COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friday, March 28, 2025 11:40 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN NINA AHMAD, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY LOZADA, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS COUNCILMAN MICHAEL DRISCOLL COUNCILMAN NICOLAS O'ROURKE
Good morning, everyone. Welcome to Philadelphia City Council's Committee on Public Health and Human Services. I now note that the hour has come. Mr. Sham, will you call the roll.
I note for the record that a quorum of this Committee is present. This hearing is called to order. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Public Health and Human Services considering testimony on Bill No. 250213. Before we begin, do any of my colleagues have any opening remarks?
Should we just wait until Vince comes back to see if we can use their -- this is just about the bill. This is not --
This is just describing the bill. Should we do that in Spanish too?
I think that page is -- you might not have that. This is just he's going to give the Bill No. and (inaudible).
Yeah, and that's why you're here to testify. That's the conversation. We got it. We received it. We have all your names for testifying. At no point was there any conversation about language needs so that's why we didn't have them, but we received your email. We have all the 10 testifiers' names, absolutely. We are very cognizant that you had reached out and we are happy to have you here.
Thank you. We're going to find out who you sent it to. Frank, you guys said you have someone that can translate here?
As per instructions we just received, we can proceed with our hearing and when somebody wants to testify in Spanish, by that time we'll have the box here to be able -- for me to understand, for us to understand.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying we have a translator. We have a translator. We can get started then. Okay. All right. Sorry for the delay, but let me have the translator who's here please sit with the people who are testifying and to translate as they go as-needed and vice versa when it's in Spanish. So we are proceeding with the hearing. The Clerk will please read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 250213, amending Section 9-633 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sale of Electronic Smoking Devices and Unapproved Nicotine Delivery Products," to update definitions and to provide for additional penalties, enforcement and compliance options, all under certain terms and conditions.
The 11 Clerk will please call the first 12 witness to testify on this bill. 13 INTERPRETER: Hello. We 14 are calling the first witness to 15 testify to the court. 16
Ben Hartung, 17 Public Policy Advisor of the 18 Philadelphia Department of Public 19 Health. 20 (Witness approached 21 Witness table.) 22
23 (Spanish translation). 24 INTERPRETER: I will interpret in Spanish. But remember, you're working with an interpreter. I will do consecutive interpretation, but you have to help me out please so slow down your piece.
Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Ben Hartung. I'm Public Policy Advisor with the Department of Public Health. Good morning, Chair Ahmad, Vice-Chair Lozada and members of the Committee on Public Health and Human Services. I --
Just take a pause and let her just introduce you. INTERPRETER: Good morning. I'm Ben Hartung and I'm here from Public Health Department --
We just need you to speak in Spanish, not English. INTERPRETER: Sorry about that.
Yeah. Go ahead. INTERPRETER: This is improvised. My apologies. The interpreter wasn't ready for this kind of interpretation. I just was here present to help my colleagues from the Bodega's Association. So this is a little bit rough for me because sometimes -- I mean, when you are interpreting like this, you get prepared ahead of time with the material. And this is like an improvisation for me. So I'll do my best --
We appreciate your support, yes. This is for your community, yeah. INTERPRETER: So I'll do my best.
Okay. Should I start over are you saying? INTERPRETER: No, no. 8 You start where you stopped.
On behalf of Commissioner Raval-Nelson and the Health Department, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding Bill No. 250213. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
This bill 17 proposes amendments to the Philadelphia Code Section 9-633, entitled "Sale of Electronic Smoking Devices and Unapproved Nicotine Delivery Products." INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
The Health Department agrees with those goals of reducing youth access to vaping products. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
However, we have some concerns regarding whether the language of the bill as written will assist us with getting to that goal. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
The department is reviewing the amended language and will need guidance from the Law Department. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
We welcome continued dialogue on Bill No. 21 250213 to ensure that the goal of the bill will be achieved. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
We respectfully request that the bill 3 is held in committee to allow this continued engagement. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
Thank you for your testimony. I'll start with the first question. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
Could you provide the current number of licensed tobacco retailers operating in Philadelphia as of 2025? INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
I can follow up with that exact number to you very shortly. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
Do you have the estimated number of unlicensed tobacco retailers currently operating in the city? INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
That might be a harder number to find, but I can follow up with the information --
Need an approximation. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
Given that 149 retailers had their permits revoked in 2020 for noncompliance with age restrictions, representing roughly 6% of total retailers at that time, what -- INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
What percentage of retailers have violated age restrictions as of 2025? INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
Sorry. And just to make sure, what percentage current retailers have violations under the youth sale law?
I will follow up with that. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
In 2020, Pennsylvania reached a $38.8 million settlement with JUUL Labs. How much of this was allocated to Philadelphia and what programs or initiatives within the City have been funded by these monies?
In 2020, Pennsylvania reached a $38.8 million settlement with JUUL Labs. How much of this was allocated to Philadelphia and what programs or initiatives within the City have been funded by these monies?
And I apologize. The same response would be that response -- INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
So that money passed through the State Department of Health, so I'd have to get back to you on the specific number.
