lobby upon signing you'll be called down to the floor when you reach the podium please state your name and or organization in which you represent we'll have two and a half minutes to present your testimony if you need additional time please let me know you'll have one minute additional time allowed at this time i'm going to go ahead and asked to call on anyone who would like and i wanted to speak to that it's really the very last thing in this bill and it pertains to the animal changing the wording of the animal control officers responsibility i believe it says changing the words carry out to enforce discretion in dangerous dog deeming they are inconsistent in applying our codes for example they had deemed a dog dangerous for barking through a screen door at someone yet our dog was killed in our yard and mauled by a pack of dogs belonging t neighbor and they initially found the dogs not to be dangerous even though our code clearly states that causing serious harm to a pat on the pet owners property is grounds for deeming a dog dangerous the animal control  oversight the animal control board has very limited authority to question their inconsistent cation of our laws the wording of the codes pertaining to the animal control board's authority to oversee the animal control officers needs to be changed before any changes to the animal control officers are given any more authority the animal control board members must be required also to have a thorough knowledge of the laws pertaining to their task i think these changes need to be made in an investigation of our animal control officers needs to take place before they are given any more clear authority to interact with the public thank you thank you four that would require the animal control officer to shall deem animal dangerous it right now it says may and if we change it to shell would that help in your situation no no i think i think the problem that me animal control officers from what i read in the minutes was that they felt they were forced to deem some dogs dangerous that really shouldn't be and the type of examples they gave in that was if a burglar broke into a dog owner's home and the dog to get the burglar of the dog had to be deemed dangerous requiring them to you know carry out take on maybe expensive insurance or in the other conditions of danger to dangerous dog ownership so i think they were right in that sense what i question in the basis of my testimony is their lack of training and their inconsistent applications of the laws ok so yes i think the may just open the doors to really reveal the inconsistency in their training and application and that's what i'm calling attention to to address and also that the board animal control board really has very limited oversight to even when they disagree with the animal control officers behavior to make any change definitive ordinance that helps them make decisions especially in the area where the dog is deemed dangerous but they only looking at if the dog was deemed dangerous you know and as far to i i contacted the animal control board in my case to make an appeal and what i was discovered is their research a lot of confusion over their authority to even hear my my case actually it turned out that i was only allowed to have a complaint not an appeal the way the core of the code is written it only gives the animal control board jurisdiction to hear cases were a dog was deemed dangerous by the animal control officers but not vice versa for in my case and this had really serious implications to aspire as the criminal aspect of the case that allowed the case for example to be pleaded down to a leash violation so anyway what i think needs to be changed just well is someone needs jurisdiction when animal control officers fail to deem dogs dangerous in really serious situations where there's a death to ago receive a copy of the correspondence from the parks director once waco to the committee regarding the six questions and i subsequently actually  called the job or office to clarify a few things because i just if there's some new news in here but what i did learn from the job or office is that there are still numerous  areas of concern that need to be clarified before a deal on our can actually begin issuing permits for ocean activities when the jurisdictional issues the county has jurisdiction in the land down to the jurisdiction from the high water mark out to three miles in between is the sand and that's kind of a he wasn't even sure really who has jurisdiction there he said probably land division but it's not even sure so if somebody calls for guidance or lessons for for instance let's say windsurfing kite surfing or surfing going to meet them in the park go through some safety stuff there proceed down to the beach maybe talk about how to enter the water there survey the conditions and then go in the water to do the rest of the lesson so basically we're going through all three jurisdictional areas so i asked  or is it possible that someone might have a permit from the county but not the state and vice versa the answer is yes so it becomes difficult then for the the one that signing up for the service to actually know what they're going to get because if you only have access to the park but you can't go down to the beach or the water that's not a very good complete service or vice versa if you can go to the water but you can't meet in the park you have to meet sort of someplace outside the park or whatever that's kind of odd so i think you can see there is a need still for a coordination between agencies and development of the admin roles that are consistent and so that a proper authority professional service can be provided there are many other areas too but that's a good example of why i think both of these proposals should be deferred to chamber ok thank you i'm going to turn to the district offices in hama district office is there anyone wishing to testify thank you and when i just took off this is there anyone wishing to testify ok thank you ladies so i'm going to close without objections i'm going to close public testimony no objections thank you members turning to the first item on today's agenda e r thirty seven of the committee's receipt of county communication fifteen dash twenty two from the mayor transmitting the proposed bill to repeal section seven of the ordinance thirty one forty three and number two the correspondence dated october twentieth two thousand and fifteen from the department of corporation counsel transmitting a revised proposed bill entitle the bill for ordinance amending ordinance number thirty one forty three relating to chapter five point two four of the maori county code really into the ocean recreational activity business permits and chapter thirteen point zero four of the maui county code relating to recreational area regulations members that our last meeting we discussed the proposed bills to  the transition provisions in ordinance thirty one forty three as amended by ordinance thirty one ninety eight and thirty two sixty five during the last meeting we had testifiers that had express concerns about several issues number one being that whether the bill would permit kora activities in parks where they are now prohibited number two whether current corps permit holders would be subject to a future state requirement for environmental assessment and number three whether the legislative history of the current ordinance would be preserved at the request of this committee i pose those questions to a corporation counsel response via the letter we're going to have mr to explain his responses and also put on the record the questions to those responses also we had  testifiers who had questions for the parks department concerning