COMMITTEE ON RULES, February 3, 2026

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, February 3, 2026 10:30 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS, CHAIR COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. ALSO PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JEFFREY YOUNG, JR. BILLS: 250917, 250988, 250989, 251031, 251101 - - -

Good morning, Committee on Rules members and guests. We ask that you please take your seats and this hearing is now called to order. And the Clerk will now take roll.

Chairmember Bass.

Present.

Vice- Chairmember Squilla.

Present.

Member Gauthier.

Present.

Member Jones.

Present.

Member Gilmore Richardson. (No response.)

Member Thomas. (No response.)

A quorum of the committee is present and the Clerk will now please read the title of the bills. Bill No. 11 250917.

Bill No. 13 250917, an ordinance amending Section 14-529 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "/VDO, Fifth District Overlay District," to provide for building requirements to prevent vacant lots, all under certain terms and conditions. Introduced by Councilmember Young. Bill No. 250988, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-600 of The Philadelphia Code (entitled "Service and Other Businesses") to add business hour restrictions in the Fifth Councilmanic District; and amending Section 14-529 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "/VDO, Fifth District Overlay District," to restrict certain commercial uses and make other related changes, all under certain terms and conditions. Introduced by Councilmember Young. Bill No. 250989, an ordinance amending Title 10 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Individual Conduct and Activity," by adding a new Section to impose a temporary moratorium on the breeding and transfer of puppies, all under certain terms and conditions. Introduced by Councilmember Bass. Bill No. 251031, an ordinance repealing in its entirety Bill No. 241055 (approved December 23, 2024), entitled "An ordinance 24 to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Packer Avenue, Seventh Street, Pattison Avenue, and Darien Street. To amend Title of The 7 Philadelphia Code by adding Section 8 14-541 entitled "/PAK, Packer 9 Avenue Overlay District and making 10 other related changes, all under 11 certain terms and conditions." 12 Introduced by Councilwoman Bass for 13 Council President Johnson. 14 And Bill No. 251101 is being held today at the request of the sponsor. There are no other bills under consideration today.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Do any members have any opening remarks on any of the bills stated by the Clerk today? (No response.)

And seeing none, will the Clerk please call the first panel we have to testify on Bill No. 250917 -- and actually before we do that, I want to state for anyone who is here on Bill No. 251101, that bill is being held by the sponsor.

Will Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, please approach. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning. Before we take your testimony, Chair recognizes Councilmember and author of the legislation, Councilmember Jeffrey Young.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning to everyone. I want to thank the Rules Committee for hearing. This bill this morning, Bill No. 250917, the goal of this legislation is real simple. It's to prevent blight in our communities. As many folks know, the 5th Council District holds the most city-owned property. And for the most part, they're all vacant lots, right, so thousands of vacant lots just by the city itself. And so, what we're trying to do here is to prevent I'll say efforts of speculators who are purchasing property in our district, just with the sole purpose of sitting on it, to demolish those properties, to create blight. And when we know that when these properties are demolished in certain communities, that typically is a sign of gentrification to come, right. Because when you demolish that property and you build up, of course you're trying to make more money than the property was originally stated for. As a shell when you rehab a property, the price is typically lower than a brand new house. And so, we're trying to keep homes affordable in our city. We have to put in place tools and mechanisms that allow our communities to stay affordable naturally and also prevent blight from our communities as well. So what this bill is doing is trying to protect the quality of life for residents in the 5th Council District in order to allow them to live in a community that is blight-free. So I want to thank you again, members of the Rules Committee, for allowing this bill to be heard today. And I look forward to the conversation. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember. Chair recognizes Councilmember Jones.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Member Young, could you elaborate on some of the challenges that are in the 5th District as it relates to speculators, some local, some national, some international that have targeted North Philadelphia and other parts of your district as a right place to buy property, sit on them and then exploit them to the degree that they hire agents to come in and examine not only just publicly- owned properties, but privately- owned, distressed properties and sit on them, causing sometimes decades?

Yes.

Can you elaborate on that?

Absolutely. Member Jones, I can tell you that there are parts in my district, specifically in the 16th Ward, where there are a handful of owners who have owned vacant properties, vacant lots for over 11 years, just with no plans in sight 12 to develop, just sitting on those 13 vacant parcels, creating blight in 14 our communities, allowing 15 opportunities for illegal dumping 16 and other activities that happen in 17 our neighborhoods. 18 And so, again the goal 19 of this legislation is to try to 20 prevent that from happening, try to prevent some of what they call the gap tooth in our communities. When we have a whole block full of rowhomes and then someone decides, you know what, I want to sit on this property, but I don't want to take care of it, I don't want to maintain it as a prudent property owner, so I'm going to just demolish it and do the bare minimum care that I need to do while wait for the market in this neighborhood to rise for me to flip this lot or for me to develop a house that's going to cost three times more than what I originally paid for it. So we want to prevent some of those things from happening in the 5th District. The 5th District, you know, there are communities that speculators are just waiting to pounce on just because of the proximity to everything. I love where we live at in the 5th District because I can get anywhere in the city in 15, 20 minutes, and other folks know that as well. The majority of the northern part of the district is a community that deals with a lot of issues, particularly with poverty, particularly with being undereducated. And so, people prey on that. People prey on those opportunities in that community. And it's my job as the Councilmember to protect the public health, safety and welfare of a community. So that's why we are putting this legislation forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen. Chair recognizes Ms. Brumbelow Burns.

Good morning, Chairperson Bass and members of the Rules Committee. I'm Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 250917, introduced into City Council on October 23, 2025, by Councilmember Young. Bill No. 250917 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code by amending Section 14-529 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "/VDO, Fifth District Overlay District," to provide for building requirements to prevent vacant lots within the Council District. This bill will require an applicant to obtain a building permit to change or expand a principal structure or to build a new structure, before the Department of Licenses and Inspections can issue a zoning demolition permit and a building demolition per government. The Council office worked with the Planning Commission staff on changes to the language, ensuring that renovations of existing buildings were not included in its provisions. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill No. 6 250917 at its public meeting on November 20, 2025 and recommended the bill for approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions from the committee? (No response.)

And seeing none from the sponsor, thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250917 whose name has not been called? (No response.)

Okay. Seeing none, I want to thank you for your testimony. Can we have the Clerk please call the first panel to testify on Bill No. 250988.

Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.

Good morning. Before we hear your testimony, Chair recognizes Councilmember Young.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, this legislation is introduced to protect the public health, safety and welfare of our community. Throughout our city, we've been experiencing an influx of these 24-hour stores that are selling products like CBD, Kratom and other ill products that have negative impacts on our communities, and they're open 24/7 literally all day long. And what we are trying to do with this legislation is to ensure that on some of our commercial corridors we prevent the negative activity that comes along with these stores. Right now we have teenagers after school just hanging out in these stores purchasing these products. Some of these stores I've witnessed my own self, they actually sell marijuana, right. I've seen it myself. I don't look like a Councilman every day when I'm in my neighborhood, right, so they don't know who I am. And it's just sad that when these things occur, enforcement is tough because police have to go out there, do an undercover investigation to buy whatever products they're selling, go through this whole show to try to shut a store down and then ultimately these stores open back up. And so, what we are trying to do here with this legislation is to prevent these stores from being open 24/7. You have to have some level of decency and courtesy for your neighbors. And so, what this legislation would do is prevent stores to be open on some of the commercial corridors from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. For those who are wondering, it does not affect any restaurants with liquor licenses and things like that. They are governed under a different statute via our state law. And we just want to ensure that as these stores are opening up that sell these under the guidance of selling consumer goods, right, that they go through a process that allows them to be accountable to the community. And that's all we're asking for, be accountable to the community, be a good neighbor to the community as you're coming into our community. It's okay to make money, but be a good neighbor. Be a good steward of, you know, understand that as a business you're providing a service to a community as well, right. Be of that mindset. And unfortunately, we have to introduce legislation like this in order to get certain business owners to be of that mindset, to understand that they're providing a service to the community and we don't want them to be a detriment to the community. So this legislation here again is to protect the public health, safety and welfare of those in the 5th Council District. So thank you so much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember. Ms. Brumbelow Burns.

