Legislation on Towing, Ghost Plates, School Safety and NYPD Hiring

(00:00:13)

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 sergeants at arms, even if you signed up already online. At this time please silence all electronic devices and no one should approach the dais at any time. Chairs, we are

(00:00:48)

ready to begin. Thank you. Good morning everyone. I am CM Oswald Feliz, Chair of the Committee on Public Safety. Before I provide my opening statement I will pass it on to our Speaker Julie Menin for her opening statement.

(00:01:00)

Thank you so much, Chair. I want to welcome everyone to the Public Safety Committee hearing today. I am Julie Menin, Speaker of the New York City Council. It is wonderful to see everyone here today. I want to first of all begin by thanking our Chair of the Public Safety Committee, CM Feliz, for convening this important hearing today. We are hearing seven bills which Chair Feliz will shortly outline.

I wanted to speak specifically about one of the bills, Preconsidered Introduction T2026-2052, sponsored by CM Encarnación, in relation to a plan regarding security perimeters adjacent to educational facilities. As many of you know, the Council heard a different bill, Introduction 0175, related to this issue. 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 a bill with a strong majority of Council members in support. With that said, in the time since, the Council has taken dozens of meetings and received feedback from hundreds of New Yorkers. We have 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. 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. The bill requires communication between NYPD and schools and also between NYPD and those wishing to express their speech. 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 would also like to provide some examples to remind us, just as I did before, of why we are here today and what we are responding to, because unfortunately the need for this legislation has not decreased. In May 2026 there was an out-of-control situation outside a synagogue. Many know about this. That 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 Queens playground right next to a daycare and synagogue. In January 2026 swastikas were also found at a Brooklyn playground, specifically 73 swastikas. In March 2024 swastikas were drawn on desks and bulletin boards at Origins High School. In May 2024 antisemitic graffiti was found at PS 197 in Brooklyn. In November 2023, shortly after the horrific October 7th attacks, a rally gathering at Hillcrest High School over a teacher's support for Israel led to that teacher hiding in a classroom until the group disbanded. We also heard 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 wish this was an entire list of examples we can pull from but in reality children in New York City and around the country are becoming far too accustomed to hatred, to intimidation and to interference with their educations. We will not tolerate this becoming the new normal.

I also want to repeat what I closed with before, 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.

We are doing everything we can to move towards a New York without hate. When 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.

(00:06:38)

Good morning everyone again. I am CM Oswald Feliz. I want to welcome members of the Police Department, including Michael Gerber, the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, and also Chief of Transportation Olanrewaju Olabisi. 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 Int 0489-2026, sponsored by CM 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 tow operators or other entities, to help 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 Int 0551-2026, sponsored by myself, which will require the NYPD to maintain sufficient total pound capacity to meet its enforcement needs and provide annual reporting on tow pound capacity. Over the past several years concerns have been raised regarding the City's ability to tow vehicles, and especially ghost cars, specifically those with fraudulent paper plates. NYPD officials have previously testified that limited storage capacity can hinder enforcement efforts. Cars cannot be towed if there is 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 tow 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 Int 0552-2026, sponsored by myself, which would prohibit the sale and distribution of fraudulent paper plates, including not just paper plates but all types of 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 cars dangerously 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

(00:09:10)

these violations. The Committee will also hear Int 0843-2026, sponsored by CM Stevens, which would establish a school emergency alert system. This legislation would require the City to develop an identification 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 Int 0913-2026, sponsored by CM Farías, 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 is T2026-2052, sponsored by CM Encarnación, which would 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 would 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 have had far too many incidents that we cannot normalize. Finally, the Committee will hear T2026-2058, 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 these 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 sponsors of these bills for remarks and I want to thank everyone who has joined today. I will start with CM Encarnación for her opening statement.

(00:11:47)

Thank you, Chair. Good morning. I am CM Encarnación and I want to begin by thanking the Speaker and Chair Feliz for holding today's important hearing. I am proud to sponsor one of the pieces of legislation being heard at today's hearing, Preconsidered Introduction T2026-2052, in relation to 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.

I want to be incredibly clear about what this bill does and does not do. 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 and certain elementary, middle and junior high schools. 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 is it. Every New Yorker 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. 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.

(00:14:17)

Thank you, CM Encarnación. Next we will hear from CM Farías.

(00:14:23)

Good morning. Thank you, Chair Feliz and members of the Committee on Public Safety. I am CM Amanda Farías and I am proud to be the prime sponsor of Int 0913-2026 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 even be 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.

Int 0913-2026 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. This 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, more prepared and more committed to the responsibilities of the role. By raising the maximum age, Int 0913-2026 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

(00:17:19)

realistic way. I want to thank the administration, Commissioner Jessica Tish, for her support of this piece of legislation, her team and the Police Benevolent Association's 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.

(00:17:40)

Thank you so much, CM Farías. Next we will hear from CM Vernikov. Good morning. Thank you, Chair, and members of the Public Safety Committee. I am 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 staff. Our staffer, when he parked his car, went to run an errand and could not locate it for hours as it had been towed. He had no idea where to turn. Neither the NYPD nor 311 had any information on where it was. 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 has been towed. Your car disappearing from the street can be a very confusing and stressful event. You could be towed by the NYPD, marshal, sheriff or by a private company, or possibly by the Port Authority if it is at a local airport.

The costs of towing are high and they are higher each day you do not come pick up your car. But you cannot pick up your car if you cannot 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. The creation of a publicly accessible database of 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.

(00:19:36)

We are experiencing some technological difficulties, so we are going to pause for a quick minute. Thank you. All right, we are back on. I just want to echo the words of CM Vernikov. I had a very similar scenario. I parked my car across the street from where I live and the next day it literally disappeared, and I had to walk around my neighborhood to find it.

To this date I do not know why it was moved, when it was moved, or how it was moved. Obviously this is something that we hear a lot from New Yorkers. So again I want to thank you all for being here. Good to see you all. Just two weeks... I want to recognize members who have joined us today, including Council Members Encarnación, Banks, Hanks, Vernikov and also CM Wong. I will pass it on to the committee counsel for some procedural items.

Hey folks, can we just swear you all in? Just raise your right hand and affirm that you will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and answer honestly to Council member questions. I do. Seeing that you do, you can go ahead and testify. Thank you.

(00:21:04)

Good morning, Chair Feliz and members of the Council. My name is Michael Gerber and I am the Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters for the NYPD. I am joined here today by Tivoly Lola on behalf of Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch. We thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding the seven bills being heard today.

CM Encarnación'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 25 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 a 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, 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.

CM Feliz's preconsidered Bill would mandate that the NYPD report on firearms discharges. 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 with the Council to address these concerns.

Int 0489 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 towing information easily accessible to vehicle owners and we welcome the chance to work with the Council to think about the ways in 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.

Int 0551 would impose a civil penalty on a person who sells or distributes fraudulent license plates. We have no objection to this Bill. The NYPD needs to operate pound facilities 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.

Int 0843 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

(00:26:03)

Department in conjunction with the Department of Education. Int 0913 would raise the maximum age at which an individual can apply to be a police officer from under 40, 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 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 have.

(00:26:50)

Thank you so much again for being here. Thank you for your testimony. So we have a lot of bills that we are hearing today. I will start with questions related to the tow capacity bill. As we know, we have had a lot of conversations about this issue. I know about two years ago, during COVID, in my opinion at the height of the ghost car epidemic, we heard the NYPD testify and basically say that there was not enough space to be able to tow vehicles and properly enforce the law. Is this still the case, or do we have enough capacity to be able to quickly tow ghost vehicles if there is one?

(00:27:30)

Good morning, CM Feliz. I just want to again note that we met with you two weeks ago as it pertains to ghost car operations. I testified then that it is a multi-agency effort with other law enforcement partners for those operations. We do not have any concern about storage because we have ample space. So totally separate from what is happening on the streets — what you just mentioned about your car getting towed — when it comes to ghost car operations, the multi-agency operations that we have across bridges and tunnels, that is where we store the vehicles, so no issues there.

