Committee Hearing, November 27, 2023

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Remote location using Microsoft® Teams Monday, November 27, 2023 1:00 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR., CHAIR COUNCILMAN KENYATTA JOHNSON, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILMAN JIM HARRITY COUNCILWOMAN QUETCY M. LOZADA

230571, 230699, 230700 RESOLUTION: 230793 - - -

Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Committee on Public Safety, November 15, 2022 -- 3, 2023. And we will be reviewing the following bills: Bill 7 Nos. 230699, 23067 -- 230700 as well as Resolution No. 230793. I think there's another bill number there -- oh, yes, 230571. Mr. Glass, would you please take and do the roll call for me.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Councilmember Gauthier.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Present.

Good afternoon.

Councilmember Harrity.

Good morning, everyone. I am present and accounted for.

Member Harrity, how are you?

Good. Thank you. I don't know why my camera isn't coming on. Oh, it would help if I take the cover off. There you go.

Councilmember Lozada.

Good morning or good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the community. I am present.

Good afternoon.

Councilmember Thomas.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. I'm present.

Good afternoon.

Councilmember Brooks.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm present.

Good afternoon, Member Brooks. Okay. A quorum has been established. Mr. Glass, will you please read the titles of the bills and resolutions that we are having our hearing on today.

Yes. Mr. Chair, before I do that, can I read the required announcement?

That would help.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that state law currently requires that the following announcement be made at the beginning of every remote public hearing as follows: Due to the current public health emergency, City Council meetings are currently meeting remotely. We are using Microsoft Teams to make these remote hearings possible. Instructions for how the public may view and offer public testimony of public hearings of Council Committees are included in the public hearing notices that are published in the Daily News, Inquirer and Legal Intelligencer prior to the hearings and can also be found on PHLCouncil.com. Everyone who has been invited to the meeting to testify should be aware that this public hearing is being recorded. Because the hearing is public, participants and viewers have no reasonable expectation of privacy. By continuing to be in the meeting, you are consenting to being recorded. Additionally, prior to Councilmember Jones recognizing Members for the questions or comments they have for the witnesses, I will note for the record at this time we will use the chat feature available in Microsoft Teams to allow Members to signify that they wish to be recognized. In order to comply with the Sunshine Act, the chat feature must only be used for this purpose. Thank you.

(Muted).

Mr. Chairman, you're on mute.

Thank you, Mr. Glass. Will you now read the titles of the bills and resolutions to be heard today.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Bill No. 230571, amending Chapter 9-3500 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards," to add provisions regarding the consideration of convictions that result in exoneration and make related technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 230699, amending Chapter 9-5900 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Prohibition on Certain Gambling Machines and Skills Games," to add additional prohibitions and provide for remedies, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 230700, amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Business Trades and Professions," to add a new Chapter creating penalties for trespassing in retail establishments, all under certain terms and conditions. And finally Resolution No. 17 230793, authorizing the City Council Committee on Public Safety to hold hearings examining the use of vehicle immobilizing "window barnacles" as a form of predatory parking by private entities to understand the impact they have on Philadelphia's residents.

Thank you, Mr. Glass. We will proceed with Member Isaiah Thomas's bill. And before we listen to witnesses, I'd like to recognize Member Thomas for any comments that he has before we begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You must have read my mind. And good morning, colleagues -- good afternoon, colleagues. Today we're looking at the Exonerated Justice legislative proposal that I introduced into Council a few weeks ago. And the reason we introduced the package of bills is because we looked at some of the issues that we were facing as it relates to people being exonerated. When people serve their term of jail and they're released from prison, there are a number of resources that are out there that exist to help them from anything to housing to health care and things of that capacity. While we can still do more for those returning citizens, we have to begin to think about the demographic of people who are exonerated, people who the law essentially see was incarcerated wrongfully and recognizing when people are released, it doesn't always lead to a lawsuit or a significant payday. And even in those cases when that does happen, there's a time between when that takes place and that person being released and hopefully having an effective transition back into society. So today we are specifically looking at the employment component. The bill looks to address education, housing, a stipend and just overall general support. But today we're specifically looking at the employment component of this particular bill, and we're looking to amend legislation to include exonerated individuals to be a part of the initiative that's already existing to remove barriers from employment for people who have been exonerated. So, Mr. Chair, thank you for allowing me to take the time to just give a few brief remarks before we listen to testimony around this bill. I also want to thank the Public Defender's Office, Community Legal Services as well as the Pennsylvania Innocence Project for partnering with my office to put together what we feel was a necessary package of bills. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you colleagues for supporting this initiative.

Thank you, Member Thomas. And I just want to say that it's ironic that we were editing the recommendations from the Crime Summit. And one of those issues was related to returning citizens and how they are matriculated back into society, what help is there for them as they do so and removing barriers to employment and housing and things like that. So this is right on time and forward-thinking, so thank you. Are there any other members of the Committee who wish to comment on --

Mr. Chair, I just also want to thank the Police Accountability Project as well too for partnering with us on this particular bill. I want to say thank you for your remarks. And thank you for your continued support, Mr. Chair. We appreciate you.

We continue to work. The work continues. So with that, are there any other Members who wish to have an opening statement on this particular bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, Mr. Glass, will you please list the first group to testify.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our first witness will be Keisha Hudson, Chief Defender of the Defender Association of Philadelphia.

Are you connected, Ms. Hudson -- there you go. How are you? PUBLIC DEFENDER HUDSON: I'm good. Good to see everyone. Hope you all had a lovely Thanksgiving holiday to celebrate. Good afternoon on behalf of the Defender Association of Philadelphia. I want to thank Councilmember Thomas for inviting us to testify about an issue that is very critical to our work as public defenders, and that issue is minimizing the permanent damage that the justice system does to individuals and their families and communities. The Defender Association fully supports adding formerly incarcerated individuals to Bill No. 8 230571, adding the Fair Chance Hiring component to the Exonerated Justice legislation. There is ample research that shows that one of the biggest obstacles to employment is a criminal record. And if we truly believe that people who have served their time deserve second chances, then we must all do what we can to ensure that they have access to housing, education and jobs. Our work on behalf of people accused of crime consistently shows us that a lack of economic opportunity is a primary driver of decisions to engage in unlawful activities. Building stronger, safer communities starts with making sure that every citizen has a chance to fully participate in our local economy. Amending the Fair Chance Hiring legislation is a strong step forward in ensuring that returning citizens have a real chance to lift themselves out of poverty and build a better future for themselves and their families. Once again, we are immensely grateful to Councilmember Thomas and all of the City Council for continuing to re-imagine public safety by steering people away from the justice system and to real opportunities. Thank you very much, and the Defender Association is thrilled to be in support of this important legislation.

So what I would ask -- thank you for that. Thank you for the work that you do and the space that you do it. Give me for my Members what would this legislation do to help people not to recidivate? PUBLIC DEFENDER HUDSON: Well, it's significantly important for our clients who are coming back home. We see a couple of drivers in terms of their decision to engage in unlawful activity. Employment and housing; housing is a significant issue for our clients. We have up to percent of our clients who are 11 housing insecure, and many of those 12 clients need that stable housing in 13 order to find good employment, in 14 order to find employment that's 15 going to compensate them in a way 16 that they can afford to maintain 17 that housing and afford to support 18 themselves and their families. 19 A good-paying job is 20 everything. The Defender Association is very proud that we have several returning citizens who work for this organization. And thanks to the support of you and the City Councilmembers we were able to raise their salaries quite a bit in the last two years from $29,000 to a starting salary of $40,000, which is what our starting salary is here. By no means is that enough, but that allows the people here on our team to be able to support themselves and their families and to stay on the path of being a preventive member of the Philadelphia community. And so, addressing these issues to give better chances on education, housing and ultimately employment really sets our clients up for success. It is also a generational issue. As you know, Councilmember, a lot of our clients had family members who themselves were in the criminal justice system and they, themselves, followed down that path. And so, to really impact public safety we have to do all that you can to set up our returning citizens for success because it's important for them and their future generations.

So, Member Thomas, one of the things that we heard in the Crime Summit was that at one point when people were released from incarceration, and that goes for upstate and locally, that they weren't always given the type of help that keeps them from having to commit more crimes. One case was that people that were released, and I think the number is somewhere in the neighborhood of 500 a week, that come back from upstate were given enough car fare to get to Norristown. And I don't know if that is the same today but that was concerning, that if you had just enough transportation dollars to get to Norristown and you lived in Philly, then what? So I don't know how that worked. But also more locally up on State Road, people were released at different hours of the morning and sometimes 2:00 in the morning. And if you got arrested in the summer and you were wearing shorts, that that did not necessarily equip you for winter weather when you were released. So I don't know if any of this can impact any of that, but I know it would help the average person to be able to at least get back to familiar surroundings. And if so, not commit a crime on the way.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that your concern is on point. We've seen a few dozen people who's been exonerated over the last couple of years. And at the end of the day we're over 35 people who have been exonerated, specifically looking at cases involving the City of Philadelphia. We want to begin to get ahead of the curb. And at the end of the day, we're seeing more and more cases as it relates to people who were wrongfully convicted. And so, because we're seeing this happening in small numbers in comparison to some of the other issues that's dealing with the criminal justice reform, but because it's happening it's putting us in a position where we have to assure that as government because government made the mistake, that there are adequate resources to allow people to transition there. So as far as bus fare, this legislation doesn't directly cover that component specifically, but it does talk about providing a stipend from the City of Philadelphia specifically coming out of the General Fund to be able to support folks who have been exonerated. It talks about housing and education and other resources to put people in a position to get their life on track. Because at the end of the day, we can't give them that time back that they've lost serving in a prison and serving a sentence for a crime that they did not commit. So I think that's a component of this legislation. I just want to remind the listening audience, I know my colleagues know this, but we want to just remind folks that this is in support of people who never committed the crime in the first place. And because the numbers are increasing as it relates to the number of people who are being exonerated, we're obligated to step in and provide resources to those people because that's the humane thing to do. I don't know if you want to add anything, Chief Public Defender. But I hope that addresses some of the things you communicated, Mr. Chair. PUBLIC DEFENDER HUDSON: And I just wanted to add that there are more and more of our clients who are coming home who as you said, Councilmember Thomas, have never committed the crime and have lost years of their life, which not just only impacts them but also their families. And so, given the support that they need when they come home is really, really key to ensuring that they can continue to work, continue to support their families. And it goes a long way I think, starting to repair the harm that they've experienced at the hands of the criminal justice system.