So did we get something here? INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
Just getting on the record the questions. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
How much revenue has the department collected from fines imposed on retailers for violations related to youth sales and where are these funds currently allocated? INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
Thank you for that question. I will have to follow up with you as well. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
Considering the current landscape of tobacco sales and youth access in Philadelphia, what specific amendments or additional measures would you recommend to strengthen Bill 250213? INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
So I've been unable to have a specific conversation since we received the amendments with Commissioner Raval- Nelson and Dawn Kiesewetter, who's the Director of Environmental Health Services, but we will be doing that very shortly. And like I said in my testimony, we'd love to continue this conversation with you and the Committee. INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
Does any of my colleagues have any questions of this -INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation). (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. And thank you so much for translating. We're going to -- INTERPRETER: (Spanish translation).
So we are just distributing the headsets so we will take hopefully a very, very short pause. (Brief recess.)
Again, sorry for the delay because we were not aware of the need for translation and now we are, and we do have those available. However, what we wanted to do was proceed with this hearing, get all the testimony in. Then we want to sit down with you and make sure we understand your concerns before we actually vote on this bill to get it out of committee. So at the call of the Chair, I will hear all of you, recess it, have a conversation with you and then we will convene again for my colleagues to vote on the recommendation on the bill. Can you say that?
Thank you so much, Councilmember. So just we are clear, this bill we're going to hear all testimony from everybody. This bill is only about changing the fine structure, not a conversation with what the Health Department does. That's a separate conversation how the Health Department does their work. My bill is just about changing what the fine is. That's it. Nothing else. So would the Clerk please call the next witness to testify on this resolution.
Dr. Andy Tan, Associate Professor of Communication at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Good afternoon. Thank you so much. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Committee as well as our community members in Philadelphia. I am Dr. Andy Tan. I'm Associate Professor and Director of the Health Communication Equity Lab at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication. I'm also Senior Fellow at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics at UPenn. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of Bill 250213, which would increase the penalties for retailers who sell electronic smoking devices and unapproved nicotine delivery products to minors. This will restrict an important source of such products to young people in our city and reduce tobacco disparities among young people in Philadelphia. The views expressed today are my own and do not necessarily represent the official opinion of the Annenberg School, the University of Pennsylvania Health System or Penn Medicine or the University of Pennsylvania. As the principal investigator of multiple NIH-funded studies, examining tobacco prevention and control interventions among youth and young adults, including a recent FDA and NCI-funded study of the impacts of Massachusetts' comprehensive labor tobacco ban, I bring both research expertise and evidence-based insights to today's discussion. My testimony today will focus on why this bill is a crucial step to protect Philadelphia's youth from accessing addictive nicotine and tobacco products and the health harms from these products. Retail stores are significant places where young people are exposed to tobacco products and marketing and advertising. They are also where underage youth obtain tobacco products such as ecigarettes, even though sales to minors under are 12 illegal nationally. S. S. 15 middle and high school students in 16 this population almost out of 17 students or 65% reported seeing 18 tobacco product marketing of 19 ecigarettes, cigarettes and other 20 forms of tobacco products every 21 time they go to a convenience store, a supermarket or a gas station. Youth who have never used any form of tobacco and frequent convenience stores at least once a week have 80% higher odds of initiating vaping over a two-year period. This is explained partly by their repeated exposure to retail ecigarette advertising in retail stores. S. who use ecigarettes, over 2 in 5 or 43% of them said they obtained their ecigarettes from a retail store. Although the legal age of sale of tobacco, any form of tobacco products is nationally, 17 effective in December 2019. 18 Tobacco and ecigarette 19 use is not an equal opportunity 20 risk factor among all our youth. 21 Exposure to marketing, access to tobacco products, tobacco use and the related health problems are more prevalent in some groups of youth than others in Philadelphia. Let me share some statistics from our local youth health information. Tobacco advertising is prevalent at retail outlets, particularly in low-income and racial ethnic minority neighborhoods. 4 times higher odds of having interior tobacco advertising than other types of retailers. What does this mean? It means that youth in lower-income and racial and ethnic minority neighborhoods are more likely to be exposed to tobacco advertising in these retail outlets. 5% of all high school youth in Philadelphia currently use ecigarettes, but we see higher rates than this average among certain groups. 5% of those who identified as multiracial and 24% of LGBTQ students currently use ecigarettes. Philadelphia has over 2500 licensed tobacco retailers and 90% of public schools in Philadelphia are within 1000 feet of a tobacco retailer. S. cities. Lower-income neighborhoods, based on census tract information, have higher tobacco retailer density than higher-income neighborhoods in Philadelphia. These disparities are not accidental. The result from decades of the tobacco industry's targeted marketing of their products to vulnerable populations and the systemic inequities in retail environments.
With this background, it is significant that the proposed bill, 250213, will require graduated fines for individuals and retail outlets in violation, ranging from $250 for the first offense to $2,000 for subsequent violations and seizing sale or operations for repeat violations. This approach --
Can I interrupt you one second just to clarify. We have an amendment to the bill that we are considering and we have to actually change those levels of the fines back to maximum being 2000 because we have to stay within --
So we don't preempt the state law. Hopefully at a later date we can do higher ones. But right now we are adjusting back as our amendment articulates. The highest level will be 2000.
Correct. And I've updated my testimony to match that range as well.