Good morning. I am Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 250988, introduced into City Council on November 13, 2025 by Councilmember Young. Bill No. 250988 amends Chapter 9-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Service and Other Businesses" to add business-hour restrictions in the 5th Councilmanic District and amending Section 14-529 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "/VDO, Fifth District Overlay District" to restrict certain commercial uses and make other related changes in the Fairmount neighborhood of the Lower North Planning District. This bill will require applicants in two specific areas of the Fifth Councilmanic District to obtain a special exception for Sundries, Pharmaceuticals and Convenience Sales, a use category currently allowed by right. This change would apply to two commercial corridors, Girard Avenue from College Avenue to 24th Street and Fairmount Avenue from Broad Street to 24th Street. The Planning Commission staff recommended further defining the concerns and developing solutions to address them. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill No. 19 250988 at its public meeting on December 4, 2025, and recommended the bill for approval with provisos. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Questions from the panel, from the committee? (No response.)

Question from Councilmember -- Chair recognizes Councilmember Jeffrey Young.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just want to provide for the record, particularly for the Planning Commission, that we did ask this committee to hear an amendment to this legislation. Just so you're aware, the amendment to the legislation states -- it redefines what a commercial establishment is. It is an establishment involved in the buying and selling of goods where consumers primarily purchase goods intended for consumption or use off the premises, including consumer goods as defined by our code. And then it goes on to mention that food establishments with restaurant liquor licenses, drive-throughs, vehicle-fueling stations and pharmacies will be exempt under this particular legislation. We've also added blocks to the legislation, to the amendment. We've added Broad Street, both sides from Spring Garden to Poplar Street. We've also added a Ridge Avenue between Broad Street and West Girard Avenue at the request of those community members. And we've also amended the requirement for a special exception for those who are applying for retail sale of consumer goods. Not necessarily just the Sundries, Pharmacies and Convenience Sales. We've asked to have it amended just to be the retail sale of consumer goods. Because based on the zoning permits that I've seen, that is the category that a lot of these businesses who are selling these products are opening under, consumer goods. And so, we want to ensure that if you're -- if you're a grocery store, sells groceries, right, that's fine. But if you're going to be selling consumer goods, which again all these products are defined in our code under, we want to make sure that there's a level of accountability to the community. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Okay, no -- Councilmember Jones. Chair recognizes Councilmember Jones.

Member Young and Commissioner, is this similar to the overlay that we introduced in the 4th Ward to deal with the proliferation of bandit, in our opinion, bandit businesses that had the multicolor lights and were doing things that Member Bass has long been on top of, liquor-by- the-drink, loosie cigarettes and other things? Is that kind of the purpose to slow that proliferation down?

Yes, sir, it's along the same lines. Because in the 5th District, there are a lot of commercial buildings, commercial properties being developed with residential above, but the commercial spaces are pretty much vacant because most of the developers really care about the residential units, right. And so, the only type of business that has been renting these spaces are these types of stores that are opened up as smoke shops, right. And we have them next to day cares in our district, so families are walking past these stores every day with the little lighted-up CBD leaf looking like marijuana, right, walking past going to day care. All these folks are hanging out outside of these stores. I'm from North Philly, right. I know what they're doing out there, right. They're not just hanging out saying hello to each other, right, all day long. So we have to make sure that our laws are -- there are laws in place to protect our residents from some of these stores that again are just preying on our communities.

I would imagine, Madam Chair, that you walk in this store and you'll see one of those illegal gambling machines in there as well.

Thank you. It would not be surprising at all. So thank you for your questions. Any additional questions? (No response.)

Okay. Is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250988 whose name has not been called? (No response.)

Seeing none, before we move forward to Bill No. 250989 I do want to take a moment and see if Ken Penn from the Building Industry Association is here to testify on Bill No. 250917. It seems that inadvertently he was not on the witness list. Would you like to come forward and offer testimony again? We are going to be stepping back to the original bill, which was 250917, Councilmember Young. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Good morning. State your name for the record and begin.

My name is Kenneth Penn.

Please proceed.

Thank you. My name is Ken Penn and I'm testifying today on behalf of the Building Industry Association of Philadelphia. The BIA is a trade association of small, medium and large residential developers working throughout Philadelphia. I want to thank Chair Bass and the rest of the committee for allowing the BIA to provide testimony today on Bill No. 250917. Councilmember Young's legislation prohibits demolition prior to issuance of a building permit in his district and raises several significant concerns. First, the bill would eliminate a common and practical approach used by developers to seek to begin lawful demolition while a building permit is still under review. Under the bill, this pathway would be arrested, except in cases where a structure is deemed eminently dangerous. This creates a narrow and difficult standard that will unnecessarily delay many projects that are otherwise proceeding in good faith. Second, the prohibition would effectively add months to project timeline, force owners and developers to carry additional holding costs, insurance, security and financing expenses before any meaningful work can begin. These delays will increase overall project costs and could discourage redevelopment of blighted or deteriorated properties in the 5th District. Third, to qualify for an exception based on structural danger, certain property owners may be compelled to intentionally incur code violation or enforcement action to demonstrate instability, which is obviously an inefficient and counterproductive process and incentivizes the very condition that the city seeks to avoid. Most troubling, the bill 20 would prevent demolition of vacant and unsecured structures that are highly susceptible to unlawful occupation. Philadelphia has already experienced multiple fires this winter, many historically linked to squatters and abandoned buildings. By barring timely demolition, the legislation may inadvertently increase public safety risk for neighboring residents, first responders and surrounding properties. Councilmember Young has indicated that he prefers a vacant, dilapidated structure to remain standing even when structures attached to another building, rather than creating a vacant lot that can attract illegal dumping. While this perspective reflects a legitimate urban planning concern, it overlooks the immediate fire, safety and liability risks posed by unstable, unsecured buildings. Although our organization did not oppose the Councilmember's recent insurance legislation, this proposed ban on demolition prior to permit issuance is a dangerous policy. In our view, it exposes the city to potential legal liability in cases where property owners may demonstrate that a structure was difficult or impossible to secure or pose a foreseeable risk. The BIA asks the Councilmember consider limiting this legislation to only those properties that the owners in L&I have not certified and prepared as vacant through a vacant property license issued by L&I. Thank you, Councilwoman.

Thank you for your testimony. Chair recognizes Councilmember Young.

Thank you. And thank you for your testimony, Mr. Penn. And I understand some of the impacts that this will have on the development community, but what I think this bill does, is ensures that property owners maintain their properties in a prudent manner, right. And I'll say this: When I was in the private sector, I represented clients, property owners who were defending their properties against conservatorships, right, because these properties were vacant and blighted. And so, the developers use this law to say, you know what, we're coming to attack your property because you're creating blight on our communities, so we're going to attack your property. We want to take it over, we want to take your equity out. And so, I represented property owners who had to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to secure their properties to be what's called a safe and secure shell. And I think that if you're a developer, you should be held to that same standard, right. You should be held to that same safe and secure shell standard that many people in my community are held to when they get these Act 135 conservatorship petitions filed against them, right. And I'm sure and I know for a fact that many of the members of the BIA can afford to make their properties a safe and secure shell over the property owners that I represented in the defense of these conservatorship petitions. So if our community members are going to be held to the same standards, I think the developers should be held to those standards as well. And I think this is a way to try to again prevent gentrification from happening in our communities, a way to try to prevent blight from happening in our communities by ensuring that property owners are able to maintain their properties in a way that is in alignment with our city code. And so, I'm going to ask the members of this committee again to protect those residents of the 5th Council District by passing this legislation out of committee today. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilman. Is there anyone else on the panel who has questions? (No response.)

And seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Before we move forward, I'm going to ask one more time is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250917? (No response.)

Okay. And seeing that there's none, Madam Clerk, please read the title of Bill No. 250989.

Sarah Barnett, Executive Director of ACCT Philly. (Witness approached witness table.)

And prior to their arrival to testimony -- come on up, come on up. I do want to acknowledge the presence of Councilmember Kathy Gilmore Richardson.

Good morning.

Good morning, Chairperson Bass, Vice- Chairman Squilla and City Council Rules Committee members. My name is Sarah Barnett and I'm here on behalf of ACCT Philly, the city's only open-intake animal shelter. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of Bill 4 No. 250989, legislation that establishes a temporary breeding moratorium for dogs in the City of Philadelphia. Specifically, the temporary moratorium is for 36 months from the effective date of the bill, which is 90 days after the bill becomes law. Since 2012, ACCT Philly has provided animal control services to the city. And since its inception that year, ACCT Philly has taken into our facility over 291,000 animals, all from Philadelphia. As an open-intake shelter, we are legally and ethically required to accept every animal that comes through our doors, stray, surrendered, healthy, sick, young, old, from every neighborhood in Philadelphia. Last year alone, more than 20,000 animals entered ACCT Philly, making us one of the largest single site animal shelters in the entire country. We are the city's triage facility for animals and the need for our services has never been greater. Prior to the pandemic, our intake was slowly falling. But since the pandemic, we have seen a dramatic and sustained increase, particularly in dogs, growing by nearly 1000 additional dogs every year. In 2025, over 7400 dogs entered our facility. And this year we expect to surpass 8000. It's an average of dogs entering 21 our shelter every single day. This 22 has forced us into a constant state of reaction and triage, where staff, volunteers, rescue partners are doing everything possible to save lives and to meet the needs of the community. One of the first questions I'm asked when people hear those numbers is why is this happening. There are many factors, but irresponsible and unregulated backyard breeding is a major driver of this increase. We see the impact firsthand. We see puppies surrendered because they are literally too big to sell now. We see mother dogs who have been bred repeatedly, only to be abandoned once their bodies give out, many suffering from very preventable medical conditions and conditions caused by repeated breeding. We see puppies arriving sick with parvovirus, which is a highly contagious and often deadly disease that is preventable through very basic vaccines. And we see dogs purchased as puppies from breeders with significant behavioral issues that are making them unsafe. The problem doesn't just impact the shelter system. It also impacts public health, public safety and the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Parvovirus is a virus that lives in the environment for up to six months. It infects other dogs in the community who aren't fully vaccinated. I've watched an owner stand with his 5-year-old dog while the dog died, a dog who never left the house or the yard. The owner was crying and he didn't know why his dog had died from parvovirus because he got him vaccinated. He had one vaccine and the owner didn't know that the dog needed two in order to be protected. The owner brought the virus into the home. The dog never left. The owner brought the virus from the community. We see families who unknowingly purchase a puppy who becomes gravely ill within days, facing thousands of dollars in medical bills and devastating emotional consequences, forcing them to surrender the dog, with the dog then taking up very limited shelter resources. For years, free and low-cost spayed and neuter services have been offered in the city and they're very, very important, but they're not enough on their own. The scale of breeding is increasingly outpacing the system's ability to respond and producing simply too many dogs for Philadelphia's adopters to absorb. While this is happening in communities around the country, we have a unique opportunity because we're fortunate, because thanks to Councilwoman Bass, we have an opportunity to actually do something about it.

ACCT Philly has faced challenges over the years and we have made a lot of meaningful progress. Passing this commonsense practical bill empowers us to take a preventative, rather than purely reactive approach to one of the biggest drivers of dog overpopulation in our city, unlicensed breeders. It allows us to focus on a major cause of overpopulation in our shelter and it allows us to focus on lifesaving, community support and responsible pet ownership, rather than constantly chasing the next crisis. This is a temporary, targeted solution to a real and growing problem, and it gives us one more essential tool to protect animals, support residents and strengthen our community as a whole. Thank you for your time and for your consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.

I want to thank you for your testimony and for you being here today. And I want to say as sponsor of this bill, as a lifelong animal lover and someone who has always gotten all of my dogs and cats from either ACCT or the SPCA, recognizing the need to make sure that we look and see and when possible, adopt animals from these very important shelters that are really doing quite a service here in the city of Philadelphia. There just cannot be -- it just can't be underscored enough how important the work of ACCT really is. As a former Board member, I know. I've been there, I've seen the work that this organization does day-in and day-out. And it's really quite heartbreaking to see the number of animals that are coming through, just sort of rotating day-in and day-out, timestamped and you rushing to try to find them a home, a foster, a situation. We were at SCI Chester just recently to visit New leash On Life with the inmates at SCI Chester and to see the program that they have in which they actually bring in dogs from ACCT. So the work that you all do just really cannot be highlighted enough. We thank you for the work that you do. As a former Board member, I'm proud and honored to stand by you and stand with this bill. I know that we have a ton of support inside this chamber as well as outside of this chamber, as Philadelphians far and wide said it's about time. We're glad to see this happening and we want to see more and they will see more. So I just want to say thank you so much for all that you have done. That being said, I want to open it up if any of my colleagues have questions or comments. Councilmember Squilla.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Sarah, for testifying, and thank you always for responsiveness to concerns throughout the community. It's very much appreciated. Whether the answer is what people want to hear or not, I think it's important that they get an answer so I think we appreciate that. Do you see the challenge of these I guess unlicensed breeders that would just take advantage of the situation to obviously make money off of this and therefore add to the challenges of ACCT?

Yes. I mean, we see it weekly. We see people trying to sell puppies who I think during the pandemic did make money and it was a profitable side hustle, but that has since dried up a bit. So now, when the puppies don't sell, the ones who don't sell, they do dump them at ACCT Philly and they are honest about that. I'll give them that. They come in and they say, I can't sell these and they drop them at our door.

And so, then the number of animals that you have increases because of that?

Absolutely.

And then, obviously you only have so much room, so much resources. So then it comes an issue of what do you do with those animals at that time --

Point of information.

Yes.

Point of information. I just wanted to interrupt for one quick question. I wanted to ask, Sarah, if you could detail the amount of space that you have at ACCT to be able to hold animals versus the numbers that come through the door?

So ideally, in an ideal world we would be housing 110 dogs and about 120, 130 cats as well as a room full of other animals, whatever animals come in. Realistically, I can't remember the last time we were at 110 dogs. I think this morning we're at 135 because we really are striving. We want to save lives. So it's a constant battle every morning of figuring out do you put a dog in a crate or do you have to find someone to euthanize. And we generally always go with putting a dog in a crate, but it's very hard. It's very hard. And it has a negative impact on the animals as well.

Thank you. Thank you so much for your work. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Councilwoman, do you have a --

Yes.

Chair recognizes Councilwoman Gauthier.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Are there particular types of dogs that are being bred where you see this overpopulation specifically, just out of curiosity?

The three most common dogs that we get in are pit bull-type dogs, German Shepherds and Huskies. Huskies, we know definitively backyard breeders are contributing to the average of one Husky a day coming into ACCT Philly. We did DNA testing to look into that. We also have pit bull- type dogs obviously that breeders will acknowledge when they bring them to our door that they are from breeding. So we see a lot of those dogs as well, but it's harder to track DNA-wise because they all look somewhat similar.

Thank you. Thanks for all of your work and thank you to the bill's sponsor for this important legislation.

Thank you, Council Lady. The one last thing I just wanted to highlight is -- well, I think on my very first Board meeting when I was a Board member previously, one of the things that was brought to my attention was a box of puppies found in the park. And subsequently, I found out that that is not uncommon. Can you talk about that because it really was quite shocking and horrifying when I heard that?