I totally concur. One of the things that you often hear is that when someone's incarcerated, they can lose their job, they can lose their apartment, they can lose their family relationships based on an accusation. So these kinds of softer landings when the City of Philadelphia or the state is wrong and we've wrongfully accused somebody goes a long way to making amends. So thank you for that. Are there any other questions from the panel?

Mr. Chair, I just want to note for the record Councilman Johnson is present.

Thank you, Councilman Johnson, Vice-Chair Johnson. You got your script?

One second.

Vice-Chair Johnson is being set up as we speak.

All right. Thank you so much. If there are no other questions for this witness, the next person to testify, Mr. Glass. PUBLIC DEFENDER HUDSON: Thank you, Councilmember Jones.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, our next witness is Kia Ghee.

Are you connected?

Yes, I'm here.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Please state your name for the record and begin your testimony.

Good afternoon and thank you, Chairman Jones and members of the Committee on Public Safety, for inviting me to testify today in support of this bill. My name is Kia Ghee and I am the Executive Director for the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations. Our agency administers and enforces the Fair Practices ordinance, a law which prohibits discrimination in housing, employment, public accommodations and delivery of City services. We also enforce the Fair Criminal Records Screening Standards Act, which is also known as Ban the Box and now known across the nation as the Fair Chance Hiring law. That law is found in Chapter 9-3500 of The Philadelphia Code. The Fair Chance Hiring law combats the multiple employment obstacles that people with criminal records may experience when they are seeking employment by prohibiting questions about their criminal background on their job applications or during their first interview. It also prohibits employers from considering convictions that are over seven years old and requires an individualized assessment of an applicant's suitability for employment. Over the years the Philadelphia Fair Practices ordinance has been amended numerous times as necessary to address the injustices and advance civil rights protections that reflect the reality of our times here at Philadelphia. That is what brings me to testify today. With the adoption of the proposed amendment, Philadelphia has the opportunity to expand protections for returning citizens and strengthen existing protections for those with criminal records. This proposed amendment explicitly prohibits an employer from considering a conviction which was later overturned in an exoneration. This is important because every year innocent people are incarcerated for crimes that they did not commit and others are wrongfully convicted. The National Registry of Exonerations states that an exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of their innocence. So far in the United States 2624 people have been exonerated since 1989. 367 of whom have been exonerated with the use of DNA evidence. That being said, as has already been stated, we know that having a criminal record of arrest or conviction hinders an individual's job opportunities despite their qualifications and skills. S. unemployment rate during any historical period, including the Great Depression. These implications are even more heartbreaking for individuals whose wrongful criminal conviction is later overturned for exoneration. For example, an individual convicted of embezzlement or a crime of fraud might not be able to work in a position of retail, handling money or other financial services and individuals charged with a crime of assault or weapons offense who is later exonerated may now be able to apply for and be considered for safety-sensitive positions, which they were not previously have been eligible to be hired for because of their offense, and that would have been no matter how old the offense was that was on their record. Since 2018 the District Attorney's Office has exonerated dozens of people who were incarcerated. People such as David Sparks who was 16 years old and spent over 17 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit. Sherman McCoy, an individual with intellectual disability who was sentenced to life without parole and served nearly six years for a murder he did not commit or Willie Stokes who was incarcerated for 41 years. With this amendment to the Fair Chance Hiring law, people like those who I mentioned would be able to seek gainful employment without the overshadowing of their conviction. The Commission fully supports this amendment because it is yet another measure to ensure that all Philadelphians have a fair chance for employment in any sector, including education and health care. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you for your testimony. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention Donna Reed Miller, a former member of Council who initially introduced the Ban the Box. I was on the Committee when she did so. Subsequently we passed that and were able to amend it to include college applications and others. So this is an evolution of the original legislation, which I'm proud to hear that we are doing. With that, your office has the responsibility kind of monitoring complaints when companies do not comply with the Ban the Box. So if somebody applies for a job and someone had that box on there and summarily rejected them from employment, if those issues are brought up to you, you have the responsibility of dealing with it. Have you had complaints that fit that parameter?

Yes, Councilman Jones, we did have that problem. Not necessarily with the check mark on the application because I think through advocacy a lot of our employers kind of know what they're permitted to do. But we've had instances over the last year where applicants have had criminal inquiries that weren't relevant I would say to the job that they were applying for. And so, because employers are required to do an individualized assessment, they can't just summarily deny an applicant a position just because they have a criminal background. They have to offer that applicant a chance to address anything that should be corrected on their criminal record. They also have to allow them to be able to provide references and job history that would speak to their qualifications and/or redemption since their conviction. So it's been more so those employers who haven't done the next step, which is making sure that even though a person may have a criminal background check -- criminal background rather, that criminal background may not necessarily prohibit them from working. The one difference with this particular amendment is that as I said for certain fields, banking, health care, safety-sensitive positions, if there's a conviction, they are allowed to consider that just based on the type of work. Under this particular amendment, it makes sure that if that person was exonerated meaning that they were innocent, that that can't be used against them.

Thank you. Sometimes I wonder if the colloquy that judges give that for the record they had to list two people taking a deal as they say, all of the things once you are convicted that you cannot do, the 200 different places, things you cannot do, would you take that same deal. Whether it's living in public housing or applying for a federal loan for a small business, it's so many different boxes that get summarily dismissed from that Ban the Box kind of thing. I wonder if judges gave that colloquy and let them know would you still take the deal, and that's a rhetorical question. But I want to thank you for your support and furthering Ban the Box and now equitable employment options, and I want to just thank you for the work you do and the space that you do it.

Thank you, Councilman Jones.

Are there any members of the Committee who wish to question our witness?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Councilmember Johnson, would like to be recognized.

Member Johnson.

Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to commend Ms. Kia Ghee for her advocacy in working with the Human Relations Commission and really taking it to another level, particularly around not only addressing those who are returning citizens or those who are involved in the criminal justice system but addressing the issue around gun violence. You and your team have taken to the streets and addressed neighborhoods around the concept around Peace Not Guns and I thank you for your hard work and dedication. And it's not what's always associated with the Human Relations Commission, to be quite frank. And so, I just want to thank you and your team for participating in this hearing but most importantly getting involved and addressing this issue on the ground in our neighborhoods so we can create a city that's safer for everyone and that includes those who have been involved in the criminal justice system as well as preventing individuals from getting involved in the criminal justice system. So I just wanted to say thank you for your hard work and your dedication. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Johnson.

You're welcome.

Thank you, Member Johnson. Any other questions for this witness, Mr. Glass?

Mr. Chairman, there are no other members of Council who wish to be recognized at this time.

Thank you for your testimony and we appreciate the work that you do.

Thank you.

Mr. Glass, who is the next panel as to testimony?

Mr. Chairman, the final panelist for this bill 3 will be Nilam Sanghvi.

Are you connected, sir?

Good afternoon. I'm Nilam Sanghvi from the --

Oh, ma'am.

No problem. Pennsylvania Innocence Project, and we thank the Committee and Councilman Thomas for entertaining this legislation. The Pennsylvania Innocence Project is a nonprofit dedicated to exonerating people convicted of crimes they didn't commit, working to prevent the convictions of innocent people from happening in the first place and helping those wrongly convicted to transition to freedom, which is really our topic here today. Since 1989, there have been over 3400 exonerations in the United States representing more than 33,000 years of lives lost of innocent people to wrongful incarceration. 122 of those exonerations took place in Pennsylvania, and 60 percent of the Pennsylvania exonerations were individuals convicted in Philadelphia County. Our project is a statewide organization, but the majority of our cases are in Philadelphia. We welcomed home three wrongly convicted Philadelphians just this year and have two clients whose convictions have been vacated that we expect to come home soon. Unfortunately, while it's joyful when one is exonerated and walks free, in Pennsylvania those individuals currently receive no 22 support from the government that wrongfully convicted them. Pennsylvania is one of only 13 states that provides no 1 compensation or re-entry services to wrongly convicted individuals. The vast majority of states, the District of Columbia and the federal government offer accommodations of financial support and other services to those who are exonerated. Our clients and other innocent people exonerated in Philadelphia and the rest of the Commonwealth don't have access to the transition services that might be available to other returning citizens who are still under some state or county supervision. The services that Councilmember Thomas has proposed are a welcomed first step in remedying this issue in Philadelphia County and ensuring that wrongfully convicted Philadelphians face fewer barriers in attempting to build their lives. Our clients have lost on average more than 22 years each 25 to wrongful incarceration, years that would have been spent going to school, working and starting or supporting their families. Having easier access to jobs and hiring support will help them make up for that lost time. Even though our clients are exonerated, employers looking at their criminal records or seeing information about their cases in the newspaper don't necessarily know what an exoneration is and they still just see the word murder and stop there. This bill is helpful because it defines those terms and makes clear what can and cannot be considered in the hiring process. And so, we really support at the Pennsylvania Innocence Project this important first step for exonerated individuals in Philadelphia County. And again, I thank the Committee.

Thank you for your testimony. When someone is exonerated and has been falsely incarcerated, they still do have legal remedies to sue I would imagine?