This approach focusing on penalizing the sale by retail outlets aligns with the earlier research I've shared with you. It will benefit youth by preventing them from accessing addictive nicotine and tobacco products, including ecigarettes from retail stores. It will particularly benefit public school students, youth of color and those living in lower-income neighborhoods who have greater tobacco retail density and who are at higher risk of starting and using ecigarettes. The bill's provision of allocating 50% of collected fines to youth-vaping prevention and education programs is particularly important. Comprehensive approaches that combines enforcement with education yield the strongest results in preventing youth from using tobacco in the first place. Using fine revenues to fund culturally-appropriate prevention programs and partnering with youth organizations serving youth of color and LGBTQ youth and those living in the most affected communities will be a much-needed strategy. I want to highlight specific recommendations based on my own research within my lab among key stakeholders following the Massachusetts 2019 statewide flavor ban, which also included increased retailer fines for violations up to $5,000 to ensure equitable implementation and enforcement for the proposed policies for our communities here in Philadelphia: Ensure that smaller retailers within communities of color are educated about the high fines in the case of violations in advance of implementation dates. Publicizing the high fines that are issued to a retailer who has failed to comply with the law may encourage better compliance among other retailers later. Providing culturally- and linguistically- sensitive educational materials for retailers, such as materials in multiple languages ahead of enforcement. Taking steps to prevent any unintended consequences, such as unfair policing among or within communities of color will be needed. This is to ensure that the Public Health Department and compliance officers are aligned with the policies to penalize underage sales and not to penalize individuals' possession, purchase or the use of tobacco products. Monitor violations and fines by communities to ensure that certain communities and retailers in those communities are not unfairly targeted for enforcement. Funding for equitable and adequate enforcement efforts should be allocated fairly across communities so that those with higher use of tobacco have equal opportunity to protect their youth populations from accessing these harmful products. 6 billion annually on advertising and marketing cigarettes and tobacco products. This is close to $1 million per hour. Most of this spending is on promotions to retailers. In Philadelphia, a middle school student in a low-income neighborhood in North Philadelphia will be passing 11 tobacco retailers along their 12 three-quarter mile walk to school. 13 Every time a retailer sells tobacco 14 products to underage youth, 15 knowingly or unknowingly, they 16 become a partner in the tobacco industry's effort to addict a new generation to nicotine and tobacco products, particularly among our most vulnerable youth. This bill represents a crucial step in preventing and protecting the health of Philadelphia's youth from addictive nicotine and tobacco products and the physical and mental health harms from these products, especially those who face the greatest risk due to the predatory tobacco industry practices. The enhanced penalties and enforcement mechanisms in Bill 9 250213 will be an important first step to ensure that Philadelphia retail owners, retail outlet owners and their staff take their responsibility as community members seriously. Thank you for your attention to this critical public health issue and uplifting the health of youth in Philadelphia. I'm happy to answer any questions about the research evidence supporting effective ways of health, education strategies to share insights from our studies.
Thank you so much for your very important testimony. We got a lot of information. I appreciate that. I'll have my colleague ask a question and if you --
My question is actually for the previous testifier from the Administration because you gave some facts in terms of the number of retailers that exist in Philadelphia, tobacco retailers. And I just wanted to ask the Administration if you could come back forward because we enacted legislation when I was formerly the Chair of the Committee on Health and Human Services to reduce the number of tobacco licenses that were issued in the City based on the saturation of so many sites. I was just reminded of that based on his testimony. Can you talk about that a little bit? Has there been a reduction? Are we still issuing licenses in these saturated areas?
I'm sorry. Thank you. Yes, Councilmember. You're referring to the 2016 Board of Health regulations that set density caps on retailers.
We've done preliminary evaluations on that and we can share those with your offices, but the number of retailers have gone down since that regulation was passed. There's differences across the Districts in terms of the density still, but that's what I can say off the top of my head.
Okay. Because I was disturbed that Philadelphia has over 2500 licensed tobacco retailers and 90% of public schools are within 1000 feet of a tobacco retailer, which sounds like almost the same numbers from when we did the bill in 2016. It doesn't sound like this changed significantly.
Before you go, to the point of making sure we get the data to see -- because I'm sure you also have a map to show where these are concentrated. That's the data we would like to see, to see not only the level of licenses, how many are there, where are they is also going to be very important. Because the whole issue of density, I want to make sure that the density issue is addressed in the neighborhoods that Dr. Tan spoke about, right. We want to make sure that we don't have a prevalence there. And hopefully, that's where you're looking at your license reduction to make sure that even for all of the city how many retailers do you have, whether you do it by census tract or however you do it, we would like to see that data as well, like a heat map of what's going on.
Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Tan, we'll go back to you -- are you done?
Okay. You cited Massachusetts flavor ban and penalty escalation. We are not doing a flavor ban. We're just looking at change in the fine structure. Could you share if any lessons there are about equitable enforcement, because you mentioned that in your testimony that we should be cognizant of that, right. And I want to reiterate again we are not wanting to hurt people's businesses. What we want is people to follow the law and not hurt our children, right. So in that space, I want to see how equitably one can do that.
Absolutely. In some of the recommendations that I provided in my testimony, these are steps that are taken in Massachusetts to make sure that the retailers are informed way in advance of the start date of the enforcement with culturally- and linguistically-appropriate materials for the retailers ahead of time. And they have also implemented a so-called soft launch version of their enforcement period where retailers are given verbal initial warnings before the actual penalties are enforced in terms of the fines. So those are just some strategies ahead of time to ease in the communities, the retailers and specific communities ahead of these raised fines and penalties.