Talk to us about those agencies and partners. Who are those partners? So that is the New York State Police and the Port Authority Police Department. We typically have an operation — naturally not now because there is 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 borough? Also talk to us about the usage. Is that at full capacity?

(00:28:51)

Yes. So we have three tow pounds citywide. Commissioner Gerber mentioned the loss of the Manhattan tow pound in January 2021, so we are down to three: the Bronx tow pound, the Brooklyn tow pound in Brooklyn and the Queens tow pound in Flushing, Queens. As it pertains to tow capacity as of May 31, the authorized capacity for the Bronx is 350 regular vehicles plus 28 heavy duty trucks. The current inventory is 414 regular vehicles and 23 heavy duty, so nothing crazy — maybe just over capacity. The Brooklyn tow pound is 392 regular vehicles plus 15 heavy duty. Current inventory is 852 regular plus 24 heavy duty. I must say of the 852, we store motorcycles and mopeds, so of the 852, 443 are motorcycles and mopeds.

(00:29:54)

So just to put that down...

(00:29:57)

A different note. Our Queens tow pound: 250 regular vehicles and 12 heavy duty. Our current inventory is down a little — 196 regular and 23 heavy duty. Again, Queens is our bread and butter as we have heard through multiple Council hearings, so they have a high capacity for heavy duty tow trucks. So that is where we are as it pertains to tow capacity. So just to summarize the question about tow pound capacity, how many spaces would you say are currently available under NYPD total

(00:30:33)

pound?

(00:30:33)

Facilities. So those are the spaces that we have available. Again, in the Bronx it is 350. A tow pound — I think a lot of people think of it like a parking garage where everything is nicely lined out and all that. It is a pound. We put the vehicles in as much as we possibly can. Again, I do not think there was super overcapacity. Like I mentioned, in the Bronx 350, we are at 414. There is something called redemption, so when it comes to space, 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 we have had about 21,000 plus vehicles towed. We have only 767 that are unclaimed, so that space is released very quickly. Having vehicles just sit there in place when it is 30, 90 days and all that, then we have to work with DOF and work towards auction. But for the most part space is released very quickly and vehicles are released — the owners pick up the vehicles very quickly. So I do not know that the capacity is so outrageous. I think it is just about where we should be.

(00:31:50)

Right. So 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?

(00:32:02)

Okay, so I cannot tell you what is currently open. I can tell you what we have right now as of May 31 — that was the last date I had — 414 vehicles in that particular spot in the Bronx, and then we have 23 heavy duty tows. Any changes? We have, on average for the Bronx tow pound in all of 2026, we average about 250 to 285, and then 22 heavy duty. In all of 2025, again the Bronx: 418. Again, that is including mopeds and motorcycles. On average, three mopeds and motorcycles occupy a space for one vehicle. But I just want you to know that this is quick. Their vehicles — there is a process in place to get the cars out very, very quickly. Again, 21,000 tows in 2026 and really we have only about 700 left, so it is not a problem of space. That space is created very quickly and we get rid of the cars very quickly.

(00:32:58)

Yeah, and that is my next question. How quickly does the average vehicle owner recover

(00:33:05)

their vehicle? Within a day or two, for the most part, people will pick up their vehicles. In 2026 we generally have vehicles auctioned because they are just not recovered.

(00:33:21)

I can tell you what we have — vehicles that are not claimed. I would say less than 3% in a year.

(00:33:27)

Sorry, can you repeat that again?

(00:33:29)

About 3%. It is very low. People come very quickly to pick up their cars and they free up space.

(00:33:37)

Okay. Talk to us about the process for reporting ghost cars and then getting the NYPD to respond. I am sure 311 is one potential system. So with ghost cars, I talked about the multi-agency effort. I think I provided the same stats from the last meeting. Again, that is with our law enforcement partners. In all of 2026 we have had 21 joint operations, 219 arrests, 3,044 summonses and 1,320 vehicles seized. Again, this is across bridges and tunnels. Like I mentioned, no issue with space here because our partners provide the space, so no issues here.

In 2025, all of 2025: 53 joint operations, 809 arrests, 34,077 summonses, 2,933 vehicles seized. On the local level, as it pertains to ghost car operations, there are parking summonses. We have written, in all of 2026 year to date as of May 31, 104,000 summonses, mostly for obstructed plates. This is written by our traffic agents in all of 2026. In 2025 we wrote 247,000 summonses for obstructed plates.

Talk to us though about the process for reporting a ghost vehicle. I am sure calling 311 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 am sure that the DMV also plays a role, for example.

(00:35:34)

I cannot speak to the DMV. I think they really deal with derelict vehicles. But for us, mostly like you mentioned, 311 can receive complaints and will respond to the location. If there is an obstructed plate, we will write a

(00:35:50)

summons.

(00:35:51)

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

(00:35:57)

complaints? I cannot tell you exactly how quickly, but if it is a community complaint we will respond very quickly. I get emails, I get calls. We speak to our operators when they also get out in the community. Are they able to see these vehicles and also write summonses? We also have a lot of officers on foot, so when they see an obstructed plate they will write a summons. So I cannot speak to time, but it is something that we see and we address very quickly.

(00:36:26)

Okay, good. So I will move on to the preconsidered introduction T2026-2058, the shots fired Bill. My understanding is that currently the NYPD provides data related to shooting victims. I and many others were under the impression that shooting incidents included incidents when no one was struck, but it seems like the shooting incidents data only includes when someone is hit by gunfire.

So a few questions on that. I know there are a lot of challenges with that topic for various reasons. But my question is: does the NYPD keep track of confirmed shooting incidents? Again, I know there are a lot of challenges and not everything is confirmed, but at least the confirmed incidents — does the NYPD keep track of that internally? Okay.

(00:37:32)

The data in a systematic way. In other words, there is certain data that we have and we track internally on a variety of things. For confirmed shots fired, I would definitely not say that it is part of the CompStat book. It is not something where we are analyzing that in terms of crime trends. I do want to acknowledge that we certainly do — and I can talk more about this — have information about certain shots fired incidents, confirmed shots fired incidents. There are certainly times when, if the department is aware, for example, of a spike in confirmed shots fired incidents in a particular location, that will affect deployment. So it is not something that we have no awareness of. It is not that we do not think about it. We do have some quantum of data about it and it is something we certainly consider when it comes to deployment. However, we do not internally or for the public at this time have a systematic way of reporting it that we would be comfortable using internally or externally.

So ShotSpotter 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 of gunfire detected by ShotSpotter? So if we get a ShotSpotter alert, operations will put that over the radio. An ICAD will be generated for every ShotSpotter alert and patrol officers will respond to the scene. You can imagine an incredibly wide range of circumstances that officers encounter in response to a ShotSpotter alert. You can imagine situations where there is a tremendous amount of evidence that a shooting just happened — multiple witnesses, ballistics, video evidence. You can imagine situations sometimes when it is actually quite clear that there was not a shooting. Officers arrive at the scene and multiple witnesses say, "Oh, a tire just went out, it was a very large bang, we saw it happen." That happens. So that is pretty clear what happened there.

Sometimes the officers respond to the scene and at least initially they really just do not know. You can imagine a ShotSpotter alert comes in, officers respond to the scene and there is nothing there — no people, no ballistics — and the question is what happened. Officers patrol the scene to try to figure out what happened. If it is really just up in the air, the complaint will be left open for the detective squad to investigate. A detective will do an investigation to the best of their ability to try to figure out if in fact there was a confirmed firearms discharge or if it cannot be confirmed.