There is one legal current pathway currently in Pennsylvania for those who have been wrongfully convicted to sue. The main pathway would be to file a federal civil rights lawsuit and there may be also some state law claims. Although we see a lot of coverage about those lawsuits in the newspaper, the vast majority of folks who are exonerated and come home don't necessarily have the type of claims available to them that would allow them to file a viable civil suit. And so, many of our clients simply receive no financial compensation of any kind. Even though some are able to pursue lawsuits, it often takes years and is traumatizing because having just worked to overturn their conviction they're now forced to enter a different type of litigation, and there's no funding or assistance in that period where they're trying to decide what to do next and just coming home. Our office has one social worker serving exonerated individuals in the entire state so we're doing the best we can, but that's obviously no substitute for government support.

Thank you for that. Are there any questions from members of the Committee for this witness?

Mr. Chair --

Mr. Chairman, Councilmember Johnson would like to be recognized, but Councilmember Thomas can go first.

Thank you, Mr. Glass. Let's go with the opposite. Let's go with Member Johnson and then we'll go back to Member Thomas just because. (No response.)

Member Johnson? (No response.)

Okay. I'll go with what you said. Member Thomas, would you like to be recognized?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I just want to say thank you for this witness for the awesome testimony, for partnering with my office, but more importantly for the great work that's done for some of the most vulnerable people who unfortunately spend a lot of time incarcerated and do so when they haven't committed a crime or at least haven't committed the crime that they were found guilty of. So I just want to add that to the conversation here today. It's very much appreciated. And these are the type of public-private partnerships that are needed to really make sure that we're providing the best products to the citizens of Philadelphia. So thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to our expert witness.

Thank you so much, Member Thomas. Member Johnson, are you there? (No response.)

We will continue. Mr. Glass, who is next?

Mr. Chairman, there are no other witnesses for this bill.

So I thank you again for your testimony but more importantly for the work you do. These individuals but for your advocacy where would they be. And so, I'm thankful to Member Thomas for us helping in our own way to assist you to assist them, so thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to work together.

Okay. Is that the last group to testify on this bill?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Okay. Can we go to the next bill please.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our first witness for Bill 16 No. 230699 will be Deputy Commissioner Francis Healy from the Philadelphia Police Department.

Can you read the title again so that Members are aware.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Give me one second. For Bill No. 230699, amending Chapter 9-5900 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Prohibition on Certain Gambling Machines and Skills Games," to add additional prohibitions and provide for remedies, all under certain terms and conditions.

Thank you. Deputy Commissioner Healy, how are you? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Good, sir. How are you?

Good. State your name for the record and proceed with your testimony. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Sure. My name is Francis Healy. I'm the Deputy Commissioner for the Philadelphia Police Department responsible for the Offices of Legal Affairs and Professional Responsibility. First, on behalf of Acting Commissioner John Stanford, thank you for allowing the Philadelphia Police Department the opportunity to voice its opinion on Bill No. 230699, sponsored by Chairmember Jones, amending City Code 9-5900. As you know, the PPD has been closely involved with the development of recent amendments expanding the scope of the Nuisance Business Ordinance and the authority of the PPD to intervene with nuisance businesses. In anticipation of these amendments, we've centralized citywide nuisance business enforcement into ordinances -- I'm sorry, Neighborhood Nuisance Enforcement Unit. In fact, just last week the PPD and Law Department provided department-wide training, all of our commanders as well as we introduced the new nuisance business tracking tool for our commanders. As such, I believe the PPD has demonstrated its commitment to mitigating nuisance businesses and improving the quality of life throughout the City. The PPD is always happy or appreciative of the amendments to the City Code. They give us better tools to make a difference in our communities. For that reason, the Philadelphia Police Department supports Bill No. 230699, relating to the prohibition of gambling or skills-based cash payout devices. This bill is yet another tool for the Administration to comprehensively and systematically address nuisance businesses citywide. That said, we all know this is a very complicated topic with pending litigation at the state level as to what games of chance, machines versus games of skill and that has yet to be conclusively decided in the courts. In the interim, there has been legislative movement with the introduction of Senate Bill 706 introduced on May 26, 2023 trying to specifically identify and regulate skill-based gaming. Nonetheless, the legal ambiguity remains which has led to the proliferation of these allegedly skill-based gaming devices. Due to the legal ambiguities under state law, law enforcement across the Commonwealth has been in a holding pattern, whether it's arrests, seizing devices with respect to activity under the existing Pennsylvania Crimes Code 5513. Therefore, the PPD very much appreciates Council's willingness and courage quite frankly to wade into this issue. Regardless of the legal debates of whether a certain machine is a gambling device as defined by state law or not is actually moot with respect to our communities. The adverse impact to our communities is nonetheless the same. These devices are a magnet for nuisance and criminal activity. And this was, in fact, the underlying basis for the enactment of Pennsylvania Crimes Code 5513, which was to prohibit illegal gambling in the first place but also to address the peripheral nuisance activities surrounding illegal gambling and violence behaviors. Bill No. 230699 addresses both gambling devices, which are currently regulated by the state. As I mentioned, it also specifically identifies skill-based cash payout devices which have yet to be regulated at the state level. As such, City Council is taking the proactive measure to better serve the citizens of Philadelphia. City Council has risen above the fray in Harrisburg and acted on this problem that continues to grow. PPD respects and supports these actions because we are both aligned in desiring to improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods, and every tool was greatly appreciated. I will say this in an investigative perspective one caveat so there's no false expectations: To cite a business under the ordinance that's drafted, our Vice Unit quite frankly will need to conduct undercover investigations. These aren't something you just walk in and cit.

But our resources are limited and it takes time to conduct such investigations to set up. Deconfliction and execution takes time. So as you know, we have restructured our Neighborhood Nuisance Enforcement Unit and the Vice Unit falls under the leadership of a single inspector, Bob Ritchie, who reports to Deputy Commissioner Dales. So we have a synergy set up there that will help dramatically streamline the investigations and coordinate the issuance of CVNs and Notices to Cease, but this will need to be done in a very surgical manner targeting the prolific offenders creating the most havoc in our communities. As mentioned this is another tool, but I don't want anyone to think at the outset that the PPD alone will be able to investigate and cite all the businesses that are currently using this equipment. Due to the ambiguity of the law, many businesses, legitimate businesses have implemented these skill-based machines and not every location is a nuisance location. Many are honest businesses who have legitimately taken advantage of the anomaly of the state. I believe these honest brokers will start to remove these machines once this ordinance becomes law. That's where we can focus on those prolific offenders. This concludes my testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions. But I do appreciate City Council for stepping up and providing yet another tool not just to the police department but to the Administration to address the nuisances in the City. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Deputy Commissioner, and I appreciate your comments. I would only go on the record to say a couple of things: One, that based on a meeting with Member Harrity we are considering amendments to this bill that might allow for recognized taverns and restaurants in certain locations to continue to have these measured, monitored, staffed kind of devices within their establishment. It's hard to kind of regulate the things you don't even know where they are, so that's number one. We don't know where, there's no list of where these machines are. You pop in on a store, it can be in parts of my District in Roxborough or Market Street. You don't have a complete list on how many of these machines are in these stores. Secondly, you don't know how much money they're making. They're not taxed by the City of Philadelphia. They aren't regulated in any way by us. And so, whether or not the payouts are even fair and regulated, so that when Mrs. Betsy goes in and puts her hard-earned Social Security check on the table, we don't know if she's getting a fair shake by way of payouts. We've spent years preparing for gambling in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in Philadelphia's casinos. We went through days, weeks, hours, months of testimony to see when and where these machines could be placed and operated but for some based on a truck stop regulation that was supposed to allow for these machines in truck stops you might see on the expressway and on your way to Harrisburg, they took that liberty to open the door to neighborhood stores in our communities right down the street from a school, right down the street from religious institutions. So the young man who had his lunch money could go into that corner store unregulated and place his lunch money in hopes that he would strike it big and win on those machines. So having said all of that, I anxiously anticipate working with our state partners, our state elected officials to come up with regulations that would give cities of the first class, particularly Philadelphia its ability to regulate these types of machines. I would also say that many of these machines are colocated with other nuisance activities such as liquor by the drink, such as individual tobacco sales, drug paraphernalia and others. So as we look at recommendations in the Crime Summit we recently did, we want to examine the geography of crime and where bad things do actually happen and want to take a look at not necessarily persecuting people but also looking at places and locations. So this is -- this bill is designed to tighten up technically some of the loopholes that we have in anticipation that our state college will eventually come to terms with, what the regulation will be for cities throughout the Commonwealth, including Philadelphia. Secondly, I mentioned before that I'm willing to work with Member Harrity to talk about exemptions of taverns and bars that exist within the community that have ongoing monitoring of who can purchase alcohol, those same types of oversights can be legitimately put on who gambles on those machines. So I want to work with Member Harrity to work on that type of amendment. So with that, are there questions for our witness, Mr. Glass?

Mr. Chairman, there are no Members who wish to be recognized in the chat.

With that, going once, going twice, Member Harrity? (No response.)

With that, thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Chairman, that was the only witness to testify for this bill.

Thank you so very much. What is the next bill 25 to be considered?

Mr. Chairman, the next bill for consideration today is Bill No. 230700, amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, 5 entitled "Regulation of Businesses, 6 Trades and Professions," to add a 7 new Chapter creating penalties for 8 trespassing in retail 9 establishments, all under certain terms and conditions.

Thank you so much, Mr. Glass. I think to give context, this was a result of the Kensington Marshall Plan hearings that the Committee on Public Safety did. And one of the subset issues that came out of this was the problems that many of the businesses in that hearing were facing with retail theft and the fact that Member Harrity and Member Lozada and Member Squilla and Member Vaughn pointed out the fact that there were businesses that are literally being beset with shoplifting and were forced to close their doors based on the lack of enforcement, based on their inability to stop people from not only stealing but also creating a secondary market where you could go online and purchase the soap powders and detergents that were stolen the day before. So with that, working with the District Attorney's Office, working with members of the participating stakeholders of the Crime Summit, we wanted to look at a piece of augmented legislation that armed operators of businesses to say you've been convicted three times shoplifting from my store, I'd like you not to come back. And that, in fact, part of this is to look at how we can look at retail theft areas to look at what kinds of grants we can do for improvements to security that might include cameras, that might include specialized shelving and moving product around so that it is not so easily stolen. So with that, who is the first witness to testify on this bill, Mr. Glass?