Thank you. And I want to pivot back to the Health Department. Given this testimony about how intentional have you been in the past, and we would like you to be going forward once we are able to get this on the books, in terms of informing our businesses about these changes and is it done in a culturally-competent manner and if you have any data around that from previous bills that might have been passed to address youth access to tobacco?
Sure. We certainly do prepare materials when new bills are passed to inform the retail community, and we can pull some examples and work with your office if this passes.
Yeah. We just want to make sure that we're not checking boxes, but we're actually working with our business community to say this is what we passed, this is what you need to do and these are the consequences if you don't but making sure they train their staff, they are trained themselves and they understand the consequences of this. I'm hoping -- I'm trusting in our people to say they're not doing these things intentionally to hurt children, right. So I just want to make sure our business community understands we need you to be a partner in making sure we safeguard our children's health, right. And that's why we would need a process for them to understand the bill, what exactly the penalties are, what has changed about them and making sure they comply so they don't have to pay those fines. If you comply, you don't pay those fines. If you make sure people are carded and are not sold if they're or younger, no fines 15 are paid, right. 16 Because this is not a 17 revenue generator. This is about 18 making sure we're safeguarding our children's health. So I would love to see what sort of a campaign the Health Department does or has done in the past around issues when there's been a change in what the retailers have to comply with.
Okay. I think the latest one and -- we did something around hookah establishments that we could share, but I have to defer to some of our outreach people on that. But we can get that to you.
Yeah, because that's going to be the devil in the details, right. We can pass as many bills as we want, but how are people complying, are they understanding is going to be the real issue post passing the bill. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll just go back to Dr. Tan. Do you have any questions for Dr. Tan?
Thank you for your testimony today. Obviously, we can see that there's a language barrier as it relates to policy and process. So my question to the Admin is what are we doing when we are putting these policies and processes in place, what are we doing to ensure that businesses who don't speak English are notified and educated around what these requirements are, right? We had a community member that was translating who now had to leave. And so, I believe this is part of the breakdown that some of our businesses experience. And if we're saying we're open for business and we want businesses to be responsible, then as a government we need to ensure that we are making these processes and policies, that we're putting them in place in a way that they're able to understand. So what are we doing to do that? What are we doing, you know, they feel targeted by the Health Department. They feel targeted by Licenses and Inspections. They don't understand the process of state tobacco requirements and city tobacco requirements. So there is obviously a disconnect when it comes to the entire conversation around tobacco sales and what their responsibility is.
I may have to defer a detailed response, but I know that when you apply for a tobacco retailer permit, you have to renew every year. And we have an education module that is required to be taken with that renewal or with any new application, and that material is translated into multiple languages per City policy.
Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll ask the Clerk to call up the next witness panel.
Jacob Zychick, Community Advocacy Director, American Heart Association. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Thank you. Please state your name and begin your testimony.
Jacob Zychick. Dear Councilmember Ahmad and members on the Committee of Public Health and Human Services, on behalf of the American Heart Association thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on Bill 250213, which would amend Section 9-633 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sale of Electronic Smoking Devices and Unimproved Nicotine Delivery Products." Thank you once again for the opportunity to provide testimony. 38% of youth have tried and 19% are currently using ecigarettes each year. The tobacco industry sells over $300 million worth of their products in our city. 74% of ecigarette sales are flavored products. Research has shown that most teens start using tobacco with flavored products. These products are appealing to young people and many mistakenly believe that they are less harmful. We want to thank Councilmember Ahmad and actually all 17 members of the Philadelphia City Council for recognizing the importance of addressing youth ecigarette use and co-sponsoring this important legislation. The American Heart Association is supportive of the intent of this legislation. This bill would increase the monetary fines levied on retailers who repeatedly sell ecigarettes to underage individuals. It would ensure that a percentage of revenue from those fines is spent on evidence-based youth ecigarette prevention resources and does not penalize our youth for the purchase user possession of these products. Unfortunately, at the American Heart Association our guidance is a little bit stronger than the current legislation, but due to preemption we understand some of the challenges that the City of Philadelphia faces. We'd also like to clarify that the current federal law prohibits the sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of and at the federal level, there is no exemption for active military personnel or veterans of the military at the age of years 5 old. The American Heart 6 Association would also like to 7 reiterate that there is no safe 8 tobacco product. 9 We do ask as we move 10 forward in these conversations that 11 we ensure that retailers who sell 12 any tobacco product to underage 13 individuals are all receiving the 14 same penalties around enforcement. 15 Thank you for the opportunity to 16 testify on behalf of the American 17 Heart Association. We would like 18 to thank the Philadelphia City Council and the Health Committee for their urgency in addressing the youth ecigarette usage. This legislation specifically outlines how we'll invest in youth ecigarette prevention, ensures that our youth are not penalized and increases fines on retailers who repeatedly sell ecigarettes to our children. We do hope that the City of Philadelphia can work closely with us moving forward to address this epidemic on ecigarettes, and ensure that retailers who sell any tobacco product, not just ecigarettes to our youth, are receiving the same penalties moving forward. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony and I hope everyone has a wonderful weekend.
All right -- oh, he left. Just come back for a minute. I have a couple of questions for you. So I wanted to just understand the legal challenge. We're faced with legal challenges which is why we like to be much more ambitious and we are dialing it down for those reasons. So license revocation, how do you reconcile the deterrence benefit with the risk of legal challenge or administrative backlog that might follow from automatic revocation? And has other places encountered that?