(00:40:46)

Talk to us about the data that the NYPD keeps related to shots fired incidents. You said you keep some data internally. Talk to us about

(00:40:54)

So here is what I am saying. We do not have some internal system of, okay, like on any timeframe or by sort of borough or precinct, the number of confirmed shots fired. We just do not track the data that way because, as I said, we do not really have that system in place at present. We do however, on a 61 — right, on a complaint — you have a box for a firearm discharge, confirmed or not confirmed. Now it is not a mandatory field, and making that a mandatory field and when that would be mandatory is actually complicated. But there certainly are times when you have a ShotSpotter alert, officers responded at the scene, there is lots of evidence that there was in fact a firearms discharge, and they will check the confirmed box right on the complaint. We have that data. That is information that we have.

So on the enforcement side, if the department sees that in a particular command, a particular zone, a particular block, there have been a number of these confirmed shots fired, that is going to affect deployment, or certainly potentially affect deployment, for pretty obvious reasons. But we do not have, again, the internal systems in place such that we would be comfortable even internally saying here is the data for the department in terms of the universe of confirmed shots fired.

(00:42:39)

Okay, so in other words we have the data but we just do not have it organized in a database. So it is a...

(00:42:44)

It is more than that, if I could just explain what is complicated about this. So again, this is doable — I want to be clear, this is doable, as I said in my testimony, and we are prepared to do it. I think about that timeframe for getting this done.

So certain types of data — you are talking about a subset of one particular crime. Imagine you were interested in gathering additional data about certain types of burglaries. That is actually much easier to do. You just say, okay, a burglary complaint is going to have a mandatory field on the complaint where, whatever data we are 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 is one type of crime.

What makes this more challenging is that shots fired covers an incredibly wide range of possible criminal activity — an incredibly wide range, ranging from murder to property damage in a storefront, to actually not being 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 many of those crime categories you do not necessarily have a shots fired component. Just to give an example, you could have a robbery where there is a confirmed shots fired. It is also the case though that in many robberies there is no firearm, there is no question about that. So in order to do this in a systematic way, 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, and then in that range of criminal activity require officers to say on the checkbox...

(00:44:50)

...confirmed shots fired. We have to think carefully about how we are going to do this, because if we are mandating it we are going to be mandating it in many situations where there is no firearm at all. Obviously, right — it was a robbery, it involved a knife, there was no gun. So that is just, again, this is all totally doable but it is more complicated than just saying, oh, just put a checkbox on a complaint.

(00:45:15)

Okay, thank you for the information. We look forward to working together on that Bill and the rest of the Bills on the agenda. So I will pause here and pass it on to CM Hanks for some questions.

(00:45:25)

Thank you very much, good morning, how are you? I am going to go back to the towing. So you know the Q teams that have been launched in numerous neighborhoods have been incredibly effective. My community boards and my civic associations — we tell them to call 311. When it comes to getting cars, ghost cars, or towing off the streets, that 311 Q team aspect works incredibly well, so I just wanted to say that.

So on all of the Bills here, how are we communicating this to the civic associations? Because you know, as an elected, I get information from community groups that gather together to address quality of life issues. Is that set up so that we can call on your community affairs division to 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, shots fired would be great because of our Cure Violence work. We would want to know how we are integrating our violence interrupters in that situation where, you know, we know that Stapleton has a lot of shots fired — how are we deploying resources to help you and to help the community?

So a lot of this — my question is, how are we engaging the public on the programs and the things that the NYPD is doing, so we can better inform our civic associations, our community groups, our Cure Violence groups, and so on? That is all. Thanks.

(00:47:20)

So turning to towing — Int 0489-2026, I know we touched on that a little. Concerns about towing, and I will get to how to search for a vehicle and all of that when your vehicle has been towed. So the Bill itself, as written, calls for the NYPD to create a centralized online database accessible through the department's website. As Commissioner Gerber testified, we already have that. It is called CSTOPS, and CSTOPS stands for City Towing Operations System. So we do have a system where we maintain all information about towed vehicles citywide.

There is another point speaking to duplication — under 311, there is NYC Serve. So everything that is in our CSTOPS database is in NYC Serve. So think big picture: City, and then CSTOPS with NYPD. Everything we have in our database as it pertains to towed vehicles is in NYC Serve. So you can go into NYC Serve — this is for towed vehicles — and again, I will speak to the different things you touched on, but for towing, I would certainly be happy to walk you through going into NYC Serve under 311.

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. This particular vehicle we have was towed. It gives you the date, it gives you the location, and it also states, when you look at the report, violations shown on the information as well as NYC Serve. It also gives you a list of the violations, again violation tow — we towed because it gives you the tow details, vehicle details, redemption information, pound location. I think that is very important — you should know where your vehicle was towed to. It gives you an idea of the fees. All of that is in NYC Serve.

(00:49:28)

So that is what we have on the NYPD side, and I cannot speak to private tow companies as to whether their information is in NYC Serve. But for what we have, which is violation tows by the NYPD, that is in CSTOPS, and everything that is in CSTOPS is in NYC Serve. So when the Q teams are contacted through 311, we are using your system, not a private system?

(00:49:54)

Oh no, we are using our system.

(00:49:56)

That is all I was asking. We want to make sure that information is available to the public so they can look and see, because it has 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 has just been working great.

(00:50:16)

Yeah, so as Chief O'Brien said, any car that we are towing — that NYPD tow — that is going to go into CSTOPS and then it is going to go into the 311 system.

(00:50:30)

There is a separate issue in terms of the private tows, repo tows, that sort of stuff, and that obviously comes up and that is relevant for New Yorkers. That is not presently in the 311 system. The point we were making before is that we totally understand the idea that if someone's car is missing and they are wondering whether it was towed, they frankly at that moment do not care whether it was towed by the NYPD or a private tow company. They want to know where their car is and they need to have a means of figuring that out, and we get that. But I think our point is we already have a pre-existing database through 311, and the question for the Council is how should that be expanded, or what do you want to do with that in terms of the scope of what is in there. We do not think it is a good idea...

(00:51:31)

...to have two competing systems.

(00:51:33)

Right, there should be one place where the vehicle owner can go, not two. Thank you.

(00:51:40)

Thank you, CM.

(00:51:43)

A few questions on that topic. So the database only includes cars towed by the NYPD? No, it is a little more than that. So as I understand the 311 system, what that is going to include is Sheriff tows, it will include City Marshal tows, and it will include NYPD violation tows. If the NYPD towed a car because of some parking violation, it would be included. It would not include private tows. It would not include NYPD evidence tows, for example. So if we were executing a search warrant on a car and seizing a car in connection with some criminal investigation — that is not being towed because of a parking violation, it is because we have a search warrant for the car and we are doing forensics on the car — that would not be in CSTOPS and would therefore not be in the 311 system. And how quickly is that system generally updated? So a car is towed at nine in the morning — generally how quickly is that information...

(00:52:57)

...entered into the system so that people know where their car is? It is pretty quick.

(00:53:04)

Again, to one of the pounds that we have, I would like to say at least within two hours. So safe to say that the NYPD generally keeps track of cars that are towed by the City?

(00:53:20)

Sheriff? No. Okay, so okay, the 311...

(00:53:27)

...system is getting that data on Sheriff and Marshal stuff separately. That is not coming through...

(00:53:34)

...us. How do they get that data? I am not even sure, quite frankly. I do not know about that.

(00:53:38)

Our system, CSTOPS, that tracks the violation tows by the NYPD, feeds into that 311 system.

(00:53:45)

Right, so if it is going into CSTOPS through the NYPD then it is going to go into the 311 system. So NYPD violation tows — that is what is in CSTOPS, that is what goes into the 311 system. Information that we get about other tows...

(00:54:01)

...that we do, for example like for evidence — that is not going to go into CSTOPS. That goes into a separate system. And then to the extent that, for example, in our repo tow system — it is a private tow, but we call the towing company, right — the data is coming in to us but it is not going into CSTOPS. Private tow operators, for example, are required to call the NYPD to say hey, we towed a car, here is the information. That comes in but it is not coming into that system, because that system is for our own tows. So in other words, we have a system but it does not include all the cars that are towed, including by some other players. Correct, correct, that is right.