Mr. Chairman, our first witness is Rolando Sanchez.

Ms. Sanchez, are you connected?

Yes, sir, here I am.

Here you go. My gender theme today is out of whack. All right. Can you state your name for the record and please begin your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chairman Jones and members of the Committee on Public Safety. My name is Rolando Sanchez. I'm the Aramingo Business Improvement District Manager for Impact Services, a 501(c)(3) community development corporation. And I'd like to thank you for allowing me to testify in support of Bill No. 230700. Impact Services, we continue our work to revitalize the Kensington and Allegheny, Harrowgate and Port Richmond areas, support economic vitality, community vibrancy, safety cleanliness and the overall quality of life for all who live, work and play in the 19134 zip code. Now, for some time now K&A and the Aramingo businesses, like so many other parts of the City, have seen the effects of the opioid crisis contributing to other criminal activities. As we know, violence in Philadelphia has turned into an epidemic that jeopardizes the health, mental health and safety of our communities and business owners. Case in point, we have businesses like CVS who came and invested billions of dollars in building a brand new site on Aramingo. Now, they must lock the refrigerators just to keep stock on the shelves because of bad actors continuing to come back, walking in taking what they want and walking out. It creates a huge economic burden and it leads to lost wages for families, negatively impacts the ability for businesses to stay open hurting our chances to attract quality business to the area and in turn bringing that economic stability to one of the City's poorest and underserved neighborhoods. What we hear from residents and businesses is that safety is a top concern along K&A and the Aramingo corridors. Bill 20 No. 230700 is a step in the right direction in finding solutions to address some of these concerns. Consequences, let me repeat that, consequences, there must be consequences for illegal behavior. Our elected officials, police department, partner agencies and community leaders have an obligation to our communities and businesses to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. We need to bring back respect for the law and for those who enforce it. Understanding that there is still much work to do, passing Bill 230700 will show Kensington, Aramingo and the City as a whole that we are with them, that they are not alone. Everyone's quality of life should be equitable and we are fighting to achieve it. Let us move K&A, Aramingo and Philly together. Thank you again for letting me to testify. And Vice-Chair Johnson, as you noticed I didn't break the Internet this time while testifying. And again, thank you for letting me testify.

Thank you for your testimony. I will say that during those hearings that we were able to share ideas and what was going on, it was astonishing the amount of fortitude that small businesses had to stay open to resist the temptation of closing their doors and moving away. And so, what Member Harrity and Member Lozada and Member Vaughn and Member Squilla insisted upon is that we start to have consequences for the small things. And, yes, it's important to take care of the big macrosecondary market and what's going on, on the Internet. But at the end of the day if I want to open my doors and I want to keep my staff employed, God knows a small profit, we have to have consequences. We have to let the folk that are doing this know that there's help for you, but there's also consequences for you as well. So that balance has to exist. Mr. Glass, are there any Members that want to question the witness?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Councilmember Harrity would like to be recognized.

Member Harrity.

Hey, what's going on Rolando. I don't have any questions. I just wanted to actually thank you while everybody is here for all of the work that you do. It's definitely a job that you really don't get -- you get lots of problems but not many kudos, so I know the hard work that you and Marnie and Shannon from Harrowgate and Kensington Independence Center, you're all doing to help us guide the neighborhood in the right direction, so thank you for everything you do.

I appreciate the acknowledgement, Councilman Harrity. I really do.

Are there any other questions for this witness?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Councilmember Lozada would like to be recognized.

Member Lozada, good afternoon. Please proceed.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just also want to recognize Rolando and Impact Services, all of their team over there for all of the work that they do, not just on the Aramingo corridor but on the Kensington corridor. We know it's challenging and you guys show up every day and try to support those businesses and keep them encouraged to keep opening their doors so that the community has somewhere to come shop. It's extremely easy or it's an easier decision for CVS who decide that they are going to shut their doors because they've lost $1.25 million in merchandise. It's not as easy for a very, very small business owner-operator who has invested everything he has into a business to try to get his family what they need to survive but they do, right. And so, the decision to close is much more difficult for that small business. And so, I am encouraged that with this legislation and with the support of the next coming Administration, the next Council legislative body that we are going to be able to move the process forward and that we are going to be able to hold individuals accountable who have made shoplifting or retail theft their profession. They need to understand that this will no 23 longer be tolerated as long as we have all of us working together and on the same page around accountability and enforcement. So thank you so much.

Thank you, Member.

Mr. Chair, I have a question.

Chair recognizes Member Johnson.

Yeah. Mr. Sanchez, again thank you for your leadership around this issue. I just want to get an idea of the size of your staff for Impact Services.

Impact Services, it depends. That's a broad question. If you're saying who's on K&A or who's on Aramingo, I would say thanks to the PCP program we have well over 20 in the cleaning crews and down on the Avenue. On Aramingo, we employ two companies for security and we also have Impact Services, that's four cleaning crew members so we keep that safe and clean. The whole idea -- so all together Impact employs about 170 people. CareerLink, we're also part of that, trying to get people to work like earlier legislation was saying about returning citizens where that's where we do. Most of our staff is returning citizens in some way or another, and we continue to do that and work in collaboration with Council and the City and making these things happen for the neighborhood, especially those that really need, like I said, the underserved in the poorest section 17 of the City really needs your attention and I am so proud of this legislative body and what they're putting forth to make things happen for us down here.

Yeah. I just want to thank you and your team for your leadership around this issue and most importantly being in the community. And I heard you loud and clear when you talk about accountability. And I'm excited as we move forward in this new Administration, and we'll have the opportunity to not only take a comprehensive approach when addressing this issue but also addressing the issue of accountability, because for me I believe a part of holding people accountable also helps save lives as a part of this process. And so, I'm looking forward to continue working with you. And I just want to say hats off to the leadership of Councilwoman Quetcy Lozada and Jim Harrity and also Chairman Jones around this issue. So I'm very, very excited about how we're going to be addressing making Kensington one of the greatest neighborhoods here in the City of Philadelphia. I'm optimistic that as long as we continue to address the issue with a sense of urgency with legislation such as this but also making sure that there's a comprehensive plan with all City agencies, public and private, at the table addressing this issue as we move forward. So just wanted to commend you on your leadership and thank you for participating on this panel. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You are welcome, sir. We are looking forward to the results of the Kensington Marshall Plan that Member Lozada and Member Harrity and others are working on, and we're going to come up with specific recommendations that quite frankly are going to be included in the overall Crime Summit. And I thank Member Lozada, Member Harrity, Member Vaughn and Member Squilla for their work. Are there any other questions for this witness, Mr. Glass?

Mr. Chairman, there are no other Councilmembers wishing to be recognized at this time.

Thank you so much for your testimony. And keep up the good fight. Help is on the way.

Thank you, Chairman and Councilwoman and Councilman and everyone and Vice- Chair.

Mr. Glass, who do we -- who is the last witness on this bill?

Mr. Chairman, there's one more witness on this bill, Deputy Commissioner Francis Healy.

Once again, Deputy Commissioner, welcome back. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Thank you, sir. Just for the record, my name is Francis Healy. I'm Deputy Commissioner for the Philadelphia Police Department on behalf of Commissioner Stanford. Thank you again for allowing me to voice my opinion. At the outset let me say this, the police department fully supports the intent behind this bill. Retail theft as we know is crippling both large and small stores throughout the City. While the PPD makes arrests for the state-level offense, they must be prosecuted regardless of the amounts stolen to have an impact. I think we all agree failure to prosecute has resulted in a sense of lawlessness surrounding retail thefts. Equally troubling, the offenders engaged in this conduct who are often suffering from substance abuse disorders are no 1 longer eligible for diversionary services since they have once been prosecuted in the past. These services were very effective in helping to break the cycle of addiction and resulting breaking the need for retail thefts. With that said, the PPD understands why City Council is taking this action regarding retail establishments and trespassing. We respect the fact that City Council simply is not accepting the inaction of others but is stepping up and trying to make a difference. That said, the Philadelphia Police Department identified some concerns. However, with the bill it needs to be clarified and I'm always happy to assist. First, this bill regulates individual conduct of people who -- as such, this amendment would in our opinion be better suited in Title 10, which regulates individual conduct of people, not businesses. Next, from an enforcement perspective this bill just needs to be reconciled with -- 10-615 since 6 615 has to do with defiant trespass provision in it, which is actually a very good provision and I think this can be merged together very well. This defiant trespass section is very similar with what's written here, so I think it can very easily be worked together, worked well. Since the language of this bill is not identical but rather covers somewhat of a subset of 10-615, I think there's an opportunity to merge this into the existing section and create an exception to the general rule for retail establishments, and this way here you would be able to carve out the $1,000 exception versus the $100 excep -- I'm sorry, $1,000 fine versus the $100 fine, and we can articulate that very easily. So I fully support -- the police department supports this. We understand we have to do something to address -- to help address the retail theft. We're willing to help anywhere we possibly can and my people and my officers are out there making these arrests, so I appreciate the effort of City Council finding innovative ways to get to the bottom line to get accountability and hold people accountable. So I appreciate it and will help out where possible. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Deputy Commissioner. We look forward to working with you, our office, to look at those types of amendments and corrections that we can put things in the proper code. I also want to say for the record I had a conversation with a citizen of Kensington, and they talked about door-to-doorway that you can order shoplifting goods. Put your order in, in the morning and get your order delivered at night. Member Lozada talked about introducing people choosing this as a profession. What this legislation does say there are consequences to your profession, and therefore, you will be held accountable for those kinds of actions and it is not open season on small businesses. So we look forward to working with you, Deputy Commissioner, to figure out how to dot our i's and cross our t's. We're excited about the possibility working with the new Administration. And we have to say, all right, Kensington deserves the quality of life (inaudible). So we look forward to working with you to correct those oversights within this legislation and you'll be hearing from us. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Thank you, sir. And I wouldn't say they're oversights. It's just more specifically narrows them consistent with this stuff.