Yeah, it really is not uncommon. And one of the things that we see frequently actually, and ironically it often happens during storms, where people will say I found a box of stray puppies and they're all remarkably dry, which makes you question it a little bit. But it's not uncommon. We see it. Our neighbors at PA SPCA see it. Between the two organizations, you know, boxes, bags of puppies. And then sadly, you also see the puppies, you know -- what you don't see in the news are the ones that we get calls about. Recently we got a call about a community that was very upset, and rightfully so. There was a box of deceased puppies that was next to the dumpster. And the community was upset because they said this is not the first time it's happened. And those are the stories you obviously don't see on social media. You normally see the puppies that were saved, but there are a lot of animals those puppies represent. It's not uncommon at all.

Well, again we thank you for your work, the very important work of you and your entire team at ACCT. Seeing that there's no 9 more questions from the committee, thank you for your testimony. Madam Clerk, can you please call forward the next panel to testify.

Julie Klim, CEO of PSPCA; Penny Ellison, Adjunct Professor of Animal Law and Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania, Retired Mediator with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and founder of Hand to PA. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning. Please state your name and begin with your testimony, either one.

Good morning, Chairperson and members of the committee. My name is Penny Ellison and I've been teaching Animal Law at Penn for the last 9 years. I'm also a Board member of 10 the Dog Law Advisory Board for the 11 State Department of Agriculture. 12 And also, I wanted to say that I'm 13 Board Chair of Hand to Paw, which 14 is a job training organization for 15 young people in Philadelphia to 16 learn to work with animals and 17 support pet owners. And a lot of 18 them are here today to see how 19 their government works. 20 So thank you very much for having us. I'm really here today to speak to the legal framework and authority underlying this proposed moratorium. So at the outset, I want to be clear that this ordinance, what it represents from a legal perspective. A temporary moratorium on unlicensed dog breeding and the sale of puppies is an ordinary exercise of the police power that the city has, regulation of animals, particularly where we've heard public health, animal welfare, municipal services are implicated. That's long been recognized as a core local government function. Cities routinely regulate the breeding, sale, transfer, advertising of animals, especially where unregulated activity imposes documented costs on public agencies and creates health and public safety risks. Temporary moratoria are also a familiar municipal tool. They're commonly used where, as we've heard from Sarah Barnett, current existing enforcement mechanisms and policies have just proven insufficient and the conditions have reached an acute level. And frankly, you need to buy time for a longer-term solution to see if we can get this overpopulation of dogs under control. It's also important to talk about how this fits in with state law because we put an exemption into the moratorium for anyone who is licensed by the state of Pennsylvania as a dog kennel, so it's completely consistent with the way state law works. It preserves this lawful pathway for responsible breeders to continue operating. They either have a license or they can apply to the State Department of Agriculture for $100 and get a license if they are willing to be inspected and comply with the rules. So this moratorium, I want to be clear, it doesn't ban dog breeding. It bans unlicensed dog breeding. So the ordinance 5 relies on the existing objective state framework as the dividing line for the exemption instead of trying to make a case-by-case analysis of whether this was intentional breeding or accidental breeding. If you want to breed, you get a license. This approach is legally sound and enforceable. Conditioning that exemption on licensure is a common regulatory technique because it provides clarity, traceability, inspection authority and consumer protection. So this ordinance represents a careful and defensible use of municipal authority. It aligns with state law. It relies on objective standards and addresses a documented local problem using tools that courts have long recognized as appropriate for cities to use. So I believe that Council should feel comfortable that this legislation rests on solid legal footing. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We're going to hold the questions until the next testifier. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

My name is Julie Klim. I'm the CEO of the Pennsylvania SPCA. Thank you, Chairperson Bass and Vice-Chair Squilla. We appreciate being heard today. The Pennsylvania SPCA headquarters is located in the Juniata Park section of Philadelphia. It's our largest location. We are currently housing animals. 193 of those are dogs. We are down the street virtually from ACCT Philly, whom we partner with. We also house a shelter hospital which provides advanced emergency care for only homeless pets, thousands of them per year. And we also house a public veterinary clinic that is a walk-in clinic open six days a week for the public at a very low cost to provide low-cost veterinary care and surgery services for their pets. So importantly, we're expending a lot of our resources to keep pets out of the shelter system and in their homes where they belong. We also have taken our services to the community who can't get to our facility and provide MASH-style full-day clinics to patients in those communities, and we offer spayed and neuter services and transport services for free to our clinic in North Philadelphia and Southwest Philadelphia communities. So last year, we treated 31,700 pets with those services. We also have an Animal Law Enforcement team who covers 10 counties in Pennsylvania, eight 11 officers, but four of those are 12 devoted solely to Philadelphia. 13 They are sort of state police 14 officers that enforce the state 15 animal cruelty codes. And last 16 year, we had about 2700 17 investigations in Philadelphia. 18 So I provide all this background because I want to paint a picture of the scope of services we're providing and the fact that despite all of this, our location in proximity to ACCT Philly keeps thousands of pets out of the ACCT Philly shelter system and into ours. And yet, despite all of these resources we are drowning, drowning in dogs especially, and many of these come from unlicensed breeders. So our officers are out in force seeing these cases all of the time. And I think something really changed during the COVID pandemic where everyone wanted a dog because they were staying at home. And before that, we were really getting ahead of the dog and cat population in Philadelphia. And since that time, there was a brief moment where we almost had no 18 available dogs to adopt, and then very quickly the market took over and people started saying, well, there's demand for puppies, I can help fill that demand. And we have not unwound from that all these years later. I think this moratorium would provide a very impactful tool to use to just turn that tide back around. I also just want to anecdotally tell a story about a case that our officers found, which is very emblematic of the resources we're putting toward this problem. An individual decided they wanted to breed their two Cane Corso puppies, large breed dogs that are already overrepresented in the shelter system. And then he decided to get the ears cropped because that's an aesthetic that makes them more salable. Didn't take them to a licensed veterinarian. That's very expensive, so took them to a local guy who does this on the side. The ears got infected. He took the dogs to a local private emergency hospital. When he found out the cost, he abandoned them there. The veterinarians called our officers in because they knew there were more puppies in the home. We went and seized those animals. And then it just started an entire case that took years to resolve because he didn't want to give up his dogs. He didn't want to surrender them, but he had abandoned them. This was animal cruelty so it violated state laws. But I think the real thing to remember here is the cost of breeding was then put on the nonprofit sector, ACCT Philly and the PSPCA are bearing the cost of that business. So it's not really a business if a nonprofit is absorbing all of your costs when things go poorly. When things go well, it's a business.

And I think that's why we're really targeting this unlicensed component of this bill. And I think we put so much resources -- Sarah Barnett also referred to parvovirus, which is very common, and a lot of these unregulated breeders are spreading these diseases. As I walked out the door of my shelter yesterday, we had a group of puppies that were brought in from one of these cases, had parvo and now we have parvo in our shelter and we're overwhelmed. And so, I think if we could allay this and put all of the cost and effort we put towards unlicensed breeding towards providing more services to the community, we could make a huge impact and keep pets in their homes where they belong. Thank you.

Thank you. And I'd love to have further conversation. I'm sure some of our members of Council would love to maybe have some additional dialogue as well, so we'll set something up so we can have those conversations and figure out what additional measures we could do to really be supportive of folks who want to house a pet with them and may have some economic challenges and therefore find it very difficult to do so. And maybe just with a little bit of help, we can make that situation a better fit for a parent and my fur baby. And so, we're hopeful that we'll be able to have some of those conversations to make those kinds of things happen. So -- oh, I'm sorry. Councilwoman Jamie Gauthier.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not as sort of immersed in this system as Councilmember Bass is. I wanted to know when you talk about doing what needs to happen so that the animals are not going to ACCT, they're going to your shelter, what does that mean? Can you expound on the key differences between the SPCA shelters and ACCT? And what are the key differences and what sends an animal to either place?