(00:54:57)

Would the NYPD support this Bill if it simply requires that the private operators report to the NYPD and then the NYPD relays that information?

(00:55:06)

So what we would suggest — to keep it both simple and actually more manageable for everyone involved — you already have an online database, usable and accessible with lots of information. Rather than having a private tow operator...

(00:55:25)

...call into the NYPD, have the NYPD put information in, then have that go over to...

(00:55:31)

...311, if you just go from the private tow operator straight to 311 you do not need us for this. Okay. And what are the different circumstances that can lead to the towing of a vehicle? You know, as you said, the evidence-based towing. Yeah. Well, also one category that we are not talking that much about is when a vehicle is towed — I do not even know if this counts as a towing — when a vehicle is basically moved because there is a community event and the streets are being closed. So yeah, a relocation.

(00:56:02)

Yeah, yeah. So go ahead — is that considered to be a towing under the definition that you...

(00:56:08)

...saw? That information is in CSTOPS. We put boot tow — like for parades — and that is one of our tow types, so it is in CSTOPS. Yes. Okay.

(00:56:15)

All right, so I will pass it on to CM Farías for her questions. Thank you, Chair. I am going to switch gears a little bit from towing to my Bill, Int 0913-2026. I 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.

(00:56:35)

Right, so again, I just want to start by saying thank you again for the introduction. So there is — we do have some data on people who applied, as you alluded to in your opening remarks. There are people who applied and were being considered to be police officers but then, because of the age limit, could not proceed. Now that number has not been huge. I would say, and this is very rough, around 80 per year over the last few years. Of course those numbers add up, but the real point of course is that...

(00:57:19)

...we do not even know how many people did not apply at all because they knew about the age limit. That is really the open question in this. It is one of those things where it is a little hard to know what the numbers will be like until we actually...

(00:57:33)

...try. And has the department...

(00:57:35)

...conducted any analysis on that at all, looking at potential applicants? Not that I am aware of. I do not think so. What about...

(00:57:43)

...people currently in the Police Academy that could potentially become eligible if we move the age limit back? We would not have someone in the Academy now who would otherwise be ineligible. But I guess I want to come back to the point that you were making earlier — part of this is, yes, it increases the applicant pool, for pretty obvious reasons. But it also has this point about people who bring to the job life experience, which is a great thing. It is a really great thing. A universe of people who hypothetically want to be police officers, who have life experience and additional maturity — that is just a great contribution to the department and the City.

(00:58:38)

Yeah, I agree. You know, this Bill actually came into fruition last year for me through conversations at my precinct council meetings, and it just so happened that we were all talking about it in silos and came together in this way. Even more recently, with the Bronx split announcement, we had several state elected officials and Council member colleagues who were concerned about the newest class going into the busiest precincts. I feel that in this position, with this Bill, we are able to maybe even that out with new folks coming in who are maybe more experienced and from different careers, whether that is in the military or in a different City agency prior.

So I appreciate that. In terms of any operational or fiscal concerns with recruiting towards this group of folks — from the department's perspective? No, no. For us this will be a great benefit. As you know, this Bill for us is really only upside. 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?

(00:59:59)

At all? It has, yes. Okay, got it.

(01:00:03)

Those are all my questions. Thank you so much. We will continue the conversation today and get some great insights. Thank you, Chair, for the time.

(01:00:13)

Thank you, thank you so much. We look forward to working together on that Bill. All the Bills pending before this committee today — so a few questions. I want to move on to Preconsidered Introduction T2026-2052 by CM Encarnación, which would require that a plan be created to address and contain the risk of physical obstruction, injury or intimidation at educational facilities through the use of security perimeters at entrances and exits from public schools — elementary, middle and high schools. You said it perfectly, and also the Speaker during the testimony: people should be able to enter our educational facilities safely without intimidation or fear of harm.

So a few questions on that. Does the department currently have any written guidance governing the establishment of security perimeters around schools during demonstrations specifically?

(01:01:08)

No. So if I understand the question — if you are saying do we have some particular policy regarding...

(01:01:18)

Use the phrase "frozen zones." I mean, so do we have some policy about frozen zones around schools in particular? We have had, and I think we were very clear with executives in the department about how we think about zones consistent with the law. It comes up at places of worship, weapons, schools. It has come up at a hospital or a courthouse. They come up in various situations and we have done repeated trainings for executives to go over what the expectations are and the legal framework. I do think there is clarity among executives about both the law in this area and the expectations from the department. What factors is the NYPD currently considering when determining whether a security...

(01:02:08)

...perimeter or frozen zone is necessary?

(01:02:11)

Right. So the key is to consider all relevant factors. I mean, it is incredibly context specific. Under the First Amendment, these are called 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 among other things, you are thinking about — we are thinking about the nature of the protest. Let us say outside a school: the size of the anticipated protest, the layout of the location, other sensitive locations nearby, time of day. Is this a time of day when we are anticipating students coming in and out of the school? How many students are coming out? Are there other protests in the area? Those are just some examples of considerations. It is 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 zones stretched? A hundred feet? So we never do it that way. We do not think about it in terms of feet.

(01:03:47)

And I think that is actually really important. I know sometimes the discussion is in terms of feet. I think that is really not how we do it and I think it is important not to do it that way. What I mean is, what we are thinking about when we do a frozen zone: yes, we need to make sure people can get in and out safely and securely without obstruction. We need to make sure that protesters can protest consistent with the First Amendment and have sight and sound to the location. We are balancing — it is not a trade-off, we are doing both of those things. If we are doing a frozen zone and designating protest areas, we are doing a configuration that accomplishes those goals. Whatever the number of feet happens to be is sort of a byproduct or an outcome of that analysis. It is also not going to be some fixed number of feet or some radius around the location. That would not tell us anything at all. It is: here is where people are coming in, here is where people are going out, where are the protesters going to be, given that they have sight and sound, what is the path in and what is the path out. We are not standing there with a measuring tape figuring out how many feet that is.

(01:05:15)

Now, certainly I understand that 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 sidewalk clear so people can easily enter and do not have to cross through protesters into the street to enter directly into the school. You might need a larger...

(01:05:41)

But if you were to give us a ballpark — how far can they stretch based on what you have seen? I know this is not... I really do not know and I do not want to guess and be wrong. But again, I think if you look at how we do these on the ground, I think we are really careful about making sure that protesters have sight and sound to the entrance. I think we do that in a reasonable and fair way consistent with the law. To be clear, I do not want to guess wrong about the number of feet, but one thing we have emphasized: we do not want...

(01:06:29)

The last thing we want is some incident commander thinking, "Oh, there is some fixed number of feet that matters here." That is not the analysis. So talk to us about the analysis — what are the factors that you consider when determining how large the safe zone should be? I am sure the school entrance is one of them.

(01:06:48)

Yeah. So again, it is the totality of the circumstances — in some ways a very pragmatic sort of analysis. The key legal framework here is that this determination has to be content and viewpoint neutral. It cannot turn on the substance of the protest. That would violate the First Amendment. So it is content and viewpoint neutral. There has to be ample alternative means of protesters getting their message across — that sight and sound piece. They want to protest at this location and they are going to have a means of being heard by the people who are going to that location. It cannot burden substantially more than is necessary in order to achieve the goal of preventing obstruction and the like. So that reasonable test is built in.

Now within that legal framework, you are looking at everything. Are we talking about five protesters or fifty or five thousand? Are we talking about dismissal time at the school or is it a weekend and there is no one in the school? What is the layout of the block? Are there other sensitive locations on the block? We cannot put protesters in a location where they are going to create a problem for some other school or house of worship. So it really is... and we are thinking about other events nearby. Obviously it matters whether it is going to be a stationary protest or whether they are moving around.