actions with regards to the kora now and in the future mr point in saying whoa is here to go over that letter as well as address any questions that you may have the letter is dated november nineteenth two thousand and fifteen and it is also in your binders members at this time i am going to turn the floor just briefly we don't feel they repeating section seven will have any effect over the parks currently prohibited as explained more in the letter regardless of the  repeal activity or perhaps at those beaches essentially for question two if the state has a requirement for an environmental assessment will recommend the department of parks and recreation to follow the and comply and as far as the legislative history and intent as stated it's sorry they're standing that legislative history will remain as it is historical and as far as the intent intent it looks like the intense changed as you know council is change that's why you guys have the authority to amend ordinances in the code because things change your intent changes so if you have any questions i'll be available thank you thank you members on this portion of the responses given by mr we will cut you have any questions from the department can you please place on the record the questions and your responses and and or any comments and explanations chair thank you chair again to go over the six questions answered to grow the park rangers the department hopes to go ahead and clean up the courses so that we currently have with that number one question for number two the department's vision for i'm as discussed in the in the past you know going through the changes with current had to get any way out of cali aspect our department aspect of making it somewhat sustainable with fees being charged with to what's being put back into the department so we can go ahead and get the facilities to where it needs to be enforcement to our needs to be so somewhere down the line of some type of concession or enterprise platform is what the department has been looking into and as we look to other counties that's right now that it doesn't really affect us at this point dealers nucor permitting procedures are requirements but again can we guarantee the state could implement that in the future no we can't guarantee they could but it would affect them as well as well  they're not asking anyone for an e t a from any of the state the littler permits as well for a number for as far as including the stakeholders with current corps permit holders we will get to that stage once we get through the process and planning with them as far as what's fair for everyone and how do we get the initiative to see where we're going to head to in the future for corporates number five  kerry capacities the two thousand six thirty as you can see it's a pretty thick book as we can study as we looked through it there wasn't a real true number so as far as i question it they didn't do any kind of caring capacities per beach in that find that kind of study we were unhappy it is perceived in that study but we haven't even attempted to go ahead and do the two thousand sticks or add on to the six current study that was proposed and chaired just to a little quick on the update with  what was testified is and i also had a meeting with paul societal who is the boat side of the our who runs the programming for state they are he is does have the green light to see permits today if he chose to county is not in a holder for any kind of requirements on the state side to issue corporate well there is a call different but they do issue that every county has started it the only reason why paul hasn't done it is because he wants to set up a system with the county like mentioned earlier there is that cross section of how do you get to the beach if you can't cross the county property and then again place for so you need to get a right to entry whether it's private or public or anything else or state so they are working his biggest thing is he mentioned as well as a lot of our current core permit holders currently don't have a state so we have access to exit to our exit and enter to our beaches or to our county properties but realistically they don't have a permit to be in the water on a state site so again but again it hasn't been enforced there is never been you know that hasn't been an issue however we want to clean that up and while we can only be the first to implement on a state side we're working together as one and their fee structure as well is different so they do a twenty per month greater of the fourteen ok so you know it's not like something that's been existing for a long time and many of the car operators are now in the process of trying to get their permits to the state because they never were required to get that  thank you for that clarification because i wanted to make sure that people understood that this wasn't something that's been going on for a long time it was a recent change for deal an r and actually for the state to we could have some benefit as far as the uses of the beaches  chair my concern with this this bill is that we it was communicated to us that you guys are going to take care of all the the overall to changes in the the next item up and then come back and deal with cora after all that was done so this seems like a piecemeal very small section of the core rules why are we not doing this along with a revisit of the core rules and what is what's to be gained by us making this change now it's what's the purpose here is it to my understanding again going through it is in the ear language is the key factor none of this will affect anything that was mentioned as far as we're moving that fact there are with the code revisions again we haven't even touched the code of asians as the folks are going through it now i don't think you know it's going to be a while and i think looking at it we need to try and get something changed within the coral is moving forward with that on a separate piece and not have it bundled up where it is part of the admin rosaries for the court revisions but to get it to where we need to get to if we are shooting for a fiscal year part of it to get a change in the koran you know with myself and the car council we felt that we should move forward on this part of the aspect and get that going now because otherwise i don't think we'll get to it come down for the fiscal and it's one aspect on the aspect of the department standpoint as you know we all can have some as well department the language currently in this section seven essentially locks in the the people who had permits since chapter five point two four was in effect no one else can have a permit except those people without first getting the environmental assessment so if there's going to be any changes to the actual permit the site you need to get rid of section seven we have vice or of course you could do that yes but i believe that's a bit cumbersome and it doesn't seem realistic that that the party will be out of completing a year for each and every beach park thank you have you done a review as to whether or not an e t a has been required by the state in other ocean permanently such as the you we asked her to be our resource and she's been sitting there still would it be alright to ask her that what does she think and what are the main sticking points to deception i'm not talking about the others we're going to work but we're just talking about this section at this time which could these if you allow that you're please if those of you that were around ten or fifteen years ago you remember the trouble we got ourselves into when finance was was unfettered in their parks or in their permit issuing they basically there was no guidance to them to control how many