Well, our goals are the same, and it's to help animals. We're a fully privately-funded nonprofit so we get no city funding. We are not an -- for our law enforcement activities, we're an open intake shelter, in that any cases that our law enforcement officers find, we bring in whether we have space. We have four locations around the state so we have some flexibility in being able to move animals out of the city if we need to. We are a no-kill shelter. So our shelter is somewhat -- you can think of it as it's a destination. We're going to keep our animals. We can invest in the long-term medical rehabilitation through our hospital. We have surgeries. We can do many different advanced medical care. We have a team of behaviorists. So if one of these dogs that come in that might have been unsocialized from these litters if they didn't sell, all of a sudden they're an 8- or 10-week- old puppy that ends up in a shelter, and that puppy is now going to potentially have some behavioral challenges and be harder to adopt. So we're more of a long- term solution as a private organization. We can have dogs with us for a year or two years. This Cane Corso case I mentioned, the last one started in 2023 and the last dog was adopted in 2025. So that's kind of the difference. ACCT Philly is the open intake shelter that is funded by the city. But if someone comes to our door, so if we have space, we have been operating at 125% of capacity for dogs routinely over the past two years, which means that our dogs are not in ideal -- so we have a fixed number of cages for an ideal life in the shelter. And if we're at 125% of capacity, that means we have dogs packed in, in less than ideal circumstances. And that's what we're finding now due to a lot of these cases.

Okay. And not to be morbid, but is it also that if pets or if animals go to your shelter, is there less of a chance they are euthanized or is there no distinction there?

Because of our structure, because we have the advanced resources of a hospital and behavioral teams, we're designed to be a destination. So as a no-kill shelter, we don't euthanize for space or time because we have that luxury as a private institution. That's how we're established.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla.

Thank you so much and thank you both for your testimony. And as we always do legislation, we look at enforcement. How would enforcement work if somebody was not abiding by the moratorium or decided to continue breeding? How would that be enforced?

ACCT is really in charge of enforcement, not PSPCA. But I think that all of us have agreed that the first line of defense is education and providing supportive services funded by public and private dollars to make sure that people that want to come into compliance have the ability to do that with subsidized spay-neuter services. If they refuse that, then it would be up to ACCT how to handle the next steps in terms of whether or not they assess the fine. But I know that the fine is there so that the stick exists to persuade people to accept those supported services.

I want to add to that. The idea behind this in my mind is that the product only exists because there is demand for it. And if we can do a good enough job of educating the public, then that drives up the demand once they know that what they are, number one, doing is now illegal in the City of Philadelphia. But beyond that, the care, the compassion, the thought process behind this being, you know, a living, breathing thing, this is not a stuffed animal. This is something that you have to care for, you have to clean up after, you have to feed, you have to care for. And so, once we I think do our job, our due diligence of providing the level of public education that needs to happen, I think that that in and of itself will bring the numbers down. So thank you, Councilman.

I think the public education goes both to the people who might be breeding dogs or have an unaltered dog and to the public to say you shouldn't be buying from unlicensed breeders. And that's why we have the advertising provision in there to make sure that people have to identify the fact that they are licensed or they're a 501(c)(3) rescue rehoming puppies.

And I know you were involved with some other things. And the notion of a dog warden came up on some other issues. Will a dog warden be involved in any notification of any of this?

You mean the dog wardens that work for the Department of Agriculture?

(Nodded affirmatively).

No, no one is a mandatory reporter under this law. So if somebody went to a veterinarian to get vaccinations, no one has to report this. So the first line of defense is going to be educating people about the law. People would still be able to get vaccines for any puppies they want to get vaccines for. But the dog warden, I don't think would have anything to do with it. Other than the fact that for now the dog wardens will report to the Pennsylvania SPCA if they go in and inspect a breeder and find conditions that they think violate the cruelty law, then they report it. But there's nothing in this law that requires them to report it.

Okay. Thank you.

It's also a tool. Right now our officers might see a situation that technically breaks the animal cruelty law, but in effect it might be a person without means to affect that law. And you use the law as a tool to discuss with the person, maybe we can help take some of these animals off of your hands, keep one here, that one you can handle. And I think that's a tool that ACCT Philly will be able to have as well with this moratorium.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilmember Young.

Thank you. No, I'm not on the committee, but just listening to the testimony here just brought me back to my days in law school where I did take a course by Professor Gary Francione on animal human rights, right. So my question is, can you talk to us about the effects that breeding has on the transmission of chronic diseases and genetic diseases in some of these animals and the long-term costs that it will have on some of the owners who decide to go and buy puppies from those type of breeders?

I can speak to some of it, and I think Julie can speak to others. You raised the genetic issue, which is a big issue. As you might know, some of the most popular breeds now, and of course the most popular breeds are sometimes the ones that get overbred because they're the ones that are easily salable, are things like French bulldogs with very flat faces, and they get bred and bred to have flatter and flatter faces, then that makes them unable to breathe. If a responsible breeder might do genetic testing to ensure that their dogs are going to not pass on genetic faults that are going to plague them with health problems throughout life. But if they do it the right way, they're not going to make a lot of money. So the people who are trying to make quick money are not going to do that and they're going to turn out a lot of sick dogs. And a lot of Philadelphians have bought a lot of sick dogs that end up needing thousands of dollars of surgery or end up dying very prematurely and breaking their heart because they were bred irresponsibly. And that's certainly part of what we're trying to address here. And I think Julie and Sarah have both talked about also communicable diseases that come from the failure to spend money on the appropriate vaccines and to keep the puppies long enough so that they can get their vaccinations. Another thing that unlicensed breeders do is separate puppies from mothers too early, so they are both not fully vaccinated and not socialized and end up with behavior problems. Did I just --

You just answered the question. But I think Sarah and I raised as well parvovirus is a serious disease that if left untreated, is fatal. We're seeing so many cases, like I just mentioned that we have a case in my shelter right now. It spreads like wildfire despite your best intentions. And we have a very skilled hospital -- I have 150 employees and 50 of my employees are in our medical services division and our organization. But parvovirus can infect the community's pets as well because it lives on the ground for months. And so, you could take your 1-year-old dog to a dog park and it's catching parvovirus from these unvaccinated animals that are in our community. And we had noted in my testimony that 84% of the parvovirus tests we put out in our clinic last year. So in our 30,000-plus patients, 84% of the puppies that were tested were positive for parvovirus. And so, it's highly communicable. And it's really something that's containable but with good practices.

Thank you very much. Good information to have as well. Thank you. Okay. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else to testify on Bill No. 250989?

There are no 2 further panels, Madam Chair.