And I would add: I think one important thing to emphasize in this context is that we make every effort to speak with both the leaders of the institution where this is happening and to speak with protest leaders. There are times — and no one has to talk to us — when 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...

(01:09:06)

...very helpful in this regard. There are times when protest leaders will not communicate with us. Now that is their right, but you can see where that makes things much more challenging 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 protest activity?

(01:09:31)

Yeah. So I am not aware of a situation in which that happened in recent memory. I am not saying it has not happened — I am unaware of it. There certainly could be more experienced intimidation even if we do not get to the physical safety situation. In terms of the last few years, we have not seen — again, just in my memory and my experience — we have not seen a rash of incidents where you had protesters targeting elementary schools or high schools. I am not aware of that. I think it has happened, but that is not a trend that we have seen.

Now there was a time a few years ago — obviously as you are aware, in 2024 — we had a lot of protest activity on university campuses and outside of university campuses. That was of course a major issue and we did have situations in which we had a lot of protests outside university campuses. The question was: we need to make sure that whatever else was happening, because this is what the First Amendment requires, people could access the university campus. That was a very live issue particularly in 2024. But in terms of targeting of elementary schools, middle schools or even high schools — that is not really something that we have been seeing.

(01:11:04)

And final question, and then we will move on to CM Wong. So as we know, and as you stated, we have a lot of interests at stake — the interest of keeping people safe but of course also protecting the fundamental First Amendment rights of protesters. So what safeguards exist to ensure that security perimeters are not used to unnecessarily restrict lawful protest activity?

(01:11:30)

Right. So a few things. One: in these situations the incident commander is consulting with an attorney from the legal bureau. That happens all the time. And again, I think the uniformed executives and former executives understand the depth of experience with these issues. But in any event, they are talking to a lawyer who is...

(01:11:58)

...approaching this from a First Amendment perspective. That is very important. And then, if we are doing a frozen zone, that also means we are doing one or more designated protest areas with sight and sound. That is going to happen every time. You are not going to have a situation in which we do a frozen zone and there is no designated area with sight and sound for protesters.

A few things: one, protesters are not required to go into that designated protest area. Sometimes protesters do not want to go there. That is their right of course, but it has to be available to them.

I also want to emphasize that everything I am talking about is much easier to do when we know about the protests in advance and we can plan and set things up. Sometimes — not often, but sometimes — there is a protest that we did not know about in advance and officers are responding in real time. Everything that I have been describing we will still try our very best to do, consistent with the law, because it is about making sure that people can get in and out safely and all of that. 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. And again, that does not change the legal analysis or the operational analysis. It just obviously gets more complicated when we have not had the opportunity to plan in advance.

(01:13:34)

Thank you for the information. One very final question before we move on to CM Wong — somewhat unrelated but still in the context of security perimeters. Approximately how many police officers did we have — was that yesterday or the day before — when Donald Trump came to Madison Square Garden? We had security perimeters, frozen zones and a lot of different security things going on. I do not have that number for you, but we can certainly get it. Okay, thank you. All right, so next we will move on. CM Wong briefly stepped out, so we will move on to CM Gutiérrez. Thank you.

(01:14:16)

So much, Chair. Good to see everyone. I wanted to start off with asking questions around Int 0552-2026 — I think the Bill that the Chair had a line of questioning for. So I am encouraged to hear what you shared about specifically protests around the areas of educational facilities, particularly K through five, middle school and high school. I do have concerns — I had concerns about the last Bill with a similar framework — and there are advocates here today that I think will testify and you will hear from. But under what scenario would passing this legislation create preventative measures for schools? Because sometimes what I hear from people that do not want to support this Bill is, "We do want to keep everyone safe, we want to prevent everything." And I think there are two different things: there is people protesting, which is one thing which I think we have to protect, and then there is an issue of just safety. So in your experience...

(01:15:25)

What would passing this Bill do for the safety of young people, for students and for staff? What we do — it is about transparency, as the speaker said at the outset. So it is to describe the considerations that go into the analysis, how we do this, some of what I have been talking about with Chair Feliz. So it is putting that on paper. It is not giving us more power or less power. It is not directing us to do anything differently. But the Bill says: NYPD, describe in words how you do this. I mean, that is essentially what the Bill does. So I do not see this Bill changing in any way the content, the substance or the way that you have to show up.

(01:16:24)

Right. It does not change any of that. But it provides a document that describes what we are already doing and articulates it — puts it on paper. Do you think it creates different scenarios where we are interacting with students and young people more?

(01:16:44)

No. I mean, the communication piece of this — and again this is not particular to schools — in any protest situation we are going to try to speak with protest leaders. And again, they can talk to us or they cannot talk to us. It is up to...

(01:16:58)

...them. Wait, I am sorry — I am sorry to interrupt. Are there instances where you can remember there being protests... are there instances where...

(01:17:04)

...they are coordinated with PD?

(01:17:06)

Well, there are lots of situations in which the local precinct is in the know. If there is a protest, it happens all the time. Okay, great. But not always, right?

(01:17:17)

I am just concerned that we are not solving for something with this Bill. It is...

(01:17:22)

...unclear. And I think for me, in my community, I hesitate tremendously at creating or empowering more interactions between young people, your students, when I think that we should be doing more to invest in restorative justice and mitigation efforts. And this is coming from young people. So I understand what you are saying, which is that this Bill is not going to change anything. But I think that the whole theater of us wanting to pass this legislation does create vulnerability for people, because I think in one way or another they will be even more empowered. So I guess I just wanted to have a sense of comfort if that was the case, but I am not necessarily hearing that.

(01:18:08)

Well, again, I do not see this as empowering us in any way. Again, this does not change what we do.

(01:18:15)

You are saying that it is not changing anything you are doing. Correct — it is just putting it on paper. Correct. Okay.

(01:18:21)

Right. Well, hopefully you 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...

(01:18:24)

...sorry, am I over time, Chair? You said something. I am sorry, I just have one more question I wanted to ask about. I kind of walked in on a conversation — I think the Chair was asking you about the gunfire bill, the ShotSpotter bill. So I am familiar with ShotSpotter. As you know, you came to my hearings when I was Tech Chair. I have deep concerns about the efficacy of ShotSpotter. We have seen nationwide it is not really reliable necessarily. But what can you tell me about the future of the contract with ShotSpotter in the City?

(01:19:02)

We have a contract with ShotSpotter.

(01:19:04)

Until when? Do you know until when? I have that for you...

(01:19:07)

...actually, just one moment.

(01:19:09)

I feel like there was some reporting of about 85 percent or so of the time it being a false signal. Yeah, they could tell you it is not accurate.

(01:19:21)

Right. All right, so we have all kinds of noises.

(01:19:24)

Sorry. Our present contract with ShotSpotter runs through the end of 2027. Okay.

(01:19:35)

And I get it — this is one of the issues that I, along with advocates, have: it captures all sorts of sounds, like a car backfiring or fireworks, and every one of those incidents prompts a response because you do not know what is really gunfire versus a firework, for example.

(01:19:53)

Patrol will certainly respond to any ShotSpotter alert. Okay. And do you have a...

(01:19:58)

...percentage of those instances when it can be verified that it was a gun that...

(01:20:03)

...was captured? I do not have that now.

(01:20:05)

But you could have it — you just do not have it...

(01:20:07)

...today. Well, actually, it sort of goes to the point we were talking about earlier. We do not at present have a systematic tracking system for confirmed shots fired. It is not that we just do not have it here today — there is no way of verifying. So we were actually talking about this before: on a 61 there is a box for firearms discharged, confirmed or not confirmed. It is not mandatory...

(01:20:40)

...you can finalize the complaint without checking yes or no. And so there certainly are situations one hundred percent where there is a ShotSpotter alert...

(01:20:54)

...confirmed as yes, there was a firearms discharge — lots of evidence of that, shell casings on the ground, witnesses, all of those things. That definitely happens and...