permits were available at each facility so there became too much activity at some of the smaller parks and the public was really upset and that caused a lot of pain to you folks and to the public and to the many of the core operators as well so the lesson there is that it's important to understand where we're going before we go there and to know what the carrying capacity of the park and of the ocean in front of the park is and how are we going to make sure that we don't make that same mistake again so one of the things that i talk to mr since i know about is if a operator for instance at a friend that lived near park and the friend said sure you can cut through my property he could then access the ocean next door to cove park and paddle his groups around and do his lessons in co park and he'd be no violation to any county code because he's not accessing the park he's actually in the state water and the deal in our permit is for all state waters it's not bifurcated in any way so obviously that wouldn't be a desired outcome and he also said that the admin rules that they're working on are basically just ratios ratios for surfing and ratios for sup but no limits on quantity so for instance are saying four to one ratio for surfing but you could have tanner one hundred instructors so you could still have you know forty fifty sixty four hundred people in the water in front of all of our prohibited parks to amano lonia poco cove park there is no limit at the state level on how to do that so as long as they have access through encumbered lands or through private property and they've got a permit for state waters they've got access to do all that so it just seems to me there's issues still to be worked out ok maybe i would will affect in any way the state issues i will say that currently in place the parks department adopted a few years ago now more on administrative rules which set forth a limit on the number of permits that can be issue  at each beach park it was internal created limits i believe parks department staff to can consideration beach park sizes parking  took into account may come ocean safety officer recommendations when coming up with those numbers there are racial is included in there those ratios were my understanding at the time i don't quote me on it but it was primarily for control not necessarily in the water because i know it sounds bad but the water isn't really our jurisdiction but it's more just to keep track of the people and make sure they were doing what they were supposed to do on shore late there were certain things that the parks department didn't want happening like you don't want that dragged across the grass because my understanding is it kills the grass in certain areas you don't want people trampling need of plants that type of stuff in the parks so that's what the ratios were intended for and there are in the car administrative rules so as far as this deletion of section seven it primarily was to remove the requirement of the year before permits are issued to anyone other than those people who had them on their chapter five point two four and the car administrative rules also have a process in it for them i believe it's a lottery system for the these core rules and i remember the numbers were just astonishing image and they showed us pictures of fifty surfboards laying across the grassy area waiting for people to become up and go out to the beach i know there was some changes there were many well at that time so what i'm trying to i guess like mr white in my mind i'm trying to as a team why this is so important and i keep going back to that e a yet when we ask you the question you s required the state has not required any right it's true thank you chair it was our understanding that in was not required by the state yes it was a self imposed requirement by this circumventing the rules it's really to do something that maybe at the time we thought was a great idea and i don't know if i was a part of that creation no it wasn't here that i thank you thank you for shaking your head instead of your kind of you know but i couch thank you as chair kind of still a little bit want to just clear what's being said currently if let's say we have ten permits allowed for this one spot somebody drops out you know a business goes out of business that was given the the permit mister wants to do his spear fishing out of there his scuba diving out of there and wants to go into that slot that's been open you would have to do a is that correct or no mr you think you know i would until the colony repairs and accept an environmental assessment in accordance with chapter three forty three oil rights that drive for that area ok so in removing repealing chapter seven it doesn't change the cap it just changes the fact that the new person doesn't have to do or doesn't have to the county doesn't have to do any for the new person becoming mr heriot i think it yes it would allow for issuance of permits to people under you know that weren't on there five point two four but it will not allow the eleven at that one park that the cap to set at ten correct the currently the ministry of rules set a cap over there is language because the cap didn't necessarily line up with the number of permits that were outstanding at the time the rules were created and it was not the intent of the parks department at the time to kick anyone now so the rules do state that you know if there's over like if there are currently fifty but the rule said can at that beach park for that activity those people would continue to keep getting their permits but once you got down to ten then they wouldn't issue the eleven but the fifteen would be my other permit holders feel better if we can get an answer this is the department intend to put all the permits out for a lottery or only the ones that have been vacated because it sensually our permits are year to year there is no guarantee of a reissue it's just we've been reissued because we're the only ones so under the new system does the permit department intend to just and our permits and then put them all out for a lottery are permits for one year and those perscribe process for a new permits is to go through a lottery system is my understanding so these are year to year permits thank you depart you have any comments  point we don't intend to have anyone lose their permits because of this language that is not intend whatsoever however if we move to a concession style in the future it would be of free bid for everyone in that sense to go ahead and bid out a core permit but again that hasn't even gotten to that point we haven't even talked to the groups who are going to do community user groups but a good six and shut seven that's not the intent of that the intent of some of that is again we have a lot of  lot we have some parks that are below the usage that could be issued say permit and then we have those that are you know so called grandfathered in the over the carrying capacity that obviously would entice but there are a few vendors out there that would like to get in with those spots that are available right now with the current language we couldn't even issue that out for the model time that we do have in the event that we do change the whole course language in the future for admin whose but for right now we're going to six or seven wouldn't have any kind of deviation towards that thank you mr white just a question are we doing the permanent by lottery now currently again looking at all the user groups again have multiple permits and they've just been renewed by a year to year the lottery would kick in to the effect when we do have it open spot at that point would kick in a lottery to go out and field out in the interim because a lot in