although it's certainly not desirable behavior, but I think we should--- Anyway, we looked at that whole section, but I'll wait till we're on the main bill to do that. But I think we're on the right track with it, and I think the changes in Draft 2 are improvements. CHR. CHUNG: Ms. Pisicchio. MS. PISICCHIO: You can turnmy light off, it's alright. Page 87 FC-45 November 7, 2002 CI €R. CHUNG: Thank you. Mr. Elarionoff. MR. ELARIONOFF: Thank you. May I address Ms. Pisicchio, please, Mr. Chairman? CHR. CHUNG: Oh, yes. Go ahead. MR. ELARIONOFF: Ms. Pisicchio, on the provocation again, the same one, "(2) The person attacked was committing a crime or offense while on the property of the owner of the dog;" explain that to me. MS. PISICCHIO: This for the most part is language from the Oahu ordinance they now have in effect. Rory Flynn generated our draft, for the most part, from their ordinance, and maybe Connie can have some justification from her direct experience talking to Rory about it, why they came up with that specifically. I didn't make this up in my head, is what I'm trying to tell you. MS. KIRIU: You actually have to read this in reverse--- MR. ELARIONOFF: Because my problem with this here is that a person that was committing a crime, you know, there's big crimes, small crimes, and this one even says to the point of offense. It sounds like a very minor thing, it's almost okay for a dog to chew him up. I have problems with that. MS. KIRIU: In other words, you would like---? MR. ELARIONOFF: No, I would like to get some definitions so I can understand it better. What was the intent of this? Go ahead. CHR. CHUNG: What are you looking at, Mr. Elarionoff? What are you looking at? I'm sorry. MR. ELARIONOFF: Under Provocation, (p), page three. MS. PISICCHIO: Are you talking about things that were changed in Draft 2, or are you talking about the main---? MR. ELARIONOFF: Draft 2. MR. TYLER: No, there's no change. MR. ELARIONOFF: Okay, I'll wait till the main motion then, I'm sorry. Page 88 FC-45 November 7, 2002 CHR. CHUNG: Okay, anyone else for Draft 2? Okay, if not, we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor say "aye." The motion to amend Bill 277 to Draft 2, as circulated, was carried by the following vote: In favor: Committee Members Arakaki, Elarionoff, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio, Tyler, Yagong and Chair Chung. Opposed: None. Absent & Excused: Committee Member Safarik. CHR. CHUNG: Motion is carried. Okay, Mr. Elarionoff, back to the main motion. MR. ELARIONOFF: Okay, thank you very much. Coming back to that (p)(2), I need to understand that section, number (2). "The person attached was committing a crime or offense while on the property on the property of the owner of the dog." Is there any limitation as to the degree of offense, or is it just any offense? Because any offense can be a very, very minor thing, and that would allow for the dog to chew 'em up. MS. KIRIU: Such as stealing. MR. ELARIONOFF: I'm sorry? MS. KIRIU: Would you say stealing is an offense? MR. ELARIONOFF: No, it's a crime. MS. KIRIU: Actually, we would have to go back and speak with the--- MR. ELARIONOFF: You know, crumbling up a piece of paper and throwing it in his yard, littering, can the dog chew me up for that? MR. YAGONG: If you own his property. CHR. CHUNG: Yeah. MR. TYLER: If you crumble it in my yard, yeah. MS. KIRIU: I think that would have to be done on a case-by-case basis; examined. Page 89 FC-45 November 7, 2002 MR. ELARIONOFF: Okay, okay. CHR. CHUNG: Mr. Yagong. MR. YAGONG: You know, Leningrad brings up a real interesting point, because, quite frankly, 1, in looking at this particular bill, one of the things that lead me to want to support this was actually number (2), because we have instances in our area because of the ice epidemic, people are ripping off people bad. I mean, all over the island, but I'll just speak to my district. People are coming in, in the light of day, or at night, and actually causing burglaries and so forth. One of the things that the people are trying to do to help and deter it is having dogs, that's provocation. To me, you know, if we don't have anything like this, I don't think I can support it, because, like I said, people are actually moving towards to help deter people from ripping their homes off. But when he says---maybe what we should do is amend this to say, "committing a crime," and take out, "or offense;" because, you know, it does leave it up to interpretation, what offense means. But a crime is simple, you're either trespassing, you're stealing, there's robbery, you came to abuse somebody, that falls under crime. But I thought offense falls under that, too, but he's probably right. MS. ICIRIU: If it's alright with you folks, Mitch Roth is not here, and the Police Department wasn't able to come here, they had a previous commitment, so if we can go back to them and work out any language or get some clarification from them how they would implement that, we can do that. CIJR. CHUNG: Well, why don't we just try this out, why don't you make an amendment. Mr. Yagong moved to amend Bill 277, Draft 2, to delete the words "or offense" from Section 4-1(p)(2) Definitions, on page three. Seconded by Ms. Pisicchio. CHR. CHUNG: Discussion? Mr. Tyler. MR, TYLER: Yeah, very briefly. Maybe it makes more sense to send it up as it is, and then get an s.xplanation from the legal beagles as to what this "offense" means. Then, if we've still got a problem with it, then take it out, because otherviise, what's going to happen is, we're going to have to prepare a whole new draft, and then we might actually end up with this thing in there. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. Page 90 . FC-45 November 7, 2002 CHR. CHUNG: To me, "crime" or "offense," almost redundant, but I don't know. Ms. Leithead-Todd, you got any thoughts on this thing? MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: No, but I know what a crime is, because it's something that's an illegal act. I'm not sure what offense means. You're doing something offensive to the owner? You know, I think they meant some king of illegal activity, but since we haven't defined it, I think it could be a whole range of things, you know. CHR. CHIJNG: Right. Okay, anyway, Mr. Tyler, you're through, right? MR. TYLER: I am, yes, sir. The motion to amend Bill 277, Draft 2, to delete the words "or offense" from Section 4-1(p)(2) Definitions, on page three was carried by the following vote: In favor: Committee Members Arakaki, Elarionoff, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio, Yagong and Chair Chung. Opposed: Committee Member Tyler. Absent & Excused: Committee Member Safarik. CHR. CHUNG: Motion is carried. Okay, we're back to the main motion. Ms. Jacobson. MS. JACOBSON: Well, this is a little tiny one, but on that exact same sentence, where we have the word "the property of the owner of the dog." I'm thinking, if they were a renter or just a resident there, but weren't an owner, are we still covering them? We refer to the property of the owner of the dog, and if a person's a renter, could we put in "property or residence of," just to make sure we're covering---? CHR. CHUNG: Good point. MS. JACOBSON: I'll move right now to---or if you have a preferred word, I just want to make sure we're covering whether they own the place or not, that applied to them, and I'm open to any phrasing anyone might have for that. CHR. CHUNG: That's a good question. Maybe that one we should reserve, you know, for the first reading of this thing. Page 91 . FC-45 November 7, 2002 MS. JACOBSON: Could we have these points brought to--and I don't know whether it's Corp Counsel or Prosecuting Attorney--but to someone on that item? MS. KIRIU: That's what I would be doing, yes. MS. JACOBSON: Okay, sounds good. Can I go on, then, to some other things? I think I feel the same way about just that whole number (3), about "The person attacked was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog;" and because it's in the definition part here, but it gods into the definition of a vicious dog, and it excludes them, where they're being teased, tormented or abused. I guess my feeling is, I don't want to make a blanket releasing people from that, because, you know, I suppose you could argue somebody':s really seriously assaulting it, it's a natural for the dog to act back; but a teasing, like I say, could be a very simple act. It could be done by a child who doesn't know what they're doing, or a person with needs, and it's just, to me, a little bit too much letting the owner off the hook for controlling their animal, and I don't want to have a loophole that lets them off the hook, because it's kind of a "blame the victim." I guess I come back to that idea of, you know, I remember going round and round in workshops on women's protections, and one of the big things, "well should they dress provocatively, then: they asked for it," and you know, the issue shouldn't be making the victim prove they weren't teasing or they weren't behaving properly, the issue; is the owner's control of the animal under most situation. I think they'd be covered by crimes of coming in and literally beating on the animal or something that would be a natural provocation, but, you know a kid could pick up a stick and throw it, or so many things could fall into that, and it's too broad for me. Maybe if we would have stuck with "abusing" or "assaulting" as a reason, but--- Okay, so that's, I guess maybe I'll wait until the second round if you want, and talk to the Prosecuting Attorney or others myself on it. The other one I have a problem with is number (7) was disturbing the dog's natural functions such as sleeping or eating..." and I'm sorry, I'm not going to excuse an animal just because; you, -again, interrupt a meal or---I mear;, anything a dog does is a natural behavior by its standards. You earn say, well, he was busy scratching a flea and we shoWdn't have disturbed him while he was scratching his fleas, but I just think , c;'re getting too many loopholes. I think because we have a pattern on our island, and why we're addressing this whole situation is because we have animals out of control and owners not taking responsibility for them, that we should err on the side of being strict and bringing these people before the law about it. Then., if they want to argue their- case of why there was a provocative situation, then that should be on the onus of the other person, not the victim here. Page 92 FC-45 November 7, 2002 That's my feeling about it, so my preference would be just to delete number seven and to change the wording of three to just the person "abused" or "assaulted" the animal. That would be, to me, the corrections