Good morning everyone and welcome to today's New York City Council hearing for the Committee on Public Safety.

If you would like to testify, you must fill out a witness slip with one of the sergeant-at-arms, even if you signed up already online.

At this time, please silence all electronic devices and no one may approach a day as at any time.

Chairs, we are ready to begin.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm Councilmember Osl Felice, Chair of the Committee on Public Safety.

Uh before I provide my opening statement, I'll pass it on to our speaker, Julie Bennon, for her opening statement.

Thank you so much, Chair, and I want to welcome everyone to the Public Safety Committee hearing today.

I'm Julie Menon, Speaker of the New York City Council.

It's wonderful to see everyone here today.

I want to first of all begin by thanking our chair of the Public Safety Committee, Councilmember Feliz for uh convening this important hearing.

Today we're hearing seven bills, which Chair Feliz will shortly outline.

I wanted to speak specifically about one of the bills, pre-considered introduction number 2026-2052, sponsored by Councilmember Ankanesyan in relation to a plan regarding security perimeters adjacent to educational facilities.

As many of you know, the council heard a different bill, introduction 175 related to this issue back in February.

The council received overwhelming feedback in support of that bill from the public, both at the hearing and in hundreds of meetings and correspondences after the hearing.

The council then passed the bill with a strong majority of council members in support.

With that said, in the time since February, the council has taken dozens of meetings and received feedback from hundreds of New Yorkers.

We've introduced a new bill that we are hearing today, which reflects extremely helpful feedback we received and which we believe strengthens the legislation.

The process we have undertaken demonstrates the council's commitment to a democratic and deliberative process that is rooted in openness, honesty, and the importance of meeting the needs and wants of everyday New Yorkers.

This bill recognizes two very simple truths, neither of which should be remotely controversial.

Our children deserve to be safe in school, and freedom of speech is sacrosanct in a democratic society.

This bill holds both of these truths at the same time by requiring transparency from NYPD.

This bill protects students by allowing them to breathe easily and focus on learning, knowing that they will be safe entering and exiting their school buildings.

And this bill protects freedom of speech by providing information to those wishing to express their views peacefully about how, when, why, and where the NYPD utilizes security perimeters.

Transparency leads to more safety for everyone, and it also leads to stronger oversight when plans are not followed, when situations end up differently than expected, or when violence occurs.

This is not controversial.

Transparency is good for everyone, period.

I'd also like to provide some examples to remind us, just as I did in February, of why we are here today and what we are responding to, because unfortunately the need for this legislation has not decreased since February.

In May 2026, there was an out-of-control situation outside Parkie synagogue.

Many know about this.

What many do not know is that this situation outside the synagogue was also adjacent to a preschool that was forced to close as a result of the gathering.

In May 2026, swastikas were found at a Queen's playground right next to a daycare and synagogue.

In January 2026, swastikas were also found at a Brooklyn playground and specifically 73 swastikas.

In March 2024, swastikas were drawn drawn on desks and bulletin boards at Origins High School.

In May 2024, anti-Semitic graffiti was found at PS 197 in Brooklyn.

In November 2023, shortly after the horrific October 7th attacks, an unruly gathering at Hillcrest High School over a teacher's support for Israel led to this teacher hiding in a classroom until the group disbanded.

And we also heard at our hearing in February about a number of unprovoked incidents that occur on a near daily basis that go unreported, where students must endure hurtful, intimidating encounters with individuals on their way into and out of schools.

Schools are supposed to be safe places.

That is why this legislation is important.

I also want to repeat what I closed with back in February because it bears repeating.

New York is the most diverse city in the country, and that is a source of incredible pride.

We must maintain that.

This pride comes from our confidence to showcase our identity and our diverse opinions.

Hate tries to harm that confidence, and we will not be a city that tolerates any type of hate.

Hate of all kinds is unsuited to our city and incompatible with our values.

And we are doing everything we can to move towards the New York without hate.

With the voices of hate are loud, we must be louder as New Yorkers, as friends, as human beings, and as public officials, our solutions must be robust and our actions must be effective.

I now want to turn it back over to Chair Feliz.

Thank you.

Thank you, Speaker.

Good morning, everyone again.

I'm Councilmember Osult Felice.

I want to welcome members of the police department, including Michael Gerber, the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, and also Alufon Melola Obey, Chief of Transportation.

Today the committee will hear several bills addressing many topics related to public safety, transparency, accountability, ghost cars, school safety, police recruitment, and confirmed shots fired incidents.

The committee will hear intro 459, sponsored by Councilmember Vernikov, which would require the creation of a centralized public database and notification system for towed vehicles.

This legislation seeks to create a single publicly accessible source of information for vehicles towed by the NYPD, licensed private toll operators, sheriffs, marshals, and other entities.

The goal ensuring New Yorkers know when their car has been towed and ensuring they have information on where they can find it.

The committee will also hear intro 552, sponsored by myself, which will require the NYPD to maintain sufficient toll pound capacity to meet its enforcement needs, and provide annual reporting on toll pound uh capacity and usage.

Over the past several years, concerns have been raised regarding the city's ability to tell vehicles, including and especially ghost cars.

Ghost cars specifically with fraudulent paper plates.

NYPD officials have previously testified that limited storage capacity can hinder enforcement efforts.

Cars can be towed if there's no space to store them.

As a result, the law cannot be properly enforced to the extent that it should be.

This legislation seeks to provide transparency regarding toll pound capacity and ensure that the department has the resources, including the space necessary to carry out its enforcement responsibilities.

The committee will also hear intro 551, sponsored by myself, which would prohibit the sale and distribution of fraudulent paper plates, including um paper plates but all types of uh temporary plates.

Ghost cars and fraudulent plates undermine public safety and accountability.

They allow drivers to evade tolls, avoid traffic enforcement cameras, and drive their car dangerously and be able to do so with very little to no accountability.

This legislation would enhance pre-existing state law by creating new additional local penalties for those who sell or distribute fraudulent plates and help deter the growing market that enables these violations.

The committee will also hear intro 843 sponsored by Councilmember Stevens, which would establish a school emergency alert system.

This legislation would require the city to develop a notification system and establish protocols to provide alerts during school emergencies, while preserving the flexibility necessary to protect ongoing investigations and public safety.

The committee will also hear 9-13, sponsored by Councilmember Ferrias, which would raise the maximum age for taking the police officer civil service exam from 35 years old to 43 years old.

This legislation would align the city's requirements with state law and potentially expand the pool of qualified applicants interested in serving as police officers.

The committee will also hear two preconsidered introductions.

The first sponsored by sponsored by Councilmember Carnacion, which will require the NYPD to develop and publish a plan regarding security perimeters adjacent to educational facilities.

This legislation would require the department to establish a framework determining when security perimeters may be appropriate, how they should be implemented, and how the rights of all individuals can be protected.

Our speaker said it perfectly.

Our schools should be safe places for everyone.

And for too long, we've had far too many incidents that we cannot normalize.

Finally, the committee will hear a preconsidered introduction sponsored by myself, which would require the NYPD to provide weekly reporting on confirmed shots fired incidents.

Currently, the NYPD provides data on shooting victims and shooting incidents, but this data does not include incidents in which gunshots are fired but no one is struck, preventing a full picture of gun violence in the city of New York.

The bill will require reporting on the use of shots-fired incidents.

Having data on escalating conditions will enable communities to better access intervention-related strategies by creating a fuller picture of the public safety risks affecting communities.

This legislation will provide data on situations that can lead to future violence to help make sure that we can take steps to keep communities safe.

I again want to welcome members of the police department.

I look forward to hearing testimony from representatives of the NYPD, advocates, legal experts, stakeholders, and members of the public.

With that said, I will turn to the sponsor of these bills for remarks, and I want to thank everyone who has joined today.

I'll start with Councilmember Encarnacion for her opening statement.

Thank you, Chair.

Good morning.

I am Deputy Whip, Elsie Incarnacion, and I want to begin by thanking the speaker and Chair Felice for holding today's important hearing.

I am proud to sponsor one of the pieces of legislation that is being heard at today's hearing, pre-considered introduction number 2026-2052 in relation to a plan regarding security perimeters adjacent to educational facilities.

As the speaker mentioned, this bill is responsive to growing hatred within our city and also responsive to a need for transparency around police response to protest activity outside of our educational facilities.

Further, and as the speaker mentioned, this bill reflects many conversations and a great deal of input from the public.

This bill requires the NYPD to develop and implement a plan to address and contain the risk of physical obstruction, physical injury, intimidation, and interference at certain educational facilities in New York City, while preserving and protecting protest rights.

The plan would address these issues through the use of security perimeters at the entrances to and exits from childcare facilities and certain elementary, middle, and junior high school.

The plan would be submitted to the council and the mayor and posted on the NYPD website.

Everything I just described is exactly what the bill does.

The bill is pro-civil liberties, it protects the right to exercise free speech, it protects the right to freedom of movement, and it protects the right to freedom of education.

What this bill does not do is attempt to silence protests.

This bill simply calls for transparency, clarity, and consistency from the NYPD.

That's it.

Every New Yorker I speak to believes that police transparency and accountability is a good thing.

This administration believes that police transparency and accountability is a good thing.

And my council colleagues also believe that police transparency and accountability is a good thing.

And that accountability looks like the NYPD providing us with information about security measures that are already undertaken on a very regular basis.

That is what this bill does.

I want to again thank the speaker and the chair for convening today's hearing.

I look forward to hearing from the administration and from the public on their feedback for this bill.

Thank you, and I now turn it back to you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember Carnacillo.

Next we'll hear from Councilmember Farias.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair Felice, the members of the Committee on Public Safety.

I'm Councilmember Amanda Farias, and I'm proud to be the prime sponsor of Introduction 913.

On the agenda today, that would raise the maximum age for taking the civil service exam to become a police officer in New York City.

At its core, this bill addresses a practical barrier in the police hiring process.

There are New Yorkers who have the discipline, maturity, physical ability, and commitment to serve, but are currently excluded because they reached the maximum hiring age before they can even be appointed.

Over the last few years, the NYPD has had to discontinue processing several hundred candidates because they exceeded the current maximum hiring age of 35 years old before their hiring process could be even completed.

That does not include the people who never apply because they have already aged out by the time they are ready to pursue this career.

This legislation responds to that problem directly.

It does not change the standards required to become a police officer, nor does it increase headcount.

Candidates would still need to meet all applicable qualifications, complete the civil service process, pass the required background checks, satisfy physical and medical requirements, and complete police training.

Intro 913 simply allows more qualified candidates to remain eligible for consideration.

This is also consistent with the city's broader recruitment efforts.

Over the past two years, the NYPD has taken steps to bring more applicants into the pipeline, including reducing the college credit requirement to 24 credits and offering more free police officer exams.

Those changes have helped produce five times as many filers for the police officer exam in the past 12 months compared to prior years.

Raising the maximum age is another responsible step in that same direction.

It can help the department retain experienced applicants in the hiring pipeline, improve recruitment outcomes, and support the operational needs of the NYPD without weakening the requirements of the job.

This bill should be viewed alongside the work happening at the state level around public safety careers and the 20-year pension.

City and state elected officials have a responsibility to work together on comprehensive workforce solutions that support blue collar workers, improve attrition rates, and ensure that no qualified candidate is left behind because the process itself moved too slowly.

For many applicants, especially those coming from military service or other civil service titles or physically demanding blue collar work age does not diminish their ability to serve.

In many cases, their work history and life experience can make them steadier, more mature and prepared, and more committed to the responsibilities of the role.

By raising the maximum age, intro 913 gives the city another tool to recruit and retain qualified candidates, strengthen the hiring pipeline, and meet the staffing needs of the department in a more realistic and a more realistic way.

I want to thank the administration, Commissioner Jessica Tisch for her support of this piece of legislation, her team, and the police benevolent associations, President Patrick Hendry, the Council Speaker, and my colleagues.

I look forward to today's testimony and to continuing this work with our partners in government, labor, and public safety.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Councilmember Farias.

Uh, next we'll hear from Councilmember Vernikov.

Good morning.

Thank you, Chair Felice, Speaker Menon, and members of the public safety committee.

I'm thrilled that this bill is having a hearing today.

We first introduced it a few years ago, and it was inspired by something that happened to our own staffer when he was when he parked his car, went to dinner, and could not locate it for hours as it was towed.

He had no idea where to turn to.

Um, neither as neither the NYPD nor 311 had any information on where it was.

And as we were introducing this bill, my district office also received calls from constituents whose cars had been towed and they did not know how to go about finding them.

I want to be clear that this bill is only concerned with the aftermath of the towing event and passes no judgment on why someone's car may have been towed.

Your car disappearing from the street can be a very confusing and stressful event.

You may be told by the NYPD, City Marshal, or Sheriff, or by a private company, or possibly by the Port Authority, if it's at a local airport.

The cost of towing are high and they're higher each day.

You don't come pick up your car.

But you can't pick up your car if you can't locate it.

Bringing greater organization to the system, saving some money, time, and stress for all involved in an era where things are increasingly expensive in the city is the goal of this bill.

And the creation of a publicly accessible, well-advertised notification system for towed vehicles aims to do precisely that.

Thank you for hearing this today, and I encourage my colleagues to sign on as co-sponsors, especially if you are someone or know someone who has personally experienced and can attest to how confusing and intimidating this system can be.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Vernikov.

Uh, so we're actually having some technical technological difficulties, so we're going to pause for a quick minute until we get the live stream back up.

Thank you.

All right, we're back on.

And just want to echo the words of Council Member Vernikov.

I had a very similar uh scenario.

I parked my car across the street from where I live.

The next day it literally disappeared, and I had a walk around my neighborhood to find it.

To this date, I don't know why it was moved, when it was moved, or how it was moved.

And obviously, this is something that we hear from a lot from New Yorkers.

So again, uh, want to thank you all for being here.

Good to see you all.

Uh long time no see, right?

Just two weeks.

Want to recognize members who have joined us today, including Council members and Carnacion, Banks, Farias, Hanks, Vernakov, Brewer, Ariola Online, uh, and also Councilmember uh Wong.

And I'll pass it on to the committee council for some procedural items.

Hey folks, can we just swear you all in?

Just raise your right hand.

Just affirm uh that you affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and to answer honestly to council member questions.

I do.

Seeing that you do, you may go ahead and testify.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Feliz and members of the council.

My name is Michael Gerber, and I'm the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters for the NYPD.

I'm joined here today by Chief of Transportation, Lola O'Bay.

On behalf of police commissioner Jessica Tisch, we thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the seven bills being heard today.

Councilmember Incarnacion's preconsidered bill would require the department to describe the considerations that go into our use of frozen zones during protests outside certain educational facilities.

I testified before the committee to combat hate on February 25th of this year regarding the department's use of frozen zones.

As I said at that hearing, the ability to enter and leave school safely without harm or interference is non-negotiable.

We also must allow protesters to exercise their First Amendment rights.

The NYPD uses its discretion, consistent with the law to accomplish both of these objectives.

If there is a protest outside of school, we set up frozen zones as necessary to ensure that those approaching or leaving the building are not obstructed, while still ensuring that protesters' rights are protected.

In these situations, the determinations that need to be made by the NYPD are extremely context specific and based on the particular facts on the ground.

This bill would require the NYPD to memorialize these considerations.

To be clear, this will not alter our practices in any way.

We will describe how we already analyze and approach these types of situations.

We have no objection to doing so.

We have no objection to the principle underlying the proposed legislation.

However, before we start any such reporting, we must have clear systems in place to ensure that this is done rigorously and comprehensively, and that will take time.

As drafted, the bill would take effect after 120 days.

We would ask for a year before it takes effect.

The bill would require reporting on a weekly basis.

Given the work that goes into confirming firearms discharges and the need to then aggregate and validate the data, we feel strongly that the reporting should be quarterly.

Finally, while we have no objection to reporting on the date, time, and location of confirmed firearms discharges, the requirement that we describe each such incident would impose significant additional burdens on the department and would be inconsistent with how we report on a wide range of criminal conduct.