the rules is the lottery applied only to the open the open permits or his intent to go i think the concern is whether or not the intent is to go to a lottery for all permits your yoga thank you current mr why they haven't been doing a lottery because under the rules basically only people eligible for the people who had permits so they just kept removing the existing permits moving forward i'm not sure how the parks department would treat it but just the reminder that this is basically obviously it's commercial activity on county property so there needs to be some type of process to allow for you know equal access you know in accordance with various rules and laws and i understand that i'm just trying to get clear in my mind whether the rules state that the permit should rules technically right now for every new permit we've ever issued we were going to follow the lottery we have not issued a new card that we've renewed existing permits over the last ten years that's so we are in compliance with  rules here and you could read me what it says about a lottery because it made it sound like the the rule permits every year need to be done by a lottery i think this or yoko said that the only persons are would be the only persons that are eligible i those that order me a permit as it currently is so i don't want to ask them about that what the eligibility wh understand that if you understand if you have a permit now you're you're safe under the application well anyway to answer the first part regarding i believe it's called the permit drawing in the rules if the director determines at the con of permits issued allows for issuance of an additional permit the director shall publish in a newspaper of general circulation with the county for a minimum three consecutive days on notice of a drawing for the technically theoretically if you remove this all of the permits would then become available within that they are currently they don't really become available because the limitation on who's eligible to have a car a perm with section seven still in existence is limited to those parties that had one under five point two four which is a limited group a finite group of people so it's hard to see how the director would interpret this language case so that if we eliminate section seven then that leaves it up to the director to decide whether the current permit holders will continue to hold permits he could deem them all  and then they would all have to go out buy lottery based on the rules can renew permits there's a permit renewal feature in the rules so it would be allowed to remain thank you yeah i'm just i'm a little uncomfortable because it sounds like the department has the ability to cancel all permits and then reissue them based on a lottery and i and that had to be in a it's going to put the industry in a position like that without first having gone through with the the stakeholders a process of reviewing what's you know what's broken and what's not broken in the system  changes or not with a year i still have the authority to stop all korra activities based on the judgment of the director so that really hasn't you know i understand where you're coming from with that but realistically that could be done even without th holders you know some of the reasons are we know when it's when the one place they can go to the next that's one time year two times a year or seven days throughout the year you know you're holding someone else on a public space to be used and they may be fine with these in that whole beach for the whole year just to have a core apartment we can't even allow that a department to let anyone else in the door who hasn't already been grandfathered in for say with the corporate owners so i feel on a public standpoint we need to be public space you know leaving the e a out at least those that are available will have the opportunity to go for the lottery and for bid there is no intent from the department to take away anybody's problem that is not the intent of this at all we want to see them strive we want to see that we're all to do good for the communities they help out with us as well as not the intent is just to get a fair across the for saying that we remain have you on record as saying then if that if something changes if we were to pass this in something changes without major public hearings you have to come back before this body at some time way to the whole so wipe it all out and redo it is just for new people coming in that for open slots if that's the intention then i'm fine with that but otherwise and till you have the meetings and  like it's been said in many testimonies there were a lot of meetings star we started this in two thousand and four going through and there was a lot of discussion back and forth to get to where we got where we are today yeah they need to be tweaked in things that change so yes hopefully we redo the whole thing but with a lot of public hearing a lot of outreach not  not piecemeal but at one big time this one i understand so that we can get things going in the purpose that are available to for better use so i can support that so long as we have your with the group user groups as well as a community groups and we come to an agreement on what kind of concession or whatever we may be decide in the future for the county's sake of getting revenue from it you know that at that point in time but there are no user groups that are currently who have a c it was our intent to again like i said get rid of it is the case we have every opportunity that the fiscal year and just drop it from that point on based on feasibility or whatever the circumstances are but the so yes that's a question there is no intent for that we just would like needed to move forward before we could i guess the department could start looking and i wanted to know when that would occur in conjunction to having to pass this out thank you chair the plan had been that once we get through the larger thirteen zero four code revisions that we would then move into starting the process with cora and as we did with thirteen zero four and a lot of our permits we did the series of public meetings in a lot of our different community areas met with different more type focus groups with a little bit more in detail with what are the issues what are we trying to address what are the maybe challenges that need to be looked at further and then kind of develop the game plan in the language moving forward and for these quarter visions that we're going through currently or will be going through again today i mean that was about a two and a half year process i've been working on that since i came into the parks department i don't anticipate cora changes being taking us quite that long because it's definitely more of a focused group and targeted group that we would be working with but it would probably at the rate we're going through  now would probably be in four to six months from now that we would be able to start that process with quora forty six months ok any other questions from the members  seeing at this time only one more question if if we were to defer this matter four to six months and address it at the same time as we do the quarter visions is that  is that going to be detrimental to the department and if so can you please explain what are the consequences of not passing this out prior to code revisions as it affects the permit holders current with the same questions and same answers when you know we could possibly get to that point now again it's up to this body to get to that point but the biggest thing is there are spots open people are waiting and that will be the you know the number see these kind of get that going in the aspect of filling the spot we currently have