(01:21:03)

...that box is checked and we have that. There are times when it is clearly not. There is no system in place right now that really ensures that for any report of a firearms discharge...

(01:21:22)

...whether ShotSpotter or 911 or a pickup...

(01:21:25)

...we do not have a system in place right now that really gives us systematic data about the confirmed percentage versus non-confirmed. I am so sorry — this is something that we need to work on, because nationally I know of departments that do capture that data and can speak to whether or not this tool has utility.

(01:21:50)

I do not feel confident that it is useful to you all. Based on this, it sounds like you do capture it but you do not collect it. You do have a sense of when it is verified but you do not collect it. There is not a reporting of it.

(01:22:04)

Well, it is not exactly that. It is that there are times when, whether it is patrol or the detective squad...

(01:22:11)

You know, you are not making me feel confident about the utility of ShotSpotter.

(01:22:15)

What I am talking about is totally separate from the utility of ShotSpotter. I am talking about how we collect data and how we have to make changes to that in light of the effectiveness of ShotSpotter.

(01:22:33)

This is a question of what are mandatory fields that officers have to fill out in connection with... it is not particular to ShotSpotter. What I am saying is this sort of opens a question where we would have to develop the kinds of systems we have been talking about. That is also true for a 911 call of shots fired or a pickup job where an officer thinks they just heard a gunshot.

(01:22:53)

It is an opportunity, and you do not collect the data in those scenarios. You do not collect that kind of data either.

(01:22:58)

We do have some data which we use sometimes in connection with deployment. However, internally we do not have a system that we use. It is not like the CompStat book or anything like that — a systematic...

(01:23:12)

Like, here is confirmed firearms discharges data for the City, or for a borough... or for a precinct. That is not...

(01:23:20)

...how it works right now. Okay, all right. Thank you, thank you, Chair.

(01:23:22)

Thank you, Council Member. On that issue, putting aside confirmed versus unconfirmed incidents, do we have any data on how many times the ShotSpotter system has been triggered?

(01:23:33)

So that is actually... I do not have that here, but...

(01:23:39)

That is certainly data we could get for you. Yeah, okay.

(01:23:42)

All right. Next we will hear from Council Member, and then Millie, and then Joseph.

(01:23:46)

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 does not have the same target as this Bill? Or am I wrong? So the Governor's Bill covers places of religious worship. That is what I mean by faith-based.

(01:24:07)

...though defined incredibly broadly. But I do want to just say, Council Member, the Governor's Bill does not create a buffer zone at...

(01:24:14)

All. Okay, there is no... I mean, the way we use a buffer zone, or a frozen zone, or security perimeter — that concept is really not what the Governor's Bill is doing. Okay.

(01:24:26)

All right, but it is just faith-based also. It is nothing but... yes, the Bill by its terms is applying to places of religious worship, defined quite... okay, just whatever it does.

(01:24:35)

I believe that they are doing the right thing in this situation, so I do not have as much concern as others. I think you are doing the same thing that you have been doing, which is what you have been saying.

My concern is just generally... I happened to be there when Pier 76 closed — the tow pound — watched Governor Cuomo do that, blah blah blah. What are we going to do about a Manhattan tow pound? I am just saying, it has been almost 20 years now. What are we doing about finding a place in Manhattan to store towed cars?

(01:25:05)

I am going to ask. I know we cannot find one — I have been out looking — but...

(01:25:07)

Something has to come of this. These folks are going to be all over the place looking for their cars, and we will be getting the complaints. I know that for a fact. So I am going to ask my colleagues at... to speak to this issue.

(01:26:21)

So people have to go... so there is no... we are not doing a Manhattan tow pound ever? Is that what you are saying?

(01:26:29)

So there are ongoing conversations. Even recently there were a couple of locations that were being looked at — ten potential sites in Manhattan — but nothing has come to...

(01:26:40)

...fruition. I am just saying... so do you have some sense of how many 311 calls you have gotten? I know there are a lot from persons who are concerned about having their cars towed to other boroughs.

(01:26:51)

Also, my understanding is most of the tows come from Midtown because people come as tourists and they do not know, and so they are traveling all over the place. I do not think people should park illegally — I get it — but I also want to be somewhat customer-service-oriented. Go ahead. No, you are right. I love you, Chief. Go ahead.

So we still tow out of Manhattan. Naturally, the loss of the Manhattan tow pound did hurt us. In 2019 we had 15,000 vehicles towed. Half of that came from Manhattan, to your point.

(01:27:24)

But I want to assure...

(01:27:26)

...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 as I mentioned in the past hearing, north of 59th Street gets towed to the Bronx, south of 59th Street to the Brooklyn tow pound.

(01:27:45)

Okay, but I mean... someone should contact Community Board 4 — 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 is the right thing to do. So I would like to have some further conversations. I cannot believe that it is impossible. You could also rent some space in some of these private garages — that is another possibility.

(01:28:12)

Thank you. This conversation should not end. We have got to find a place in Manhattan. Thank you. Okay, thank you, CM Brewer. I want to recognize CM Justin Sanchez who has joined. Next we will hear from CM Millie and then Joseph.

(01:28:25)

Yes, I had numerous questions but many have already been answered. But regarding tows, could you tell me what percentage of towed vehicles are retrieved by owners and what percentage of the vehicles are auctioned? Okay.

(01:28:42)

So I will give you the 2026 numbers to date. 21,610 vehicles towed — that is through May 31. Only 767 remain...

(01:28:53)

...on three lots across the City. Excuse me, 21,610 vehicles towed, and only 767 remain as of May 31.

(01:29:06)

Why do you feel a lot of people do not pick up their vehicles?

(01:29:10)

For various reasons. Some of them are... do you know how long it takes to find a vehicle? I addressed this earlier. People call my office and I have got to call the Police Department to see if someone's vehicle was towed. Do you know how long that process is?

So I will speak through the process very quickly. I mentioned this earlier, and this goes to Int 0489-2026, which calls for a centralized online database accessible through the department's website. We maintain our data in a system called CETOPS. We have our violation tows documented within the NYPD's database. That data is fed to a citywide 311 system called NYC Service. When you get into that system — and I tried this out again, I mentioned this earlier — I used a vehicle we had towed. It will give you a ton of information: where it was towed from, the violation, the zone on the vehicle, where the vehicle was towed to, the fees and redemption instructions — all of that.

(01:30:30)

...kind of a read-all. The issue is towed vehicles from marshals and sheriffs, who were mentioned earlier. But the concern is... so I do not know that it is a complete picture. As we mentioned earlier, we are willing to work with the Council. Have you ever thought about — or maybe is it already in the precinct — when someone walks in, if they feel their car has been towed, call these numbers? Is that posted in every precinct?

(01:31:10)

Is it?

(01:31:11)

If your vehicle has been towed... you know, again, some conflict... I just asked the question because that will help constituents instead of going and waiting for the police. You could walk into a local precinct. Absolutely. Sometimes they do not need to talk to the officers — they are supposed to be busy. If I come in, I have got to wait to see that I am there, and then they finish their conversation and then they say, "Oh, you need help?" Yes, I have only been here ten minutes.

But if a constituent comes into any precinct, they could just look at the wall and say, "Oh, I think my car has been towed, let me call them," before they interact. Because sometimes people come in in moods where they do not want to interact with the police because they are already mad that the car is gone, and then people are ignoring them. So in order to have a better interaction, the best way is to have it posted. Then if they cannot find it through those avenues, they should come back to the precinct. That is best for the precinct. Also, is it not?

(01:32:19)

Right. And Council Member, I mean, I think the long-term idea is to take the 311 system and expand it. That is one option, because to your point, you have to call multiple... you talk about calls. Yeah, that is ideally what you want — a single database, a single system. You know where to look, you go there. And they talked about a...