Yeah. Thank you so much for the question. I think it would be a great opportunity for the City of Philadelphia to -- and I know the Health Department and others through some of their coalition work to connect with some of like- minded colleagues in other cities who have faced some of these efforts and challenges. I know, for example, for smoke-free SEPTA initiative, we were connected with stakeholders and decision-makers with other cities across the country who had faced those challenges. So I think that some role the American Heart Association could be helpful in convening other elected officials, decision-makers, to kind of discuss some of the challenges faced. I will just note at the Heart Association we do understand our national kind of best practice and guidance and the challenges that the City of Philadelphia faces due to preemption. And I just want to also acknowledge not just the City of Philadelphia, but all municipalities in the Commonwealth face the same challenges as they look to address cigarette use and vaping.
Well, that's something we have to do collectively in the entire country because tobacco has a stranglehold on us clearly. Anybody else have any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Now, we are going to transition to the public comment session. Please note that the time limit for each speaker is one minute. Mr. Sham, would you call the first speaker for public comment.
Good morning. Didn't know we were going to have one minute only to speak today --
You can submit your testimony in writing and we can take the whole thing. If you can just summarize your --
Perfect. Will do. So good morning, Chair, members of the Council and fellow citizens. So my name is Saury Mejia. I wanted to submit testimony in opposition of Bill NO. 10 250213. I'll summarize. So I have a personal connection to this. My father is a grocery store owner in Philadelphia for over 30 years. It's a family-run business. He served the community through any economic activity and neighborhood changes. Recently his tobacco license was not renewed. And I'm actually an attorney. And so, obviously I tried to help my father out with appeals. I appealed to the board. And even there the board, even though I had testimony or actually proof that the violations, the citations were incorrectly filled out, they still upheld their decision. And also, another issue is when citations are given, they're given -- some of them are given three, four months down the line and the store owners only have camera footage for maybe a month. So imagine let's say you get an E-ZPass ticket, and you get the ticket five months down the line. There's no way for you to really go back and try and prove, well, I didn't go through this E-ZPass. Now, you get a $250 fine. So imagine now with this bill the fine has increased to $1,000 or or -- well, I saw that or I heard the maximum is going to be 2. On top of that, there's going to be a sign or a poster that needs to be put on the business saying that this establishment sold to a minor without an ID, which I understand. None of us here, we're not trying to sell tobacco to minors. No one wants that. I mean, I have a child. I don't want her, you know, buying tobacco obviously. But you got to think of the 14-, 16-hour days that these store owners have. And if it does happen, hopefully it doesn't, hopefully, you know, there's something that -- it's just a mistake. And that's what it is. And just penalizing, making a fine four times the amount just seems excessive. Also, there are some preemption issues with this law. But imagine, I spent about 60 to 70 hours working on my dad's case. I looked up last night, the average attorney in Philadelphia charges 300 to 759 an hour. Just going on the low end of 300 an hour, you're looking at $18,000 to $21,000 for an attorney. Meanwhile, your store, your business, what you live off of is closed for six months or while you're going through an appeal, and you get a -- well, I thought 5, but now $2,000 fine. So you have to pay a $2,000 fine. You can't pay your employees. And you have to go and pay an attorney almost $20,000. At that point, it just seems like it's a target to those businesses. I just want you to understand that this is going to hurt them. And I'll wrap up. We believe it is a due process violation. So in all fairness, we want to -- instead of looking at the punishment, we want to maybe expand the enforcement powers and introduce -- or not expand. Instead of expanding, force powers to do some punitive measures. We want to focus on fair and transparent consistency of enforcement.
Thank you for your testimony. And I just wanted to say all of this would be obviated if people checked IDs. That's all we're saying. Check the IDS. and under, don't 13 sell. So there's a responsibility 14 all the way around. 15 But I do hear you about 16 how the process works. As I said 17 earlier and my colleague 18 translated, we're going to recess this meeting soon after you're done with your everybody's testimony, and we're going to have a conversation, because my bill 23 doesn't address any of that. This bill is not about the process. However, I hear that the process is important and we're going to get some clarity on the process from the Health Department, with you, with all of us. But this bill is going to proceed because you have the choice just to card people and not sell the product. But I do understand once the violation has happened, how to have clarity about that. We are 100% there with you to make sure people understand because deterrence is a very good way of stopping behavior. We know this. You have a traffic red-light camera. You slow down. It works. Human nature it works. So thank you for your testimony. Please submit your written testimony if you have -- There's a question from my colleague.
I just had a question for you. You said that a merchant in some cases may have had a visit, let's say, from the Health Department, and then months later received a violation?
Yes, multiple times actually. So my dad received about six tickets. Four of them was received four months later. And I requested a hearing and I never actually received notice of the hearing as well. So it was a lot of due process violation. And just in that aspect -- I actually brought my dad's case, half of it. I didn't want to carry it all, just so you guys can see the complexity of these matters.
Okay. How did those citations come? Did they come in the mail?
Because that's something we can actually do something about in terms of legislating a requirement, that if it's not sent out within a particular amount of time, then you can't collect. It's like coming back six months or six years later it might as well be, to try to collect. And also, you mentioned something about stores closing which I found interesting, because in my experience the City of Philadelphia doesn't close stores or if they close them, it takes a really long time. I've worked on these business issues in my District for a long time. We have some that are just flagrantly doing whatever they want to do and getting the City to do the level of enforcement, whether it's Health or L&I, in my opinion, it doesn't happen and it doesn't happen nearly as quickly as it needs to happen. So I was surprised to hear you say we're closing stores.