We look forward to working collaboratively collaboratively with the council to address these concerns.

Intro 489 would direct the NYPD to create an online database so that vehicle owners can obtain information about towed vehicles.

Such an online searchable database is already maintained by the city and includes information about vehicles towed by the NYPD for parking violations, as well as vehicles towed by the sheriff and New York City Marshals.

It does not include information about vehicles towed by private tow operators.

We fully understand the need to have private tow information easily accessible to vehicle owners, and we welcome the chance to work with the council to think about the ways which that can be best accomplished through a legislative introduction.

However, adding a separate and likely duplicative database for vehicles towed is not something we can support, and so we are opposed to the bill as drafted.

Intro 551 would impose a civil penalty on a person who sells or distributes fraudulent license plates.

We have no objection to this bill.

Intro 552 would require the NYPD to operate tow pound facilities with towing capacity sufficient to meet the department's enforcement needs.

The NYPD shares that goal.

As the council is aware, the state forced us to close our Manhattan Tow Pound in January 2021.

Since that time, we have been unable to find a substitute location in Manhattan.

This bill would also impose certain reporting requirements on the NYPD regarding our towing capacity, vehicles subject to towing, and vehicles towed.

We have no objection to reporting on these matters.

At the same time, we have a number of concerns about the wording and scope of the reporting obligations as drafted, and also believe that a sunset clause should be added to ensure that the department's reporting obligations reflect the council's ongoing needs.

We look forward to working with the council to address these concerns.

Intro 843 would require the city to establish a school emergency alert system.

The NYPD has no objection to this bill.

We respectfully submit that this is a matter for the New York City Emergency Management Department in conjunction with the Department of Education.

Intro 913 would raise the maximum age which an individual can apply to be a police officer from under 40 from under 35 to under 43, reflecting a change that was made to state law in 2025.

The NYPD supports this legislation and is thankful for the council's partnership in putting this measure forward.

It will broaden the pool of potential applicants and allow individuals with additional additional life experience to bring that experience to the NYPD for the benefit of all New Yorkers.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and we look forward to answering any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you so much again for being here.

Thank you for your testimony.

So we have a lot of bills that we're hearing today.

I'll start uh with questions related to the toll pound capacity bill.

As we know, there's a lot of, um, we've had a lot of conversations about this issue.

I know about two years ago, during COVID, in my opinion through the height of this Ghost Card goals car epidemic.

We heard the NYPD testified and basically said that there wasn't enough space to be able to toll vehicles to be able to properly enforce the law.

Is this still the case?

Or do we have enough capacity to be able to quickly tow a ghost vehicle if there is one?

Okay.

Good uh morning uh CM Felice.

So I just want to make um, again, we met with you uh two weeks ago as it pertains to uh Ghostbate operations.

So I'm testified then that uh multi-agency effort with uh other law enforcement partners.

For those operations, we do not have any concern about storage, because the MTA and TBTA have ample space, so totally separate from you know what's happening on the streets, what you just mentioned about your vehicle getting told.

Uh but when it comes to ghost plate operations, the multi-agency operations that we have across regions and tunnels, MTA, TBTA, that is where we store the vehicles.

So no no issues there.

Talk to us about those uh agencies and partners.

Who are those partners?

So the MTA, MTA, TBTA, New York State Police, PAPD.

Uh we typically have an operation, naturally not now because there's so much going on in the city, but on average about four times a month.

Talk to us about the storage facilities operated by the NYPD.

How many spaces do you have in total?

How many per barrel?

Also talk to us about the usage.

Is it at full capacity?

Yes.

So we have three toll pounds citywide.

Um Commissioner Garbo mentioned the loss of Manhattan, the Manhattan toll pound in January 2021.

So we're down to three.

Uh the Bronx toll pound naturally um it's uh located in the Bronx, Brooklyn toll pound in Brooklyn, Queen's toll pound.

So we have three in Flushing Um Queens.

As it pertains to toll capacity as of May 31st, the authorized capacity for the Bronx is 350 regular vehicles plus 28 heavy duty um trucks.

The current inventory is 414 regular vehicles and 23 heavy duty, so nothing crazy, maybe just over by 64.

Uh Brooklyn tow pound, 392 regular vehicles plus 15 heavy duty.

Current inventories, 852 regular plus 24 heavy duty, I must say.

Uh of the 852, uh we store our motorcycles and mopeds.

So of the 852, 443 are motorcycles and mopeds.

So just to you know put um a different layer to this.

Uh Queen's toll pound, 250, 250 regular vehicles and uh 12 heavy duty uh current inventories down a little, 196 regular and 23 heavy duty.

Again, Queens is our bread and butter, as we've heard through multiple um uh council uh hearings, so they have uh a high capacity for uh heavy duty tow trucks, so that that's where we are as it pertains to toll capacity.

So just to summarize the question about toll pound capacity, how many spaces would you say are currently available under NYPD toll pound facilities?

So those are the spaces that we have available again in the Bronx is 350.

Um when you think of a toll pound, a toll part pound, I think a lot of people think of like a parking garage where everything is nicely you know lined out and all that.

It's a pound, there's no lines.

We put the vehicles in as much as we possibly can.

Again, I don't think there was super overcapacity, like I mentioned in the Bronx 350, we're at four for 414.

There is something called redemption.

So when it comes to space, uh for the most part, when people get their vehicles towed within a day or two right away that space is released because they come and they get their vehicles.

In all of 2026 so far this year, uh we've had about 21,000 plus um uh vehicles towed.

We have only of the 767 vehicles that are unclaimed.

So that space is released very, very quickly rather than having vehicles just sit there.

So there's a process in place when it's 30, 90 days and all that.

Then we have to work with DO DOF and work towards auction.

But for the most part, space is released very quickly, and um uh vehicles are uh released um I mean the owners actually pick up the vehicles very quickly, so but I don't know that the capacity is so outrageous.

I think it's just about where we should be.

Right.

So and just to be clear, when you say available, do you mean open and available or just generally available?

Generally available.

How many are currently open spaces?

Okay, so I can't tell you what's currently open, I can tell you what we have right now as of 531.

That was the last date I had, 414 vehicles in that particular spot in the Bronx, that is, and then we have 23 heavy duty towes.

Okay.

Any changes?

Uh we have average for Bronx toe pound in all of 2026.

We average about 250, 285, and then 22 heavy duty in all of 2025, say using again the Bronx 418 again.

An average three mopeds and motorcycles occupy a space for one vehicle.

But I just want you to know that this is quick.

People come, they pick up their vehicles.

There's a process in place to get the cars out very, very quickly.

And again, 21,000 tows in 2026, and really we have only about 700 left.

So it's not a problem of space.

That space is created very quickly, and we get rid of the cars very quickly.

So yeah, that's my next question.

How quickly does the average vehicle owner recovery?

A day within a day or two for the most part, people will pick up their vehicles.

And then 21,000 2026, we have about 700 unclaimed.

And what percentage would you say are generally picked up versus auctioned because they're just not recovered?

Um I could tell you what we have vehicles that are not claimed, I'd say less than 3% in a year.

Sorry, repeat that again.

About 3%.

3%.

Okay.

So very it's very low, yeah.

But people come very quickly to pick up their cars and they free up space.

Okay.

Talk to us about the process for reporting ghost cars and then getting NYPD to respond.

I'm sure 311 is one potential system for.

Yeah.

So with um with ghost cars, with ghost cars, um I just I talked about the multi-agency effort.

I think I provided the same stats from last uh the last meeting again that's with our um with our um law enforcement partners in all of 2026.

We've had 21 giant operations, 219 arrests, 13,144 summonses, and 1,320 vehicles seized.

Again, this is across bridges and tunnels, again, like I mentioned to you, no issue with space here because we don't provide, you know, our partners provide the space, so no issues here.

Um in 2025, all of 2553 joint operations, it zero nine arrests, 34,007 summonses, 2933 vehicles seized um in all of 2025.

Um on the local level, with uh as it pertains to go up to the operations, but these are parking summonses now.

Um we've written in all of 2026 uh year to date as of uh 531 26, 104,000 summonses, and mostly obstructed uh plate um obstructed um obstructed uh plates, and this is written by our traffic agents in all of 26, and um in 2025 in all of 2025, we were 247,000 summonses for obstructed uh plates.

Talk to us though about the process for reporting a ghost vehicle.

I'm sure calling 301 is one way, also notifying the local precinct.

Can you talk to us about the process and also the different agencies that are involved?

I'm sure that the S and Y also plays a role, for example.

Uh, I can't speak to uh DSNY.

I think they really deal with derelict uh vehicles.

But uh for us mostly like you mentioned 311 community complaints, and um we'll respond to the location.

If there is a um if there is an obstructed plate, we'll write a summons.

Do you have any data on how quickly the NYPD has been responding to these incidents?

Or these I I can't um tell you how quickly um if it's a community complaint, we'll respond very quickly.

Uh I get emails, I get calls, uh we get out there, we you know speak to our operators, uh tow operators.

When they also get out in the community too, uh they're able to see these vehicles and also write summonses.

We also have a lot of TEAs on foot.

So they get, you know, when they see uh an obstructed plate, they'll write a sum.

So I can't speak to time, but it's something that we see and we address very quickly.

Okay, good.

So um I'll move on to introduction T pre-considered introduction to uh 2058.

Uh the shots fired uh Bill.

As we know, or my understanding is that currently the NYPD provides data related to shooting incidents and shooting victims.

I was I and many others were under the impression that shooting incidents included incidents when no one was struck, uh, but it seems like shooting the shooting incidents data only includes when someone is uh hit by gunfire.

Um so a few questions on that.

I know there's a lot of challenges with that topic because for a lot of reasons um but my question is does the NYPD keep track of the sh the confirmed shooting incidents?

Again, I know there's a lot of challenges, not everything is confirmed, but at least the confirmed incident.

Does NYPD keep track of that?

So internal track.

So I'm sure this is working.

That's what I'm saying.

Okay.

So we do not track the data in a systematic way.

In other words, there's there's certain there's certain data that we have that we track internally uh on a variety of things.

For confirmed shots fired, I definitely would not say that.

It's not part of the comstat book.

Um it's not something where we're analyzing that in terms of crime trends.

I do want to acknowledge that we certainly do, and I can talk more about this, um, have information about certain shots fired incidents, confirmed shots fired incidents.

Um there are certainly times when if we if if the department is aware, for example, of uh a spike in confirmed shots fired shots fired incidents in a particular location, that will affect deployment.

So it's not something that, you know, it's I want to be very it's not that that we have no data about it, something we don't think about.

We do have some quantum of data about that is something we certainly consider when it comes to deployment.

However, we don't internally or for the public at this time have a s uh really a um a systematic way of tracking this that we would be comfortable uh using internally or externally.

So the shot spotter is one type of technology used by the NYPD to identify sounds of gunfire and provide officers with real time notifications.

What is the process for the department to review, investigate, and confirm reports from gunfire detected by the shot spotter?

Right.

So so if uh if we get a shot spotter alert, right, um operations uh we'll we'll put that over the radio, right?

Uh an ICAD will be generated, an ICA generated for every shot spotter alert.

Uh and patrol officers will respond to the scene.

Um, and you can have it you can imagine an inquire an incredibly wide range of circumstances that officers encounter in response to a shot spotter alert.

Right?

You can imagine situations where there is a tremendous amount of evidence that a shooting just happened, right?

Multiple witnesses, ballistics.

There's video evidence, amount of evidence.

You can imagine situations sometimes when it's actually quite clear that there was not a shooting, right?

Officers respond to the scene and multiple witnesses say, oh, yeah, a tire just went out.

It was a very large bang.

We saw it happen, right?

That that happens sometimes, right?

Um and so that's pretty clear what happened there.

Sometimes the officers respond to the scene and at least initially they really just don't know.

Right?

You can imagine a shots-fired incident, excuse me, you can imagine a shot spotter alert comes in, officers respond to the scene, and there's nothing there, right?

There are no people there.

There's no ballistics, and the question is what happened?

Um, and officers, the patrol officers will do the best they can at the scene to try to figure out what happened.

Um if it's really sort of just up in the air, um, you know, you'll have uh uh the complaint will be left open uh for the detective squad to investigate uh and detectives will will do an investigation to the best of their ability to try to figure out if in fact there was a fire firearms discharge, a confirmed firearms discharge, uh, or it can't be confirmed.

Talk to us about the data that the NYPD keeps related to shots fired incidents.

I know you said you keep some data internally.

Talk to us about that.

So here's what I'm saying.

So we don't have like um some internal system of okay, like on any time frame or or by sort of borrow or precinct, like the number of confirmed shots fired.

We just don't we don't track the data that way because uh as I said, we don't really have have that system in place at present at present.

We do, however, on a 61, right, on a complaint, you have a box for um, you know, uh uh shots fired, you know, uh firearm discharge, you know, confirmed or not confirmed.

Now it's not a mandatory field.

So and and you know making that a mandatory field and when that would be mandatory is actually a little bit complicated.

But but there certainly are times when you have say a shot spotter alert, officers respond to the scene, uh they uh there's lots of evidence that there was in fact a firearms discharge.

Um they will check the confirmed box, right, on the complaint, right?

And then we have that data.

That's information that we have.

Um, so if if on the enforcement side, if the department sees, oh, in a particular in a particular command in a particular zone, a particular block, there have been a number of these confirmed shots fired, that's going to affect deployment or certainly potentially could affect deployment for pretty obvious reasons.

Um, but we don't have, again, we don't have the internal systems in place such that we would be comfortable even internally saying, oh, here's like data for the department in terms of the universe of confirmed shots fired.

Okay, so in other words, we have the data, but we just don't have it organized in a database.

So it's it's a it's more than that.

If I could just explain actually what's what's complicated about this.

So and again, this is doable.

I I want to be clear, this is doable, as I said in my testimony, and we're we are prepared to do it.

I think we'll talk about the time frame for getting this done.

But so certain types of of data, you're talking about a subset of one particular crime, right?

I'm I imagine you have a burglar, you know, we're interested in gathering additional data about certain types of burglaries, right?

So it's actually that's much easier to do.

You just say, okay, every time you have a burglary complaint, you're gonna have a mandatory field on the complaint, right?

Where whatever data we're looking for for those burglaries, before the complaint can be finalized, you have to say yes or no or whatever the data field is.

Because it's one type of crime.

What makes this more challenging is that shots fired can come up in an incredibly wide range of possible criminal activity, an incredibly wide range, right?

Ranging from murder to uh property damage in a storefront, uh to actually not sure there was a crime at all, all we have is a report of shots fired, and we have nothing.

So what you have is an incredibly wide range of situations where you might have to gather this data.

But in those many of those crime categories, you don't necessarily have a shots fired.

So just to give an example.

A confirmed shots fired.

It is also the case though that in many robberies there's no there's no firearm.

There's there's no question about a confirmed shots fired.

So in order to do this in a systematic way, what you would have to do, what we would have to do is identify the full range of criminal activity that might give rise to this question about a confirmed firearms discharge, right?

In that range of criminal activity, then require officers to say on the you know checkbox confirmed you know shots fired, yes no.

We all have to think about how we're gonna do this because if we're mandating that field, we're gonna be mandating it in many situations where there's no firearm at all, and obviously so, right?

It was a robbery, it involved a knife, there was no gun.

And so that that's just again, this is all totally doable, but it it is more complicated than just saying, oh, just a checkbox on a complaint.

Right, yeah.

Okay, thank you for the information.

We look forward to working together on that bill and the rest of the bills on the agenda.

Uh so I'll pause here, I'll pass it on to council member Hanks for some questions.

Hi, thank you very much.

Good morning.

How are you?

Um I'm gonna go back to the um the towing.

So just so you know, uh the queue teams that have been launched in numerous neighborhoods have been incredibly effective.

My community boards and my civic associations, we we tell them to call 311.

When it comes to getting cars, ghost cars or towing off the off the streets, that 311 Q team aspect works incredibly well.

So I'm just wanted to say that.

Um so on all of the bills here, how are we communicating this to the civic associations?

