If it happens on my lot, I'm going to remedy it, and it hasn't happened to me. I agree with you.
We have two. We use either George Smith or Lew Blum, and I have to say over the years, I've never had any problems.
Well -- 167 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again --
-- maybe you don't park in your own lot, I guess, or something or you don't have your car towed, but of the three operators that you just raised, it's three of the problems why we're sitting in this room 9 today.
We're not here on the side of the tow company. All we want to do is be treated as legitimate business people and be able to run our own business.
I agree with you, if there's a bad tow company -- we don't tow out of driveways unless they're blocking a driveway. We don't tow unless somebody is a violator, and all we're asking for is not to be put in a position where we have to wait -- it could be hours if it's in the middle of the night for a tow truck to come. 168 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
So if you have to wait -- hypothetically, you have to wait for hours. Where's the car sitting?
Well, some of the lots are small. They won't be able to move them anywhere.
And the issue is, you can't turn that parking space over or there's some --
That's one of the issues. The other issue, it may be blocking another car in.
We put it in the legislation that you can relocate the car. 169 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
But the tow companies are not going to come -- I mean, we talked --
Don't you guys have equipment too that can move a car, you can jockey cars?
We open ourselves up to liability if we have to get into that.
We have some equipment that might do it, but we open ourself up to liability.
You have some equipment that might do it. You either have the equipment that can do it or you don't.
It's much more complicated -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I need to ask everyone just to hold their thoughts for a minute. Councilwoman Sanchez needs to leave and she wants to get something 170 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. on the record. So just hold -- and I apologize. I usually let the panel go, but I opened the door and I apologize. So Councilwoman Sanchez.
First, again, I think we're very much open to working with the parking folks around how do we do this bill, but I have to put on the record because in the last month, two of my staff members' cars have been towed, and we do have tremendous amounts of complaints, and unfortunately for folks in my district where these companies have just popped up all over the place encouraging people to put these on driveways, those ugly yellow signs on driveways, it is out of control really. And I don't think that the L&I numbers truly reflect the level of complaints, because I know in my case in the Latino community, many folks do not complain. But I had two staff people who experienced these companies, the credit card didn't work. I mean, we just went 171 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. over and over, because they're going around hunting down folks who shop. In one case, one of my assistants parked in a parking lot to pick up something at the shopping piece, went across the street to say hello to somebody and got towed. I mean, it is just -- so I want you guys to understand, when you're talking about 50 and this is happening hundreds and hundreds of times in my district and I'm getting folks who are paying exorbitant fees from this, unfortunately we end up having to legislate because you have these bad characters. But there are hundreds of people in my district who have been impacted. So I just want you to know that to the extent that we can work with you, we will, but your cases -- your number of cases is so little in comparison to the consumer part of this that it's out of control. So I don't want you to think in any way we're not being sensitive to 172 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. that, but this has to be -- this has to stop and what these companies are doing. So I'm in full support of this legislation that Councilman Kenney has put forward, and I just wanted to put it in the context of the consumers who are being defrauded every single day by these companies. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would ask -- again, I apologize, Ms. Bauer. Would you please give us your testimony. I'll ask everyone to hold any further questions until you're through with your testimony.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today on behalf of the private tow industry. This industry has serious concerns with the bill, and we strongly urge you to delay 173 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. passage of the bill or advancement of the bill until we have an opportunity to work out some of the concerns which have been raised by members of the Committee, as well as many of the people who have testified today. I think it goes without saying that everyone does recognize that the private tow industry has a place and performs a very valuable service and a service that's economically valuable to this city as well, and I want to particularly address since there's been a lot of testimony about residential lots today, and I do represent tow firms that tow from residential lots, but I want to particularly stress commercial and industrial, because I wasn't sure until Councilman Kenney just said so that there was not going to be a residential carve-out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry.