Yeah. So they actually did close -- so after the tobacco license wasn't renewed, within a week an inspector came by. All the cigarettes were actually in a black garbage bag and the inspector went behind the counter, opened the garbage bag, saw them there and said, I'm giving you a cease of operations just because they were on the premises.
And I understand that. But they were collectively taking them to whoever, wherever, disposing of them to be honest. And that's what led to that. I can't speak for anyone else. I can only speak for this case.
Thank you for your testimony -- oh, sorry. My colleague has a question.
I'm sorry. So I want to kind of follow the same line of questioning that my colleague Councilmember Bass just asked you. You said that they issue a violation and that you don't receive it for several months. My question is how easy is it, for instance, for a business to then prove their case if they are in disagreement with that violation? And I ask the question because I know from visiting some of the businesses that their camera roll doesn't last that long, right.
And so, what are some of the challenges that some of the businesses experience having to prove or appeal a violation that they receive?
It's actually -- so if the violation is given to them immediately, which I think that should be the course of action. When you receive a violation, hey, have the inspector walk in there, here, you just sold to this person. There's accountability right then and there. For a lot of businesses, the camera roll deletes after a month. And I go back to my E-ZPass example. Imagine you have a dash cam and it deletes every two weeks or every month, and then you go down the line and three months later you receive an E-ZPass ticket. It's very difficult. And a lot of these store owners, I mean they don't have any knowledge in IT. So now, they got to call the company that installed the camera system. They're booked or they're installing other camera systems and it just takes time. So if we don't have that camera or footage, you can bring everyone in the entire neighborhood and it's impossible to actually prove.
Has any of the businesses that you represent ever been shut down just for a tobacco violation or has the tobacco inspection then triggered a follow-up inspection that has caused for the closure? I only ask that, Madam Chair, because no one has ever reached out to me about them missing or failing a tobacco violation that has caused a closure, right. So is it because of the tobacco violation that they're saying they've been shut down or they've been shut down because the tobacco violation has triggered another type of inspection?
So in the case I referenced, I guess the non-renewal maybe triggered another visit, and I can get -- it was about a week later, it might have been days later. And then I did have another case where there was two, not cartons but I guess boxes, like a pack, two packs of cigarettes that maybe was just left there. The owner didn't see it. For some reason, the Health Department came by to just inspect or whatnot. They saw the two and they did give them a cease of operations. And this was like at 7, 8 o'clock in the evening as well.
Before you go just for the record, it was a compliance issue. They got a cease and desist for selling tobacco and that was a violation of the violation?
So in either case, they were not selling. It was on the premises in a black --
So there needs to be some clarity in saying when your license is being revoked, you may not have any tobacco product in the store and we must make that clear. But our retailers also must understand they have a responsibility. This is about shared responsibility, right. This is -- as you said, nobody wants their children to become nicotine addicts, right. Unfortunately, adults do that but we don't want our children. But I just want to make sure people understand there's a shared responsibility with government and with our retail establishments to understand they have to work together. We'll have conversations around the Health Department and the way they do their work. And once again, I will say this is about the implementation part of this bill. This bill is to wake people up. Red light camera up there. Better watch if you're carding. That is going to be something we're going to be behind to do, but we want to make sure you have resources to make sure you can comply. So thank you again for your testimony.
Frank Francisco Rosario and Raul Serrata. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Please state your name and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Councilmembers. My name is Frank Francisco Rosario. I am the Director of Community Outreach for the Dominicans Grocer Association nonprofit and Director of Constituent Services. I would like to make you aware the DGA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit with the IRS, and we have never received any funding from the state government or anything. We're doing everything volunteer. I am a volunteer, full-time volunteer. I don't make any money for being here right now. I'm losing money for being here right now. First, I would like to respectfully tell Quetcy, who is a friend and collaborator, that we did as soon as we found out. Like I said, like I mentioned earlier, we emailed your office to people, specifically, a person from your legislative team and then somebody else. We emailed Nina Ahmad's office and we made everybody aware. Even the Mayor's office got notified. And they said, we are not the proper audience. You should reach out to Nina, and we did. Now, I'll begin my testimony. My name is Frank Francisco Rosario and I serve as the Director of Community Outreach for the Dominican Grocer Association and Constituent Services. On behalf of our members, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today and share our concerns regarding Bill 21 No. 250213. I want to tell you a little bit about the DGA. We represent over 2500 independentlyowned grocery store owners across Philadelphia. These family-run businesses are vital to their communities, providing fresh food and essential goods, especially in food deserts. They create jobs, contribute to the local economy and serve as trusted neighborhood hubs. Collectively, our members contribute millions of dollars in taxes to the City of Philadelphia each year. Key concerns with the bill we have: While we respect the Councilmembers' intention, this legislation presents serious, unintended consequences for small grocers, unjust violation claims and due process violations. We want to be clear, we do not condone selling tobacco to minors nor do we believe that those who do so should avoid punishment. However, we receive numerous reports of due process violations in the enforcement of these regulations and also the investigation. I don't know if the City Council is aware, but the City contracted a third-party agency that does investigations that brings minors into these stores to buy tobacco just like the DA will do with a drug case, right. It's a little bit of entrapment. Our members feel a little bit that they're being entrapped. And like my colleague Saury Mejia, the attorney, he said that they are being -- there's reports of fabrication of tickets. m. m. saying that that person sold tobacco, so we need to investigate that. And we had two meetings with the Director of Health. We also had a meeting with the supervisor for the Tobacco Department and nothing has been done yet. Citations are often issued three months later. That's what the attorney said so I'll skip on that. The burden of proof falls entirely on the grocer and only viable defenses, security footage, is typically erased 30 days. City Council passed legislation that you need an attorney if you're an LLC or a corporation, and they force people to incorporate. Now, those people need to pay $700 to $1,000 or maybe more for an attorney to come represent them to just present a video to show that they didn't do it. They can't represent themselves due to the corporation and LLC law. The third-party agency, responsible for investigations, conducts investigations by bringing minors into the stores to attempt to purchase tobacco. This practice raises concerns about entrapment and it makes hardworking small businesses owners feel like criminals. I want to add to the prior statement of two -- so basically I'm personally aware of friends of mine who got their business shut down just for selling tobacco to a minor after a certain amount of violations. After a certain amount of violations, they get shut down for two weeks.