(01:32:43)

...database. We are just talking about a sign right now. But I am just saying, whatever that sign is, where is it directing the person? It could say the pounds — we could have whatever pounds the NYPD has on that. If the NYPD towed you, you could call these three or four tow pounds. That would alleviate a whole lot of people coming to your precinct. They will call and find out. If not, they call all four or five and did not find that car — maybe their car was stolen. Put in a police report. I am just suggesting my bright idea.

Okay, one other thing. What is your response if a high school wants to protest? They feel this day — say it is Juneteenth — they are going to protest. They did not tell the precinct. They just go out and start walking through the streets. What is your plan, and how do you control... you said visual and vocal, but just to be clear, are you talking about a protest out of school or a school walkout by students?

(01:34:04)

Like a school walkout. Right. So that we have sometimes, and our practice in that regard — and again it is easier if we know in advance, it is harder if we do not — we are going to have community affairs officers who are going to respond and walk along with them.

Community affairs officers get to that school. It is just going to depend on... I mean, if we learn in real time of a school walkout and students marching, marching wherever they are marching to, we are going to respond as soon as we possibly can. I cannot give you a number of minutes, but we are obviously going to want to get community affairs officers there as soon as humanly possible. We will try to communicate with the leaders of the walkout to understand what they are doing. They do not have to talk to us, but hopefully they will — it will make it easier for everyone. And then we will walk with them, and as long as they are doing that...

(01:35:01)

...peacefully, then we will facilitate First Amendment activity. Okay. So you would not stop them. You would just walk with them and maintain it.

(01:35:10)

We are talking about high school students. Yeah, we would...

(01:35:14)

...again, assuming... do you know...

(01:35:16)

Why would any organized entity not want to speak to the police? I mean, again, it is much easier for us together. But there are certainly groups that do not...

(01:35:32)

...trust the police. They feel, as a matter of principle, they do not want to talk to us. And that is their right. Okay. Then we should definitely... because it is about all of us. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, CM Millie. Next we will hear from Council Member and then CM Justin Sanchez.

(01:35:53)

Thank you, thank you. Thank you so much.

The Bill requires NYPD to create a new plan regarding security perimeters. NYPD testified they already have policies for how they create security perimeters. Why is this asking them to create a new plan when this already exists?

And I have done walkouts with my students before — from fifth grade. We walked out. You chaperone them. Their cause was no bullying. It was around Trayvon Martin. My students came with hoodies in fifth grade and they walked out and we chaperoned 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 have got to use your voice. So walk me through that.

(01:36:33)

The Bill does not... it does not change what we do at all. It is not... read the Bill. That is not how we approach this. It requires us to memorialize our present practice.

(01:36:53)

Right. And by the way, the Bill is not really about walkouts. It is more about protests that target... so going to what we do, it will be a document that people can look at. And I suppose people can... why does it not already exist? We are not looking at it already? No. So...

(01:37:12)

We do not have a document for every single scenario that we have to respond to. We have principles that are articulated and conveyed very clearly to executives and are applied as it stands right now. For protests outside of courthouses, we would plan for protests outside of hospitals. No, but that is not... I bet there are an infinite number of potential scenarios we have to deal with. Again, we are subject to a protest settlement. Of course we are subject to...

(01:37:49)

...our department policy...

(01:37:51)

...patrol, subject to federal, state and local law. There is guidance that we have given repeatedly in terms of what we expect from incident commanders, and then within that framework...

(01:38:01)

...you have whatever the factual scenario is. But you already have a standing MOU with New York...

(01:38:06)

...City public schools. Correct.

(01:38:10)

Well, that would cover protest activity, I mean, in other contexts.

(01:38:13)

But I am just saying, you are asking why do we not already have a plan for protests outside of schools. Another plan — it is like having a plan for another plan.

(01:38:21)

Well, I mean, there is an infinite number of documents we could generate. Again, I feel very strongly that we have the right principles, the right approach, and it is very context-specific. Every scenario is different. The incident commander and the officers on the ground have to follow the patrol guide, the protest settlement, the law, and then respond to the facts before them.

But you already have the MOU that creates the framework, which includes a joint committee consisting of designees of the Police Commissioner and the Mayor, and it creates a School Safety Community Partnership Committee to convene already. So have any of these groups with NYPD representation recommended changes to the existing framework or the MOU? I just do not know. I am just not sure about that. I do not think about that MOU in terms of school walkouts. When I think about a school walkout, I am thinking about a protest. I am thinking about our patrol guide procedures in that regard. I am thinking about the protest settlement. I am thinking about the First Amendment. So I think about that a little bit differently.

(01:39:32)

Can you cite any incidents of intimidation outside of...

(01:39:37)

...public schools — all public schools — that this Bill would prevent? Well, again, the Bill does not change what we do at all. The Bill is about, as I understand it, transparency — about articulating what we already do. As I said, we are prepared to do that. But we do not view the Bill as changing what we do day to day. Is it already in your system on the website somewhere? No. But again, we do not have a document for each possible scenario where there might be a protest. There would be a lot of documents. But again, the Bill 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 to... yeah... put into words what we already do in these contexts. But you are already doing it, right? Yes. So why do we need this Bill to tell you to do what you are already doing? It is calling upon us to describe what we already do.

(01:40:52)

All right. I am sure that my young people that are here disagree with us. This is very interesting. We should keep talking. How about... how about public and non-public schools? How do you interact with that? Would you...

(01:41:12)

If we had a protest outside of a private school and it was blocking the entrance to that school and blocking the sidewalk so students or teachers or parents could not get in and out, we would have to get them out safely. That is true for public schools and for private schools. If someone was blocking the entrance, preventing parents 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 — public sidewalks outside of a public school versus a private school — I do not think it matters.

(01:41:58)

What about New York City public schools that are contracted — public schools contracted but not in a public school building?

(01:42:04)

We have that as well. In terms of our analysis, if someone is blocking an entrance off a public sidewalk into any school, the analysis does not change. Okay, thank you.

(01:42:20)

Thank you so much. Going back to the shots fired Bill, if we pass the Bill and are able to work on the changes suggested, including the timeline for implementation and also potentially requiring that the reporting be done quarterly — we were hoping for quarterly, okay, quarterly — where can this information potentially be posted? Would you be open to...

(01:42:43)

Doing it in CompStat or on the website? If it would be posted publicly, I do not think it would be on the CompStat sheet. I think that is separate for a variety of reasons. But there is a lot of data that we put out quarterly and we would incorporate it into that system, so it would be available with the various caveats that I mentioned.

(01:43:10)

It would be available quarterly to the public. Okay. And also going back to the towing...

(01:43:17)

Issue. So private tow companies are already required to provide notice to the NYPD when they tow a vehicle, right? That is correct.

(01:43:23)

Is this happening? How often would you say they are failing to...

(01:43:28)

I do not have data for you on this. I will acknowledge it is definitely not perfect. Do they call in? Yes. Are there those who do not? Yes, 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 is difficult, but based on the conversations you have had, I do not want to guess. It would be truly a shot in the dark. It is hit or miss. Part of the problem is that with private tows, if it is not a tow at the NYPD's direction and they do not call us, we literally have no way of knowing that it happened. We were not involved. But a truly private tow that does not tell us — we have no way of knowing.

(01:44:29)

Okay. Also going back to the preconsidered demonstration Bill, how many protests at educational facilities has the NYPD responded to in...

(01:44:43)

The past few years? And also, how do they compare — protests at colleges versus K through 12?

So we do not track in a systematic way the location of protests. I am not suggesting we do not know where protests happened — we do. Any particular protest operation is going to have data about that, but we do not have a systematic way, like here is good data on the location of protests.

I will also say it is not a simple thing, because are you talking about protests that target a particular location — they are protesting at a specific location — versus protesters who march across many blocks in the city? Every time they pass by a school, does that count? Those are very different scenarios for a lot of reasons.