That's quite all right. 174 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. If there's not going to be a resident carve-out, which is one of the versions of the bill that we saw, then I would like to point out -- and I do think there is no distinction really between an institutional lot and a commercial lot and a residential lot in terms of the enforcement aspect, at least of the problem that you're trying to solve and regulate. But we represent many customers and have contracts with many customers and accounts which are both institutional and commercial, and they rely upon, as I'm sure you have received many letters from both commercial lots, institutional, churches, all kinds of things, copies of which have been given to us, where they rely upon frequent turnover so that their patrons and customers can find parking. Because, frankly, if you don't find parking, you're not going to patronize that business anymore. So it's extremely valuable to the accounts that we have 175 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. that those contracts be serviced and serviced very efficiently. We're extremely concerned about the ability the Police, who absolutely are well intentioned and should be our partners, but the Police's ability to efficiently respond. We did ask -- and we were very thankful to Councilman Kenney and Councilman Kenney's staff for hearing our concerns in a pre-meeting that we had. We did ask if there had been any kind of representation as to what would be a timely response, one of the very concerns that you, Mr. Chairman, have raised today, and one of the things that would help us to feel more comfortable about the bill is if we had that kind of representation or if we even had some kind of draft protocol, but to hear the Police Department say, Well, if the bill passes, we'll figure out the protocol, which is what was said today, I really feel that that is going to impact tremendously the people that we have 176 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. contracts with that depend on our services to police the lots. And I just want to point out that there really is no distinction -- there certainly wouldn't be a distinction under the law -- for the residential lots, and I credit the gentleman's testimony who just went forward, but they have employees that are essentially acting as the determining agent to figure out whether the car is illegally parked or not, because they have a kiosk system. One of the things that I would suggest and I have suggested to my clients as well whom I represent here today is both technology and information, which will lead to more competition and better service, as well as regulation by the Department of License and Inspection can go a long way to help solve this problem. One of the things that may not be clear to the Committee is that there is a written record of when the call is made. Obviously every private tow firm 177 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. on a private lot, whether it's roving or not, but generally they do police several lots because they have several contracts. That's the only way they are in business obviously. You wouldn't just stick around one lot. You might have one tow or not even a tow. They have to call into the Police, and the Police record the time that the request for permission to tow is made, and then that callback probably happens minutes later, 30 minutes 14 later. So there's already not only a 15 written record, but there's a built-in 20 16 or 30 minutes before the callback occurs 17 and the car is towed. It seems to me 18 technology can solve the problem. And, 19 for instance, Parkway has the technology, 20 because they have both the kiosk, so they know whether the car paid or not, and they have, I guess, apparently sort of a private ticket-writing procedure that they use. But that's not public authority to write what is essentially a 178 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. public ticket or a government ticket; in other words, in lieu of a summons, which is what a ticket is.
So I think that with technology, we can provide that sort of consumer recourse that you're looking for and that the Police Department says it's looking for, so that the police officer doesn't have to make the decision. Because the other flaw with this bill, aside from the waiting time -- and the waiting time is going to result, from my clients' perspective, in a danger to them while they wait around. It might be a bad neighborhood. It might be an irate customer or something who was illegally parked. There's nothing to say that illegal parkers are irate at a different rate than somebody who happens to be victimized by a bad company. But the other problem is, you're making the officer the determinant, and the officer is going to come and will have absolutely no 179 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. information and will not feel comfortable having cause to write the ticket. So we feel that not only the time delay, but the lack of personal knowledge, I would say, somewhere between personal knowledge and probable cause to write that ticket is essentially going to shut down the apartment owners, commercial businesses, restaurants, bars and so on and so forth that hire my industry to police their lots, McDonald's, shopping centers, strip malls and so on and so forth, that are next to SEPTA stations, you know, all the things that you've heard today. They're going to be shut down by that, because the officer is going to show up and he's going to say, Well, I don't know. I don't know that that car parked there, the person got on the SEPTA train. In other words, there's nothing to suggest that an employee of Parkway is somehow more reliable or less reliable than another person in a different situation 180 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. than another person in a different situation. It doesn't seem reasonable in terms of resources to put it all on the Police, and what I'm suggesting is, even if you did that and even if the delay time were not a factor in terms of efficiency, safety and everything else, you're still going to have the situation where you're putting the officer in the position of making a determination that a car, where he was not on the lot for the last hour, was illegally parked. I, frankly, don't see how that's going to happen.
Point of information, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. I must have missed your earlier testimony. Who are your clients? Who do you represent?
Today I represent 181 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. George Smith, Steven's and Tow Squad.
Okay. But you don't represent the entire towing industry?
Well, I'm an attorney, and as an attorney, I represent one tow firm and that's Tow Squad, and I've represented them for years.
But you're not speaking on behalf of the entire towing industry?
No. Today I'm speaking on behalf of those three that I've just named.
So your testimony that like the City is going to shut down and all the commercial and retail and entertainment areas are going 182 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. to shut down as a result of this legislation, you're speaking on behalf of three clients?
Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could just ask you, Ms. Bauer. I don't mean this with any disrespect, but I'm not hearing any acknowledgment that there is a problem out there. Do you acknowledge that there is a problem with tow companies doing many times the wrong thing? And not just in the one witness's case, but in Councilwoman Sanchez's, Councilman Kenney's estimation, hundreds of them. Do you acknowledge that?
I don't have any personal knowledge of that, but I'm sure that that's so. I've certainly seen 183 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. press reports, and what generally happens, especially with Tow Squad, whom I represent, is that the industry unfortunately gets painted, as happens with many industries, with the bad apples in the barrel. So absolutely you are correct, there are bad apples in the barrel.
But going with that theory of the bad apples, I guess isn't the question is there enough bad apples that maybe you have to do something different because of those? Maybe Mr. -- I think Mr. Zuritsky's company operates well, Mr. Spear's, but there's a lot that don't and that you have to -- maybe, as was said before, maybe there's some other amendments that could take care of this. But I guess I'm just not getting, with all due respect to you, that there is a real problem out here. You're telling us about your problems, and I understand that, but there's literally hundreds, probably 184 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. more, people, individuals, innocent folks, that have a problem because a lot of people in the industry you represent, maybe not your particular companies, but the industry you represent are acting in a -- I don't know what else to say, but an outlaw manner. Do you acknowledge that?
What I would like to say is that rather than -- I think there's been a lot of commentary and support today for having the Department of License and Inspections more closely regulate and in fact kick out bad repeat operators, and certainly the tow company -- I mean, the tow industry supports that. My clients that I'm representing today supports that completely, because we don't want to be aggrieved and economically hurt by the 185 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. bad apples in the barrel. So we 100 percent support the objective that the City Council is trying to do. I guess what I was trying to suggest -- first of all, I've only addressed myself to the one issue, and that is the ticketing. There are many good things not only in the existing ordinance but in the bill. The ticketing we find to be extremely problematic. And with respect to the consumer recourse aspect of it, what I was suggesting by both technology and information, there was talk about the website, the lots would be licensed or at least registered, they'd be up on the website, the signs would be up, it would be clear to consumers what the -- or clearer to consumers what the rules were and what the rates were and so on and so forth. I guess what I'm saying is, what I'd like to see and what we would like to see is a more surgical approach and also a more attractive approach to not only preventing those problems, but providing 186 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. a quick and speedy response if there is a problem. And if there is an illegal tow as opposed to an illegal park and a proper tow, we certainly don't want to have any illegal tows, and there absolutely needs to be recourse for that and better recourse for it, because we're hearing that there's not a good recourse.
Mr. Chairman, if I can -- and I appreciate your testimony and I know you represent your clients, so I'm not trying to -- but let me give you one of the worst anecdotes that I've had in this issue. A couple years ago, about 15 cars parked in the stadium complex area in a street that was unsigned. There was no 21 signage from the Parking Authority, no 22 signage from anywhere. People parked. All 15 of those cars were impounded by these tow companies and a sign was then placed after the cars were taken. 187 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. The cars were taken to an empty lot at Front and Oregon, around Front and Oregon, and they were put in the circle of tow trucks, all cars, and the tow 6 trucks circled around them, and the 7 owners came and were demanded $300 cash 8 before they would let their car go. 9 Until the Police came and threatened to 10 arrest all the tow truck drivers, the 11 cars magically then were released. 12 This is the type of stuff we're 13 dealing with, and this is the type of 14 stuff that too many people in this 15 industry engage in, and this is the type of stuff that those guys over there have come to ask us to pass a bill so they're no longer besmirched by this kind of activity. This is why we're here. Now, I can listen to Mr. Zuritsky and Mr. Spear and Mr. Spear and maybe try to figure out a way to deal with their issues, but we're sitting here because some poor guy 2 o'clock in the morning has to go to some prison-like 188 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. environment behind double-pane bullet-proof glass to get shook down for more money than the City allows them to collect and won't take a credit card or a debit card to do it, until the police officer comes and then the credit card machine magically comes back to life. This is what we're talking about. We wouldn't be here if everyone acted the way the legitimate tow truck guys operate. I'm willing to listen to, if the Police Department was willing to cooperate with us, to listen to what Councilman Green is suggesting with these attended parking lots, but I have been fighting with this issue for years, 19 from wreck chasing to today, and every time we pass an ordinance, every time we pass something, they figure out a way to get around it. We shut them down and they open up another company under another name with the same people running the company and the same drivers driving 189 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. the trucks. It goes on and on and on, and you know what, I'm willing to legislate this thing forever, but at some point in time does anyone care about this poor consumer? I mean, does anyone care about this person that -- this is one of my favorites. New Era Collision towed a car, an '08 Honda Civic. The tow fee was $125. The winch fee, the winch fee was 250. The garage fee was 75. The administrative fee was 75. The clean-up was 75, and the storage fee was 57.50, for a grand total of $657.50, and they wouldn't take a credit card. That's why we're here. So, again, you represent your clients. I mean no personal offense, but enough is enough with this stuff, and we've gone from times where they're having fist fights in the street, fighting over a Mercedes-Benz that was in an accident when the cops had to intercede and break up fights. We've been in situations where tow truck 190 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. operators will go into emergency rooms and try to solicit people for business for wreck-chasing lawyers. It's a bad, complicated business and it's taking people's money out of their pocket, and I'm tired of sitting by watching it happen, and that's why we're here. So any punitive or apparently punitive measures is a direct result of their operation and the way they run their businesses, and that's why we're here.