Of course, we can talk about preemption issues where I want you guys to look at preemption issues and the authority for City Council to do this under state law. Focus on the investigations, the third-party agency, due process violation which is we can sue federally for this. I think higher government should restrict authority from City Council due to preemption issues. I already mentioned that. Other things that will affect the members is excessive fines could lead to closures. The bill increases fines up to 5000 for repeated offenses and unsustainable financial burden for small businesses. I will be okay if you're giving tickets and you're closing them and giving them a $5,000 fine if they did it. But I personally seen it where our members got tickets and then they fought it and then they won in front of the board. There's fabrication of tickets. Well, that's an allegation, you know. That's our members' concerns. Risks for closure for minor inspections: The Department of Health could shut you down for up to 60 days. That's what we believe with the new bill. Even for minor infractions causing devastating financial losses, 60 days for a bodega to be closed is detrimental. That will shut them down. Disrupt the inspections: Mandatory quarterly inspections over two years will place undue stress on small business owners, many of whom already operate with limited staff. We respect Councilwoman Ahmad. You mentioned several times at this hearing you're only increasing fines. That's not what you're doing. You're doing much more than that. Okay. We need to review that bill. If you want to increase fines, go ahead. But don't do the other things that are going to affect us. Okay. Reputation damage: There's also going to be a requirement for businesses to publicly post violations for 90 days that could potentially harm their reputation and customer trust. I don't believe customers are going to trust a store that has a city-issued notice saying, I violate city code. We're not criminals. There's just a city code. And what if that grocer did not sell to a minor and he unjustly got convicted or whatever. A call to fair solutions: We urge the City Council to work with us on enforcement solutions that protect public health without threatening the survival of small grocers. The DGA is ready to collaborate to ensure regulations are fair and effective. A couple more notes, just 30 more seconds.
Okay. One more second please. So I would like to make you aware that they need attorneys, $700, and the ticket's only 250, so why don't I just pay the ticket instead of attorney, right. But that means you have repeat offender. Unjust violation claims and due process violation, third party agency that we believe is incentivized to give as many tickets as possible. Excessive fines, okay, due process violation, disruptive inspections before they enforce the new bill. Change the way it's done. Why are you having a third-party agency do the investigations. One last thing I want to point out that the only defense that you have in this kind of case is video proof that you didn't do it, which at least after 30 days the due process violation comes in when you give it to us three months later. I know people personally who did that. There's a guy sitting here right now who beat it, right there, Miguel Torres. He actually received a violation. I seen the video and he did not sell tobacco to a minor. We got the video still if you want to see it. He beat the case. So who fabricated it, who made it up. Stop treating us like criminals. That's what we feel like. We feel like the City is against us. Mayor Cherelle Parker, who I know personally, said we're open for business, right. But it seems like you're trying to close all small businesses down and let Wawa operate. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Don't go, because as I said and I'll say it again, simple solution, card your customer. Don't sell to and under. No fine, no video, 10 nothing needed if you follow that 11 rule. 12 That is -- I'm going to 13 tell you undoing the harm that 14 vaping does to a child's lungs, 15 some of it cannot be undone. So I 16 hear you about these are big fines, 17 but we have a very simple solution: 18 Make sure you check who you're selling to, we don't have. And the second part you talked about is the time. That is something definitely we want to talk to the Health Department to follow up to make sure that you're able to produce evidence once you have been found to violate to make sure as you guys said in this case that it was not true. The third party issue, and again the Health Department we will discuss this with them, the reason for doing the third party using minors with an adult nearby is to actually find people who keep violating and keep selling to young people. However, it has to be accurate so I hear you. I hear you when you say that the evidence needs to be clear and real. And we will definitely follow up with the Health Department to understand how that could have happened, how he could have been ticketed for something that did not happen, so we can get to the bottom of that. But the point is these fines are, like I said to the previous witness, this is like a red light camera. Red light camera tells you to slow down. We have seen enough evidence that it does slow down people and we do save lives. Same thing here, this is a red light camera. Do not sell to minors, no fine and children will benefit from that.
Councilwoman, I will respectfully say again before you keep enforcing it, before you amend a bill from what is 2015, you should really look at the fact that a lot of our members have lost their license for allegedly selling to tobacco minors and they have not. I seen the video personally, Councilwoman.