and because of the that section seven there is a required for all  this i'd like to entertain a motion to recommend the passage of the rise proposed no the bill for an ordinance amending ordinance number thirty one forty three relating to the chapter five point two for county code relating to the ocean recreational activity business permits and chapter thirteen point zero four of the mallet county code related to recreational area regulations at filing of the communication and further discussion mr couch yeah that's what i was going to ask is if we needed to file this if we were to repeal this and then that item doesn't come up but we still have core related items in this and different think a lot of the issues that were not all of the issues that were presented by the testifiers including the weather the repeal of this section would now allow core activities in prohibited areas they would not also the other issues the core permit holders would be subject to future state requirements for environmental assessments well we really don't have any jurisdiction over the state they can do as they will if they want to require a environmental assessment and it's up to the state we can't stop them from doing that requirement and whether the legislative history of the current or in its would be preserved it appears that it is if you fall the track of the of the ordinances and the amendments within the body of the law yes mr  first but i was tired so i could teach you ok with what we're trying to attempt to do and still knowing that we're going to we're working as part of this other section  of how those lottery system is intended to work just for the vacant permits yes maybe a little bit remaining concern when he mentioned that some permits perhaps are under utilized and perhaps the department feel going to be more utilized and i feel that there is still pertinent and relevant issues with balancing commercial use with public use right and i don't want to sound self serving but i am very aware that if there are problems at cove park it affects me anywhere else because we all end up being labeled as bad guys so i'm just maybe hyper sensitive that maybe permits that appear to be underutilized maybe they're utilized to that level because that's what feels right at that park with the public that uses that park you know there's been some pressure to use some of the permits more so that there's more revenue but i think that might actually then tip the scales the other way and you might end up getting complaints like we had before so i just worry a little bit about lifting section seven and having there be no official guidance opinion and what you stated to us today and i think you agree that this may be a first step in many steps we have to take so let me assure you this is not the end all just the beginning of your most important t charity i want to be able to give parks department and i really want to see how the state proceeds on their permit and this is going to be one interesting factor because i know how ours work there's still a graphic to make there's a we put it together and so we may be an ass is putting the cart before the horse in this respect but the state has to somehow come up with their plan very soon so we have a better understanding of how we're going to be administrating the sea issues you know because again we can get into the to the highway high watermark or whatever you want call it from there on is it's a state and if they don't have their act together which is sounding like right now they're still graphically to get that it's going to be a real challenge for these these car operators but be working a work in process and we well according to the department is going to be working with you you folks all the way through when they start addressing the code revisions i feel comfortable about passing this through only because of the fact that it appears to be addressing those permits that are open and to allow others to go and get that permit without having to go  through and i've heard as surance as from the department on record that he will not touch the existing permit that hold the permit right now so i'm going to hopefully hold them to that and budget is through the regular process this portion here we've had the assurances while they can if they wanted to revamp the whole thing after if we were to pass this we have the assurances that they won't it's only for the new people so  you know you and mr victory and i have put them on notice that if we pass this and they play games with it that that's not a good thing right so i can support it with those assurance and don't forget existing rules or sections of the code just to just get a few more things on the record have the ability to require an e a to be done by any new korra applicant or existing african o existing permit holder misrule you i guess i would answer in the affirmative on that if they wanted to rebut choir that of their of themselves they could put that requirement up on the department or i guess they could add it in his application requirement but some have the ability to do it i don't think it would but as far as the ability it i guess it exists any and tension of requesting to be done by or by any of the applicants or permit holders or in the future requiring one before any permits can be renewed five eyes no nos two excuse motion carries they can members moving on to the next agenda item numbers here forty two that this is the to establish the chapter thirteen point zero for any of them our county code relating to the parts and recreational facilities and amend section six point zero four point zero nine a county code relating to animal control officers the committees receive the county communication fifteen dash two three seven from the director of budget transmitting a proposed bill entitled the bill for an ordinance repealing chapter thirteen point zero for now a county code and establishing a new chapter thirteen point zero for a county code relating to the parks and recreational facilities and amending s zero four point zero nine zero of the maori county code relating to animal officers or animal control officers the purpose of the proposed bill is to repeal chapter thirteen point zero four relating to recreational area regulations stablish a new chapter which was thirteen point zero four of the maori county code relating to parks and recreational facilities and as well as amending section six point zero four point zero nine zero of the county code relating to animal control officers members today we will continue our considerations of the parks requested overall of the chapter  county code relating to the park's regulations i believe that our last meeting we went through article one and we were cut short halfway through article two in  see on the left hand side of the of the document you have the proposed amendments and i doubt right hand side you have the existing what is currently in the law and in the middle we have changes these are the changes that have or issues that have been brought forth by the council members or the constituents to the council members on their behalf and as we discuss the sections we place those issues and our concerns in the change section so at the very and walked around the more clarification anything in read is actually being deleted am i correct in  to try to do is get through article two and three and hopefully be ambitious enough to get to article five but our main goal is to at least finish article three we have some members that are going to be leaving us shortly around three o'clock so we may lose quorum so we'll try to get as far as we can instructed the department to go ahead and proceed with the overview of of the articles and after each