Because you know, as an elected, we get a lot of our information from community groups that gather together to address quality of life issues, and so is there a something that's set up to where we can um call on your community affairs or NYPD to come in and kind of give a tutorial on all of this, because these are really great questions.

I mean, these are great bills and especially reporting bills for me.

Uh shots fired would be great because of our cure violence.

We would want to know how we're integrating our um violence interrupters in that situation where you may see like we know that Stapleton has a lot of shots fired, like how we deploying resources to help you and to help the community.

So a lot of this all my question is how are we engaging the public on the uh programs and the things that the NYPD is doing, um, so we can better inform our civic associations, our community groups, our cure violence groups, and so on.

That's all.

Thanks.

Okay, so I'll speak specifically um to towing.

So um intro 489, I know we we touched on that a little, uh concerns about towing.

So and I'll get to how to search for vehicle and all that when your vehicle has been towed.

So the bill itself is written, um, you know, calls for the NYPD to create a centralized online database accessible through the department's website.

Um as uh Commissioner Gerber testified, we already have that.

Uh it's called CTOPS, and that's uh it's uh CTOP stands for Citywide Towing Operations System.

So we do have a system where we maintain all information about towed vehicles.

Now, citywide, there is another speaking to duplication, right?

Um under 311 is New York City Serve, right?

So everything that's in New York City Serve.

I mean CTOPs, PD database is in is in uh New York City serve.

So think big picture, right?

Uh City, and then you know, CTOPs with NYPD.

Everything we have in our database as it pertains to CTOP, our towed vehicles is in New York City serve.

So you can go into New York City Serve for this is for towed vehicles, that is.

And again, I'll speak to Melissa Eager about you know different things you touched on, but for towing, we'll certainly be happy to visit you.

Um when you go into New York City serve under 311, um, the information, and I actually tried it out this morning because we actually had a towed vehicle, so I can go through this.

I will not give you the plate number though.

Um, this particular vehicle we have was told, it gives you the date, it gives you the location, it gives you uh it also states when you look at the report for violations shown on CTOPs, PD information as well as New York City serve, that's New York City.

Um it also gives you a list of the violations again.

Violation toll, we told because you know, based on violations, so that's all listed there.

Um it gives you the toll uh details, um vehicle details, uh redemption information, uh toll pound location.

I think that's very important.

You should know where your vehicle was towed to, gives you an idea of the fees, all of that is in New York City serve.

So that's what we have on the PDN.

I cannot speak to uh private uh private tow companies as to if they are you know if the information is in New York City serve.

Uh but for what we have, which is uh uh violation toast is in CTOPS and everything that's in C TOPS is in New York City serve.

So that when so the when the Q teams are contacted through 311, we're using your system, not a private system.

Oh no, we're using our system.

That's all I was so we want to make sure that some of those in that information is it accessible by the public so they can look and see, or because it's been working just fine with calling 311, we would get the number, the constituent would call us back, we would have the number, and it's just been working great.

Yeah, so so as she fobe said, you know, if we are any car that that we are towing that um the NYPD doing a violation tow, right, that's gonna go into C tops and then it's gonna go into the 311 system.

There is a separate issue in terms of the private toes, road tow, that sort of stuff.

That, and that comes up, obviously, and that's relevant for New Yorkers, uh, 100%.

And um uh that's not gonna be that is not presently, that is not presently in the 311 system.

Um, the point we're making before is that we we totally understand the idea that if someone's car is somehow disappears now wondering whether it was towed, they frankly at that moment, at that moment, they don't care whether it was told by the NYPD or a private tow.

They want to know where their car is, and they need to have a means of figuring that out.

And we get that, but but I think that but our point is we already have a pre-existing database through the 311 system.

And the question is, you know, uh the question for the council is, you know, um, how should that be you know expanded or what what do you want to do with that in terms of the scope of what's in there?

We don't think it's a good idea to have two competing systems, right?

There should be one place where where the vehicle owner can go, not two.

Thank you, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you, thank you, Councilmember Hanks.

Um a few questions on that topic.

So the database only includes cars told by the NYPD.

No, so it's a little more than that.

So so as I understand the the 311 system, what that's going to include is sheriff toes, it will include city marshal toes, and it will include N I want to very specifically about this, NYPD violation toes, right?

So that's so if we if we tow if the NYPD towed a car because of some parking violation.

Now that wouldn't include, again, that wouldn't improve it would not include private toes, it would not include uh road tows or DARP.

Um that would not include NYPD toes that were say like evidence tows, for example.

So if if uh if uh if we were getting a search warrant on a car and seizing a car connection with some criminal investigation, that's not being towed because it's a parking violation, it's because you know we're getting a search we have a search warrant for the car and we're gonna do forensics on the car, that would not be in the, that would not be in CTOPS, and that would therefore not be in the 311 system.

And how quickly is that system generally updated?

So cars towed at nine in the morning.

Generally, how quickly is that information.

It's pretty quick.

Um the cars um, you know, towed again to one of the three to-pounds that we have.

I'd like to say at least within two hours.

So it's safe to say that the this NYPD generally keeps track of cars that are towed by the city.

By the NYPD, Marshalls, sheriff, no, no.

No, no, so if I may.

So, okay, the 311 system is getting that data on sheriff and marshal stuff separately.

That's that's not coming through us.

How they got that data, I'm not even sure, quite quite frankly.

I don't know about that.

Our system, C tops, that tracks the violation tows by the NYPD feeds into that 311 system, right?

So if it's going, if it's going in CTOPs through the NYPD, then it's gonna go into the 311 system.

And so our NYPD violation toes, that's what's in Ctops, that's what goes in the 311 system.

Information that we get about, well, first of all, other tows that we do, for example, like for evidence, right?

Like that's that's not gonna go in Ctops, that doesn't mean a separate system.

Uh and then to the extent, you know, for example, in our road tow system, you have a it's a private tow, though it is at, you know, we we call the towing company, right?

It's the NYPD's direction, right?

That data is coming into us, but it's not going into CTOPS.

Right.

And then and then private private tow operators, for example, are required to call the NYPD to say, hey, we towed a car, here's the information, that comes in, but that's not coming into that system, right?

Because that that's a system for our own uh our our own toes.

All right, so in other words, we have a system, but it doesn't include all the cars that are told, including by some players, including the private.

Correct.

Correct, correct.

That's that's that that's right.

Would the NYPD support this bill if it simply requires that the private toll operators report to the NYPD and then the NYPD relate to the information to the So what what we would suggest is because and to keep it both simple and and actually more manageable for everyone involved, you already have an online database, right?

Usable, accessible with lots of information.

Rather than having a private tow operator, you know, call into the NYPD, have the NYPD put information, then have that go over to 311, it should just go from the private tow operator straight to 311.

You don't you don't need us for this.

Right.

Um okay.

And what are the different circumstances that can lead to the towing of a vehicle?

You know, as you said, uh the evident evidence-based towing.

Yeah.

Well also one category that we're not talking that much about is when a vehicle is towed, I don't even know if this counts as a towing when a vehicle is basically moved.

Let's say there's a community event, the streets are being closed.

So the relocation.

Yeah, yeah.

So go ahead.

Is that considered to be a towing under the definition that you use?

So that that information is in C TOPs.

We put the toll like for parades, and that's one of our towels.

So it's in CTOPs, yes.

Okay.

Alright, so I'll pass it on to Councilmember Farias for her questions.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm gonna switch gears a little bit from towing to my bill 913.

Um just just want to speak a little bit to the current age limit of 35 years old and how this is affecting the NYPD's recruitment efforts, if at all.

Right.

So and and I got we just I wanna start by by saying thank you again for the introduction.

Um we very much appreciate it.

Um so there is there is a we do have some data on people who applied to be and you uh council member, you alluded to this uh in your in your opening remarks.

Um, you know, there are people who uh you know uh applied with were being considered uh to be police officers, but then because of the age limit, uh could not could not proceed.

Now that number has not been huge.

I I would say this is very, very rough, maybe maybe around eighty per year over the last few years.

Um of course those numbers add up, but but the real point of course is that we don't even know how many people didn't apply at all because they knew about the age limit, and so you know that's not that's really the open, that's really the open question.

It's it's this is one of those things where it's a little hard to know what the numbers will be like until we actually try.

And has the department conducted any analysis in that at all looking at potential applicants?

Not that I'm aware of, I don't I don't think so.

Um what about currently in the police academy that could potentially go um become eligible if we move the age back.

We wouldn't have I don't think we wouldn't have someone in the academy now who'd otherwise be ineligible, right?

Um but I guess I I wanna I wanna if I may just come back to the point uh that that you were making earlier.

You know the part of this is like yes, it increases the applicant pool and and for pretty obvious reasons that's that's helpful to us, but it also is this point about people who bring to the to the job life experience, um, which is a great thing.

It's a it's a really great thing.

People who are um uh uh universe of people who who hypothesis want to be police officers who have life experience, uh additional maturity, uh that's just a great contribution to to the department and and and and to the city.

Yeah, I agree.

I mean, you know, I've had a lot of conversations both in community this bill actually came into fruition last year for me through c conversations at my precinct council meetings.

Um and it just been happenstance that we're all talking about it in in silos and it come together in this way.

Um even more recently with the Bronx split announcement, you know, we had several state elected officials and and council member colleagues that were concerned about the newest class going into the busiest precincts, and I feel in this position with this bill, we're able to maybe even even that out with new folks coming in that are maybe more experienced and different uh have had different careers, whether that's in the military or in a different city agency um prior.

So I appreciate that.

Um in terms of uh any like operational or fiscal concerns with recruiting um towards this group of folks from the from the admin?

No, no I mean for for us this is the this would be a great benefit as as as you know we're very supportive of this bill um for for us is really only upside in this.

Okay and then I just have a last question on the recent reduction in the number of required college credits to join the department is that expanding the applicant pool at all?

It has.

It has yes okay got it um those are all my questions thank you so much we will continue the conversation and I'm sure from testimony today we'll get some great insights thank you chair for some time.

Thank you thank you so much and we look forward to yeah working together on that bill that bill on the many bills uh pending uh before this committee today so a few questions want to move on to uh pre-considered introduction 2052 by council member encarnacion which will require that a plan be created to address and contain the risk of physical obstruction injury or intimidation at educational facilities so the use of security perimeters at entrances and exits from public schools and non-public schools at elementary middle and high schools um you said it perfectly and also the speaker uh during uh the testimony uh people should be able to enter our educational facilities safely without intimidation or fear of harm and more so a few questions on that does the department currently have any written guidance governing the establishment of security perimeters around schools uh no and demonstrations specifically no so if I understand the question uh if you're saying do we have some particular you know uh policy regarding fro we yeah we we we use the phrase frozen zones uh so do we have some policy about frozen zones around schools in particular no we do not I I will say that we have had um and I think we're very clear with um with executives in the department about how we think about uh frozen zones consistent with the law comes up at places of worship up at schools come up at uh a hospital or a courthouse they come up in in various situations um and we have done repeatedly uh uh trainings for executives to go over what the expectations are the legal framework I do think there is clarity uh among executives about both the law in this area and the expectations from the department what factors does the NYPD currently consider when determining whether security perimeter or frozen zone is necessary right so the there are I mean the key is to consider all relevant factors.

I mean what i it is it is incredibly context specific um and the under the first amendment right it's these are called reasonable have to be reasonable time place and manner restrictions and there are a number of different legal components that go into that but that reasonableness is crucial and really turns on all the facts so I mean you you among other things right you're thinking about we're thinking about um the the you know the anticipated size of the of the if it's a protest let's say outside uh uh a school you know the the the the the size of the uh anticipated protest the layout of the location other sensitive locations time of day uh are we in is this is this a time of day when we're anticipating students coming in and out of school how many students coming out um uh are there other protests in in in in the area um uh you know that do these are just some examples of considerations.

It's not an exhaustive list.

The message in this regard is, and again, there are certain legal constraints, but within those constraints, it is a totality of the circumstances analysis just curious how far have these frozen uh zones stretched 20 to 100 feet so so we never do it that way.

We don't we don't think about it in terms of feet.

And I think it's actually really important.

Um I know sometimes to talk about, you know, sometimes it the discussion is in terms of feet, right?

Uh I think that's really uh, that's really not how we do it, and I think it's important not to do it that way.

And what I mean is what we're thinking about when we do a frozen zone is okay, we need to make sure people can get in and out safely, securely, without obstruction.

We need to make sure that people can, if the protesters can um protest consistent with the first amendment, have sight and sound to the location, right?

And and we're and we're balancing, it's not a trade-off.

We are doing both of those things.

And we need it if we're doing a frozen zone and designating protest areas, we're doing a a configuration that accomplishes those goals.

Whatever the like whatever that number of feet happens to be is sort of a byproduct or an outcome of that analysis.

And it's not some, it's also not gonna be some like fixed number of feet, some radius around the location, right?

That wouldn't, I mean that's not how we think about it at all.

It's okay, here's where people are coming in, here's where people are going out.

Here are the protesters, where are the protesters gonna be?

Okay, given that they have sight and sound, what's the path in, what's the path out.

And then we're not we're not standing there with a measuring tape figuring out how many feet that is.

Yeah.

No, certainly understand that.

You know, obviously a school or a church or any place that has, for example, the entrance in the middle of a block, that might need more space to keep the sound all clear so people could easily enter, they don't have to cross through the middle of the street to enter directly into the school.

You might need a larger exactly frozen zone uh for that.

Um But if you were to give us a ballpark, how far can they stretch based on what you've seen?

I know that this is not the I main thing, but just I I I re I really I don't I don't know, and I I don't wanna I don't I don't want to guess it and be wrong.

Um but again I I I think if if if someone I think if you look at how we do these on the ground, um uh I think I think we are really careful about making sure that protesters have sight and sound to the to the to the entrance.

Um I think I think we do that in a in a reasonable and fair way, consistent with the law.

Um and to be clear, like I I don't I I don't I don't want to guess any wrong about the number of feet, but one thing we've emphasized, I we we we do not want the last thing we want is some incident commander thinking about like oh there's some fixed number of of feet that matters here.

That's not the analysis.

Yeah, so talk to us about the analysis.

What are factor the factors that you consider when determining how large the safe zone should be?

I'm sure uh the entrance school entrance is one of them.

Yeah, no, and yeah, and uh so so again it's a totality of the circumstances.

Um in some ways it's a very pragmatic sort of analysis, right?

So again, the the key legal framework here, right, is the the determination has to be content and viewpoint neutral, but I can't it cannot turn on the substance of the protest, right?

That would be that would be that would violate the first amendment.

So it's content or viewpoint neutral.

Uh it has the there has to be ample alternative means of protesters getting their message across.

So talk about sight and sound, right?

They want to protest at this location, they're gonna have a means of of um being heard by the people who are going to that location, uh, and then uh it cannot burden substantially more speech than necessary in order to achieve the goal of, you know, preventing uh obstruction and the like.

So there's like that that reasonable test built in.

Um now within that legal framework, you're looking at everything, right?

Uh is it is it a c is are we talking about five protesters or 50 or 5,000?

Are we talking about like dismissal time at the school or is it a weekend and there's no one in the school?

Right?

What's the loud of the block?

Are there other are there other sensitive locations on the block, right?

We you can't put protesters in a location where they're gonna actually we're creating a problem for some other uh school or or a house of worship or something like that.

So so it it really and and we're thinking about are there other events nearby right are the protesters going to march and that that is um that obviously comes up it's it's very uh significant is it gonna be a stationary protest are they gonna be moving around um and and and and chair felise if I if I may add I think you know one one important thing to emphasize in this context is we um we make really every effort to speak with both the leaders of the institution where this is happening and to speak with protest leaders right um there are times and no no one has to talk to us though so I know there are times when we we want to get information about a protest and protest leaders are actually happy to speak with us and share information and that can be actually very helpful in this regard there are times when protest leaders will not communicate with us.

Now that's their right but you can see where that makes things much much more challenging in in planning and doing this analysis.

Can you describe some of the specific incidents where the NYPD determined that individuals were not able to safely enter or exit schools due to uh protest activity.