I agree with you that is not okay. It has to be proven which is why -- when I asked the Health Department why does it take time to actually issue the ticket, that was to verify that the ticket was needed to be issued. They were doing their due diligence. But if it's more than a month I hear your issue about cameras. Those are things, that's the implementation end. But the red light camera approach to this doesn't change. We still have to look at how well it is implemented. We don't want our businesses to suffer. We want them to make money, pay their taxes and we get more money in the City to do good services. We want you to survive. I'm a small business owner myself. So let me be clear, too much regulation is not good. But this is a red light camera issue to save our children's lungs, let me be clear. Many of you have children. You don't want them to be sold under products that are 5 going to hurt them. I know that's 6 what you want. So we want to work 7 with you to make sure. 8 But just like -- I'll be 9 like a broken record. When we put 10 those cameras up, people stop 11 speeding and people stop dying. 12 Roosevelt Boulevard, people stop 13 dying because people will stop 14 speeding. So that is exactly what 15 we are doing. I appreciate your 16 passion about representing your 17 members. I hear you. 18 Can we make the process better? Of course. How will the implementation occur? We need to talk to the Health Department. But we also want to hold all of us accountable in this process. All of us have to do the right thing. And so, I really appreciate your passion and coming here and we'll have a follow-up conversation, as I said, before we are going to actually vote on the recommendation. That's the commitment I'm making to you and we'll follow up as soon as this hearing is over. All right. Thank you. Does anybody have a question?
But I would just -- just going back to what you said that you felt like it was entrapment. I would assume that everyone is a minor. Assume that everyone who comes in as a minor. Card everybody. You know, listen, some stores I'll even go into and, look, they may card me. You know, I'm no minor. But they may, you know, I know I look like a minor -- just kidding. Don't laugh so hard, Nina.
You should say yes very loudly. All of us look like minors.
But that's the point. Some people, some businesses check everybody even though it's apparently clear, abundantly clear that the person before them is unlikely to be a minor, very much unlikely. I think that the policy really should be just card everybody and that way if that's the policy, there's no way that someone could come in and accuse anyone of doing anything that's inappropriate. What was the other point that I was making? I'm sorry. I didn't write my notes down -- oh, for those who have received a notice that they would be closed for selling to minors, if you feel that that has been inaccurately assessed against you, that notice has been assessed against you inaccurately, then feel free to reach out to your District Councilmember. Feel free to reach out to us and say, help, we need some help, and let us help you navigate. Because what we don't want to do is target particular businesses and the information that we're receiving is not factual. We want factual information and we want to also be able to help you. But we don't know if you don't tell us. Please don't assume that we got the notice that we're shutting down this business at X, Y, Z location. We don't know. So we need for you to tell us, reach out to us and let us know.
Thank you, Councilmember. And also, I would actually after this like to follow up about the one person who was found not guilty. We'll talk later. Because I want to bring it up with the Health Department, how did it happen, because that'll teach us how to improve the system. And so, we will -- you're talking to a scientist who's going to understand the process to make sure it's better and fair for everybody. Any questions?
I just want to also put on the record that I think it's important for the group to also have a meeting with the Health Department, not just by yourselves but with Councilmember Ahmad, who is the Chair of this Committee so that she's also able to hear and better understand what some of your challenges are as well as what some of your experiences are as it relates to the Health Department and what their commitment is, right. I think that there are a lot of concerns around tobacco and the process as it relates to the City as well as compared to what is happening at the state level. Because I've heard from many of you who are frustrated with people who are selling tobacco, not just to minors but who are selling fake cigarettes, right, false tobacco products. And so, I think that we have to have a better form of communication to be able to better advocate for you as it relates to city process, right. But we also have to do better in trying to figure out how the business community who sells tobacco products is better-informed as it relates to state and city policies, right, and how they're impacted. Because I've never heard of a business being shut down for just a tobacco violation. So there's something that I really want to follow up on to better understand what exactly happened and what was the process.
I know business owners, a lot of them who are present today, who ID everyone. (Spanish translation). I asked, raise your hand if you never sold tobacco to a minor and you got a violation. One last thing, Councilwoman. With all due respect to the metaphor that you used, if I run a light in the city of Philadelphia, I'm not in jeopardy of losing my license, my driver's license, because it doesn't affect points. But if I sell to -- if I allegedly sell to a minor, I get shut down for two weeks. Okay. That's the difference. That metaphor is bad.
Well, I hear you. Listen, speeding can kill. Tobacco-selling can kill, both of them. So red light analogy holds. Thank you so much for your testimony. We'll be in touch.
No, they're here, the first one. Can you repeat the first set of names you said.
(Spanish translation). INTERPRETER: Good afternoon. My name is Miguelina Espinal.
(Spanish translation). INTERPRETER: My store is located at 901 South 58th Street, Cobbs Creek. It's 19143.
(Spanish translation). INTERPRETER: I have more than 10 years working at Cobbs Creek Community and -- COUNCIL SUPPORT: Speak into the microphone please.
Speak into the microphone. INTERPRETER: This one is -- okay. It's on already. Thank you. I've been in the community for years working with 5 Cobbs Creek. 6
(Spanish 7 translation). 8 INTERPRETER: I have 9 been working in my store for that 10 long and I have my license. Thank you that I asked everyone for an ID.