section if you have questions or concerns or issues raised in that section please bring those forth so that we can make note of those and add those to the changes category for our next meeting mr couch yet i brought up one on through the the charts in the sections and as we go through them if you have issues that are raised please bring them forward so that we can then put that in the change section once we have gone through the entire articles to the very end we'll go back and address those specific issues or many minutes and make a vote on those so that it gives all the members enough time to look at all the different issues once were completed be able to see all the different issues in changes in the change section and then when we have the final few meetings we can vote specifically on those items and then that will be of our draft that will be our end product so i think at this point or go ahead and continue with article two again if you have issues that up at the very top of this page as you see we're starting into article two which is probations so in the first section you'll see some obviously the numerical changes and then just some very general language changes but for the most part the facility it is unlawful for any individual to and you'll see this as a consistent change again throughout the entire dark it document person in persons was changed to individual and individuals so you see that underlying change  some of this is just being placed in a different order you'll see on the right hand column the existing number one abandoning of the vehicles shows is being deleted but then it's entered in again just in different  e on the following page nineteen as item number eleven so it's not that it's completely being deleted the language is just being changed and it's being moved into a different a different  location so also within this section zero seven zero there's three different sections section a section b and section c and so will start off just running through section a the first item it shows is throw or dispose any refuse or waste material except in a reciprocal designated for such purpose number to destroy the injured you face or remove in any manner any public structure sign equipment monument or device and perhaps care for time to me to read through things that haven't changed or just the items that are being changed into the members which is go through the items that have been changed thank you and i know that some of you need to leave so please let me but you're leaving india just raise your that you so i did number four in the list reads as allow any animal to enter or remain within the park except as provided in subsection d and this is corresponds with item number three in the existing column so again just a little bit of rewording i don't five bring dogs into recreational facilities except for guide signal hearing and service dogs as defined in sixteen zero five zero one zero of this code number six is an additional fee to any animal or animals or stage any food or water for any animal or animals except as provided in subsection d i don't number seven bring into your possess commercial shopping carts whether attended or not item ten abandon store or the personal property unintended in any  bathroom or other structure following on page nineteen eleven abandon any vehicle for a period in excess of twenty four hours twelve sleep or lie on picnic tables or place personal betting on picnic tables and thirteen conduct any rummage or secondhand sales so this first section a again is items that would be prohibited in any and all park in recreational  facilities or parks all the time the next section b is except as otherwise authorized by a permit licensed lease or contract issued in accordance with this code when i separate that is there any  as defined so you're saying that for instance in the climate part of billions they can't bring their dogs i understand probably why you wouldn't want to be inside a community center if i can refer back to my definitions for just a moment chair ok yet based on the definition on page thirteen the way this is written that would include pavilions and so that would be something we should probably look to make an adjustment to ok and i'm not sure why i depends on how everybody so these are the things that you know we have to discuss a little bit more i agree days a little more difficult to control because it is open most provisions are fairly open structures and they're not what you go to help keep buy and whatever  however on the other site outside of guide dogs and all that there may be some limitations that we may want to impose on that so again subject to be discussed i mean i definitely so would just note that for our change category three and mr couch thank you on this on the next page just out of curiosity why conduct any rummage or secondhand item sells because usually if we have a craft fair sometimes there might not allowed in the parks facilities for many many years things like again when we say rummage sales garage sales secondhand sales craft fairs are a very very different topic you know and we have specific administrative roles towards those you know any types of art that's created or you know forms of arts and crafts that's created out of maybe recycled goods wouldn't be things that we would consider rummage sale material that would fall into craft fair material so this is just really preventing again the garage sales dried sale types of things to be taking place on parks property and it's it's just been the opinion of the department over the years that that's not an as one of the concerns and issues that number thirteen and the other concerns for the sections member numbers i have one on number six feet any animal or animals or stage any food or water for any animal or animals except for provided in subsection d subsection d is just to be your pets right so are we talking about i ca animals of any kind if you set of a feeding station you end up with more and more of the same animal if there is a contr an animal colony is going to be done that could be set up through the parks department with a permit but to just have anybody come in and start their own feeding station whatever kind of feeding station it stuart of kind becomes a health and safety issue because there's no control over that kind of random feeding so it was felt that that would be appropriate to prohibit entirely if we want to put some kind of exception in so that it can be done with an agreement of some kind of memorandum of understanding intrade with the parks department we can probably modify it a little bit to make that happen but just to let anybody come in and start feeding animals randomly is a bad idea started and then abandoned it to animals don't go away and we have a really a real challenge with feral cats and chickens and other issues you want chickens we've got lots of chickens up there and people continuously feed them and that's one of the big complaints i get from the public is that as fighting weed for saying this is our visitors who feel so compelled to go feed the animals and then they  just keep hanging out there so i have to agree that i would like to see normal ability by anyone to feed animals i mean these prohibited no i mean people do it but i would like to keep that from becoming our parks legacy of encouraging feral animals of any nature but that's my own take on that they get your guests in discussion i guess we weren't on the same day because my because my my my thoughts are there has to be a distinction between staging or like stationary feeding versus you know i've seen a few animals that i throw my sandwich to or something like that i know i'm not supposed to do that but yeah i know you know