Yeah so I I'm I'm not aware of a situation in which that happened in recent memory um I'm not saying again it may have happened I'm unaware of it that certainly could be um more experienced intimidation even if we don't get to the physical safety situation for uh I mean in terms of in terms of look I I gotta say um you know think about the last certainly the last few years we have not seen in my again just in my memory my experience we haven't seen um in s or a rash of incidents where where you had protesters targeting uh elementary schools or or high schools I'm I'm not aware of that again I'm not saying it didn't happen ever but that's not that that's not a trend that we have seen now there was a time a few years ago obviously as you're aware in 2020 2024 we had a lot of protest activity on university campuses outside of university campuses that that was of course a major issue and we and we did have situations in which we had a lot of protests outside university campuses and the question was you know making well we need to make sure that whatever else was happening consistent with the first amendment people could access the university campus right that that was a very live issue particularly in 2024 but in terms of sort of targeting of of elementary schools or middle schools or even high schools that's that's not really something that that that we've been seeing.

Okay and final question and then we'll move on to council member wong so as we know and as you uh stated we have a lot of interests at stake the interest of keeping people safe but of course also protecting the fundamental right uh the for the fundamental first amendment right to protesters so what are safe what safeguards exist to ensure that security perimeters are not used to unnecessarily restrict lawful protest activity right so a few things one you know in these situations the incident commander is consulting with an attorney from the Legal Bureau that happens all the time and and again I think I think the the uniform executives enforcement executives understand they hope they often actually have a lot of experience with these issues but in any event they are talking to a lawyer um uh who is um you know can can can look at this from uh from a first amount perspective that's very important um and then and then you know what there will always be uh a if we're doing if we're doing a frozen zone that also means we are doing one or more designated protest areas um with sight and sound that that that's gonna happen every time you're not gonna have a situation in which we we do a frozen zone and there's no designated area uh for sight and sound for for for protesters now a few things one we protesters are not required to go into that designated protest area sometimes protesters don't want to go there that's that is their right of course but it has to be available to them um I also I do want to emphasize that um everything I'm talking about is much easier to do when we know about the protest in advance and we can plan and set things up sometimes uh not often but sometimes there's a protest that we did not know about in advance officers are responding to the scene in real time everything that I've been describing we will still try our very best to do right consistent with the law consistent with making sure that people can get in and out safely all that it just I do want to emphasize that it gets a lot messier and harder when we are showing up at times with very limited resources and things are already happening um you know and again that doesn't change the legal analysis doesn't change the operational analysis it just it does obviously get more complicated and we and we have not have the opportunity to plan in advance.

Thank you for the information one very final question before we move on to Councilmember Wong somewhat unrelated but still in the context of security perimeters.

Approximately how many police officers did we have yesterday was it yesterday the day before where Donald Trump came to the Massachusetts we had security perimeters frozen zones and a lot of different security things going on.

I I don't know there obviously were a lot of police officers there.

We don't have that number for you but we can we can certainly get it for you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Alright so next we'll move on council member Wong briefly stepped out so we'll move on to council member Tarez.

Thank you so much chair good to see everyone um I had uh I wanted to start off with um asking questions around intro uh 2052.

So I think the bill that the chair's been uh uh line of questioning for so I'm encouraged to hear what you shared about specifically protests around the areas of educational facilities particularly K through five middle school um high schools I do have concerns that I had concerns about the last bill with with a similar framework and there's advocates here today that I think will testify and you'll hear from but under what scenario would passing this legislation create preventative measures for schools because sometimes what I hear from people that won't want to support this bill is like we do want to keep everyone safe we want to prevent everything and I think there's two different things there's people protesting is one thing um which I think we have to protect and then there's like an issue of just safety so in your experience like what would passing this legislation do to prevent uh issues with safety for young people for students.

Yeah so or the staff.

So this bill does not change what we do.

It's about transparency as as the as a speaker said it at the outset.

So um you know the the bill requires us to describe the considerations that go into kind of the analysis how we do this some of what I've been talking about with chair chair chair feliz.

So it's putting that on paper it's not giving us more power or less power it's not directing us to do anything differently.

The bill says NYPD describe in words how you do this.

That is essentially what the bill does and so I don't see this bill changing in any way the the content the substance the way that you have to show up.

Right it does not change any of that it but it it it is it provides a document that describes what we are already doing articulates it puts it on paper.

Do you think it creates different scenarios where PD is interacting with students and young people more no I mean the communication piece of this is and this again is not particular to schools in any protest situation we are going to try to speak with protest leaders right and again they can talk to us they cannot talk to us that's up to them um if and wait I'm sorry to interrupt in instances where you can remember there being protest there's instances where they're coordinated coordinated with PD.

Well you think coordinated there are lots of situations they're in the no was that you PD is in the no a local precinct is in the no if they're not happens that happens all the time okay great.

But but but not always.

Right.

I'm just concerned that we're not solving for something with this bill.

It's unclear and I think for me in my community I hesitate tremendously at creating or empowering more interactions between young people and PD or students and PD when I think the we should be doing more to invest in restorative justice, in um mitigation efforts and this is coming from young people.

So I I understand what you're saying which is like this bill is not gonna change anything but I think the the whole like theater of us wanting to pass this legislation does create vulnerability for for people because I think PD in one way or another will be even more empowered.

So I guess I just wanted to have a a sense of like comfort if that was the case but I'm I'm not necessarily hearing that.

Well again I I don't see this as empowering us in any way it does it uh again this does not change what we do it's gonna I you're saying that it's it's not changing anything you're doing.

Correct.

It's just putting it on paper.

Correct.

Okay.

All right well you'll hear from hopefully you'll be able to stick around or or PD will be able to stick around to hear from advocates because I think they have some questions.

I do have one more question related to sorry am I over time chair you said something?

I'm sorry I just have one more question.

Um I wanted to ask about I kind of walked in on the uh conversation I think the chair was asking you about the gunfire his gunfire bill the shot can you so I'm familiar with ShotSpotter as you know you came to my hearings when I was tech chair I have deep concerns about the efficacy of shot spotter we've seen nationwide it's it's not real it's not reliable necessarily but what can you tell me about the future of the contract with ShotSpotter in in the city with PD.

Uh we we we have a contract with ShotSpotter.

Until how do you know until when uh I have that for you actually if you just one moment.

I feel like there was some reporting of about eighty 85 or so percent of the time it being false.

Yeah they could tell you.

It's not accurate okay um right all right so we have captures all kinds of noise sorry our pre our present contract with shot spotter runs through uh 20 through through the end of 2027.

Okay.

Okay and then in your experience and I get so this is my the con the one of the issues that I along with advocates have is like it captures all sorts of sound the car back firing fireworks um and in every one of those instances PD is prompted to go out right because you don't know what is really a gunfire versus a fire like fire work for example patrol will certainly respond to any shot spotter alert.

Okay and do you have a percentage of in those instances when it can be verified that it was a gun that was captured by shot I do not have that no but you can have it you just don't have it today.

Well actually no it sort of actually goes to the point we're talking about earlier we do not at present have um a systematic tracking system for uh confirmed shots fired so so no it's it's not that it's not that we just have it not we don't have it here today um there's no way of verifying so we were actually talking about this before so on a 61 there is a box for you know uh firearms discharge confirmed not confirmed it's not a mandatory um uh you you can you can you can finalize the complaint without checking yes or no um and we don't so so there certainly are situations 100% where there's there's a a shot spotter alert it's confirmed as yes there was a firearms discharge lots of evidence that right there shell cases on the ground witnesses all sorts of things that definitely happens and that that box is checked and we have that there are times when it's clearly not and check no but we do we do not have a system in place right now that really ensures that for any um any report of a firearms discharge whether shot spotter or 911 or a pickup job.

We don't have a system in place right now that really gives systematic data um about you know percentage confirmed versus percentage non-confirmed.

I'm so sorry.

Okay.

I think that's something that we need to work because nationally I know of in PD like departments that do capture that data and can testify whether or not the utility of this tool I don't feel confident that it is useful to you all based on this.

It sounds like you do capture it but you don't collect it.

You do have a sense of like when it's verified but you you don't collect it it's that doesn't there's not a reporting of it.

Well it it's not exactly that it's that it's that there are times when, whether it's patrol the detective squad you know you're not making me feel confident about the utility of shot splatter.

What I'm council member what I'm talking about is totally separate from the utility of shot spotter.

I'm talking about how we collect data and and how we may have to make changes to that in light of the in light of uh chair chair felice's uh bill um but this is totally separate from the effectiveness of shot spotter this is a question of what are mandatory fields that officers have to fill out in connection it's not particularly shot spotter what I'm saying this this sort of open this question where we would have to develop sort of the systems we've been talking about that's also true for a 911 call of a shot's fired or a pickup job where an officer thinks they they just heard a gunshot.

So there's an opportunity and you're saying you don't collect the data in those in in those scenarios you don't collect that that kind of data either we do have some data which we use sometimes in connection with deployment.

However however internally we do not have a sort of system that we use it's not like the comstat book or anything like that where it's systematic oh like here's uh confirmed firearms discharges data for the city or for a borough or for a precinct that's that's not how it works right now.

Okay.

Alright thank you thank you chair.

Thank you Councilmember Gutiérrez and on that issue putting aside confirmed versus unconfirmed incident do we have any data on how many times the shot spotter system has been triggered so that's actually um I don't I don't have that here but um there's certainly data we could get for you.

Yeah okay all right next we'll hear from council member brewer and then midley and then Joseph.

Thank you very much just two questions.

One is is my understanding that the governor's bill on buffers is only for faith-based is that correct in other words it doesn't have the same uh target as this bill or my wrong so so the governor's bill covers places of religious worship that's what I mean by faith based yeah so defined incredibly broadly but I do want to just say uh council member um the the the governor's bill is does not create a buffer zone at all okay there's there's no there's I mean the way we use a buffer zone or frozen zone or security perimeter right like that concept uh is really not what the governor's bill is doing.

Okay.

All right but it's just faith based also it's nothing.

But yes the the bill by its terms is applying to places of religious worship defined quite okay just whatever it does.

They're all I believe that the PD is doing the right thing in this situation so I I don't have as much concern as others because I think you're doing the same thing that you've been doing which is what you've been saying.

I have been was there when Pier 76 closed no toe pound watch the governor Cuomo do that blah blah blah.

What are we gonna do about a Manhattan I mean I'm just saying for like I don't know it's almost 20 years now what are we doing for finding a place in Manhattan to car toll cars.

So I'm gonna ask I know we can't find it I've been out looking but it's something has to come.

These folks are going to the all over the place looking for their cars.

And 311 is getting the complaints I know that for a fact.

So I'm gonna ask my colleague Seth Severino to to speak to this issue.

So we have been working very closely with OMB and with DCAS we've been trying to identify multiple sites.

I do.

Thank you.

Sure.

So as a as I mentioned we've been working with OMB working with DCAS doing multiple site surveys back in 2019 and 2020 there was a capital project scope development uh project that was done to get into the nitty gritty of without that site in Manhattan over 200,000 square feet.

What are our options?

What are some plots that we could look at and what will those costs be?

And and in short, there's been a lot of high costs associated with a Manhattan tow pound.

So we have been looking uh the cost estimates just as a reference point were upwards of 200 million dollars in regards to a potential solution, but that doesn't mean that that solution actually existed.

So people have to go so there's no we're not doing a Manhattan toe pound in ever is what you're saying.

Site so there are ongoing conversations, you know, even recently there were a couple locations that were being looked at 10 potential sites in Manhattan, but nothing's come to fruition.

But I'm just saying so how many do you have some sense of how many three one calls you've gotten I know there's a lot from persons who are concerned about losing their cars into other boroughs.

It it most also I my understanding is most of the tows come from midtown because people come from tourists and they don't know and so they're traveling all over the place.

I don't think people should park illegally I get it but I also want to be somewhat customer service related.

Go ahead.

No you're right I love you Chief go ahead.

So um we still tow out of Manhattan uh naturally uh the loss of the tow pound uh the manhattan tow pound did hurt us.

Um 2019 we had a hundred and five thousand um vehicles towed half of that came from Manhattan to your point.

Uh but I want to assure you that the work still continues.

I do understand the concern that you have about people who reside in Manhattan or visitors or who park in Manhattan and have their vehicles towed.

So uh like I mentioned in the past uh hearing um north of uh 59th Street gets towed to the Bronx uh south of 59th uh to the Brooklyn tow pound okay but I mean I'm board four somebody should contact community board for they had some ideas believe it or not in Hudson Yards so I think you should look to talk to them and talk to some of the community boards people want it to be in Manhattan they feel like it's the right thing to do.

So I'd rather I'd like to have some further conversations.

I can't believe that it's impossible you could also rent some space in some of these private uh garages.

That's another possibility this conversation should not end.

We've got to find a place in Manhattan.

Thank you.

Thank you Councilmember Brewer I want to recognize Councilmember Justin Sanchez who has joined next we'll hear from council member Milley and then Joseph Yes uh hi numerous questions have been already answered now.

But regarding the tolls um could you tell me what percentage of toll um vehicles are retrieved by owners and what percentage of the vehicles are auctioned.

Okay.

So um I I'll give you um 2026 numbers year to date 21,610 vehicles towed so that's through five thirty one only seven hundred and sixty seven remain on three lots across the city.

Excuse me?

21,610 vehicles towed.

700 what?

Only 767 remain as of 531 um why do you feel a lot of people do not pick up their vehicles?

For various reasons um some of them are illegal and some of them do you know how long it takes to find where your vehicle is so finding the vehicle um I addressed earlier.

People call my office I gotta call the police department to see if someone stole it then find out it was um towed.

But then you gotta find out where's told true do you know how long that process is so uh I'll speak through the process very quickly uh I mentioned this earlier um and this goes to uh intro uh 489 that uh calls for centralized online database accessible through the department's website we maintain our data so i i i called C TOPs so C TOPs uh we have our uh violation towes documented within the NYPD's database right that data is fed to a citywide uh 311 called uh a system called New York City serve or NYC NY uh city serve so when you get into that um into that system and I tried this out again I mentioned this earlier I used to a vehicle we had towed it'll give you a ton of information where it was towed from uh the violations owed on the vehicle um where where the vehicle is towed to the fees uh redemption instructions and all that I kinda read all the issue is uh NYC serve gathers the data of uh towed vehicles from PD uh Marshalls and sheriffs mentioned that but the concern of course comes into private tolls so I don't know that it's a complete picture as we mentioned earlier you know we're willing to willing to work with the council and uh okay have you ever thought about um or maybe is it already in the pre-pre the police precincts when someone walk in if you feel your car has been told call these numbers is that posted in every precinct is it so if your vehicle has been told you know again some company I just ask that question because that will help constituents instead of going and waiting for the police like I went or you can walk into a local precinct absolutely sometimes they don't need to talk to the officers they supposed to be busy yeah I have to if I come in I gotta wait for them to see that I'm there and then they're finish their conversation then they'll say oh you need help yes I only been here ten minutes but if a constituent come into any precinct you could just look at the wall and say oh I think my car may have been told let me call them before I interact because sometimes people come in in moods that they don't want to interact with the police because they already mad the car is gone then people there ignoring them so in order to have interaction the best way is to have it posted and then if they can't find it through those avenues then they should come back to the precinct and that's best for the precinct also is it not right and council member I mean I think the idea long term um is to take the the 311 system right and that could be expanded so that one because to to your point I mean to the extent you have to call multiple if you're talking about multiple calling that's that's that's obviously not ideal right in in what you'd really want is to have a single database a single system hey you know where to look you go there and hopefully the information is not a database we just talking about a sign.

Right but I'm just saying that whatever that sign is where where is it directing the person to right say you say the pounds we can have whatever pounds the NYPD own that if NYPD told you you could call these three or four toll pounds.

That'll alleviate a whole lot of people coming to your precinct they will call and find out if not they call all four five they didn't did not find their car maybe their car was stolen then they could come back and put in the police report I'm just suggesting my bright idea.