I get it. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: So I'm real happy that the issue from a policing perspective this actually gives us the ability to identify individuals, so that's very helpful. So the idea of identifying Fran Healy is not allowed to be in your store gives my officers the legal authority to intervene. That helps, that kind of legislation helps us when the allegation is that we're doing things inappropriately. So this type of very narrow specific legislation is incredibly helpful, so I do thank you for it.

You are more than welcome. Are there any questions from members of the Committee?

Mr. Chairman, there are no members of Council wishing to be recognized at this time.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

That was our last witness for this bill, Mr. Chairman.

And we have the resolution on I believe Article 6.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Resolution No. 230793, authorizing the City Council Committee on Public Safety to hold hearings examining the use of vehicle immobilizing "window barnacles" as a form of predatory parking by private entities to understand the impact they have on Philadelphia's residents.

Thank you so much, Mr. Glass. Why don't we recognize the first witness to testify.

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

(Inaudible) witness, seeing none.

Our first witness is Deputy Commissioner Fran Healy from the Philadelphia Police Department.

Fan favorite. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Or the low man on the pole. I'm not sure how it goes. Okay. I submitted my written testimony on this, but I will be very clear. When I was asked to write this, I was in the process of actually drafting the proposed ordinances that we can submit on behalf of the Administration. This is a huge problem. And the problem lies in the fact that the people using this equipment are not necessarily towers, so the existing towing ordinance doesn't really touch them. Because if you remember years ago there's a section in there that says nobody's allowed to touch, handle or anything to a car on private lot. And that was great language for the towers not being able to remove a car unless a ticket for towed or a ticket was placed on the vehicle so a third party could determine that it was illegally parked. All those provisions, all those safeguards and protection in this existing tow ordinance is being circumvented by this piece of equipment. So it's incredibly important. I'm happy to testify in any future hearings on this because it's not just towers. It's individual lot owners or a person's driveway that puts one of these things on your windshield and basically it circumvented all the safeguards we have in place with the amount of tow and all those things for protective purposes. But now, you can slap one of these on the windshield and basically get held hostage for whatever the amount the individual wants for these things. And so, you've heard of cases where people actually quite frankly take out the windshield because it's cheaper than paying the price to get the barnacle removed. Then we've seen people driving off like Ace Ventura with their head out the window. So, yes, this is very much a time for these things to be regulated. And like I said when we do regulate them, I think it needs to be individual, not necessarily the towing code because that will make it narrow for the towers. The towers aren't necessarily using this equipment. It's the lot owners or individual's driveways. So I think it's very much ripe for some type of restriction of this. People are -- the extortion aspect of it we can't control it and that's what's frustrating from the police department's perspective. So thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to work on this.

Thank you. Thank you so very much for that testimony. We only recently became aware of this problem based on complaints that came from individuals who had the barnacles placed on their windshield. And some of the acts that ensued, imagine people trying to drive away with them on, people kicking out windows. And when I reached out to the Parking Authority to see under what legislation this was being -- these barnacles were being installed, he said none, and these individual companies. And we will hear more recently from one of the owners of the company to get their side of view. But I wanted to for the record state and ask the question, is it legal to put those on cars at this point in the City of Philadelphia? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: That's just the whole -- I don't think it's not illegal at this point because there is no restrictions on them. The removal of illegally parked cars is covered under the towing ordinance and it's a process and procedure. This doesn't touch in that realm whatsoever because they're not towers that are abusing the ordinance. So currently it's not regulated.

It's not regulated. Got it for the record. Any questions for Deputy Commissioner Healy?

I have a question.

Mr. Chairman, Councilmember Lozada would like to be recognized.

So it is not legal, but what is the vehicle owner's -- what are his rights when they come in contact with this type of a situation and they're confronted by an individual who refuses to remove these and call the police? What is their right and what is the police's responsibility at that point? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: That's exact complaints we've been getting. We're so appreciative that this is being addressed. It's not clear. The issue under the ordinance, it's not how you're supposed to have a car removed, but there's nothing to say that they can't put it on there. So it's between a rock and a hard place. I really don't know what advice to give a complainant at this point other than civil litigation. But the average person doesn't have the time and money to get involved in. So we try to negotiate and mediate, like cops do best, to try to resolve things as best they can, but there is no 8 uniform concise rules. Quite frankly, I think these things should be illegal. For an individual who maybe pick a price, you know, whatever you want that day I think is extortion. And how I can prove that, that's a whole different realm. But, yes, I think it's problematic and these definitely need to be restricted or governed in some ways so my officers have clear guidance as well as the community. If you're parked illegally on a lot, there are rules. The rules are very clearly written what's going to happen to you. You'll get a ticket, the car will be towed. Then you'll have to pay X amount of fees and towing fees. That's clearly stated so it's not a surprise if you're parked illegally. But here if you park illegally on a lot, people are slapping these things on you. So in addition to whatever under the law you can get hit with, you're paying $500 cash or the likes of leaving it on there. That's blackmail. Like I said, I appreciate anything to help us because my officers are between a rock and a hard place. We're trying to be helpful to the community, but we don't have any really legal resources to really help us.

So I'm not sure, and someone please correct me, Deputy Commissioner, I don't know if you would be able to answer this. But do we have or does anyone have the authority to prevent the use of these things, the barnacles, until we do regulate them, until we do figure out what the legislation is, what is the responsibility. Because if I park in a private lot and it clearly says on there that illegally parked vehicles will be ticketed and towed at the owner's expense of $75 or of $100 let's say, right. And then I get one of these things on my windshield and the guy decides that morning that he wants to charge me $300, what am I paying? I am paying the $100 that is posted or am I paying this individual to remove this object from my windshield? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: From what I've seen at places, that money is just to remove the barnacle off the windshield. Now, I've seen other places where not only do they remove the barnacle but then your car is now technically still sitting there illegally parked and then they have it towed, a second double whammy.

Can we prohibit these until we figure this out? Who has the authority to decide or to make the decision that this is an illegal way of ticket-and-tow or this is an illegal practice until we can figure out how we move forward? And I ask this question because I've had several residents in the 7th Council District who have been victims of this action and they are folks that are struggling, right, and neither one of them paid a consistent rate. So I understand exactly what you're saying, right. This person woke up one day and he charged one person $100. The next time he came around he's char -- for the same location, right, he charged the person $300. And so, police show up. Police don't really know what they're supposed to do and what their authority is. I'm just trying to figure out who can help us and how will we put an end to this until this can get regulated? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Well, honestly I can't speak for -- the Law Department would have to give you the legal opinion. But nevertheless, I do believe City Council could be in the use of this illegal, you know, in lieu of removing illegally parked cars. And in that case there, as a police officer I can order it removed or otherwise cite the, like I said, not the towers often times, it will be the lot owners or the driveway owner, whoever's the property owner that placed it on there. Then I can cite that individual. So, yes, I think it would be in your power. But I would defer to the Law Department to make sure.

If I could, Member Lozada, that's the purpose of these hearings. That's the purpose of this legislation, to take a look at the fact that there is -- there is no regulations governing this. So it kind of is catch as catch can and today it's 100, tomorrow it's 300 kind of situation until the law catches up with the technology. But the technology got out in front of us and we are now trying to catch up legislatively.

And I get that, I get that, Chairman. But while we're having conversations and we're in the midst of trying to figure it out, there are people who are being impacted, negatively impacted by this on a daily basis. And so, I guess what I was trying to figure out is what is the immediate course of action that we can put into place? Is it us who ban that immediately? Is it the police department that comes up with an agreement that these will be considered illegal until legislation is figured out? What can we do, the now? What is the now solution and what is the long-term conversation that we need to have again so that folks that are just trying to grab medication, a husband who's trying to pick up his wife from a medical appointment and is unable to walk a far distance, what are their solutions short-term?

That is the purpose of this hearing. And right now there is no immediate. We can't instantly forbid something. We have to do this process, which is to have an ordinance, which is to have a hearing, which is to have public comment, and then in the next session of Council vote on it. That's the soonest we can get it to them, Member Lozada. And I want to thank 6abc for bringing it to our attention because it was not on my radar until the members in my District in Manayunk started to complain about these devices that they felt were holding them hostage. So now that it has been brought to our attention we're going to move on it with all deliberate speed to at least regulate it. And we'll hear from one of the owners in the next set of witnesses and maybe they might consider not deploying these barnacles until we catch up with the legislation to at least regulate them.

Appreciate that. Thank you.

You are welcome, Member. Are there any other questions for Deputy Commissioner Healy?

Mr. Chairman, if I can just quickly note for the record that the chat feature is only available for Members to wish that they would like to be recognized for questions or comments, not for comments by witnesses. Just for the Sunshine Act purposes we want to make sure that's clear. At this time, there no other Members who wish to be recognized for questions at this time, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Deputy Commissioner. Can you stick around just in case we have follow-up questions please? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Of course. Yes, sir.

Thank you so much. Mr. Glass, who is the next panel to testify?

Our next witness is Mikina Harrison.

Ms. Harrison, are you connected? (No response.)

Ms. Harrison? (No response.)

Ms. Harrison, are you connected? (No response.)

Do we have any other witnesses, Mr. Glass?

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Give me one moment. It looks like she's in at this time. It's just probably some technical issues. But at this time we can move on to our next witness Rashawn Allen from the Barnacle Company.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Good afternoon.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. State --

Yes --

-- your name for the record and please begin your testimony.