Is there anyone here to testify on Bill No. 250989 whose name has not been called? Okay. Please step forward. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Rory Sweeney. I live in Old Kensington area, actually in Councilman Young's District incidentally. I'm here speaking on behalf of myself and my wife who is sick and also won't be able to attend Thursday. So please consider these comments to extend there as well. I want to thank you for your leadership in this bill and express our support for it. We volunteer on behalf of an old animal rescue called City of Elderly Love that focuses on old animals that are an imminent risk of disposal. And by disposal, I do mean getting put to death to make room for the daily influx of new dogs to animal control. We choose the animals that we take based on which ones are nearest to their date of termination. So the ones who are soonest going to die. Executive Director Barnett already listed a lot of numbers and stats, so I'll leave our commentary to just our own personal experience. We've been fostering to final adoption for a few years now. And as soon as we get one healthy and rehomed, there's always another waiting. Our two most recent were -- I took some photos this morning. This was Batman and this one was Diamond, and it says she's the most beautiful girl in the world and she was. And both were elderly and both yet still needed to be spayed and neutered and both were within several hours of the end of their timestamp and would have been euthanized. Diamond's case in particular was rough. She was -- one of the breeders that Executive Director Barnett talked about, she clearly had been abused from breeding litter after litter until she was no longer useful. When we got her, she was about pounds 19 overweight, terrified of medical 20 treatment and riddled with mammary cancer. The vet told us that the more litters that a dog has, the higher risk they are for mammary cancer. So we had a multi-surgery situation with her. She had to get spayed and then we had to have mastectomies on both sides of her mammary chains. Took quite some time. So that was a rough few months but we got through it and she is no longer with us. She has been exported, and she is now -- we refer to her as Delaware Diamond. People often ask us how we're able to care for these dogs, make connection with them and then ship them out and never see them again. And the answer to that is because shipping one out makes space for the next one. And without the efforts like this bill 19 to address the underlying issues of the problem here, I am unfortunately very confident that there will always be a next one. And so, I appreciate your efforts and thank you, and please consider his support and pass the bill. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Yes. Jonathan Stanley. Madam Chair Bass and the Committee on Rules, thank you for the opportunity to comment on Bill 250989. My name is Jonathan Stanley and I am a member of the Board of the Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs. Specifically, I have been the first Vice-Chair of the Legislation Committee for the past six years. I would like to preface my statement by acknowledging the serious and difficult situation that the city and shelters are facing. It certainly would seem and is overwhelming. And although we were encouraged that before the pandemic, perhaps there was a grip getting taken on this. It has gotten worse in the last few years, and this is something that we're seeing across the country because many people adopted dogs during the pandemic without a long-term perspective. But today I am here representing dog clubs and competitors and training groups across the Commonwealth who organize around numerous dog sports, and these include thousands of Pennsylvania citizens who participate in confirmation dog shows, performance sports such as agility, companion events such as obedience and rally, tracking, scent work, herding, lure coursing, coursing ability, tests such as CAT and Fast CAT, hunt tests, field tests, trick dog and basic obedience like the Canine Good Citizen from the AKC. For example, two of our member clubs are the Hatboro Dog Club and the Huntingdon Valley Kennel Club, of which members reside in the city of Philadelphia, and both clubs sent letters to all the Councilmembers concerning this proposed bill. Our organization has internal calculations that estimate the economic impact of dog sports in Pennsylvania at between $200 million to $350 million a year in economic stimulus to the Commonwealth. We feel that a broad, sweeping ban on breeding or transfers of any dog under seven months of age would have substantial economic impact, not only on sports as a whole but on individuals who live in Philadelphia and who are hobby professionals. Many of these hobby professionals are likely to be responsibly having a litter or two of puppies in any given year or couple of years. They do this to continue their competitive program and also to provide high caliber dogs to families or individuals who either compete or want a pet with specific traits representing a breed or type of dog. They are not required to be licensed under the Pennsylvania dog law, and I realize that we are speaking a lot about that smaller, unlicensed subset of breeders. Contrary to prevailing opinion, there are many more responsible breeders, in my experience, in circulation than those who are not, while recognizing that there are many who are not. We feel that this broad, sweeping ban of three years to be renewed at the discretion of the City Council would devastate the good and possibly not completely prevent the bad. For example, do we know what percentage of dogs that at any time are held by ACCT Philly or by other shelters were bred outside of the city or perhaps as opposed to those that may have been bred in the city and turned out onto the streets. The Pennsylvania Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, whom we regularly work with and consult with, inspects 60 licensees, including shelters and rescues in the city of Philadelphia. But people in dog sports who have a litter or two a year are not required under Pennsylvania law to have a kennel license, so it is difficult to nearly impossible, to estimate the number of responsible breeders who would be unfairly and negatively affected by this broad ban. , we have further concerns on the definition of bona fide credentials involving the raising of seeing-eye dogs, therapy dogs and law enforcement dogs, and the potential exists that some won't be supplied to these important works if they cannot be transferred until seven months. While we are supportive of the work that many shelters and rescues perform, they have a different effect on the economy.

The Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs is concerned at another broad bill proposing constraints on everyone in the industry, except for rescues and shelters. Now, while this is important work, an adopted dog from a shelter has a greater risk of recidivism back into a shelter than a puppy purchased from a responsible breeder. Most responsible breeders write into their contracts that dogs must be returned to them rather than dropped to a shelter. The Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs respectfully request that the Council consult with responsible breeders and the Pennsylvania Federation of Dog Clubs and other dog owners who come from a perspective of animal welfare rather than animal rights. We believe this bill represents an important need and a good motive, but it does not address the root concerns that cause dogs to be abandoned or turned over to shelters, and we are available to consult constructively on writing legislation that would help address these core issues. Thank you for listening to my comments.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Now, I just wanted to ask one thing really quickly. So you asked in your testimony if ACCT had any idea of the number of breeders that were bred outside the city and then transported in the city and vice versa. And so, I have the same question for you, for your breeders. Do you have any idea of how many breeders who actually followed your rule, in which a dog was breeded and then they decided I don't want this puppy anymore, I don't want this dog anymore? How many dogs have actually been returned back to your breeders?

It is very uncommon for someone -

Do you have a number? What is --

I do not have a number, no. 5

Okay. I understand. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you for testimony. Do you want to state your name for the record and proceed?

Yep, my name is Charles Hull. I also go by Charlie. So my name is Charlie Hull and I'm here today on behalf of the American Kennel Club, The Kennel Club of Philadelphia and the many responsible dog owners and breeders in the city of Philadelphia. Thank you for this opportunity to speak in opposition to the proposed three-year moratorium on breeding and transferring puppies in Philadelphia. The AKC cares deeply about animal welfare, public safety and strongly supports the goals of stopping neglect, abuse and ill-responsible breeding. However, this bill does not target the real problem. Instead, it applies a broad band where focused enforcement is needed and will create unintended harm for responsible breeders, customers and even dogs themselves. The structure of this bill is inconsistent and difficult to enforce. The bill exempts licensed breeding kennels. But according to supporters, Philadelphia currently has no 23 licensed breeding kennels. This is because responsible hobby breeders simply do not keep or transfer the number of dogs which the state requires for a breeding kennel license, which is dogs either 5 kept or transferred that require a 6 state license. 7 In fact, many only have 8 one planned litter of puppies a 9 year and often have a waiting list 10 of folks wanting to take them once 11 they reach the legal age at which 12 they can be transferred. If 13 responsible breeders are not 14 materially contributing to shelter 15 overcrowding, exempting them would 16 not increase a shelter population, 17 but forcing them into a three-year 18 shutdown can permanently destroy 19 bloodlines, genetic diversity and 20 programs that took decades to 21 build. 22 It should also be noted 23 that these hobbyists raise dogs in 24 their private homes and the inspections and requirements are designed for those producing a larger number of dogs. As a result, it is not reasonable to expect these home-based hobbyists to simply register for a state license, as not all the requirements, for example, size of outdoors areas, would be possible for someone breeding one litter in their home in Philadelphia city limits. Responsible breeders are models for the community. They raise healthy dogs and work to ensure that puppies are placed with appropriate owners, even agreeing to take dogs back if a home does not work out instead of placing them in a shelter. These breeders are in a unique position to support new pet owners and teach them to be responsible dog owners. Breeders have worked for decades to establish quality breeding programs that produce well-bred, healthy dogs. We encourage you to not punish responsible breeders who have been providing quality, well-bred pets to the community for years. ACCT Philly has shared that the shelter intake has increased and that donor-funded DNA testing of about 60 Husky-type dogs showed many were closely related. That evidence points to a localized problem, maybe one or two breeders, not a citywide failure of responsible breeders. If specific operations are producing a disproportionate number of shelter dogs, the solution is targeted investigation and enforcement, not shutting down everyone else. ACCT also reports a 45% increase in puppy intake from 2023 to 2024, but no data shows how many of those puppies were bred in Philadelphia versus surrender due to housing instability, illness, financial hardship or import activity. Correlation alone is not causation and policy should be based on precise local data. If background breeders are surrendering sick or unsold dogs, they should be cited for abandonment, neglect or consumer fraud under existing law. Pennsylvania already has cruelty statutes, licensing requirements and inspection authority. The problem is not lack of laws. It's lack of targeted enforcement. Moratoriums also push irresponsible breeders and sellers underground.