Yes ma'am okay one other thing how what is your um response if I have a high school um if they want to protest they feel this day June nineteenth they're gonna protest they didn't tell the precinct they just go out and start walking through the streets.

What is your plan B in order to control um not harm you said uh visual and vocal what will be your response to just to be clear are you talking about a protest out of school or a school walkout by students?

Like a school walkout right so and we that that we have sometimes and and our practice in that regard uh and again it's it's easier if we know in advance it's harder if we don't we're gonna have um community affairs officers who are gonna respond who are we walking with how long would you community affairs officers get to that school it's it's just gonna depend on I mean we'll get there as soon as we can if we if we if we learn in real time of a school walkout and students marching in the you know marching wherever they're marching to um we're gonna have we're gonna respond as soon as we possibly can I I can't give you a number of of minutes but we're obviously going to want to get community affairs officers there as soon as as humanly possible um we will try to communicate uh with the leaders of the walkout to understand what their plans are they don't have to talk to us but hopefully they will that'll make it easier for everyone um and then we will we will walk with them as they march and as long as they're doing that peacefully then you know we'll we will facilitate first permit activity.

Okay so it wouldn't be you wouldn't stop them you're still just walk with them and maintain it we're talking we're talking about we're talking about high school students yeah we would we would again assuming that's do you know why um and this my last question why would any organized um entity would not want to speak to the police oh I mean again it's much easier for us when we do hope they do no but but there certainly there are there are groups that um they don't they don't trust the police they they they feel as a matter of principle they don't want to talk to us and um that is that is their right okay then we should definitely because it's about all of us so thank you thank you chair thank you Councilmember Millie next we'll hear from council member joseph and then Justin Sanchez thank you thank you um thank you so much the bill forces NYPD to create a new plan regarding security perimeters and YPD testify they already have the policies for how they create security um perimeters why is this asking to create a new plan when this already exists and I've done walked out with my students before from fifth grade we walk out you chaperone their cause was noble it was around Trayvon Martin my students came with hoodies and fifth grade and they walked out and we chaperone and we walked around the block with them and they came back we tell young people to protest.

We say this is a democracy you got to use your voice.

So walk me through that process.

Right so the the bill doesn't again it doesn't change what we do it at all.

It's not that's not that's not what I read the bill to say that's not how we how we approach this it is it is uh it requires us to memorialize our present practice right and by the way the bill is not really about walkouts it's more about protest that's if we target us so it's not gonna change what we do uh it will it will be a document um that people can look at and and um I suppose people can go why doesn't it already exist that we're not looking at it already no so we don't we don't have a document for every single scenario that can that we have to respond to we have principles that are articulated conveyed very clearly to executives and are applied as it stands right now right do we have a plan for uh protests outside of uh courthouses we have a plan for protests outside of uh hospitals no but that's not a bit there's like an infinite number of potential scenarios we have to deal with um again there are there are we we have we're subject to a protest settlement of course we're subject to our subject to department policy patrol guide subject to federal state local law there's guidance that we've given repeatedly uh in terms of what we expect from incident commanders and then within that framework you have whatever the factual scenario is and but you already have a standing MOU with New York City public schools correct.

Well not but not actually with protest activity.

I mean other context but I I'm just saying that you're asking why don't we why don't we already have a plan for protest outside of the plan.

It's like having a plan for another plan.

Well I mean I just there's there's there's an infinite number of of documents we could generate again I I feel very strongly that we have the right principles the right approach and then you know it is very context specific every scenario is different and what we uh the incident commander the officers on scene have to follow the patrol guide the protest settlement the law um uh and then respond to the facts before them but you already have the MOU that cooperates the framework that includes a joint committee consisting of designee the chancellor the police commission the mayor and it creates a school safety community partnership committee to convene already so have any of these groups which NYPD representative recommend changes to the existing framework on the MOU?

I I'm I just don't know I'm just not sure about that um I again I I don't think about that MOU in terms of like school walkouts.

When I think about a school walkout, I'm thinking about a protest.

I'm thinking about our patrol guide procedures in that regard.

I'm thinking about the protest settlement.

I'm looking about the First Amendment.

So I think about a little bit a little bit differently.

How many, um can you cite any incidents of intimidation outside of non-public schools, all public schools, that this bill would prevent?

Well, again, the bill doesn't change what we do at all.

I the the bill's about as I understand it, transparency, about our articulating what we already do.

As I said, we're prepared to do that.

But it's it the bill we don't view the bill as changing what we do day to day.

It doesn't live anywhere already in your system on a website somewhere.

No, is but I again we don't have we we do not have a document for like each possible scenario where we might have a protest that'd be that'd be a lot of documents.

Um but again the the the bill would would require us to do that for certain types of educational facilities and we are certainly prepared to do so.

So the bill forces you to create a new plan.

It requires us, yeah, well it requires us to describe and put in words what we already do in these contexts.

But you're already doing it right?

Yes.

So why would why do we need this bill then?

To tell you to do what you're already doing.

It is calling upon us to describe what we already do.

Alright I'm sure that my young people that are here disagree with us.

This is very interesting.

We should keep talking um we should keep talking um how how how about we if how about public non-public schools how do you interact with that?

What are your I don't I don't know that the I don't I don't if we if we had a protest outside of a private school and it was it was blocking the entrance to that school and blocking the sidewalk there so students or teachers or parents couldn't get in and out we would have to we they have to be able to safely that's true for public schools and for private schools.

And if if someone was blocking the entrance preventing again parents or s or students or faculty from getting in and out of a school off a public sidewalk we would warn them that they have to move.

If they refuse to move we would take enforcement action that analysis again public sidewalks outside a public school versus a private school I don't think it matters.

What about New York City public schools that are contracted that are public school contracted but not in public school buildings.

We have that as well.

I don't but it's yeah in terms of our analysis if someone is blocking an entrance off of a public sidewalk into any any school does it doesn't change the analysis.

It doesn't change it okay thank you.

Thank you chair.

Thank you so much Councilman Joseph a few more questions going back to the shots fired bill if we pass the bill if we're able to work on the changes that you suggested including the timeline for implementation also potentially requiring that the reporting be done every month we were hoping for quarterly but okay quarterly okay.

Where can this information potentially be posted?

Would you be open to doing it in Comstat or on the website and what people it would be posted publicly I don't think it wouldn't be on the Comstat sheet.

I think that's that's separate for for variety of reasons but and you know we we have a lot of data that we put out quarterly um and uh we would incorporate into that system uh so we would be it would be available again with the various caveats that I that I mentioned uh it would be available quarterly to the public okay and also going back to the towing um issue so private toll companies are already required to provide notice to the NYPD when they toll a vehicle right every time that is correct is this happening how often would you say say that they're creating to I I I don't have I don't have data for you on this I will acknowledge it is definitely not perfect definitely an imperfect system are there a private tow operators who who do call in yes are there those who don't I yes that that that that is surely the case if you were to provide a ballpark how bad is the issue would you say half of them are providing notice?

I know it's difficult to the time, but if you were based on the conversations.

I don't want to guess it would it would be truly a shot in the dark.

I don't want to do that.

Um it it's it's it is it is hit or miss.

And by the way, part of the problem is that really with private toes, if it's not a toe at at the NYPD's direction, if they don't call us, we literally have no way of knowing that it happened.

Right?

Because it didn't I mean rotow, that's we're involved.

DARP, we're involved, but a truly private toe that doesn't tell us we we have no way of knowing.

Okay.

Also going back to the uh preconsidered then Carnot bill um how many protests at educational facilities has the NYPD responded to in the past few years and also how do they compare protests at colleges versus K through twelve right so so we we do not track in a systematic way the location of protests.

Again I don't I'm not suggesting we don't know where protests happen.

We do.

And so you know any particular protest operations is going to have data about that.

But we don't we don't have like a systematic way like oh here's here's good data on the location of protest.

I also will say it's a little it's not a simple thing, right?

Because are you talking about you know there are protests that target a particular location.

Right?

They're protesting at X-location.

Then there are protesters who march across many blocks in the city.

Are you every time they pass by uh you know a school does that count?

Those are very very different scenarios totally different scenarios for a lot of reasons.

I I will say and this is not uh data driven just experience over the last few years uh we certainly and this again is particularly uh in 2024 um uh you know we had a trim we had a lot of protests outside universities that was there was a lot of that um uh you know in terms of a protest targeting like uh an elementary school or a middle school I I really can't recall that happening I'm not saying it's never happened but over the last few years I cannot I cannot recall a situation in which a protest was directed at like an elementary school or a or a or a middle school I will say just uh you know it's obviously you could have the house of worship where they also have like in the house of worship um an after school program so I I wouldn't know about that necessarily you know but in terms like something that is obviously like a school an elementary school and a protest targeting that I I don't recall that all right thank you for the information uh next we'll hear from council member Justin Sanchez.

Thank you so much Chair Felice um and thank you guys so much for your testimony here today.

Um and also uh shout out to uh another former council member in the house uh council member mark traeger um uh quickly I wanna talk about uh the tow operations a little bit um I wanted to know what processes does the department go through to close uh three one one requests for illegal parking I'm so sorry I don't have um a response to that I was just focused on um the three bills and that's that's what I was prepared to discuss today so I don't know but I can certainly get to get back to you on that.

Okay because in order to tow something you need to have a bunch of three one requests in order to get that done and so the types of tolls that uh we refer to with this bills uh really pertain to department um um violations so these are vehicles that already have violations on the street we tow we take to the pound that type of thing so um I don't have a response to that three one does it council member just to make sure we understand the question is is the question when a car is towed like how how do we in terms of our data getting closed after that in order for a car to get the violations to get all the stuff you need a process in which you know they accumulate all these things they get their tickets people report them so my question is from the that very inception of when someone reports a three one one request how does the that from there to the NYPD coming and being like oh this car should be towed what is that process look like yeah and and council member we we will we will easily be able to get that for you while while we will we will we will have that for you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Sanchez.

All right.

Moving on to introduction five five one which prohibits the sale and the distribution of temporary paper plates.

I'll have I'll ask some questions about that and then also introduction eight five three and then we'll do a second round and then we'll conclude.

I know we have a lot of uh members of our community who have signed up to testify so we want to of course hear from them so um yeah.

So introduction 551 prohibits or increases the fines for those that are selling fake paper plates.

I know we've made a lot of progress on the issue the problem exploded during COVID.

We've made some progress but to my knowledge it's still a problem including the sale of it.

I mean I checked on Craigslist and also the Facebook marketplace last night and saw people selling the promoting those fake paper tags.

So you know obviously it's an issue.

How bad of an issue is it what are you saying?

We've made progress but how how much of an issue is it still today.

So um the online process uh as you described is um you know very difficult for us to uh to police um what I can speak to is what we see locally on streets and the uh the um summons is that we have to support that but that's about all I have you know so to address this problem ghost plate operations we talked about what we do with other agencies bridges and tunnels and also on local streets where we see um this type of problem and um the toast associated with that uh but the online process um we do not police what are the current consequences for selling fake paper plates uh so I mean yeah well no so so you have in the VTL you have a you have a criminal offense right so in ETL 392A um uh so a person knowingly sells or offers to sell false fraudulent or stolen right of things including including license plates uh it's a misdemeanor at the first offense uh e-felony as a as a second uh offense um so that's so you have the the criminal provision there in the VTL there's a separate there are separate provisions both in the VTL and in city law is a separate issue but of like uh people selling stuff to obscure uh either well using things to obscure their plate right so that that that's a VTL violation right if you if you it's a separate issue but I think important and I think covered a little bit what you're talking about is the license plate's a real license plate but you you obscure it.

Um so uh doing that is a VTL violation subject to to fine and there's also a provision uh in in city law uh that imposes civil penalties for those who provide or sell the materials that you use to obscure your uh uh plate um so there are consequences and uh as as the chief said I mean this has been a priority for the department for some time we we we are doing these these enforcement operations at a at a very regular clip you have the queue teams doing this in response to uh to 311 complaints so it is something that we are we are very focused on and take incredibly seriously yeah and as we know people use fake paper plates for many reasons many of them want to be able to get on the road and engage in reckless driving speeding running red lights with very little tonal accountability what percentage would you say are individuals using paper plates to engage in criminal activity I I don't have data on that I think that also might be hard data to have quite quite frankly right because you what you're going to is sort of like their motive right um and you know obviously we're gonna do enforcement whatever the motive you if you have if you have you know fraudulent plates you're obscuring your plates we're gonna take action whatever your motive might be as you said there's there's a range of possibilities none of them good but but there's a range I don't know that we we would really have data on that.

Based on the incidents of violence that we've seen in in our city including issues related to gun violence is ghost cars something that we continue to see involved in these violent incidents.

I would assume they want to you know they want to make their cells sometimes I mean so sometimes yes I mean there's certainly there certainly has been I mean a real concern to your point chair about you know someone who is is engaged in potentially like violent criminal activity and for pretty obvious reasons is doesn't want their car tracked doesn't you know doesn't want to get caught so they're using you know uh uh uh fake plates or fraudulent plates so certainly something that we've seen in terms of like the trend line though that that I'm not sure we we we have for you all right uh so we'll do a second round of questions we'll go back to council member joseph and then Wong who is at a finance hearing and he's should be on his way here.

Um does the NYPD have any examples of instances where a student led assembly has prevented someone from accessing an educational facility.

A student you mean like a protest outs outside a school yeah do you have any examples of when facilities were blocked because of the protests do due to students and it includes you're talking about elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, universities, anything K-12.

I it is again I nothing comes immediately to mind.

I can't say it's never happened obviously um but nothing immediately comes to mind no.

What safeguards would exist to ensure security perimeters are not used unnecessarily to restrict um lawful protest activities.

Sorry unlawful or lawful protest sorry um wait lawful yeah lawful of course law okay I figured um so so there are a number of pieces to that um you know I the the incident commander right knows and this is I think very clear that there's no confusion about this in the department right first of all the decision to to even create a frozen zone is not a case by case basis based on all the facts in consultation with an attorney from the legal bureau right um there's a legal framework right in terms of it has to be content and viewpoint neutral cannot burden substantially more speech than necessary uh and has to allow ample alternative means of of speech uh we talk about sight and sound in that regard so um you know even in a situation in which okay we've got a real you know concern here problem in terms of obstruction of an entrance we're gonna do a frozen zone if we're doing a frozen zone necessarily we are we're like okay so where if protesters pro protesters need to have sight and sound where is that going to be right um that is very much ingrained in in the culture of the department um and again protesters don't have to go there sometimes protesters do not want to go in the designated protester area that's that's their right um but any time you have a frozen zone you are going to have a protest area with sight and sound to the entrance uh which I think is critical critical um uh so you you're gonna you're really you you you will have that in place every time do you have any idea of the protest that would quite in my PD um response how many have been at private schools versus public schools or high schools or colleges or middle school or elementary.

I we I I don't have that that data for you and again we don't we have not been tracking in a systematic way like the location of of the protest in in the sense that we would have data that we would be comfortable using.

So we don't we haven't really that's not really the way we've we've tracked it and thought about it.

Apart from um rallies and protests what other security related event might affect the school I mean if sort of a few things I mean I mean for starters you can imagine a situation where because of some uh potential you know criminal activity um there's an emergency um and we're we're concerned there could be some danger to to the bomb threat yeah you know I mean I'm sorry to say but like the there you know um there are situations like that and we would take this now we're talking about obviously potentially incredibly dangerous situation in exigency and we would take the necessary steps to keep people safe and y you can imagine a situation where we would have to immediately freeze some area to ensure the safety of of everyone involved that that I mean that that that certainly could happen.

Is there any component of a community engagement piece in this?

How is community engaged in this process?

So I mean I I assume you mean in the protest context, not in the like I mean, in other words, if if if there's some true exigency emergency, like a bomb threat, we're gonna move immediately and, you know, obviously we want to communicate responsibly as we can, but we're dealing with an emergent situation.

Uh in the protest context, um community affairs officers are reaching out to the relevant stakeholders.

And that that's happening every time, right?