to this whole section, so I'd like to have those ideas addressed with our legal and our Prosecuting Office. Thank you. CHR. CHUNG: So you're not going to make a motion right now, then? MS. JACOBSON: Well, the trend I'm getting is that we're not going to make motions about it, but if I thought I had support, I would--- CHR. CHUNG: Well, no, actually, the reason why I suggested that was Mr. Yagong's motion was kind of clear cut, okay, we didn't need to think a lot on that one--no offense--- MR. TYLER: No offense taken. CHR. CHUNG: But for these, you know, we're going to have to kind of---it's going to involve maybe some re-wording or a little bit more complicated or involved, okay? That's the reason why I suggested that. But, if you want to make motion, you certainly can. MS. JACOBSON: Then I'll wait on the number (3) one, but I'll make the motion on the number (7), to just delete number (7), that the eating or sleeping shouldn't be a reason to---or any other natural function, which--- Ms. Jacobson moved to further amend Bill 277, Draft 2, to delete subsection (p)(7) on page three, from Article 1. Definitions, Section 4-1. Seconded by Mr. Tyler. CHR. CHUNG: Okay, any discussion on that matter? Ms. Pisicchio. MS. PISICCHIO: I think, for one thing, these things have to be determined, you know, if it's something that someone claims under this definition. If that was the case, it would have to be determined by witnesses or whatever. So, I think the word, in itself, doesn't necessarily, you know, provide a huge definition that can't be---it has to be substantiated somehow. I think eating, you know, just, if you're going to get into that nitty-gritty, if you had a dog eating a bone, for example, and you grabbed it and took it away from them, the natural thing is, you know, you might get your hand bit off. So, I think that makes sense under those circumstances. But that dog would not be considered vicious is what I'm saying. But again, these things, these are Page 93 FC-45 November 7, 2002 definitions that are on a case-by-case basis, they'd have to be verified under the circumstances. Anyway, that's my impression of why the language is the way it is. CHR. CHUNG: Ms. Leithead-Todd. MS. LEITI-1EAD-TODD: I think the critical thing is that it's while the dog is on its owner's property. In other words, we're assuming, one, you don't know the dog, and you're on the dog's home turf, and the dog is eating, and you go by the dog and try to do something, like maybe take the food away, you know, disturbing. If you don't know the dog, and you're on somebody else's property, you try to take food away from a dog, you're going to get bit, in many cases. My five-pound Maltese might not bite you, but, you Flow, I've had dogs in the past that they wouldn't bite me, but if some stranger came up and tried to take their food away from them, they might respond. That's kind of normal, because they're protecting their food. I'm glad the language here, if a stray cat comes into my property and my dog attacks the cat, my dog does not get defined as a dangerous dog; however, if my dog gets loose and attacks my cat off my property, then my dog is defined as a dangerous dog, and that I'm guilty of a crime unless I've taken some reasonable steps to try and restrain the dog. So, if you had a fence and the dog somehow dug a hole and got out, I assume that was you had taken some reasonable steps. You might have to improve your fencing, but you had taken steps to restrain the dog. However, if you have a dog that you do not have in a fenced area, you do not have that dog on any type of a run or lead, and that dog leaves your property and attacks your neighbor's cat, then you are guilty of having failed steps to restrain your dog. Okay. CHR. CHUNG: Okay, we have a motion on the floor. Let's do it by a show of hands. All those in favor of Ms. Jacobson's amendment, raise their hand. The vote on the motion to further amend Bill 277, Draft 2, to delete subsection (p)(7) on page three, from Article 1. Definitions, Section 4-1, was as follows: In Favor: Committee Members Jacobson and Yagong. Opposed: Arakaki, Elarionoff, Leithead=Todd, Pisicchio, T yler, and Chair Chung. Absent & Excused: Committee Member Safarik. Page 94 FC-45 November 7, 2002 CHR. CHUNG: Okay, that motion is defeated. We're back to the main motion again. Ms. Jacobson, are you through? MS. JACOBSON: Well, I think we'll just wait until next time around on these others. Thanks. CHR, CHUNG: Okay, alright. Ms. Pisicchio. MS. P ISICCHIO: My light was still on from before. CHR. CHUNG: Ms. Leithead-Todd? MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: No. CHR. CHUNG: Okay, anyone else? Incidentally, Mr. Elarionoff, I think littering is probably classified as a crime, too, right? MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Public property, right? CHR. CHUNG: Oh, okay. MS. JACOBSON: Not on private? MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: I think if I throw a newspaper down on my yard, that's not littering. CHR. CHUNG: What if you throw it on somebody else's yard. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Somebody else's yard, probably not littering. I think littering refers to public areas. I'm not sure, but I think it's public, as opposed to private. I think if you do it on private, you're trespassing, maybe. CHR. CHUNG: Okay, if that's the case, then that kind of addresses your concerti. Ms. Pisicchio. MS. PISICCHIO: Just briefly. I think it would be good if we could get Mitch Roth here next time around. But generally speaking, I'm really happy to have this thing finally before the Council. It's been something that's been going around and around even before I got on the Council. But until the State passed the Act 222 or whatever it was in the last legislative session, we didn't really have an ability to put anything together that was going to be very comprehensive and really do the job. Asa result, I think this is definitely going to improve the Page 95 PC-45 November 7, 2002 situation. It's beer? a huge problem on the island, a horrible problem, with terrible things happening with children getting abused and animals getting torn apart and it's a really important thing to provide the police with these tools. So, I hope we'll get support for it. We can clean it up little next time if it needs be. Thank you. CHI:.. CI LUNG: I think I can safely speak for everyone on this Committee in extending our thanks to you in following up on this. I'm just curious as to why you didn't ask for this to be waived from Committee so that you could be here to vote on the final. MS. PISICCHIO: Oh, because l think it's a really important issue, and I'm not usually in support of waiving really important things, and you know, I thought there: might have been a whole bunch of people here. I had no idea really. CHP... CHUNG: Right. But this is so well written actually, and then you followed up in such a manner, this thing only took like 15 minutes, actually, and it really is a testament to your hard work and the drafting of this legislation. MS. PISICCHIO: Well, I didn't do much of the writing, mostly I served to be a facilitator, and I walked around with a baseball bat and I told people, you know, we've got to get this moving. You know, that's what I did, mostly. CHR. CHUNG: Mr. Yagong. MR. YAGONG: That's an offense there. That's a description of an offense. What Ms. Pisicchio said is, you know, we need to give the police a tool so they can deal with this issue, and I think this streaming of the laws obviously do that. Yet, at the same time, we need to make sure that we don't create the loopholes, though, because see, some of the<things here is kind of clear cat because, what Ms. Leithead-Todd said was correct, it happens on the owner's property. But the one that probably is more prevalent is actually number (3), because it doesn't say anything about being on the owner's property. What Ms. Jacobson is saying, you've got to really thing about what she's saying here when she says the person attacked was "teasing." I agree with assaulting/abusing, because that's clear-cut, but we'd better to look at that word "teasing" you know, because it could just be a little girl waiving a balloon in their hand, and then the homeowner interprets that as teasing, because, you know, who knows what the dog is thinking. Are you going to ask the dog, "Hey, do you think you were being teased?" It's all up for interpretation, and all you're doing is you're opening yourself up here for a possible loophole, you know, because of that word. I agree, because, you know, if this is to make sure that we Page 96 FC-45 November 7, 2002 don't have these unprovoked attacks, we cannot have words in there that people can just, with a good lawyer, slip through the keyhole, and I think that's one area that we will. So, you know, unless we say "on owner's property," but this is, you know---if someone is abusing my dog in the park, and hitting him with a stick, then I think that guy deserves to be bitten. But "teasing" is so subjective. So, at any rate--- but I'll follow the Chairman's lead, but I think we need to address that at the next level. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHR. CHUNG: Maybe if I could make a comment in that regard, because I did have some concerns about that, too, and that's why I suggested that, you know, maybe you better run that through somebody who can draft up language. But what I'm thinking of is, maybe you could do what you said, take out those first two acts, or you could actually include a reasonable-man standard. You know, something that would reasonably be construed as---you know, I don't know, they can think of something. But, yeah, that is certainly something that we should be thinking about from now until the meeting. Ms. Jacobson. MS. JACOBSON: I'm just going to tell you ever so quickly a brief story of someone, a true story, and it might also apply to that property owner question, too. A friend of mine who has a really serious injury to his arm, he was tending to his rental property, and the renter's dogs attacked him. It's his feeling that he did not die because his wife came on the scene and he was on the ground and he had major injury to his arm and his hand and was in a cast for many, many months. But at any rate, it enters into that area, you know, exactly what the dogs were doing on the property, I don't know, but he was doing his job as a landlord to come to the property, and was attacked. Landlords and people managing businesses can run into that, so I think that's an example of---and I don't believe he was teasing the dog, but his owners could easily have claimed that was what happened, so it's a difficult area, but it shows the need for this bill as a whole. So, thank you again. CHR. CHUNG: Ms. Leithead-Todd. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yeah, because people at home won't have this bill in front of them, I just wanted to mention a couple of changes here that are being proposed. One of them, basically, is that the stray dog---it's basically that if you take your dog on a public street, public or private school grounds, or in any other public place, that you're expected to have that dog under control of the owner by leash, cord, chain or other similar means of physical restraint, provided that such Page 97 FC-45 November 7, 2002 leash, cord, chain or other means is not more than eight feet in length. So, the idea being that if you go someplace and you take a rope to tie your dog up, and the rope is 20 feet long, that would be a violation here. CHR. CLUNG: Thank you. Mr. Tyler, briefly. MR. TYLER: Very briefly, yes. So, I think that brings another question, which is there is at least one location in East Hawaii, and we're going to be proposing one in West Hawaii, for, like, a bark park, where people can go and do dog training, and the dogs are not on the leashes when that happens. So, maybe, Ms. Kiriu, you cart have them look into that to make sure that this doesn't preclude that kind of thing. MS. KIRIU: Yes, we'll look at that. I think that might be addressed either in another part of this chapter, or certainly if it's a County park, it's addressed in the County park section. MR. TYLER: Okay, yeah. I understand what Ms. Leithead-Todd is saying, and I think, you know, it makes sense. But, if on the other side, you've got a law-abiding citizen who's trying to train their dog and they have a designated area, even though it's on public property--and I know of at least one so far, and maybe there are others--that we don't want to preclude that from happening. In other words, it would be an unintended consequence. So, if you could just ask thern about that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHR. CLUNG: Ms. Leithead-Todd. MS. LEITHEAD-TODD: Yeah, Mr. Tyler jogged my memory. Like, when we're looking at this, I think this works for now, but I guess maybe long-range, there are other counties on the mainland that do have dog parks. Like, in San Diego, they actually have a place called Dog Beach, where you're allowed to take your dog, the dog is allowed to roam free, without a leash. Dogs that fight with other dogs eventually, if that occurs, then that dog is banned from that beach park, but it's a specific area where people can go to run their dogs. I was thinking that at some point in the future we might want to have some kind of provision for owners. It's not as big a problem here, because we really don't have as many apartment dwellers, but as you see more and more apartment buildings come up on the island, you know, people need places to take the dogs out. So, I think, you know, we may be looking at that issue. I know in West Hawaii they are, but I'm seeing it happen in other jurisdictions. Page 98 FC-45 November 7, 2002 There are other areas also, where they have parks where you're allowed to have the dogs during certain hours if they're on a leash, and then after a certain time, you're allowed to have the dog run free. So, they've come up with different mechanisms to try and accommodate people's needs to go and exercise their dogs. People who are living primarily in apartment buildings. I don't know if we've reached that point here, but maybe we have to look at whether that would-- -this is flexible enough, or whether we'd need to change it later. CHR. CHUNG: Just for the Committee's information, I've instructed staff to write a request to the Office of the Corporation Counsel specifically addressing Ms. Jacobson's concern, and you know, to see if they can kind of tighten up the language over there so that it doesn't, as Mr. Yagong said, create a loophole. So, we'll follow-up on that one. Hopefully, they'll get somebody here, provide something for us. Okay, any further discussion? If not, thank you again, Ms. Pisicchio, for your good work. We have a motion on the floor, all those in favor say "aye." Page 99 FC-45 November 7, 2002 The motion close file on Comm. 796 and to recommend passage of Bill 277, Draft 2, as amended, was carried by the following vote: In favor: Committee Members Arakaki, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio, Safarik, Tyler, Yagong and Chair Chung. Opposed: None. Absent & Excused: Committee Member Elarionoff. CHR. CIIUNG: Motion is carried. STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next item on the agenda, FROM THE Statements from the Public on items not on the agenda. PUBLIC: CHR. CHUNG: Any further Statements from the Public? (There were no Statements from the Public on items not on the agenda.) ADJOURN- CHR. CHUNG: If not, can I have a motion to adjourn. MENT: There being no further business, at 1:40 p.m., Mr. Tyler moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded Ms. Leithead-Todd and carried by the following vote: In Favor: Committee Members Arakaki, Jacobson, Leithead-Todd, Pisicchio, Safarik, Tyler, Yagong and Chair Chung. Opposed: None. Absent & Excused: Committee Member Elarionoff. CHR CHUNG: Meeting adjourned. Council Services Asst. II Approved: Aaron S.Y. Chung Chair, Finance Committee Page 100 11