People will not stop wanting dogs because Philadelphia paused breeding and not every person wanting a dog decides that a shelter or rescue dog is right for their family. Instead they will simply go elsewhere. And those breaking current laws and breeding in inhumane manner will continue to do so, resulting in reduced transparency which ultimately harms animal welfare and opens consumers to scams. Again, the AKC strongly supports your goals of lowering shelter population and promoting the humane care of animals. Instead of breeding moratoriums, Philadelphia should instead focus on target investigations based on complaints, penalties for abandonment and neglect, specific actions for bio-education and responsible sterilization programs. Bill 250989 is well- intentioned, but it misapplies ACCT data, punishing responsible breeders and Philadelphia residents seeking a healthy, well-bred dog from a local breeder and risks worsening the very problem it seeks to fix. Thank you for this opportunity to provide my testimony.

Thank you for your testimony. I do want to ask you the same question that I asked the previous gentleman. Can you give us the number of dogs taken back by breeders?

I cannot give you an accurate number, but I will share this with you --

Okay. That's all. That's --

No, but I will share this with you. When it comes to rescue-type operations, so as a result of also people giving dogs back to breeders, the AKC actually has the largest breed rescue network in the United States. So if I'm a breeder and you've got a Boston Terrier from me, something came up that you may not be able to take the dog, you bring it back to me. I may not be able to take care of your dog, but I have a network, much like a regular rescue network, I have a rescue network where that Boston Terrier instead of going to a shelter will go to a Boston Terrier rescue. So I just wanted to point that out as well.

So how do I know that that is to happen? If you don't have the numbers that you can say in the city of Philadelphia, you know, 100 puppies came from breeders through the American Kennel Club. And of those 100 puppies, 20 were returned back to us. You don't have the data.

I don't. And to be quite honest with you, if the breeder is doing the job correctly and educating folks correctly, minus a personal family problem, that should not really very seldom happen.

If people were responsible all across the board with animals, we wouldn't have this problem. If, if, if. But thank you for your testimony.

And I will not disagree with you because I did hear the word ill-responsible breeder several times. Thanks.

Thank you. One second before you leave. Chair recognizes Councilwoman Jamie Gauthier.

Well, I have a question following that testimony, sort of similar testimony from the various sort of dog clubs. You all testified in opposition and you said that the city should not enforce sort of this blanket ban because it might have unintended consequences. But also, I think all of you referenced the problem that you saw growing during COVID as well. But in your comments, it was about what the city should do and what the city shouldn't do. Obviously, these are resource organizations. You have to be a resource organization to even have a government relations person. What is your responsibility as a private sector being that you also recognize the problem, but you don't want this enforcement? What have you been doing in your industry to curtail this problem? And do you as a private sector also have a responsibility since you voiced that you care about the issue?

So again, as I mentioned AKC does have a breeder network. We have care and conditioning requirements that if you are an AKC breeder, we have a care and conditions policy that must be followed. We do have inspectors who actually go and inspect folks that do a high volume number of dogs, but even smaller hobbyist breeders. We have had situations where we've discovered that a hobbyist breeder has been using -- I mean, because they were AKC-registered originally, are advertising that they're selling AKC puppies. But some of those folks have actually been disbarred or barred from doing so. So we try to work with our breeders to make sure that they are acting responsible. To the point where part of the problem we sometimes see as AKC, and some of our breeders, even our smaller hobbyist breeders -- so Councilwoman Bass has been breeding dogs forever just as an --

No, no. Mark Squilla.

Just using you as an example.

Mark Squilla was doing it.

As she ages and it becomes more and more difficult, because it's something she's always loved, she suddenly continues to do it and start struggling to take care of dogs and that stuff. So we've been working with -- and I'm very happy to see the group of kids over here as well. We actually have someone that works with a youth program, trying to encourage those folks to step in, help and become that next level. Because a lot of the times, AKC-wise a lot of the problems and issues we sometimes see is someone who's just been breeding for a very long time, and quite frankly you hate to say this, but -- no offense, Councilwoman Bass -- you hate to say this but, Councilwoman Bass, it may be time for you to stop breeding dogs because you simply cannot take care of them.

I mean, all of those sound like reasonable things. But I would put out there that if you all don't want the legislation and the enforcement, you should find ways to incentivize or bring about better behavior in the industry. I don't think it could just be about what you think the city should and should not do if you're an active participant in the industry.

I understand, correct.

And I just want to add to that, that I don't know what kind of relationship you have with ACCT and with PA SPCA. But if you have any resources, any assistance, any way that you all can be helpful, because most of these dogs are not pure-bred dogs. But if you really have members who care about animals, then maybe you could reach out and offer some assistance and try to find some ways that you can be of some service to ACCT and to SPCA to help them with their mission.

And I would agree with you. And in some other states, we have partnered with entities in other areas and that stuff.

We would love to have it here. Not just in the Commonwealth, but right here in Philadelphia.

Yep, fully understand that.

Great. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you for your testimony. And please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Yes. Hello. My name is Hakeem Ruiz. I am a Senior Director at Companions and Animals for Reform and Equity and --

For what again? Say it again.

Companions and Equity for -- Companions and Animals for Reform and Equity. I apologize.

That's okay.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

Sure.

I am here on behalf of CARE, Companions and Animals for Reform and Equity. But I more so want to take the opportunity to speak on behalf of myself and some of my community members. In the past couple of years, I've worked with many animal welfare organizations. We've serviced 240 vet bills in the year of 2023. And through that year, we've encountered many different types of pet ownership, not really sourcing where they get these pets from, but just understanding the people. And there's a lot of interesting relationships that they have with the services that the city and state provide, such as the amazing work that is being done at ACCT Philly and SPCA. But unfortunately, there is an issue in the city and across the country at this point and over time with authority. And a lot of people look at these entities as authorities. And when we create a ban like this, it unfortunately will make people a little more hesitant or worried to approach about adoption, fostering, things of that nature. I've heard a lot that goes back to data, and I will be frank. This is something that needs to be addressed. This is something that needs to be worked on. Backyard breeding is a problem. But we take an approach to look at the people that maybe are our citizens, our neighbors, are people that we deal with on the day-to-day, whereas I don't want to go pointing fingers at puppy mills or certain things within the industry that also have problems that aren't regulated. Now, I want to point at the recidivism issues that this kind of can cause, that $1,000 fine. If I'm someone that may not have a full-time employment or maybe have a part-time, I'm taking care of my neighborhood by selling some puppies here and there. Maybe I'm responsible. Maybe I'm not. But if I get that fine for the first time, the first thing I would think to do, I need to make another litter of puppies. I need to find a way to get that money. And that's where the punishment doesn't actually equal out to an opportunity to solve that problem. So I believe partnership is a good way to go about it. And no offense to these amazing organizations that have spoken. I was just taking an opportunity to do some research based on the great work they are doing. And I looked on the websites and I didn't see any opportunities to say, register for that license to become a breeder. I didn't see opportunities of education for the community to see how to become proper breeders, things of that nature. And I'm sure there are people out there that have an interest in animals, such as the Hand to Paw youth and they may not know of programs like that. They may want to get involved. And unfortunately, this kind of puts a worry in approaching a group like ACCT. And when that comes into effect, it just doesn't really help our issue towards clearing shelters, overpopulation. And it puts a little slow-down in the process, and that punishment in the meanwhile is harming our people. Whether or not they go back to doing more breeding, they are going to be affected by that $1000 or $2000 fine for something that they may have never been properly educated about. And education goes a long way to make sure that those community members that they're getting the pets from that are going back into these shelters, those people need to be educated too. And a lot of times when you take down a breeder -- I don't want to say take down. But when you enforce the laws upon them and have to stop the operation, some people will say, hey, my family's been going to that breeder for 10, years, we have all of our dogs 5 and cats from those breeders. And 6 that just slows down an operation 7 of allowing people the joy and the 8 honor that it is to have pet 9 ownership. 10 And we do need to 11 enforce responsible pet ownership, 12 responsible pet breeding. But it 13 has to start in the form of 14 education, not in the form of 15 punishment. I don't want to talk myself into a corner, but I believe that is all I have to say.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.