So you have a protest outside let's say uh a school community affairs officers are gonna talk to the leadership of the school uh they're gonna try to talk to the leaders of the protest.

Sometimes that's a very productive dialogue sometimes not, but they're always gonna try um and that's and that's happening by the way that's happening before the protest it's happening during the protest.

Right community affairs officers, uh this is consistent with the protest settlement, right, serving as protest liaisons, um that's all about having that dialogue or and doing our very best to have that dialogue.

Thank you chair.

Thank you.

Um a few questions about frozen zones and the security measures that we're talking about.

I know we've been talking about it in the context of the educational environment.

Just curious unrelated to the education educational facilities but still in the context of security measures the NYPD is taking security measures today at the Madison Square Garden, the same measures that it did when the president was in the in visiting the city.

Why are we taking the same security measures?

Well I I I we're not the right people to speak to the particulars of what we're doing today and I don't I don't know to what extent it's identical.

We are certainly certainly taking significant security measures this evening um in the interest of public safety um and and given given the the challenges that that we have had uh until this point uh post game which are quite serious um and and of course we people hopefully the Knicks win and people celebrate um people are able to celebrate uh and celebrate uh peacefully safely s safely safely for everyone safely for other people celebrating safely for police officers um and we uh we are trying to do our very best to act responsibly to make sure the people can celebrate in a safe manner.

And I know we're obviously taking it one day at a time but is the plan to have similar security measures at future games I know I I really can't speak to that.

Okay.

So a few more final questions uh on introduction eight four three um I don't see anyone signed up so I'll ask some questions and then we'll conclude if no one else signs up for questions.

So 843 by council member Stevens which will create a program to provide public notification of school emergencies.

What role does the NYPD currently play in notifying school officials, parents and the public during school emergencies?

Right so you know in in in the public school context um obviously we have entire school safety division as as as you know and so we're in dialogue with with schools and if we have some emergency in in a school um you know again through through through school safety and otherwise we're gonna be in we're gonna we're gonna be in dialogue with the leadership of of the school and my understanding is that DOE has its systems for providing notification uh we're certainly not the experts on that um but they certainly have mechanisms for communicating with parents uh if we have to respond to an emergency at a private school you don't have the the same systems in place as you do with with you know school safety but in the nature of any sort of police response um we're we're gonna be reaching out to the leadership of of of that school and talking to people at school we're gonna have police officers arriving on scene and and and in dialogue with with uh with with with the school um so again it's it's more formalized in the in the uh public school con uh context because of the school safety division.

Um, but then in the private school, as with other institutions, if we're responding to the scene, we're gonna be talking to leadership on scene.

What communication is that what communication channel challenges does the department encounter during school emergencies?

I'm not I'm not sure where the right people to really answer that to answer that question.

Um I guess what are the existing uh communication protocols between the NYPD, and obviously that the Department of Education also plays a role during this.

Right.

So in terms of that's what I'm talking about the bill, right?

So our point in this is to the extent we're talking about notifications.

I mean, that's really for you know, in in the in the in the public school context, I would say some combination of it's it's DOE and to what extent of any uh nice and is involved, but that's really again for DOE and nice.

And I feel like in the private school context, that's really a question for for nice.

Um, I I totally understand that you know, from the PD side of it, like you know, we we may learn of some emergency at a school, right?

We're responding.

Um so we have that information, and you can certainly imagine a bill that you know, where we're we're passing along the information to to nice them and they are making notifications as as appropriate, but to the extent the the bill is suggesting that the NYPD directly should be making those notifications, we don't think that's really in our in our purview.

Okay, thank you for the information.

Um other questions?

I don't see any other questions, so um, yeah, thank you so much for joining us today.

Thank you for uh all the work you're doing to keep New Yorkers safe.

We look forward to continuing uh all the conversations on all these uh bills.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And let's go next.

And we're gonna take a five minute recess.

We'll resume at twelve twenty, six minute recess.

Thank you.

Oh, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay, okay.

Thank you, everyone.

We're gonna uh resume the hearing.

And I'll now open the hearing for public testimony.

I remind I remind members of the public that this is a government proceeding and that the quorum shall be observed at all times.

As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times.

The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify.

No video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table.

Further, members of the public may not present audio or video recordings as testimony, but may submit transcripts of such recordings to the sergeant at arms for inclusion in the hearing record.

If you wish to speak at today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with the sergeant at arms and wait to be recognized.

When recognized, you'll have two minutes to speak on topics related to the legislation being heard today.

Again, I'll repeat that part.

We are specifically hearing testimony related to the legislation being heard before this committee today.gov within seventy-two hours of the course of this hearing.

Audio and video recordings will not be accepted.

For in-person panelists, please come to the table once your name has been called.

I'll call the first panel.

And we'll start in that order.

So Mark Traeger and then Hindi Popku, and then good to see good to see you all.

Yep, you may begin when you're ready.

Let me first begin by thanking you, Chairman Feliz for overseeing this hearing, and Councilwoman and Carnacio, thank you for your leadership.

Um, it's really an honor to be here, and I know that the council was very deliberative about this process and this bill, and we really do appreciate your your commitment to seeing this through.

Um, before I came on, there were a lot of comments that were made that were appropriately um factual and about procedure.

I want to talk a little bit more personally about why this bill is so important to so many of us in the Jewish community.

A week after October 7th, I was walking home on West End Avenue with my three young children, 12, 10, and six, a pack of teenagers passes us by and they yell at my kids, should we kidnap the boy or the girl.

And I share this story with you because across New York City, we are seeing our children being yelled at and intimidated.

We very much uphold the right to free speech to protest.

We're often the ones protesting ourselves.

But when we drop our kids off at school, it would mean a lot to know that at least here they're safe.

You got this done with respect to our houses of worship.

It went a very long way, and we hope that today and after this hearing, we can get this done for our schools as well.

Thank you for your leadership.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, uh Chairman Feliz, dear friend and council member and Karnacyon, thank you for leadership and to all the council members staff folks who are present.

Um this is personal for me.

Uh I have tremendous respect for this esteemed body and for this institution.

Um, building on what Hindi just shared uh from our great community partner, UJ Federation.

What I'll share is that um JCRC convened a community solidarity event early May, when there was a massive swastika spree in Forest Hills, Queens and across other neighborhoods in Queens.

And as the NYPD testified earlier, uh Houses of Worship can also house early childhood education programs.

And in the case of Queens, that's exactly what happened.

Uh children, families, staff were walking, uh waking up that day and walking into a situation where there was a crime scene and a massive swastika scrolled on an early child education site house in a synagogue.

Swasticas are also scrolled on people's homes and and it was it was just a very frightening scene.

But once the headlines fade, once the newspapers stop writing about it, once the TV cameras are gone, the providers who actually serve the kids in the program, they're the ones fielding phone calls from parents and staff saying, is it safe to send my kid to school tomorrow?

What happened here?

And providers are being now inundated with questions on a routine basis.

Is it safe to send my kid to school?

What's the plan?

And I think Mr.

Chairman and to members of the council and staff, this is an issue that has exposed a gap in our transparency structure.

Because I I'll remind folks that between DOE and NYPD, there is a MOU, memorandum of understanding that governs the relationship between DU and NYPD.

But over 60% of early childhood education programs in New York City are not housed in DOE buildings, they're housed in community-based settings like houses of worship, to which there is no MOU.

There is no transparency like there is for DOE buildings.

And so, in my strong humble opinion, as a former teacher, former chair of education committee.

Even though obviously we must respect the first amendment, people have a fundamental right to protest.

We have no fundamental right to intimidate anyone.

And it's but it's not just about protest.

It's about what if there's an incident at the site, whether it's a swastika, whether there's some disruption, people ask rightfully, what is the plan?

We don't know because and NYPD said there's not enough data because there's no requirement to collect data.

That's why the council members pass bills to get transparency.

So I just want to say, at its core, this legislation is about fundamental transparency.

Parents, educators, providers, protesters, everyone deserves clarity about safety plans when disruptions or security incidents occur.

Transparency makes us more safe.

It helps protect our kids, our fundament, our critical stakeholders.

And I truly appreciate the leadership of this council for being deliberative, being very thoughtful about this process and exposing a real transparency gap that exists in the system today.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Liz Bender.

I'm the policy counsel with the criminal practice at the neighborhood defender service of Harlem, public defender office serving Upper Manhattan.

NDS opposes this bill because it does not achieve the transparency that we've heard many people talk about today.

General Counselor Gerber mentioned many times that what he viewed the bill in its current form as doing was requiring them to report on what they're already doing.

But that's not what the plain language of this bill does.

It requires them to propose a plan.

Propose means show us something new.

It does not have detailed reporting requirements about what they're already doing.

And in fact, what he said before this council is that he he doesn't have that.

There is no guide.

There is no written memorialization of how they respond to incidents at schools.

He also could not point to a single incident at K through 12 schools where there has been any of the beh of and any incident that where they've had to respond, right, to a protest activity in K through 12 schools in the way that it's contemplated in this bill.

So this bill is aiming to meet a need that even NYPD is saying they're not aware exists.

But what this bill could be amended to do and should be amended to do is that transparency.

I don't know why he reads it to require only transparency when it explicitly says that they must propose a plan.

But we would urge this council to amend it so that it does require that transparency and reporting on what NYPD is currently doing.

I do want to point out that one of the main reasons that NDS opposes this bill is because we believe that any time you ask NYPD to propose, generate, do something new.

What that means is that the clients we serve will bear the brunt of that increased NYPD activity.

And particularly at a time when the Trump administration is already deploying a cruel and inhumane deportation agenda when just this week Tom Homan threatened to flood our city with more ICE agents than you've ever seen.

What this council should be doing is finding ways to protect parents and the kids that they send to school from increased law enforcement activity, not inviting the NYPD to propose new plans to police our students and their communities.

Thank you.

It's a timely measure, especially following the latest NYP data indicating that hate crimes are up by 74% in May 2026 compared to May 2025.

At a time when these crimes against so many religious groups are on the rise in our city, we must all stand together united against such abhorrent acts.

Such solidarity includes supporting this bill, requiring NYPD to create security plans to help ensure the safety of students, teachers, and faculty in both public and non-public schools.

We have over 150 Catholic schools in New York City alone.

Students, teachers, and faculty must not be placed in a situation of being harassed, intimidated, or physically obstructed by demonstrators and parents as well need to be assured that their children in their schools are entering a safe haven and that these schools remain a place for learning and not a place for fear.

The legislation requires the NYPD to submit plans to the mayor and the council to post them on the agency's website.

Plans include the criteria for when the security perimeters should be used and for what duration.

The steps taken to ensure the perimeter does not infringe on the right to free speech and assembly, communication with the administrators of both public and non-public schools and the community to understand their needs and concerns.

And finally, a point of contact for the general public.

It achieves a delicate and important balance.

The constitutional right of free speech and assembly are protected, while at the same time, the legislation helps to safeguard schools against growing and increasingly violent threats.

Like other faith-based organizations, we're fortunate in having the NYPD as a strong partner.

They've been responsive, proactive in confronting the challenges facing our schools and our children.

And this bill will continue their ability to do so by just making it more transparent.

Creates more dialogue, which is what people need to hear.

And it'll be more protection for not just the students but the faculty, the staff and the parents.

We thank Speaker Manon and you for recognizing these growing threats and we hope that this that this legislation passes soon.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jacqueline Goodman and I'm an attorney with the Legal Aid Society's juvenile rights practice.

We represent over 30,000 children in family courts across the city each year, the vast majority of whom attend the very schools targeted by this bill.

I'm here today to speak about our opposition to this legislation.

Instead of enhancing school safety this measure will first disproportionately harm marginalized communities including black and brown LGBTQIA plus and immigrant students.

It will further expose young people and other community members who are who are already over police to the risk of criminalization for engaging in protected speech and expression and it will suppress student voice voices and discourage civic engagement at a moment when students should be empowered to participate in public discourse.

This council's own report law enforcement in NYC public schools which analyze data from 2016 to the second quarter of 2023 indicates that increased police presence around schools is likely to worsen the criminalization of black students for many children and increased police presence around schools may undermine feelings of safety rather than promote them and research also shows that school based policing disproportionately impacts black and brown students as well as students with disabilities who are who are already more likely to face disciplinary action and law enforcement intervention.

Extending police activity beyond school buildings through expanded security perimeters first risks further entrenching these inequities the proposed bills also raise significant concerns for LGBTQ plus youth particularly transgender gender not conforming and non-binary students who already face heightened scrutiny and disproportionate contact with law enforcement by granting the NYPD broad discretion to establish and enforce security perimeters or frozen zones around schools these measures could increase opportunities for profiling and selective enforcement at a time when many young people may I think you are advocating for their rights and participating in civic life this bill chills chilling risks chilling student expression and discouraging students from exercising their rights to speak organize and engage in their school communities and more specifically the bill's exclusion of public high schools from this measure fails to align with its purported justification.

Either all high school students require the protections and intrusions that this bill proposes or none do.

In reality the proposed approach is unlikely to benefit any students and instead will subject them to increase surveillance policing and barriers to civic engagements.

Instead of investing in in a greater police presence around schools the city council should prioritize proven strategies that promote school safety and well-being this is funding comprehensive mental health services more counselors and social workers and investing in restorative justice programs that help students to develop develop effective conflict resolution skills and foster safer more and more supportive school communities thank you for this opportunity to share our thoughts thank you thank you so much and just have a super fast question for all of you whoever wants to answer you could just answer in about 20 30 seconds we have about 30 people signed up want to make sure we hear from them as well but just want to briefly hear from all of you just to make sure that we have a full conversation about the issue of course we this council fully supports initiatives including restorative justice programs and etc but on this bill my understanding is that it doesn't require or put any new police officers in the area or it doesn't give any doesn't give them any new authority or power.

It simply just requires that they tell us what they're doing to respond.

So just curious if anybody wants to give us 20 20, 30 seconds on that.

Hi.

Let's make sure we got a full conversation and get a full understanding of everybody's perspective on this.

So the language of the bill is that the police must submit a proposed plan to address and contain the risk and then it goes on to describe the risks.

What General Counselor Gerber said in his testimony was that such a plan does not already exist, that their response to schools is varied.

It's guided by a number of different things and that that isn't memorialized anywhere.

So what the council is asking them to submit is something that they will have to generate.

He admitted that in his own testimony.

So you are asking them to create something new something uniform right and there's a 45 day period where that is submitted to the council and to the mayor before it is publicly published.

That 40 45 day period suggests that there's going to be back and forth and amendments and changes to that plan.

So it is asking them to do something new.

If what you want is information about what they're currently doing then this bill's language needs to change to explicitly ask for that transparency.

Proposing a plan is different from reporting on everything you are currently doing which even knowing what he was going to be asked today he didn't really have right he he told you some like he listed the factors that they look at but there was no this is how we respond and I'll this put this bill also requires that the proposed plan be about security permers specifically it's not show us tell us what you're doing to respond to protests in schools.

It's give us a plan about security perimeters specifically so it is I I disagree with the characterization that this is a transparency bill.

There is a transparency bill that could be the result of an amendment process starting from here but we're not there right now.

Okay.

Thank you Mr Chair.

So I I also refer the committee back to the hearing in the chambers when things were packaged in terms of houses of worship and and this and this our discussion about education settings or on CBO settings where the NYPD said you know we do uh have stuff in our patrol guides or we do have stuff and some members of the council were questioning well if it's already in guidance why do you need to pass a law and I respectfully remind the council that many of the laws we've passed started off as a piece of guidance or an executive order that became codified by the council and the reason why council members do that is because it creates a a binding concrete accountability and transparency tool and as I mentioned earlier when it comes to DOE buildings there's an existing written memorandum of understanding between DOE and NYPD and that's already on the books it's written but the majority of our OE childhood programs are not in DOE buildings because insufficient space.

So therefore we rely on community organizations, whether the houses of worship or settings to house these programs.

And I know a lot of discussion today has been so far about protests but I remind the committee it's not just about protests.