Sure. I'm Rashawn Allen. I'm the President over at Barnacle Parking, and certainly appreciate all of the feedback that has come back -- that has come from the Council. You know, we work with numerous municipalities all across the country, north of 50 municipalities at this time. I would like to make sure that we kind of separate the two issues. I think there's the one issue of -- the biggest thing I think you all are trying to address is the predatory pricing aspect of it, predatory immobilization which is the primary reason that a lot of other municipalities, states have put in similar ordinances such as yours around the towing aspect of it. And so, I would like you to know that obviously we at Barnacle do not condone or support predatory immobilization, predatory pricing in any shape or manner. We actually have all of that stuff listed out in our agreement. Typically what our process is when these things are brought to our attention -- and you guys had a couple of motorists that reached out to us directly, thanked them for doing so. We then contact our clients, the affecting client and have a conversation with them, get a better understanding of what's happening. And we try to be as proactive as we can and illustrate best practices when they're going through the implementation, onboarding process. So when something like this is brought to our attention, we review it with them. We make a suggestion on the change that they need to make going forward. Most of the time they do and instances where they do not make those changes, we actually take the step and the initiative to then fire them as a client, if you will. We don't want to be associated with predatory immobilization, price gouging, anything of that nature, right. The intent was to provide a safer, greener, more convenient way for municipalities, universities, private property owners to enforce parking on their lots while having it be as convenient and least amount of painful to the motorist as possible. And in our agreement again, it specifically states that you are not allowed to charge excessive fines, that you must follow all local, city and state ordinances as it relates to immobilization and fine amounts.

Well, thank you for that. The question is in other municipalities where you are located, did you check in with law enforcement or entities like the Parking Authority to see what the rules and regulations were?

Yeah. So it varies obviously from municipality to municipality, state to state, right, where the parking enforcement aspect of it lies. Sometimes with the police department, sometimes there's a separate division. But in most instances, there are typically clearly defined fine amounts, whether it be on private property, fire lanes, things of that nature which make it then very easy to follow those guidelines. However, there are instances in some municipalities where there aren't any kind of guidelines in regards to max fine amounts and things of that nature, which in those instances we will typically tell folks, hey, you probably don't want to charge anything more than what a tow will be, which I believe in this instance we have. But I think where kind of the line got blurred a little bit was, you know, minutes, 30 6 minutes after somebody's expired, is 7 the fine amount too high for that 8 particular instance. And I think 9 that's one of the things that we 10 typically work with our clients and 11 municipalities on when these 12 instances come up to find a very 13 happy medium, if you will. 14

How many 15 clients do you have in Pennsylvania and in Philadelphia in particular?

In Pennsylvania we have 30-plus clients. 7 of those I think, 6 or 7 are government entities, meaning they're either municipalities or universities. And then in Philadelphia specifically I would say we actually only have a few clients that are private operators. One of them is A-Bob, which is on the call with us today as well. And I will be happy to put together an encompassing list and send it over to you if you feel like that would be helpful.

Yeah, that would be helpful. So in the case of Philadelphia, did you check in with the Philadelphia Police who deal with parking issues and also the Philadelphia Parking Authority when you established your relationships in Philadelphia?

We did not.

Is there a reason why you didn't?

Yeah. I mean, typically what we do is we take a look at the ordinances that are kind of there, you know. I think one of the -- as you had mentioned earlier, right, the barnacle is so new that in many instances there is not really an ordinance that is written for it, so it kind of falls in that gray area, if you will. And in some municipalities, like I said they want to be involved, they want to know. Others they do not. And so, we just try to make sure that first and foremost it's one of the first things that we tell all of our clients is to make sure that there's not an ordinance that prohibits immobilization and that also to be aware of what the fine amounts are and then understand you have to have an immobilization license in order to deploy the barnacle. And those are the primary guidelines that we follow to make sure there's no immediate conflict or rules that are being broken.

Thank you very much. Are there questions for this particular witness, Mr. Glass?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Councilmember Lozada would like to be recognized.

Member Lozada, are you there?

(Muted).

Member --

Yeah. I think she's on mute though.

I'm sorry. Thank you. I think my first question is what municipalities specifically are you working directly with that you have had successful engagement with?

We have Columbia, Tucson, City of Las Vegas, the Reading Parking Authority, City of Charleston, City of Evanston in Illinois.

Can you get us a comprehensive list together and forward it to our Chairperson, that would be awesome.

Yeah, not a problem.

And then secondly, I would say that before you work with a client, why aren't those things that you listed, processes, that you as the owner of these barnacles should be trying to figure out whether there's ordinances or not, whether there are certain requirements that are necessary? Why would you put that on the client and why would you not do that yourself?

Well, there's a couple of reasons, ma'am. As I had mentioned earlier because the barnacle is so new it kind of falls into -- there isn't any -- in most instances there's not an ordinance 18 that says you can or that you can't utilize the barnacle. The ordinances that we focus on are around immobilization and follow those guidelines and even that is another gray area because there's argument that can be made that technically a barnacle is not an immobilization device. There's a number of different ways that it can be used. We have some clients that use it to charge fees. We have some clients that use it for compliance purposes only and they actually don't charge a fine amount. You see that with hospitals and other corporate entities where they're really just trying to get compliance around employee parking, things of that nature. And then again, instances where there are strict guidelines and regulations, again we make sure that our clients understand that they need to follow them and meet within their reins -- within their realms. It's a little bit of a tricky situation for us at times because we want to make sure that we are putting guardrails around how the device is being used and that it's being used in how it's meant to. We monitor. We try to be proactive as possible. And then when things happen, we address them.

They're not working. Whatever it is you're doing right now with your clients in Philadelphia it's not working, and it is predatory and you guys are, your clients are in areas where there are vulnerable poor people. And so, as the owner of these devices I believe that you should take a more proactive approach to ensure that there is not a predatory process like we are seeing in our communities right now. And so, I am going to request that you meet with your clients in Philadelphia and figure out how you have a corrective action, how there's corrective action, how do you change these gray areas. And yet you're talking about greening and making it safer, I think that where you start if that's really the purpose, where you start would be working in collaboration with your public safety people, right. That's how you move proactively. That's how you're a good neighbor. That's how you're a good business. That's how you're not predatory or that's how you avoid predatory practices, which is what is happening in the 7th Council District. And so, I'm open and willing to learning more about these things and this process. But at this moment I want to focus more on how do we prevent you all from continuing this predatory business that you are conducting in the 7th Council District. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Member Lozada. Are there any other questions for this particular witness? (No response.)

If not, I think Ms. Harrison has joined us.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mikina Harrison will be our next witness.

Ms. Harrison, can you state your name for the record and begin your testimony.

Hi. Can you hear me? I wasn't able to do a mic check.

(Nodded affirmatively).

Okay. Great. Hi. So good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. Thank you everyone for your testimony so far. Mr. Heal -- Commissioner Healy, I apologize. I haven't seen you since 2017 since we were trying to get the ticket-to-tow removed. I'm glad to see that you're actually still active. So I first want to address Councilwoman Lozada. Thank you so much. You're very passionate about your District and I appreciate that. I think what we can do is do consistent pricing. However, I do want to say that in your District specifically we were asked by the owner of that lot to charge the full 200. Our signs prior to were based on towing prices because it was cheaper than doing the tow, which would cost your members $251 on average, not to mention they would have to come to our office. So at that location, at G and Hunting Park, which I believe you were speaking of, I actually set it to $75. And the reason was because I recognized we weren't trying to get rich, we weren't trying to get over on anyone and we definitely weren't being predatory at that location. So if anyone was charged more than $75, I would like to know that because on our end we don't see that. We don't see it because the barnacle app is very precise and it's very accurate. And when you release the device, it's for the price that the person paid. The barnacle app is very efficient and the use of the barnacle is very, very effective. It is a visual deterrent. I'm not able to get online right now to show you the text messages that I have from the managers at that location. People are parking up to their fire lane. They are afraid. There was a Dollar Tree that burned down, so the managers there they send me text messages every day. We're not there hawking people trying to do this. I am called out there constantly. 8:00 a.m. in the morning every day she's texting me they're starting again. She's sending me pictures of cars that are parked up to their front door. They're not able to leave the store. So I think these are things that everyone isn't aware of and I'm glad that I'm able today to speak on these things. I'm also glad that we were able to get out, that it's not illegal because that really -- it hurt, it hurt us and our business because we strive to do everything with integrity. I know I do. So I had passed out an answer to the resolution. Did you receive it?

I have not.

Okay. I gave it to -- so I passed one out and I got the signatures of all 17 members that I actually emailed it and I also -- can you see it? This is what it looks like. So essentially all the answers are in there. I have a client that actually discontinued our services because of the ABC airing that he did and they are no longer enforcing parking there and he has had two times -- according to him this morning, two times as many people now just within the last three weeks that are illegally parking on his private property and he doesn't have any recourse because we're not able to get tickets. So this right here was recently shown on the news. This isn't any surprise. But in 2016 when we had the ticket-to-tow it was a great idea. Right now probably not so much. I'm hoping that you guys will take a look at it because I'm not telling you anything you don't know. Last week you guys did -- on the 14th you did a Public Safety hearing with the dispatchers. I heard testimony about how they're down in police officers, they're down in dispatching and I was hoping this can be an easy remedy for us to look at or for you guys to look at because I have no 2 power, but for you guys to look at to see if maybe we can remove ticket-to-tow off the table. Because of its ineffectiveness I brought with me a couple of property managers who will testify how their residents feel unsafe because abandoned cars are left on their property for days trying to get tickets. And I understand rightfully so because our officers are very busy. I do want regulation regarding the barnacles. I think there should be a set fee. I think there should be certain standards in place where it can actually only be used on two different types of properties. One of them would be -- so the property over at G and Hunting Park, Councilwoman Lozada, that would be excluded. The reason why it will be excluded is because we're hoping now we can actually get tickets and remove those cars from the fire lane so that the people working at Dollar Tree feel safe in their workplace. It would really only be used in private property where you can have like a Flowbird app or a Park Mobile app. I have several properties that have the same exact app that Philadelphia Parking Authority uses, so we're able to go online and you can see if that person's tag is paid. It will tell you how long they're paid up to. Then when you deploy the barnacle, the app is also timestamped so there's no confusion. There's no 18 way to get over on people. There's no way that this can be misrepresented that someone got the barnacle and they should not have. And if that does happen, we remove it for free of course. When you listen to Channel 6abc News, those two people they indicated that their time ran out which goes to prove that we do have systems in place that we're using and we operate with integrity. So in the pamphlet that you didn't get, it just basically shows how the Park Mobile app can be used and you can see it. Every tag is listed. The signage, the signage is 3 feet by 3 feet. We use the same premise for the tow sign that needed to be used. So we have the company's name on it. We have unauthorized vehicles are subject to barnacle deployment, which is a ticketing device at the owner's expense and has a telephone number. Everything is transparent. And going back to that parking lot that was on the news, that owner he knew he was getting some, you know, bad publicity from the members of Manayunk so he went and bought a 4-by-4 foot sign, 4 feet by 4 feet bright yellow with red writing, and it stated, your car is subject to boot if at any time your parking is unpaid. So we feel that we definitely did our due diligence to make sure that we were transparent. I think that the signs can be exact and that they should not say fine up to. That is definitely a correction that I feel should be made.