Well, I want to just say that the joy of owning a pet can still be established through ACCT or through the PA SPCA. So I hear your comments, but it's not as if you will not be able to own a pet. 7400 dogs came through ACCT just last year. And I can't remember how many dogs through PA SPCA. But there is plenty of opportunity for pet ownership, for responsible dog ownership here in the city of Philadelphia without backyard breeding. But thank you for your testimony. Please state your name, sir, and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon, good morning. My name is Reggie Stevens. I am also speaking on behalf of CARE and the families of the community of Philadelphia. Excuse my nerves, by the way. I'm sorry. Like I said good morning, everyone. My name is Reggie Stevens. I'm here on behalf of CARE and the families of Philadelphia. So we all want the same thing, fewer animals and shelters and healthier communities. But in my opinion, the bill will only do the opposite. Punitive laws like this have failed everywhere they've been tried. Fines do not reduce shelter intake. Access to affordable care does. This bill 11 will punish everyday people, working families, low-income residents and first-time pet owners who already struggle. When people are afraid of penalties, they avoid licensing of vet care and shelters. This pushes animals underground and makes the crisis worse. At CARE, we see what works; affordable spayed and neuters, educating the community and trusting community partnerships. These solutions reduce the intake without criminalizing people for -- excuse me. So I'm going to leave you guys with this: You cannot find your way out of a crisis and I hope that you guys never forget that it is expensive being broke. So I want you guys to -- I'm going to leave off with this: Compassion is more effective than enforcement and I appreciate you guys giving me this time. Thank you.

That's okay. Thank you for your testimony. Okay. Anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250989 whose name has not been called? (No response.)

Seeing none, can we have the Clerk please call the panel for Bill No. 23 251031.

For the record, I can read off the names of the folks that submitted written testimony for 250989 prior to moving on to the next bill. So those names, Erica Mantua, Veterinarian; Cara Brand and Caroline Lipitsky, Co-presidents of Underdogs for Philly; Melissa Resnick, Veterinarian, Humane Veterinary Medical Alliance; Brenda Johnson, ACCT volunteer; Amanda Eldridge, Veterinarian; Emma Niye, ACCT volunteer; Gabriella Patron, Advocate; Emily Nelson, Veterinarian; Halle C. Mitchell, also a Veterinarian; Arlene Quinn, Advocate; Jan Cole, ACCT volunteer; Emily Schreck, ACCT volunteer; and Pinelands Unleash Rescue -- Unleashed Rescue, excuse me; Ian Griffith, ACCT volunteer and landlord; Nicole DelaRosa, Street Tails Animal Rescue; Marie A. Marinakis, ACCT volunteer; Dana Peele, former ACCT employee; Melinda Vanvaria, Advocate; Peg Harrity, Advocate; Anne Csink, ACCT volunteer; Barbie Berkowitz, Community Advocate; Dave Gantz, Advocate; Tony Keller; Advocate, Molly Babcock, Advocate; Christina Buckley, Advocate; Ryan Feldman, founder of Uncle Neil's Home, a farm sanctuary. All of those individuals submitted testimony in support of Bill No. 250989. Additional names, Humane World for Animals; Wayne Ferguson from Kennel Club of Philadelphia; Tamir Paulton Mayer from Love Bark Philly; Mark Daley, Community Breeder; James Evans, from CARE in Baltimore, Maryland; Heather Donnelly, a breeder from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and A. Houser from No Place Like Home. Those are all of the names of the individuals that submitted written testimony for Bill No. 250989.

Thank you. And can we have you please call the panel for the next bill, 251031.

For 251031, will Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Good morning. It's still morning.

Please state your name for the record and proceed.

I'm Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 251031. Introduced into City Council on November 20, 2025, by Councilmember Bass on behalf of Council President Johnson. Bill No. 251031 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code and Map by repealing Bill No. 241055, which created the /PAK Packer Avenue Overlay District, and changing the zoning maps in the Stadium area of the Lower South Planning District. The area impacted by this bill is bounded by Packer Avenue, Seventh Street, Pattison Avenue and Darien Street, and will return the zoning from CMX-3, Commercial Mixed-Use to I-2 Medium Industrial, and remove the zoning overlay that allowed for additional uses and changes to parking requirements in the same area. Repealing Bill 241055 will align more closely with the Lower South District Plan's goals for the western section of the port area. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill 6 No. 251031 at its public meeting on December 4, 2025 and recommended the bill for approval. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.

No 12 questions from the committee? (No response.)

No, okay. All right. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 251031 whose name has not been called? (No response.)

Okay. Hearing none, I want to thank the witness for her testimony. And I want to again state for the record that Bill No. 5 251101 is being held by the sponsor, so there's no testimony on that bill. Being that there are no 9 further witnesses, we'll now proceed with taking public comment. Is there anyone else here in the chambers that wishes to testify before the committee today? (No response.)

Okay. Seeing none, we will now go into our -- that will conclude the public hearing and we'll now go into a public meeting shortly to consider the action to be taken on the bills before this committee today. Okay. Madam Clerk, can we have you please call the roll.

Chairmember Bass.

Present.

Vice- Chairmember Squilla.

Present.

Member Gauthier.

Present.

Member Jones.

Present.

Member Gilmore Richardson. (No response.)

Member Thomas. (No response.)

Member O'Neill. (No response.)

Thank you. I note for the record that a quorum of the committee is present. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 9 250917.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 250917. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 17 250917 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)

Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded by both Councilmembers Jones and Gauthier that the amendment to Bill No. 24 250917 be adopted. All of those in favor of this motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Is there anyone opposed? (No response.)

Okay. The ayes have it. The motion carries and the amendment to Bill No. 250917 has been adopted. Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 15 250989.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 250989. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 23 250989 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)

Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 250989 be adopted. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Anyone opposed?

Aye.

Okay. I'm going to do it again. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Anyone opposed? (No response.)

Okay. The ayes have it. The motion carries and the amendment to Bill No. 250989 has been adopted. Chair now recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on Bill No. 250988.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 8 250988 be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation to further move that the rules of Council be suspended as to permit the first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded, the amendment to Bill No. 250 --

(Inaudible).

Yes.

I'm sorry. For the record, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm -- I offer an amendment to Bill No. 250988. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 25098 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)

Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 250988 be adopted. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Anyone opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. And the amendment to Bill 24 No. 250988 has been adopted as well. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on Bill Nos. 250917 as amended, 250988 as amended, 250989 as amended, 251031 and -- period, 7 251031. 8

9 Thank you, Madam Chair. 10 I move that Bill Nos. 11 250917 as amended, 250988 as 12 amended, 250989 as amended, and 13 251031 be reported from this 14 committee with a favorable 15 recommendation and further move 16 that the rules of Council be 17 suspended as to permit the first 18 reading of this bill at the next 19 session of Council. 20 (Duly seconded.) 21

It 22 has been moved and properly 23 seconded that Bill Nos. 250917 as 24 amended, 250988 as amended, 250989 as amended, and 251031 be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of the bills at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Is there anyone opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. And this concludes the business of this committee. Thank you all for your attendance.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. (Committee on Rules concluded at 12:00 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