It's about any safety disruptions or issues what is the plan providers are being asked the question what is the plan the next day to keep our kids and staff safe and I also remind the committee that if you look at a national nonprofit security grant program that started off around 180 million dollars in 2021 and now members of Congress are asking for more than half a billion dollars to a billion to protect houses of worship and education settings that continue to be some of the biggest targets of hate incidents and and thwart and thank goodness thwarted terror attacks how much money are providers being forced to spend in their budgets rather than spending money on instruction or social or which and and folks who know me I absolutely love social workers and counselors and support staff.

We've the councils added hundreds and hundreds of them we need more.

But how many providers have to spend money from their own budgets for additional private security because they they don't have the resources to keep their their stakeholders adequately safe.

So this bill fundamentally, in my opinion, will say to the NYPD, if it's in your guidance, make it public.

Also the bill calls for as a mechanism that says there's a draft proposal, there's input for the council and stakeholders to to finalize it with the stakeholder input.

To me, it is about transparency.

When you don't have transparency, Mr.

Chairman, that's when communities are actually less safe.

And that that's my that's my take on pass it to pass the mic.

I concur with Mark.

I concur with Mark too, but just also to add, there is a plan.

This is sharing it with the public, so we know as well.

People are missing that point.

So I would join with my colleague from neighborhood defenders, and I would just also mention that there are already criminal laws that address alleged harassing and violent conduct outside of educational institutions and a law requiring the creation of security perimeters, even while requiring the police to take steps to ensure that the zones don't curtail protest rights is not necessary when there are alternatives to achieving the stated purpose of safety, particularly when it infringes on people's freedom of expression.

So I think drawing drawing the police's attention to these sites and saying you must do a plan similar to what my colleagues said.

All right.

Sounds good.

Thank you so much.

Thank you everybody for testifying to the for your perspective.

Thank you so much.

We're going to call the next panel.

Uh Judy Baum.

Ariel Saransky, Abby Rubin Pope, Zaka Nazir, Alan Abraham.

And you could testify that order.

Or actually we'll just do from right to left or left to right, whoever wants to go first.

Thank you.

You could begin when you're ready.

Great.

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you to the chairs and the honorable members of the Committee on Public Safety.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today.

My name's Judy Baum and I'm co-chair of the Government Relations, Government Affairs Committee for the Jewish Community Relations Council.

JCRC New York is the preeminent convening group of New York's Jewish community.

We build relationships to advance the values, interests, and security of the Jewish community and to create a more interconnected New York for all.

We speak in solidarity as members and leaders of New York's Jewish community to urge support for the pre-considered preconsidered intro concerning a local law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York in relation to a plan regarding security perimeters adjacent to educational facilities.

This legislation is important for the safety of New Yorkers and personally as the grandmother of kids who are in New York City schools and have gone through shooter trainings and all kinds of other stuff.

Having this bill passed makes me sleep better at night.

So we believe that educational facilities for children should not be places where movement to or from is restricted by protests.

Students, faculty, and staff should not be intimidated, as Mark Traeger said, or physically obstructed from their educational facilities.

Classrooms, and campuses must remain safe spaces for learning, free from intimidation so that our kids can exercise their fundamental right to peacefully express themselves without fear.

In addition, I was a kid who was protesting against the Vietnam War.

And I remember all of the stuff that we went through, and we need to keep those protesters safe.

I have to wind it up right now.

Okay, well, I'll just say thank you so much.

Chair and the committee, and as she she uh suggests I call her Congress, Councilmember Elsie.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

My name's Alan Abraham.

I'm a New York City resident and the director of organizing at the People's Plan, and I went uh, you know, grew up through the New York City school system as well.

I'm here today to oppose the bill as it's currently written and urge the council to amend it to actually make it a transparency measure.

Instead of advancing the bill in its current form, the council should amend it to require that the NYPD publicly disclose and regularly report on its existing policies and procedures for responding to protests around schools.

Any amended legislation should also explicitly affirm the protections established by the 2024 protest settlement and safeguard First Amendment rights under both the federal and state constitutions.

Supporters of the bill haven't identified a single instance of students being harassed or threatened by protesters outside of schools that would justify the creation of new security perimeters.

Rather than improving safety, this proposal risks discouraging students from exercising their own rights to speak out against injustice while increasing opportunities for policing and criminalization of black, brown, and other marginalized communities.

So for these reasons, I oppose the bill as it's drafted.

You know, the city doesn't need a new protest-related security plan, expanded police authority or security perimeters around schools.

Protest in itself is not a security threat, requiring the NYPD to develop new operational plans for protests near educational facilities, also risks undermining the 2024 protest settlement, which was established in response to NYPD's treatment of black lives matters protesters in 2020 and requires police presence at demonstrations to be minimized whenever possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Feliz, for the opportunity to testify today on uh legislation regarding establishing security perimeters adjacent to educational facilities.

Thank you also to Councilmember Alsay Incarnacion for spearheading this legislation and for your leadership and commitment to protecting New Yorkers.

My name is Ariel Savranski, and I am the director of government and community relations at the 92nd Street Y.

While 92nd Street Y is not explicitly covered by this legislation, we strongly support its goals.

As an institution that serves thousands of children, families, and lifelong learners each year through educational programming, we understand the importance of ensuring that students, parents, educators, and staff can access educational facilities safely and without intimidation.

Across New York City, schools and educational institutions face an increasingly complex security environment.

According to ADL's 2024 audit of anti-Semitic Incidents, New York State recorded more anti-Semitic incidents than any other state in the country.

These trends have heightened security concerns for many institutions that serve children and families.

At 92nd Street Y, we have experienced firsthand how demonstrations can affect access to community and educational spaces.

Earlier this year, during our annual State of World Jewelry Address, patrons entering the building were met with drums, flags pushed into their faces, and shouted insults.

This did not only impact event attendees.

Families arriving for children's programs, students attending classes, and other community members using our facility were also forced to navigate that environment.

Students, parents, educators, and staff should be able to enter educational facilities safely and without intimidation.

Establishing a transparent framework for evaluating and implementing security perimeters when necessary will help protect access to education and ensure that schools have appropriate tools and protocols available when circumstances warrant enhanced security measures.

Thank you to the New York City Council, Council members Alsie and Carnaciona and Dinowitz and Speaker Menon for thoughtfully proposing ways to combat anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred and strengthen protections for educational facilities.

We look forward to continuing to work with the New York City Council to ensure that New Yorkers feel safe in their communities.

Thank you.

Chair Felice and members of the Committee on Public Safety, my name is Brandi Rubin, and I am proud to serve as a deputy regional director for ADL's New York and New Jersey region.

I am pleased to be here today to testify in support of legislation sponsored by New York City Councilmember Elsie Ancarnacio, which would require the New York City Police Commissioner to develop and implement a plan that would allow for the establishment of security perimeters around most K-12 educational facilities across the city in appropriate cases.

Thus creating safe access zones to help protect individuals seeking to enter and exit from experiencing physical harm or targeted harassment and obstruction.

This bill is a critical piece of Speaker Menon's five-point action plan to combat anti-semitism and strengthen community safety, which ADL proudly supports.

Unfortunately, New York faces an unprecedented crisis of anti-Semitism that demands immediate action on multiple fronts.

ADL carefully tracks in response to anti-Semitic incidents across the country, and according to our 2025 audit of anti-Semitic Incidents, New York State recorded 1,160 anti-Semitic incidents, the most of any state in the country.

This represents 18% of all anti-Semitic incidents nationwide, and most alarmingly, 74% of all documented incidents in New York State took place across the five boroughs of New York City, which was a new record.

My team and I respond to anti-Semitic acts every day and understand this work firsthand.

Our data shows that K through 12 schools have unfortunately become hot spots for anti-Semitic incidents.

By our count, in 2025 in New York City, we documented 91 such incidents, and that is just what was reported to us.

Council person and Carnacion's legislation carefully balances the rights to peacefully protest and engage in free speech with the need to protect public safety.

Today we join the course in supporting this common sense legislation to ensure safe access to K-12 educational facilities across New York City and all of Speaker Menon's five-point plan.

We urge this committee to give introduction of T 2026-2052 a favorable report.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

Next, we'll hear from uh Jasera Champion, Brandy Katz Rubin, Scott Richman, Steven Wheel, and Roe Pena.

I'm Brandy, we're going to keep 12 people, so I pay well.

So I don't know if I was in it.

I have to go.

Okay.

Sorry.

We'll start from left to R you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee.

I'm Ro Pena, co-founder and director of programming for transformative schools.

At TFS, I advocate for improving the lived experience of trans and non-binary youth and the educators who support them.

TFS opposes this bill in its current form and urges the council to amend it into what it should be: a real transparency measure.

Advocacy saves lives.

Through organizing, TFS helped build aunties for liberation, which pushed community education council 2 to rescind a resolution undermining protections for trans youth.

We also organized two rallies that brought together more than 10,000 supporters.

That happened because people had the freedom to organize, not because they had a permission slip from the NYP day.

And that's the problem with this bill.

It assumes protests near school are a security threat requiring police perimeters, but where's the evidence?

The educator in me is looking for the sources.

And this bill is turning into an incomplete assignment.

There's no record showing K-12 schools are being targeted in a way that justifies this response.

This bill creates a solution without demonstrating a true problem.

Meanwhile, it gives the NYPD broad authority with no public input, council approval, or meaningful accountability.

That's a lot of power for an unproven issue.

And we know that broad police uh discretion is rarely applied equally.

Measures that expand surveillance, enforcement, and restrictions on public participation often fall hardest on the students who are already most marginalized.

I was one of those.

Trans youth, black and brown students, disabled students, immigrant students, and the families and advocates who show up to defend them.

These are the communities most likely to rely on public advocacy when institutions fail to protect their rights.

Schools have always been part of movements for justice.

For many young people, protests aren't a disruption of democracy.

They're how people learn to participate in it.

Restricting advocacy near schools risks sending the message that civil engagement is something that needs to be managed and controlled rather than encouraged and protected.

The assignment is simple.

Amend the bill.

Require the NYPD to disclose its policies and affirm that First Amendment protection.

If the goal is transparency, let's show our work and stick to the assignment.

Thank you.

Hello.

Unfortunately, Steven Weil had to step out, so I am presenting this testimony on behalf of him and Strix Defense.

Strix is a Brooklyn-based next generation AI defense company with a singular mission to proactively protect New Yorkers by anticipating threats and stopping them before they reach New Yorkers' doors.

Thank you to Speaker Menon, Chair Feliz, and the members of the committee for giving Strokes the opportunity to be a part of this discussion.

Strix would like to speak in support of intro 2052 by Councilmember Incarnacion.

Strix believes this legislation addresses a growing reality.

Threats to our schools are no longer theoretical.

They come in many forms, including targeted violence, harassment, intimidation, hate-motivated incidents, and disruptions that create fear among students and families.

The need for proactive planning is clear.

A June 2026 NYPD report shows that hate crimes remain a significant challenge across New York City with anti-Semitic incidents continuing to account for the largest share of reported hate crimes.

While felonies and other crime rights have dropped, hate crimes continue to rise.

These incidents are not confined to any one neighborhood or institution.

They affect schools, houses of worship, community centers, and the families who rely on these places as safe spaces.

Over the past several years, there has been an alarming rise in threats directed at Jewish schools, synagogues, and community institutions across the country.

The same security vulnerabilities that can be exploited to target a school can also be exploited to target a house of worship or community gathering place.

Protecting access to these facilities while preserving constitutional rights is not a partisan issue.

It is a public safety imperative.

Schools do not exist in isolation from what is happening in the communities around them.

When demonstrations, protests, or other public gatherings occur near educational facilities, students, parents, and educators can find themselves caught in situations that create uncertainty and concern.

Every student should be able to enter and leave school safely.

Every parent should know that access to their child's school will remain secure.

At the same time, New York City must continue to uphold the rights of individuals to engage in lawful protests and free expression.

That balance is exactly what this legislation seeks to achieve.

Importantly, this bill does not mandate permanent barriers or restrictions.

Instead, it calls for thoughtful planning process.

It requires the NYPD to establish clear standards for when security perimeters may be appropriate, how they should be implemented, how school administrators should be consulted, and how the public should be informed.

Thank you, Chair.

Hi, my name is Joseph Champion, and I'm here to speak to you guys today regarding a personal matter regarding public safety.

I am a member of the public.

Thank you all for taking the time to listen to me.

After exploring multiple avenues, seeking for the local authorities and other government agencies and offices to hear my voice and take heed to my cries for help to no avail, I am here today as a proud American citizen in need of someone to stand up and do the right thing.

Public safety is a fundamental priority to maintaining a livable and functional society for everyone in our communities.

For an extended period of time, my safety and privacy has been stripped away from me, and the police have continuously undermined it and dismissed my desperate pleas for help.

There's a loss of genuine care and concern for other human beings when that very thing is what helps us thrive and prosper in our communities.

I've made several calls, sent numerous emails, made reports and complaints, and I am still dealing with a very difficult situation that no one seems to have the answers for or even seems to care enough to take any action.

The police are supposed to protect and serve, and the government has a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens, yet here I stand alone with my back against the wall.

If there's anyone here that is proud to advocate and support the people of this city, please take the time to speak to me and offer your assistance in any way possible.

I will be extremely grateful for the chance to finally be able to live a normal life again.

I've made efforts to do so by contacting the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, the Queen's District Attorney's Office, the Department of Health, the Civil Complaint Review Board, and of course the NYPD's one-on-one precinct.

I am a citizen, a member of this society, and it should never be this difficult to find just one person who cares about my safety.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

I'm gonna give you so much.

Naila Awan, Janice Chong, Anna Maria Aguirre, Ariana Misha, and Jareti Valera.

I don't have any extra.

Um so out of the five that I called, just two are in the room, so I'll call some additional members who are still with us.

Andrea Ortiz.

Rashida Brown Harris.

Not here.

Seth Severino.

Habiba representing Malika.

Brittany Kaiser.

All right, so I guess we'll start with this time from my right to the left.

Uh you may begin when you're ready.

Thank you.

Um my name is Nyla One.

I'm the co-director of policy at the New York Civil Liberties Union.

I'm here today to oppose the new security perimeter bill being considered and expressed extreme concern at the speed at which this bill is being advanced and that the hearing is happening today on a day when many of our advocates who've been engaged in this fight for so long are having to also split their time between testifying on the budget.

While the pre-considered bill narrows the definition of educational facility, no other elements of the bill have changed.

It was not amended in any way to address the very real concerns that over 100 organizations representing a wide variety of constituencies, as well as educators, students, and community members have expressed.

As we heard from the PD earlier today, there's no record of incidents outside the covered facilities that the bill is designed to effectively address.

Instead, this bill will encourage increased law enforcement presence outside of our city schools, helping to fuel the school to prison pipeline and undoubtedly being disproportionately enforced against black, brown, and LGBTQIA students.

And in a city of immigrants, and at a time when we are seeing an inhumane deportation agenda being advanced by the federal government, increasing law enforcement presence at schools is likely to only fuel fear among our immigrant community members.

And while the council has talked about this bill and its precursor as being purely a transparency measure, that is simply not the case.

The bill frames the right to protest, a right at the very heart of our democracy as a security threat.

It requires the NYPD to craft a proposal for the deployment of security perimeters around schools and then gives 45 days for back and forth between the PD, the speaker, and the mayor before the plan is even made public.

It does not recognize that there's numerous response tactics at the NYPD's disposal, of which security perimeters are only one.

And it does not ask the NYPD to disclose how it weighs the circumstances and rights at play when determining a course of action.

And does not recognize that security perimeters will not always be an appropriate or constitutional response.

If the council is insistent that it wants to truly pass a transparency measure, there are clear pathways and amendments to accomplish this.

It's shocking that the council has chosen to reintroduce a bill that fails to address the bulk of the concerns that have been consistently raised, and we ask that the council to pause any further movement on this bill until an array of stakeholders have been properly engaged and asked that at a time when the federal government is trying to stifle a protest, our city does not proceed down the same path.

Hello, my name is Andrea from Dignity in Schools New York.

We are here today in strong opposition to this uh school secure perimeter bill.