Councilman, we are in no way here in support of the tow companies.
But we are getting caught in the middle of this. We're legitimate businesses, and we are saying that the tow companies that do this should be penalized. I wouldn't want my car towed. I wouldn't want my daughter to have to go to one of the places that they have. 191 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc.
I hear you, and we're going to discuss it, but somehow --
If there's a way we can distinguish ourselves, we'd appreciate it.
And the worst part is is that legitimate guys who pay their taxes, have their insurance, drivers are licensed, have the right equipment, follow the rules, they get -- you're right, they get painted with the same brush for a half a dozen or seven of these guys that need to either clean up their act or go.
Could I just add to that? You mentioned earlier that reputable certified L&I tow companies, if there's a list, they would be acceptable to you.
Well, I think the 192 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. further testimony that I just want to say -- and I think you're absolutely right and I couldn't agree with you more, Councilman Kenney. I think we just don't want to -- and, frankly, we and our customers don't deserve to be waiting around and have a lot of problems in terms of policing our lots because of those bad apples, and I think there are some more strategic or surgical ways of doing it. The situation that you described, that $600 with the admin fee and the winching fee and so on and so forth, clearly that's a deceptive business practice. Clearly that company should have their license pulled. I have no idea what the enforcement record is on either more closely regulating so that people like that don't get licensed or in terms of pulling their licenses, but we're just here to say it's an overbroad approach. And I do want to make just one 193 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. other point before I close, and, that is, the tow -- at least in terms of the witness list that I understood, the previous tow firm that testified, they don't do our business. They don't do impound lot business. They only -- they're called for disabled cars. They do police towing and so on and so forth. So that tow firm that said that they represent the bill, just be aware they're not in our business. So as far as I know, I'm the only witness that represented the business that is going to be regulated by this, other than the apartment owners and, for instance, Parkway and so forth. So it's a very broad brush that you're painting with, and we are really just identifying the ticket as being the one that really -- we would love to sit down. If the bill does advance today, we'll deal with it, but we would like to see a mutually and collaborative approach, because we've only had a couple 194 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. days. I know that there's been about a dozen letters, as I say, from hospitals and churches and universities and so on and so forth that went to you that expressed concern about how they were going to be policing their lots, and that's really just with two or three business days' notice from us that this bill was coming down the pike. We think there's going to be some serious unintended consequences. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Thank you very, very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I believe we do have one more witness.
I'm sorry. I just wanted to make a comment. We do do roving towing too.
I stand corrected 195 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. then if he does. (Witness speaking without microphone.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: John Haliburton. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Lieutenant, if you don't mind, would you come up and respond on the record. Sit down, gentlemen. Just stay at the table. There's three seats up there.
Councilman Kenney, you clearly are very passionate about this issue and you've worked hard on this issue for a long time and you're trying to solve a real problem facing citizens in Philadelphia, and so I appreciate your patience with me as I get up to speed on this issue.