And I think I can answer any questions, but essentially it's very effective for people that are having trouble with illegally parked cars. PPA in Philadelphia, you're not the only people that have problems on public streets. Those public people come to private property. We as the people, we are learned behaviors, creatures of habit. So people know if you get three tickets on the street, then you get a boot so people tend to hold three tickets. I'm sure there's studies on this. I'm sure it's true. And then after they get their fourth ticket, then they pay. This is better than a tow. I have so many people that say I'm just so happy my car is here, overwhelmingly so because the average price is 150 and the average tow is 250 and that doesn't include your inconvenience of coming to a tow yard. I think I covered about everything that I needed to cover. Just essentially my name is Mikina Harrison and I definitely operate with integrity and I can answer to any questions that you have on any situation.

Thank you so very much for your testimony. Member Lozada, do you have any questions?

No. 22 I've heard her.

So what I would suggest, and I listened to what you said, the first thing that we should have done was had this conversation before they were deployed. That would have been a better way so that we could talk about issues and amounts and how much could be charged and what is predatory and what is not. So my suggestion here is that we convene a meeting, we can do that with the Deputy Commissioner, with the Parking Authority, with members of Council to talk about these uses of this type of technology in the City of Philadelphia so that we can get ahead of it. My question directly now is if I'm on a parking lot and let's say my time was for an hour, an hour and 15 minutes, at what point after that hour and 15 minutes can you put that barnacle on my car?

So that's not been outlined with any outline other than me, myself, in my personal business what I do. I give them a seven-minute grace period, and I've given that seven-minute grace period just on the fact of living in the corporate world and if you're late, you're not late until either you clock in after six minutes or something like that. That's basically what I based it on. When you have the Park Mobile app, you have the option of actually clicking for it to give you a 15-minute warning. So if you're at dinner, it beeps and you know you got minutes to get to your car 15 and then we give you an additional seven minutes to get to your vehicle.

But that's out of your good graces but not regulated by the industry?

That would be correct, yes.

All right. I have no further questions. Is there anyone, Mr. Glass, who would like to ask questions?

Can I just follow up with one other thing that I did forget to say?

Certainly.

I believe that Tonya is on the line from The Dane. They're in your District. A parking -- not parking, a residential apartment building such as theirs, they charge their residents for parking in their lease, that they charge for parking, so I would propose that when we all meet that you would not be able to use the barnacle on any apartment building that did not charge for parking. That way I think that we would get rid of a lot of gray areas because people pay for parking. The management there they provide us with a list which acts like the Park Mobile app, and it says they're good to park there for the month. They're good to park through February and it's in their lease that they pay for parking so that there is no gray area. She provides me with a list of their tags and everything is concrete. So if you have a parking lot in, I don't know, let's just say 3rd and Lehigh but they don't charge their residents for parking, you would not be able to use the barnacle in that instance. They would need to be towed.

Thank you for your input. Thank you for your testimony.

All right. Thank you.

Member Lozada, you're okay?

I'm fine, yes. Thank you.

All right. Mr. Glass.

Mr. Chairman, our next --

Do you have correspondence from the City Solicitor's Office?

I do, Mr. Chairman. The following email is from a senior attorney, the Legislation and Legal Counseling Unit of the Philadelphia Law Department. Placing a window/windshield barnacle on a vehicle would qualify as handling in any manner under Chapter 14 9-605(11)(b) of The Philadelphia Code and would therefore be prohibited with prior ticketing by law enforcement. Separate legislation wouldn't be needed because it does suffice as it's being used to immobilize a vehicle.

So, Member Lozada, that was for your question on what about what can we do immediately. And so, that email should be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner and members of this Committee.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Who is our next witness to testify?

Mr. Chairman, Mikina would like to be recognized again.

Hi. I'm sorry. I think I understood your email from the Legal Department. Are they referring to Bill No. 15 160682?

Yes. That's known as the ticket-to-tow law.

Okay. Great. All right. I just wanted to make sure because I wasn't clear because I'm not a legal person. But under that there is an exception that in a licensed parking lot a vehicle may be moved to another location in the parking lot prior to being towed or ticketed. So if you would be able to send that back to them, that would be great because we are able to relocate, handle and touch a vehicle as long as we're not towing it and it remains on that property.

So I'm not clear about the distinction. But what I heard them say was that under that classification, what was that to be handled? What was the exact -- so why don't we get clarification on that.

Okay.

And before we pass it on final passage, we will have that distinction made clear. Okay?

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. I appreciate it.

You're welcome. Mr. Glass, who is the next witness to testify?

Mr. Chairman, Deputy Commissioner Francis Healy would like to be recognized.

Commissioner -- Deputy Commissioner. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: I just have one question. I don't know who from Law offered that email, but I want some communication with the Law Department on that very point. I also believe that the handling -- I mean, I helped draft that specific section that dealt with towers, not the lot. Therefore, I was told previously that it didn't apply and I remember having specifically that conversation with members of the Law Department, so I'm curious to see who authored that. And if you can forward that to me, I'd like to clarify that because --

Would you please, Mr. Glass. We need clarification, Mr. Glass, as to whether or not that included lots.

I will send that to you now, Deputy Commissioner. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Thank you.

Okay. Who's next to testify next, Mr. Glass?

Mr. Chairman, Councilmember Lozada would like to be recognized.

Member Lozada.

I was just going to say the same thing what the Deputy Commissioner said. I want to make sure there's clarity on this, because again this needs to be considered separately from the towing piece, right, the ticket-and-tow. This to me should require its own legislation that is very clear and very specific so that there is no confusion.

Agreed. That's why we're doing this. You're right. Thank you, Member Lozada.

Mr. Glass, who's next to testify?

Mr. Chairman, our next witness is Tonya Looney.

Ms. Looney, are you connected? (No response.)

Ms. Looney, good afternoon. Are you connected?

I am connected, yes.

Thank you. State your name for the record and please begin your testimony.

My name is Tonya Looney. I am acting as Community Manager at The Dane Apartments in Wynnefield, Philadelphia.

I know exactly where The Dane is.

Yes.

The Penn- Wynne.

Absolutely, yes.

All right. Please begin your testimony.

All right. Well, Ms. Harris asked me to come on board to speak to how the barnacle or the detention vehicle device has been working for us. We had an account with Barnacle before I actually took over as the community manager here, which was in about July of this year. We had private parking in the front of our building. There's a circle. We have loading zones in the front and the back. We have garage parking and we have private parking in the back of our building surface level parking. We were using the barnacle to enforce the parking enforcement agreed to by every resident who has private parking. When someone parks in private parking spaces that are paid for by residents, they are detained by the barnacle. It's always the same rate. Just as if you went to a gas station and you buy $30 worth of gas they might hold $100 on your card. So it's been our experience that there is a processing fee that holds a certain amount on an individual's card. What they end up paying in the end is about $175 to $200. Is that correct, Mikina?

We actually just charge 150 at that location, just 150.

Okay. So it's always a flat rate. The issue that we've had and why we use the barnacle is because I have paying maintenance out, oncall maintenance staff, hours of overtime and my predecessor Ms. Bernard managed the property before me, she's now taking more of a corporate role, we had no 2 answer to illegal parking. We called the police, and sometimes they are here to ticket cars and sometimes they don't show at all. So we had people who were taking advantage, people that were not even residents parking on our private property. Our gate which stops people from coming in and out of our surface parking garage in the back was broken because someone ran into it. When that happened, we had people from the neighborhood pulling into our private lot parking. The only recourse was to call, get them ticketed before we could get them towed. If the police did not show, then there was nothing we could do. We can't get a car towed without a ticket, which is why we started using the barnacle service. When I met Mikina during my tenure at The Dane, she decided to take over that whole parking enforcement role for us because it's really not the job of a maintenance team of a high-rise apartment. The job is to maintain the units, not to enforce parking. So we signed a contract with A Bob's Towing and Bob (inaudible) to assist us with enforcing the private parking on our lot and it's been working great. She's very helpful. She works with -- she works with the residents or the violators who are in other people's spots, and it's always been consistent with what's being charged. She even gives discounts. She'll waive fees, but she's providing a great service. I do agree that -- I do know that there are other providers who upcharge what barnacle, you know, charges regularly because that is not regulated. But the service in itself has been a lifesaver here. We no longer have the issue of residents who are not residents parking on our lot, even residents who are violators parking in our loading zones overnight, barnacle resolved that problem. If our gate goes down, they know that there's going to be a consequence, and that's really just a problem of private owners. We need consequence. And not to speak negatively of our police force, but we know that there is a lot that they have to do in the City of Philadelphia and parking enforcement is just adding to their plate, which is why sometimes they show, sometimes they don't because they're dealing with other high priority issues, so that has not been something that we can depend on, getting a ticket and a tow in this case.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

Mr. Glass, is that the last witness to testify?

Mr. Chairman, there's one more witness, Nicole Eumes.

Ms. Eumes, are you there? Are you connected?