what i mean but is that going to be a lot of violation just by one you know one toss of a you know half a sandwich to an animal that's there i don't know  that or hard to quantify yeah you can feed this much but not that much it's easy to say no feeding it's hard to say you can feed only a little bit any other thoughts on that mr cup mr white i'm in the same always draw my that's not an issue for me it was just you and perhaps sure if i could just interject i was blending on delving into the animal stuff in a little bit more detail there are  more references when we get into section d and then the humane society also has a resource that's here available at this meeting as well we were able to meet with them last week and talk through some of this in a little more detail so it it may be of the license or contract issued these would not be allowed and so the the first one to be present during designated closed hours for the park a recreational facility between the hours of ten pm and six am or when close to the public pursuant to subsection thirteen zero four a zero four zero b one that reference goes to the items we discussed previously where if a facility is closed because of  maintenance purposes or posing a safety hazard for health or public safety you'll see most of the other two through nine remain the same number ten as addition display or set off  fireworks number eleven after engage in commercial activity adding including catering or other commercial food distribution number twelve provide classes lessons or teaching or instruction number thirteen bring in to possess dispose of any animal or human room manes sorry but those in the human or animal remains number fourteen you'll see that item number fourteen it was really just more of a reorganization of separate items that were listed in the existing under number nine and then ten and eleven so instead of listing them each separately we condensed them and put  in a b and c categories so it would be consuming the intoxicating liquor a between the hours of ten p m and six a m so those are during the close hours of the facilities be at any time in any public restroom and see within one thousand five hundred foot radius of the boundary of any public or private preschool kindergarten elementary intermediate middle secondary or high school or youth center between the hours  to remind the members that tomorrow friday will be bringing up the redefinition of parks and we talked about archery in the parks that we kind of allowed it in county parks archery except for were permitted because we may at some time open up an archery park or something like that like we have the firing range ok why don't we put that noted down because we public private schools and you could everything else is still private right and public great my question is you know when we have state and county holidays there are some preschool there are some private schools that do not take or do not recognize certain days especially on the area of religious days like good friday i have known a certain schools that are still open on that day so my question is when you see  county you've kind of you know left at as a little capsule i'd like to put that as a concern and look into that matter to make sure that that bases covered because i just hate to have something happen to give it's a state or county holiday and what about federal because sometimes federal we don't recognize their days and they don't recognize our day like for example can heal and then we have just a federal days that we don't recognize also so anyone just up to make sure we're all clear with that ok here  so section c on the top of page twenty again you'll see that primarily this already exists is currently in the existing code just added in some language within any park or recreational facility in item number one throw cast roll catch kick or strike any object including but not limited to frisbees discs boomerangs baseballs tennis balls football soccer balls basketballs croquet balls bowling balls golf balls or any other ball or similar object and then expounded on item number two right on roller skates skateboards bicycles or similar devices with wheels section d animals again you'll see most of these are currently in the existing just changed some language you'll see consistently that instead of things only referring to dogs it was changed to any animal or animals so broadening that scope item number three you'll see is added in pet owners must pick up animal feces produced by their pet and dispose of same in a receptacle again we have the change on item number four of individual from persons either number six again one additional saying including in any dog park at the end item number seven which is also similar to believe it was item number six in section  win show feed any animal or animals or stage any food or water for any animal or animals provided that pet owners may provide water and training treats for their pets and then also an additional is feral animal colonies shall not be c we didn't get a chance to talk about it but you know why don't we backtrack really quickly which was what is yours similar devices with wheels what was the intent on that thing is that you know you've got segues now and  i guess i just saw in the paper the other day and the ad for those mini segues which are just two wheels up platform that with the intent was is that is excluding those if the director department yes we wanted to be able to not just it gets difficult when we list things specifically because technology is technology's changing the way that people recreate and the equipment is constantly changing and so i wanted to be able to include when and if it's necessary other types of pieces of equipment that may have wheels that could  action there's he have a thing in a i guess it's been in the existence before but the owner or handler of any animal should not tie the animal to an object so if  owner is that just because the owner is supposed to be in control of the animal at all times and you don't want to tie them to a picnic table or something or a tree and walking away is that that shelter last week to talk about potential concerns that were raised with the proposed language in the new ordinances and we had some great conversation made some good progress and you know ultimately how talked a lot about a lot of the issues that we already know we have a lot of cats in our community they are here whether they're in parks land or personal property or wherever there are cats and how do we manage that and our goal is to manage it in our goal humanely manage that population that already exists we're not saying we want more it's already here we're already dealing with it what we discussed is the the goal of the language in this proposed ordinance was to put better controls on how those cats i'm using cats specifically even though this says animals but talking about feral animal colonies focusing on cats the goal of the language in this was to better manage the problem behaviors of having cats like that managed in the park so that would be the what we call conservative nuisance feeding you know someone throwing out lines upon lines of their sandwiches or opening we're just go dumping a value of cat food through the parking lot and calling that feeding the animals in the animal welfare community that's not considered appropriate or responsible management of a feral animal population and we agreed with the parks department that the goal would be to have a better managed kept managed feeding situation in the parks and to discourage that irresponsible feeding and the nuisance feeding that then you know is making a mess in the public areas and everything appropriate and well managed feeding