Lieutenant, 196 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. you heard, I guess, what I was suggesting and Councilman DiCicco had discussed with Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez, and, that is, maybe providing an exemption for called tows and essentially provide the people who call the tow trucks with something visible that can be put on the windscreen issued by the City of Philadelphia or the Police or somebody else so that you will be able to enforce the law the way you intended. And that could include perhaps requiring lot owners to keep records for a year to demonstrate that that was a valid tow, something like that. Is that something that you think the Police Department could consider given the low number of cars we're talking about? LIEUTENANT HEALY: Obviously we're willing to consider anything. You see the problems that we're dealing with and we're facing. There's two issues. One is the law enforcement side of it, 197 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. making sure that the cars that are towed were actually illegally parked. Therein is the reason for the ticket, one reason. An independent person says, Yay, that's an illegally parked car, it deserves to be towed. The other side of it is, as the Councilman mentioned, the consumer advocacy side of it, because when you do get your car towed, in any other place when you take property, when the government takes property, there's due process, except in this scenario. The Parking Authority takes your car, you have due process. You can go in front of a judge, determine whether or not yay or nay should have been towed. In this scenario, the consumers, even if they're illegally parked cars or not, have no 21 forum to go to to address the complaint. They have to actually invest their own money and file a lawsuit. Well, that's contrary to due process. All we're trying to say is put this standing on par 198 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. with everything else. A ticket. Now, the question is who can issue a ticket. The only problem I see here that everybody is really concerned about is the ability to respond quick enough to issue a ticket. The issuance of the ticket is not the concern. It's whether or not they can get there quick enough to do it in an efficient manner, and I respect that. And that's something that we're looking at to make sure that we can do. And we agree that we don't know for sure how well we can do it, but the question is maybe we can expand the people that can issue lawful tickets. Maybe that's an avenue of a way around this hurdle, because it seems to me the only hurdle is how quickly the Police or the Parking Authority can get there. City Code says authorized persons can issue parking tickets. Now, is there a mechanism that we can sit sidebar and discuss who other in the City 199 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. could be authorized to issue these specific tickets? I don't know. That may be --
Well, essentially what I'm talking about is the same thing, except they're not actually issuing a ticket. They're putting in a sticker, but that's the same thing as them issuing a ticket. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, yes and no. It's -- actually, no. That ticket is --
Because their car is towed at that point. LIEUTENANT HEALY: But the ticket is what gives them, on the flip side of that, the authority to have that decision appealed. So whoever signs the bottom of that ticket can be called into court and say, What did you see. As it stands right now, there's no one to come to court to say, Yeah, it was illegally parked or not and I can swear to it. So that is where the consumer advocacy side 200 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. is missing in the current law and actually should have been there.
But there is much greater protection under what I'm proposing, because the lot owner is required to call the tow company. That makes them responsible for the decision. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Correct. I mean, I'm with you. I understand the policing side --
And, yes, there is a civil penalty for that in Small Claims Court, which is not the same as being able to appeal your ticket, but appealing your ticket doesn't deal with the other civil issues with respect to that, including appealing the -- just because you win an appeal on a ticket doesn't mean you don't have to pay the tow company. LIEUTENANT HEALY: The judge can order the release of the car, yes. That's the whole point of appealing, because otherwise the car is sitting in 201 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. the lot racking up fees. If you believe your car is not legitimately towed, you make the appeal and, yeah, the judge can order the release of the car. That is his authority. So that's really what you want. Like the poor victim that came forward, she has to go pay $98 to file --
Right, but we're talking about a very small number of cars here. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right. And what I'm trying to say is maybe there's a mechanism -- I'm not sure if there is. I'm not saying there is -- that we can expand the authority to issue a ticket.
I'm saying that I don't think that that's necessarily the proper solution. Just giving them something they can put under the car for a very small number of cars solves the problems of your enforcement, given the number of cars we're talking about, 50 a year. LIEUTENANT HEALY: If it's a 202 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. small number, then I'm sure something could be worked out obviously, but we need to address the larger problem, like I said.
And I agree with you. I'm with you on -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: The ticket is the most logical thing, because that's what's actually missing in the statute that should have been there in the beginning, and we're just trying to really backfill what should have been there from a due process perspective. Right now you get your car taken from whatever, residential, commercial, whatever, lot, people have no forum.
Well, no 19 other city in the country actually requires a ticket before towing off of a private lot. So, I mean, we're not solving a problem that we should have solved before. There's no other city in the country that has this requirement. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We could 203 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. be the first. LIEUTENANT HEALY: I don't know that for a fact. I know that --
We've done a survey of all the major cities. Obviously we didn't look at every city in the country, but we couldn't find a city that -- LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, the question is towing off a lot, a lot of the other statutes that I'm aware of will remove the car and relocate it. They'll relocate it to a lawful position. So if it's on your -- you take it and move it. We're actually impounding it. So we're actually not relocating it.