The council cannot point to a single incident of students being harassed outside of schools or threatened by protesters.

This bill as is not a transparency measure and it does not respond to real safety need.

Instead, it expands policing, restricts freedom of speech, and risks further criminalizing young people and BIPOC communities.

At a time of heightened political repression, increased police presence and surveillance uh will deepen harm, particularly for black and immigrant families.

This is especially concerning given the NYPD school officers can add individuals to a secret gang database with little or no evidence contributing to the ongoing criminalization of young people.

The city's own record raises red flags.

The 2024 protest settlement with the NYPD showed that current policing practices often violate protesters' rights.

We do not need security perimeters because protests are not security threats.

What we need is transparency, accountability, and investment in community-based safety.

Current school safety policies already rely too heavily on policing and punishment and disproportionately harm black students who make up less than 20% of enrollment but account for 45% of superintendent suspensions and 52% of school police interventions.

We urge the council to amend this bill to require the NYPD to publish and report on their current policies and procedures for responding to protests around schools.

Amend the bill to enshrine protections consistent with the 2022 for protest settlement and with First Amendment rights under the federal and state constitutions.

Freeze hiring of school police, eliminate eliminate all vacancies and reinvest approximately $90 million dollars in saving into restorative justice, mental health supports, and immigrant protections, protect restorative justice and mental health access by baselining $6 million dollars for restorative justice funding and $5 million for the mental health continuum, protect immigrant students and families by baselining 4 million for outreach and communications and passing intro-798 to eliminate the NYP to gain database.

New York City must choose between expanding criminalization or investing in what actually makes schools safe.

Care, trust, and support.

We're urge the council to reject this bill or amend it to be a real transparency bill and prioritize policies that protect students' rights and their well-being.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, esteemed council members in the Committee on Public Safety and Honorable Chair Oswald Felice.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Janice Chong, and I'm a youth leader with the Yaia Network and an intern in dignity in school campaign of NY.

Even though I graduated high school just last year and I'm now an incoming sophomore at Georgetown University, I am still here to fight for the rights of the next generation of NYC public school students and college students.

First, I want to acknowledge the success we had in blocking Bill 175B from coming to fruition.

I am grateful for the council members who stayed firm in their stance against the bill.

However, this new school security perimeters bill is once again threatening our students' right to free speech, exacerbating the school to prison pipeline, and is disproportionately impacting black, brown, low-income, and immigrant communities.

As a longtime student organizer, I have had the privilege to exercise my freedom of speech at rallies, hearings, press conferences alike.

And I want to ensure that all students after me can exercise those same rights.

This bill jeopardizes young people's civil liberties by not having requirements, standards, or limits to the buffer zones that will surround educational facilities.

And what counts as educational facilities is also still broadly unclear.

This new bill is framed as a path towards transparency, but it is not a transparency bill.

Why is there a normalization of NYPD perimeter authority around public and non-public K-2 schools without justification?

Why is there an expansion of fear and criminalization for immigrant low-income BIPOC students through increased police presence?

Where is the transparency and current NYPD practices towards protests?

Therefore, to all the council members who have not signed on, I implore you all to not sign this bill until our concerns are addressed with amendments.

For council members who have signed on, push this bill to become a true transparency bill by requiring NYPD to report on and publish its current practices for responding to protests outside schools with protections consistent with the 2024 settlement and First Amendment rights under the federal and state law.

The effects of this bill could be dangerous to every student in NYC.

Instead of justifying additional police presence in our in or around schools, the city should invest in in the mental health continuum, restorative justice initiatives, and other equity-based services.

We should be able to have safety for all communities without unnecessary expansion of police authority.

Thank you.

Let's be clear.

The climate in which we are operating, we are witnessing a period of profound hostility toward dissent across the United States.

We see surveillance and police expanding in ways that should be deeply alarming by codifying and secure these security parameters, the council is actively threatening the safety of our students and our educators and their right to exercise their first amendment rights.

The relevant parties have failed to provide a single verifiable instance of students being harassed or threatened by protesters outside of schools.

The proposal is not a response to a documented crisis.

It is a solution in search of a problem.

In practice, this bill will have a devastating chilling effect on students' speech.

It signals to young people that their engagement in politics and a political process is something that should be contained and surveilled rather than a vital civic exercise that it is.

Furthermore, we have seen increased policing presence around schools as an inevitable targeting and criminalizing of and traumatizing of black and brown youth, reinforcing the school to prison pipeline that the city claims to try to dismantle.

Moreover, the bill threatens to act to actively undermine the 2024 protest settlement that was directly a consequence of the NYPD's historic brutalization of BLM protesters in 2020.

And explicitly necessitates that the police presence at protest be minimized to protect individual rights.

By tasking the NYPD with the creation of these new security plans, this bill invites the return of aggressive escalated policing tactics that the 2024 settlement sought to curb.

We do not need more policing.

I urge the council to pivot away from the punitive approach and instead amend the bill to function as a genuine transparency measure, requiring the NYPD to publish and provide rigorous public reporting in their existing practice and procedures regarding protests.

And to amend the bill to enshrine protections that are fully consistent with the 2024 protest settlement and constitutional safeguards on both the federal and state level.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kaiser.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Alliance for Quality Education, AQE organizes parents pushing for quality public education for all children, regardless of zip code.

On February 25th, hundreds of New Yorkers submitted testimony against intro 175.

At that hearing, council leadership chose to selectively allow people into City Hall.

The hearing was stacked, creating an illusion of support while many had to wait outside in freezing temperatures for over an hour and then stay late into the evening for their chance to testify against it.

Since then, organized public outcry caused the mayor to veto intro 175 and caused council members to refuse to overturn the veto.

We have heard from multiple sources that council leadership continues to threaten retribution against members who are responsive to their constituents' overwhelming demand to oppose this measure.

And today, the only day when New Yorkers can share their input on the entire executive budget across the street, city council is trying to jam through a new version of the buffer bill in a blatant attempt to circumvent public will.

Why?

Because people don't want this.

It is a favor to a very narrow constituency with outsized resources, and they're hoping the rest of us don't notice.

In the absence of a convincing story about how this bill would prevent violence, council has resorted to claims that is a transparency measure.

We support amendments to convert this bill to a true transparency measure.

Without amendments, this bill does not increase transparency.

It requires NYPD to create a new plan.

In response to questions about whether a new plan is needed, NYPD said, well, we could create infinite documents, which of course would necessitate infinite overtime pay.

The mental health continuum, which provides targeted mental health services for very high needs students, is at risk of expiring this month.

That program costs $5 million.

Six million dollars in funding for restorative justice is also on the chopping block.

Taxpayers pay hundreds of millions of dollars in police overtime every year.

Why are we continuing to sink public resources into duplicative and harmful work by NYPD instead of the services our children desperately need and which are actually proven to reduce bias and harm in schools?

This bill is wasteful at best, and we know it will be harmful in practice.

We oppose it in any form.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the testimony.

All right, next.

Uh we'll call the final panel.

Uh Chansey Young, Maria Batista, Sandra Mitchell, Aleika Daniels, and Gavin Henley.

And also if you haven't been called and you're here, you you wish to testify, please see the sergeant at arms.

And also, I know I called some individuals already, so it's possible that you might have stepped out.

If that is the case, also please see the sergeant at arms uh notify them.

So that we can call you next.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

You may uh begin when you're ready.

Good afternoon.

My name is Chauncey Young.

I'm a resident of the high bridge neighborhood of the Bronx and the director of the New Settlement Parent Action Committee.

PAC stands with coalition partners in strong opposition to the school buffer bill.

At a time when ICE activity and the federal government is repressing civil rights and increasingly making families feel unsafe.

City council seems determined at this moment to make these very same communities afraid to exercise their first amendment rights.

Schools are the center of our communities.

Young people, families, and educators have always centered schools to spark civic engagement.

We must remember that the largest civil rights demonstration in New York City history and in US history was the 1964 school boycott, where over 640 uh 64,000 students protested segregation, systematic inequity.

The council cannot point to a single incident of students being harassed outside of schools by protesters.

This bill does not respond to a real safety need.

Instead, it expands policing, restricts speech speech, and further criminalizes BIPOC and immigrant communities.

Current safety policies rely too heavily on punishment, disproportionately harming blacks and Latinx students.

Black students who make up just 20% of New York City schools' public students account for 45% of superintendent suspensions and 52% of school police interventions, with the Bronx council member seeing the highest rate of interventions.

Protect rights, amend the bill to enshrine the protections consistent with the 2024 uh NYPD protest settlement and First Amendment rights, divest from policing, freeze hiring of school police, um okay, fine.

Uh, all I'll say is that New York City must choose between investing in the criminalization of our communities and investing in programs that support them.

We urge the council to reject this bill in its current form, amend it, and create a true transparency bill and prioritize students and families' rights and well-being.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Maria Baltista.

I'm an organizer, a lifelong New Yorker, and I've been organizing for over 20 years.

I'm currently representing New Yorkers for racially just public schools, and I strongly stand against this bill.

I just got back from DC last night, fighting terrible budget cuts, fighting against pervasive underfunding of our schools, fighting against the attacks on children with special needs, and the lack of resources that they experience every single day, and the privatization of our public schools.

And I got up today and I questioned why Trump-like policies are being peddled here in New York City, and I question why you're smiling, Councilmember, and you've been doing that as people have been giving their testimony, and it's very disturbing.

I've organized countless rallies, protests at schools, and all of them have been directed at the failures of the city, the state, and the federal government.

And their failure to adequately provide educational opportunities.

Never once has it been documented that protesters have harassed or threatened protesters or threatened students at those schools.

Instead, they have used their voice to fight against systemic oppression and state-sanctioned violence.

This bill does not protect new yorkers, but will oppress them.

As we've seen across the country, as Trump has increased surveillance and policing, and as y'all are trying to push here in New York City and it's a shame.

What this bill does do is threaten our ability to freely speak out against the fascism we're experiencing at every level city state and federal hundreds of New Yorkers rose up beat backed 175B and instead of listening you fast tracked a similar version of this bill with the same outcomes we're asking the city council today to amend this bill and make it a true transparency bill by requiring the NYPD to publish and report on their current policies and procedures for responding to protests around schools the amended bill needs to enshrine um and protect the 2024 protest settlement and our first amendment rights thank you.

Good afternoon thank you my name is Gavin Healy I'm a member of the District 2 Community Education Council.

I'm speaking today just as a public school parent uh I strongly oppose this security perimeter bill I believe it could be weaponized against families coming to meetings like those of our community education councils held in school buildings families come to CEC meetings not for fun they come when they have a grievance when they're angry sometimes they bring signs they raise their voices sometimes they organize and come in a big group in a system of mayoral control families lack meaningful ways of expressing concerns about their schools nothing I've seen as a CEC member so far suggests to me that this vague bill would not be weaponized against those families in 2024 the district 2 CEC passed a resolution seeking to overturn guidelines allowing students to participate in sports in accordance with their gender identity I voted against that resolution and most of our city council spoke out against it recognizing it as an attack on the rights of transgender students.

Families protested at our meetings for more than a year we went from having half a dozen people attending to having several hundred some of our CEC members who supported that anti-trans resolution asked for more police presence in our meetings and outside using a specific word that's in this bill intimidation they said they felt intimidating intimidated by families coming to our meetings to call them out for marginalizing transgender students and they threatened those families with police removal I don't think it's your intention that this bill will be weaponized against those families but someday in the future it very well could be perhaps it will come after your terms have ended when you're not around to ensure accountability but we're living in a moment when any law that gives someone with power the ability to take away the rights of others is likely to be used for just that purpose.

Today you have power and I urge you to use it wisely to ensure that our families right to protest will not be taken from them thank you.

Thank you so much uh thank you for your testimony and also on briefly on the comments you know some people smile when they make eye contact with others just an actual thing I that's me for safety um all right so would anyone like would anyone like to would anyone who's here who hasn't testified like to testify if not we'll move on to the uh online testimony.

Okay sounds good all right so we'll now move on to the virtual panelists for virtual panelists once your name has been called the member of our staff will unmute you and the sergeant at arms will set the timer and give you the go ahead to begin please wait for the sergeant to announce that you may begin before delivering your testimony.

I'll now call our first virtual panelists.

Tazine Assad and then Christopher Leon Johnson.

Time starts now.

Hi everybody, my name is Tazin Azad, and I'm a public school parent and education advocate.

I want to begin by stating my opposition to the perimeter bill and encourage council sponsors to course correct and make this bill the transparency and data disclosure bill by the NYPD.

But I really want to emphasize the utter confusion forget on the part of the public even on the part of the NYPD in his inexperiencing in the in this experience in determining what the impact of this bill might be.

There seems to be a willful concerning misrepresentation of what the bill's language is and a negligent insertion of unfounded bill benefit analysis.

The NYPD says the bill doesn't change anything but also says they will for the first time and for this particular circumstance established and memorialize a plan.

That is an exception and therefore new NYPD says that they don't have an MY MOU with schools in regards to safety plans.

But NYC DOE Chancellor Regulation A414 establishes committees with school stakeholders including NYPD that collaboratively collaboratively develops plans.

This bill circumvents that and gives initial and primary deference to NYPD excluding all other community stakeholders.

We are hearing today from plenty of private parochial school communities that's important but I want to point out the lack of engagement from K-12 public school students and parents who arguably um this process is marginalizing and disenfranchising.

And I hope that the council is ready to bear the burden of this bill's impact that way.

Thank you so much for your testimony next we'll hear from Christopher Leon Johnson.

Time starts now yeah yeah hello my name is Christopher Leon Johnson I oppose this bill intro um 2052 the perimeter bill let's make this clear that these nonprofits that support these bills like the lady mentioned but I'll explain to her that all these nonprofits just care about is that net discretionary payout is security that a screenshot payout for FY27.

I wanna know why that the city council decide to have this thing on the ticker on the same day in the same time but right across the street from here where they have in the the budget hearing for public testimony.

Oh that's to make sure that the opposition doesn't come out to this hearing and have them wait and desperately speak for the public uh for testimony for course for finance because they know that the money is bad over there.

It just is a way to try to make sure that they don't repeat a 7569 like with last time early this year in um January but I want to say it right now this bill technically it just give another blank it gives a blank check to the NYPD to do what they want and put numbers for how many people how long we had to stay back from protesters events that that these that the city council might want to put their organizations into and everybody know and I'm gonna say this right now I hope that Madani uh vetoed this bill again like he did last time intro 175 um these nonprofits that support these bill all they care about is getting a paycheck that's all they care about it's not about safety it's not about protecting the rights of so-called um muslims and jews and stuff like that this is all about making making sure that these guys um don't get protested for the stuff that they really are doing um and destroying the city but uh i'll say this right now that i hope that our mayor momdani does re does a repeat like the last time we entered 175 and repeat and repeal this bill again just be all this bill and this bill dies again so uh i i'm opposed this bill this is a bad bill um you know i trust the state more than the city council because the city council is just giving plain checks at least the governor is writing a real check but that's all i gotta say but uh yeah but this is this is not a this is not a bad this is a bad idea uh for city council and i said uh i'll say that hope you missed the felice do a repeat of this uh hearing because um this is not right this is this should mean this should not been on the ticker the same day as the time expired.

Um finance thing.

So thank you and enjoy your day.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your testimony.

I'm also gonna call uh three individuals who signed up but uh we're in here when we call them amanda holland ashley davis Melody Jimenez.

Anyone who's here who signed up and hasn't been called yet all right so i think we've heard from everyone who signed up to testify.

If we inadvertently missed anyone who would like to testify in person please visit the sergeant's table and complete a witness slip now if we inadvertently missed anyone who would like to testify virtually please use the raise raised hand function in Zoom and a member of our staff will call you in the order of hands raised.

Seeing no one else I would like to note again that written testimony which will be reviewed in full by the committee staff may be submitted up to the record up to 72 hours after the close of this hearing by emailing testimony at counsel dot nyc.gov once again testimony at counsel dot nyc.gov thank you to everyone who joined today and who uh testify this hearing is hereby adjourned