stations can actually draw the cats further away from those public areas can actually help manage those cat numbers as well if cats are are able to monitor that group of cats more closely and see if there are cats in that population who aren't sterilized and then can use the resources that are available in our community for example threw them out humane society or through other organizations who provide spay neuter resources to ultimately have the goal of having fewer cats in these areas if eating is allowed willy nilly by anyone sporadically here and there then that pull kept away from those focused feeding stations it doesn't allow that population to be managed as closely that also encourages those cats to come out to those areas where i may not want them as much and by having  by having a more managed a way to deal with those cats in the parks it can actually help prevent that nuisance feeding we've seen great success in other communities who have they've got signs up in their parks and please don't feed the cats these cats are part of a managed colony because if you out now banned the feeding in the parks you're just going to get more bleeding hearts who are saying here have some more food and you're just going to end up contributing to the problem if folks visitors or community members alike understand culch you have you're saying that there are manage colonies in parks well the definition of manager is a little fuzzy there are folks who are on their own through their own compassion in their own commitment to take responsibility for feeding in certain areas and there's no regulation there's no oversight to that at this time so that's what these ordinances for the park was trying to put some cap or regulation on who can and can't do feeding as it was originally written and propose no one could do feeding after our meeting in conversation we had last week it was certainly the mal you mean society's position that that isn't the goal and isn't going to get us our community to the goal we're looking for and so one option discussed was that if you're wanting to be feeding in the in the parks then you would go through an approval prior approval process which would allow some chance for education to be provided about how responsibly and in best interests of the community the cats in the parks mr couch which is i understand what she's saying there but if you were to kind of read this it looks like number eight is feral animal you shall not be established  language that's in the proposed this is the same as again what the department initially proposed in the language and so we wanted to be able to share cause some of the same conversation that we were able to have with the molly humane society with the committee  and some of the ideas that we brainstormed you know again where possibly maybe there is more of a again a some type of a registration process which yes equal rights to a another type of a permit that may be issued or there was more of a vetting process if this was something that we were concerned about if it's just that you know straight out saying this cannot take place in parks is going to create more problems for the a feral animal colonies that we're trying to just maybe manage a little bit better that there could be other options to word this as opposed to just saying you can or cannot that there could be other other ways to look at managing it just by changing the language mr white thank you i  have some concerns about it i think if we're going to allow colonies to be fed it should be limited to the for lack of a better term the wilder parts of our parks like there are there are areas in q four lonnie that would probably be ok but i wouldn't want the feeding stations to be at the baseball field at the soccer fields or the pavilions and things of that sort so i'm i'm comfortable not allowing them because i think there are places i'd like to draw them away from the parks so i am comfortable with the wording as it is but if there is going to be a change then i think it needs to be done in such a way that we we make it very clear that this is not to be in places like kilometer park which is near residential areas it's heavily used and i don't think that's back to that and see what type of language you're askin come up with any other questions in this section mr kelly yeah on seven would training treats be mr goodman sandwich that he throws to his dog seriously yes people are having a big go they got their dog or they're going to throw some some other leftovers or that's ok right care i don't think anybody's going to police what exactly the treat is that ok a difference in how you feeding animals or randomly  are you working with your pet gotcha ok i just want to make sure that there nobody's going to be in trouble for doing that so we'll just continue the dialogue between yourself the humane society and the department i mean really  to the final section in this section easy motor vehicles the director may prohibit or restrict the operation or parking of motor vehicles and then the final one on the top of page twenty one f any other user activity may be permitted by the director in accordance with the terms of this chapter in the rules of the department i mean and again both of those items are just some minor changes versus what's in the existing people writing scooters through that special on the new sidewalk that was the walking path so while you're at it why don't we go ahead and put that down as a possible issue have court facilities again just a few minor changes in this again you'll see the reflection of the person being changed in an individual the numbering system under three we added polani park a little bit more of an address cation just so that it was consistent with how most of the other locations are listed for the prohibitions you'll just again see the separated those into their own line item on a quiet beach part number six seven charlie young eight come only one nine come only two and then you'll see here in addition of while they park which is again the park here in central this is been a request that's come through a few different agencies there's been some meetings  with council members as well as with the homeless shelter in that area and just different concerns with m p t and just some of the activities taking place in that park area and so one of the things that we looked at proactively being able to do as requested by the shelter there as well would be to just go ahead and move forward with making this an alcohol free park so that would be the really only addition and change to to i think mr white might know this but i'm pretty sure i saw on the council agenda that there was a bill being submitted friday for wiley part for referral three was listed as operating policy and then at the very bottom of that page you'll see that article four used to be permanent fees and so a lot of this in the existing code that's shown as article three operating policy was moved into article one we had a separate subsection that was identified as operating policy so we've already gone over this section in article one but i just wanted to show this here s in the existing this is normally what the article three would look like as you know you know what i'm going to i apologize i think we only have five minutes left and i don't want to start the new article three and then have to repeat to the beginning of critical three so why don't we defer this item and we'll start with article three at our next meeting and hopefully everybody will have an opportunity to read ahead and jot down some of the issues that it would present as we go through the sections so without any objections members i would like to defer this matter to thank you this concludes today's