I understand the problem we're trying to solve, and I agree with you on solving that problem. I'm just saying let's have a narrowly tailored exception that addresses people who are responsible in the industry. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I agree with that. Councilman Kenney 204 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. mentioned something earlier about the Police Commissioner not wanting too many carve-outs. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not wanting too many carve-outs, and I understand that, because now you got to try to figure out who is in and who is out. LIEUTENANT HEALY: Well, the officer on the street can't make the determination of what's an exception and what's not. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When I hear the testimony of Mr. Zuritsky and Mr. Spear about their process, I would venture to say that they don't want to have people towed because it's bad business for them, unless they're not being paid. So they're not just going to have somebody towed for the sake of having that vehicle towed unless it's blocking or they're not being paid. And there is an accountability there. What 205 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. we're really looking for is where there is no accountability, you have these rovers just going through parking lots and other places, but when you have a legitimate parking garage and/or surface area parking location that there is management that sees what's going on, I hate to use the word "carve-out," but I think that that's maybe what we can -- if we can work on some adjustment to that, that industry would be held harmless. LIEUTENANT HEALY: In sidebar, that's where I'm thinking we can -- I don't know legally whether 100 percent, but I think I might have a solution, but I'd like to say it privately.
I understand what you're saying, but remember, the problem we're trying to solve, all the testimony about cars that were taken, things that happened to people, not one person said somebody -- the lot owner called the tow truck on me. Every problem was roving, right? So it's these 206 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. rovers that are sort of these pirates out there doing this, and we solve that problem if we give people who call the tow operator, keep a record of it for a year, a sticker to put on the car so that the Police will know when that car goes by, it's been authorized by somebody who called in a tow. That would mean that also that the Police could spot-check to make sure that the tow was called in. So it's just -- it's a suggestion, and I hope you'll consider it. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you for your patience.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is John Haliburton. I'm with Compiled Logic. We work with cities and counties around the country in the towing area. Believe it or not, we wake up every morning and think about 207 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. vehicle towing. We appreciate you giving us the opportunity to speak. We're going to be very short and to the point. This is Don McAfoose with Compiled Logic, and he's going to say a few words. Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. MR. McAFOOSE: Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Councilmen. My name is Don McAfoose. I'm with Compiled Logic. We as a company serve the municipalities, the towing industry and the citizens within the municipalities. Fundamentally what we have found is just like what you're finding. One of the key things is reporting of information and the sharing of information. What we have found is, jurisdictions just like yourself require reporting of tows on a timely basis; for example, within 30 minutes to an hour. Our solution is a web-based solution so that the reporting is done via the Internet into a central 208 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. repository. What that does is, the Police have information very quickly. It allows the towers to enter the information that's required for them very quickly, and, most importantly what it does, it gives the citizens of the county, of the city, of whatever, the ability to go onto a portal and actually see a number of things: if their car was towed, who towed it, where it was towed from, and we're also putting a new feature in where they actually can see what their tow bill would look like. What we have found is, giving this type of information to the citizens allows them when they go to pick up a vehicle, they know up front what their tow bill should look like. And it's the -- like you were saying before, like 80 to 90 percent of the towers are legitimate towers, and how do you handle the extra ten percent or the five percent. Part of it is consumer awareness, consumer having information, 209 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. so when they go to retrieve their vehicle, they know exactly what they should pay, they know what the fees should be, and if it's wrong, they have a recourse, they can call the Police and the Police can come out. That information is also stored within the repository, so the Police can actually query to find if we've got towers that are actually charging too much or have complaints against them. So what we are here really is more from an industry -- this is the industry we deal with. This is the stuff we deal with on a daily basis, and we just want to offer ourselves as maybe some subject matter experts, as well as our solution as this legislation moves forward to consider using an electronic repository versus just handwriting or faxing in and then having the delays, as well as the inefficiency of that type of system. So thank you very much. 210 5/5/10 - STREETS - BILL 100213, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you very much. I would suggest that you contact the sponsor of the bill, Councilman Kenney, and maybe from there, Parking Authority Police might be interested in this program of yours. Thank you for your patience. MR. McAFOOSE: Thank you very much.
We also have a website called towedcar.com that you have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I saw it on there. Thank you. This Committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock -- make that 8:30. Thank you. (Committee on Streets and Services adjourned at 5:40 p.m.) - - - 211 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 5, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)