Hi. I am here online because -- can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

State your name and begin your testimony please.

Hi. My name is Nicole Eumes. I manage a property on 6451 Oxford Avenue and we are having a lot of issues with abandoned cars and people that are parking illegally, like on the fire zones and stuff like that. And it has been really, really hard getting the police here trying to get them tickets so they can tow them. Right now in the last week we have had like about three stolen cars on our property and we can't get them out. Only the police come and get them out. Hopefully with this new device we'll get a little help from them in getting them out. That's all.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Thank you.

Are there any questions for this witness? (No response.)

Seeing none, Mr. Glass, is that the final witness?

Yes, Mr. Chairman, that was our final witness for this resolution. The next thing we have is public comment and our public commenter is standing by.

Okay. Let's start with public comment. Who do we have first?

Mr. Chairman, there is one individual. Her name is Sara Reagan.

Sara, say it again.

Reagan.

Ms. Reagan, are you connected? (No response.)

Hello, are you connected?

Hello?

Hi. How are you? Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

State your name for the record and please begin your testimony.

Hi. My name is Sara Reagan. On October 29th I was in a parking lot across as you turn off of Green Lane onto Main Street. Immediately on the right I pulled in. I paid for parking. Had met some friends for lunch across the street. And when I returned to my car, there was a yellow device on my windshield and it was raining. I put in the number to call which I thought was strange. It was called Payandrelease.com. I didn't feel comfortable that -- I didn't know what was going on to be honest. I had never seen anything like that before. So that was on October 29th. On I believe it was the 9th of November there was a newscast. I did feel like I was taken advantage of so I made a phone call to the towing company and spoke with Lisa and she -- we spoke for minutes actually that day. And so, we went back and forth about what they're calling a barnacle and why they decided to use that type of device. I don't know if it's legal or not. It didn't seem like from the newscast that the -- the law that they cited was that my car could not be booted or have anything put on it without a ticket from the police, so I'm not exactly sure what is the case. However, she asked me to give her hours. I had asked her 16 for a refund and she wanted to think 17 about it. So I thought that was 18 also strange. If there was even a 19 contemplation, then clearly 20 something was not right. So she and 21 I texted through the dispatcher. 22 For the next couple of days I did 23 not hear back from her. So I called again on the 15th and spoke with one of the secretaries there. I was on the phone with her for minutes 2 waiting and she had stated that Lisa 3 was in the meeting. 4 Eventually Lisa did get on 5 the phone. And in order to process 6 a refund, she told me she needed my 7 home address and that she would mail 8 me a check. That also sounded 9 strange considering when I had to 10 pay the ticket it was a Venmo 11 transaction, and I don't know, just everything about it seemed off. And she did agree to refund a portion of my payment which was originally $435, which they brought it down to 105 in order to take that device off my car, and I could not leave without that being done obviously. There was some confusion with the device number and the zone number with the parking lot. My friends did wait for me in their car. They didn't have a boot. It was just my car, so I'm not sure what the policy was in terms of who got booted and who didn't. But when I went back to my Venmo to see who the person was that I Venmo'd, I don't know if I'm pronouncing his name properly, but Ahmen Johnson was the name of the person who I Venmo'd. I'm not sure how he's involved with that particular towing company, but I can see at least 11 transactions from other people to 12 him in regards to these devices, and 13 the comments when they had made 14 their payment were either parking 15 scam, a ticket, car boot, things 16 like that. So it's clearly happened to more people than just me. I never did get a refund because I refused to give my home address. I didn't really feel that that was safe. So that's kind of my story. I would like to get a refund. I would like to know what the actual law is and how this hearing is going to stop that from happening to somebody else or put it in the law so that it happens legally.

Thank you so much for your testimony. To answer that is a part of what we are considering is there has to be predictability, there has to be consistency, there has to be monitoring of these types of devices. All that is being considered as a part of this legislation. What I'd like to also say is that there probably should be a meeting between Deputy Commissioner Healy, the Philadelphia Parking Authority, the City Solicitor's Office to kind of come to terms on what aspects where these devices would be prohibited. And so, we want to narrowly define what this legislation covers so that it gives people that are victims of barnacles at least some rules and guides on how they can conduct their affairs. And so, that's the purpose of this whole hearing. And so, we don't have an answer for you right away but please stay connected to this legislation. Then we will get to the answers of it.

Okay. Will someone reach out to me or I should just follow up with the --

If you will put your phone number in the chat, Mr. Glass will make sure your -- or your email in the chat, we will make sure that you stay connected with that.

Okay. I appreciate it. I really did feel like I was being taken advantage of. So thank you for taking the time to listen.

No, thank you for raising the issue. You and 6abc brought it to our attention because in various ways from the 7th to the 4th Districts we've been getting complaints. So thank you.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, this resident --

Member Lozada.

This resident mentioned that she was uncomfortable giving out her personal information, her address. Can we recommend that we put our office number or Mr. Glass's number in the chat so that she can reach out to him more privately is probably --

Yeah, I think that's a better way to go.

Thank you.

Thank you for that, Member Lozada. All right. Mr. Glass --

Also, if I may make one more comment. I'm only on an audio link so I can't actually see the chat or access the chat. Maybe somebody could --

Can we share that number so she can write it down?

So why don't you call our office, 215-686 --

Uh-huh.

-- 3417 and ask for Mr. Glass. Give us about 30 minutes.

All right. It's Anthony Glass. I've spoken with him before. I should give him a call?

Yes.

Okay.

Please.

All right.

Thank you so very much.

Yeah. He has my email too, so I'll follow up with him. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, bye-bye.

Mr. Glass.

Mr. Chairman, Mikina Harrison would like to be recognized.

Yes, please.

Hi. Yes, I just wanted to follow up with Ms. Reagan, I think it is. So just to clear that up, Ms. Reagan actually paid for another parking lot and she did not mention that here, but she understands that that's why she was told by Lisa that they would consider giving her a refund because it was recognized that she actually did pay for a parking lot that was two blocks down the street. She did not pay for the parking lot in which she was at, which is why the barnacle system is so great because you can actually tell all of that and it's tracked. Our refund process is to mail a check for bookkeeping purposes and she did not want to provide that, but it was offered to her. So I definitely wanted to follow up with that.

All right. Thank you --

And if I may since I'm still on the line. I agree with that, so maybe that needs to also become a part of the conversation. My phone picked up a different -- I did actually mention that there was a problem with the zone number. And so, my phone picked up the lot that was down the street versus the one that was where I was parked and I didn't know the difference because it just said my parking was paid so I went about my business. It didn't tell me the address of the lot or anything like that. So if it's going to be picking up other lots within the area, that is going to be a problem for people. That is still going to be a problem because then you think you're parked legally and clearly the --

So what we're going to do --

So that might be a whole other issue.

So thank you for the --

And if I may also say, there was a policy for a refund but there was no policy to get the money for me. There was no -- I didn't have to fill out any forms and I was asked to Venmo, which I don't know if that's being tracked for bookkeeping purposes. But it just seemed odd that a payment could be received that way but no refund could go that way.

So there is a lot of room for tightening up for regulations and policy going forward and we will consider that as a part of ongoing negotiations for this legislation. So thank you for your testimony. Thank you all. Mr. Glass, is that the last witness?

Mr. Chairman, there are no other witnesses for public comment at this time.

Thank you so very much. We will pause to allow the witnesses to disconnect and this will end our public hearing. And we will commence our public hearing to vote on actions regarding these bills and resolutions. Give us a minute. Okay. Mr. Glass. (No response.)

Mr. Glass?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

All right. Can we take the roll so that we can begin our public meeting.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Councilmember Gauthier.

Hi. Present.

Councilmember Harrity.

I am here and present, my brother.

Councilmember Lozada.

I'm present.

Councilmember Thomas.

Good afternoon. I'm present.

Councilmember Brooks.

Good afternoon. I'm present.

Vice-Chairman Johnson.

Present.

And, Chairman Jones.

Present. A quorum is present. This begins our public meeting. And the Chair now recognizes Vice-Chair Johnson for an amendment to Bill No. 230571.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment to Bill 17 No. 230571. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the Committee. I move that the amendment be approved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Okay. You can't move and second.

I can second.

All right. It has been moved and properly seconded that an amendment to Bill No. 230571 be approved. All those in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

All those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it. The Chair now recognizes again Vice-Chair Johnson for a motion on Bill No. 230571 as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 230751 as amended be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

It has been approved -- moved and properly seconded that the amended Bill 14 230571 be approved. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

The ayes have it -- those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it. The Chair again recognizes Councilmember Johnson or Vice-Chair Johnson for the motion on Bill No. 1 230 -- 2

699. 3

699, 4 there you go. 5

Thank 6 you, Mr. Chairman. 7 I move that Bill No. 230699 8 be reported from this Committee with 9 a favorable recommendation and 10 further move that the rules of 11 Council be suspended to permit first 12 reading of this bill at the next 13 session of Council. 14

Is there 15 a second? 16

17 Second. 18

It has 19 been moved and properly seconded 20 that we move Bill No. 230699 -- 21

699. 22

699 from 23 this Committee with a favorable 24 recommendation and further move that 25 the rules of Council be suspended to permit next reading at our next session of Council. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it. The Chair again recognizes Councilmember Johnson for a motion on Bill No. 230 --

700.

700. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 230700 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council.

Second.

It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 230700 be moved from this Committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it. This bill has been approved. I believe that's the last --

Yes, Mr. Chairman, that was our final bill for today's hearing.

So that concludes the business of the Committee on Public Safety regarding the following bills and resolutions. Thank you so much for your patience. Thank you so much for your actions. Have a great day.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say thank you and thank you to all of my colleagues for unanimously supporting my exoneration legislation and to all the hard- working members of the Committee. Thank you everybody. I appreciate you.

Well, done, sir. Congratulations.

Bye-bye.

Good job. (Hearing concluded at 3:12 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. ______________________________ TANEHA CARROLL