Data-driven, just from experience over the last few years, certainly in 2024 we had a lot of protests outside universities. There was a lot of that. In terms of a protest targeting an elementary school, I really cannot recall that happening. I am not saying it has never happened, but over the last few years I cannot recall a situation in which a protest was directed at an elementary school or a middle school.

Obviously you could have a house of worship where they also have an after-school program, so I would not necessarily know about that. But something that is obviously a school — an elementary school — and a protest targeting that, I do not recall.

(01:46:39)

Thank you for the information. Next we will hear from CM Justin Sanchez.

(01:46:44)

Thank you so much, Chair Feliz, and thank you all so much for your testimony here today. Also a shout out to another former Council member in the house, Council member Mark Treyger. Quickly, I...

(01:46:58)

Want to talk about the tow operations a little bit. I wanted to know what processes does the department go through to close a 311 request for illegal parking?

(01:47:13)

I am so sorry, I do not have a response to that. I was focused on the three Bills and that is what I was prepared to discuss today, so I do not know, but I can certainly get back to you on that. In order to tow something you need to have a number of 311 requests in order to get that done. The types of tows that we refer to with these Bills are really pertaining to department violations — these are vehicles that already have violations on the street, we tow them and take them to the pound. That type of thing. So I do not have a response to that.

(01:47:49)

Sure. We understand the question. When a car is towed, in terms of our data keeping — in order for a car to get the violations and get all the stuff you need to process...

(01:48:03)

You know, they accumulate all these things, they get their tickets, people report them. So my question is, from the very inception of when someone reports a 311 request, how does that go from there to someone coming and saying this car should be towed? What is that process?

(01:48:21)

Yeah, and we will easily be able to get that for you. We will have that for you. Thank you.

(01:48:27)

Thank you, CM Sanchez. All right, moving on to Int 0551-2026, which prohibits the sale and distribution of temporary paper plates. I will ask some questions about that and then also Int 0843-2026, and then we will do a second round and then we will conclude. I know we have a lot of members of our community who have signed up to testify so we want to of course hear from them.

So Int 0551-2026 prohibits — or increases the fines for — those that are selling fake paper plates. I know we have made a lot of progress on the issue. The problem exploded during COVID. We have made some progress, but to my knowledge it is still a problem, including the sale of them. I mean, I checked on Craigslist and also the Facebook Marketplace last night and saw people promoting those fake paper tags. So obviously it is an issue. How bad of an issue is it? We have made progress, but how much of an issue is it...

(01:49:29)

Still today? The online process, as you described, is very difficult for us to police. What I can speak to is what we see locally on the streets and the summonses that we have to support that, but that is about all I have. To address this problem we have spread operations — we talked about what we do with other agencies on local streets where we see this type of problem and the tows associated with that. But the online process we do not police.

(01:50:04)

What are the current consequences for selling fake paper plates?

(01:50:13)

So in the Vehicle and Traffic Law you have a criminal offense. In section 392-A, a person who knowingly sells or offers to sell false, fraudulent or stolen items, including license plates, it is a misdemeanor at the first offense and a felony as a second offense. There is a provision there in the VTL.

There are also separate provisions both in the VTL and in City law on the separate issue of people using things to obscure their plate. That is a VTL violation. If you use something to obscure your plate, that is a separate issue.

I think what you are talking about is a real license plate where you obscure it. Doing that is a violation subject to a fine. There is also a provision in City law that imposes civil penalties for those who provide or sell the materials that you use to obscure your plate.

So there are consequences, and as the Chief said, this has been a priority for the department for some time. We are doing these enforcement operations at a very regular clip. You have the Q teams doing this in response to 311 complaints, so it is something that we are very focused on and take incredibly...

(01:51:45)

Seriously. 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 accountability. What percentage would you say are individuals using paper plates to engage in criminal activity? That also might be hard data...

(01:52:06)

To have, quite frankly, because it is sort of about motive. We are going to do enforcement whatever the motive. If you are obscuring your plates we are going to take action whatever your motive might be. As you said, there is a range of possibilities, none of them good, but there is a range. I do not know that we would really have data on that.

Based on the incidence of violence that we have seen in our City, including issues related to gun violence, are ghost cars something that we continue to see involved in these violent incidents? Sometimes yes. There certainly has been — it is a real concern. To your point, Chair, someone who is engaged in potentially criminal activity and for pretty obvious reasons does not want their car tracked, does not want to get caught, so they are using fake or fraudulent plates. It is really something that we have seen. In terms of the trend line though, I am not sure we have...

(01:53:15)

That for you. All right. So we will do a second round of questions. We will go back to CM Joseph and then CM Wong, who is at a finance hearing and should be on his way here. Thank you.

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 outside of a school? Yeah, do you have any examples of when facilities...

(01:53:47)

Were blocked because of the protests? Including talking about elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, universities — anything K to 12?

(01:53:59)

Again, nothing comes immediately to mind. I cannot say that has never happened, obviously, but nothing immediately comes to mind.

(01:54:12)

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

(01:54:25)

Lawful — of course, lawful. Okay.

(01:54:31)

I figured. So there are a number of pieces to that. The incident commander knows — and this is very clear, there is no ambiguity about this in the department...

(01:54:47)

First of all, the decision to even create a frozen zone is on a case-by-case basis based on all the facts, in consultation with an attorney from the Legal Bureau. The legal framework requires that it be content and viewpoint neutral, cannot burden substantially more speech than necessary, and has to allow ample alternative means of speech. We talk about sight and sound in that regard.

So even in a situation where we have a real concern — a problem in terms of obstruction of an entrance — and we are going to do a frozen zone, if we are doing a frozen zone, protesters need to have sight and sound. Where is that going to be? That is very much ingrained in the culture of the department. Protesters do not have to go there. Sometimes protesters do not want to go in the designated protester area. That is their right. But if you have a frozen zone, you are going to...

(01:55:55)

Have a protest area with sight and sound...

(01:55:58)

To the entrance. What I think is critical is that you will have that in place every time.

(01:56:06)

Do you have any idea of the protests that required NYPD response — how many have been at private schools versus public schools, or high schools, or colleges, or middle schools, or elementary schools?

(01:56:20)

I do not have that data for you. Again, we have not been tracking in a systematic way the location of protests in the sense that we would have data that we would be comfortable using. That is not really the way we have tracked it and thought about it.

(01:56:38)

Apart from rallies and protests, what other security-related events might affect a school?

(01:56:46)

A few things. For starters, you can imagine a situation where because of some potential criminal activity there is an emergency and we are concerned there could be some danger...

(01:56:59)

A bomb threat, for example. I am sorry to say, but those do happen.

(01:57:07)

And we would take the steps — now we are talking about an obviously potentially incredibly dangerous situation and exigency — and we would take the necessary steps to keep people safe. You can imagine a situation where we would have to immediately freeze some area to ensure the safety of everyone involved. That certainly could happen.

(01:57:31)

Is there any component of a community engagement piece? How is the community engaged in this?

(01:57:42)

In other words, if there is a true exigency — an emergency, a bomb threat — we are going to move immediately and obviously want to communicate as responsibly as we can, but we are dealing with an emergent situation. In the protest context, community affairs officers are reaching out to the relevant stakeholders, and that is happening every time.

(01:58:03)

Right. So if there is a protest outside a school, community affairs officers are going to talk to the leadership of the school. They are going to try to talk to the leaders of the protest. Sometimes it is a very...

(01:58:14)

Productive dialog, sometimes not. They are always going to try. That is happening before the protests, it is happening during the protests. Community affairs officers — and this is consistent with the protest settlement — serving as protest liaisons. That is all about having that dialog and doing our very best to have that dialog.

(01:58:42)

Thank you, Chair. A few questions about frozen zones and the security measures we have been talking about, all in the context of the educational environment. Just curious — unrelated to educational facilities but still in the context of security measures — the NYPD is taking security measures today at Madison Square Garden. Are these the same measures it took when the President was visiting the City? Why are we taking the same security measures?

We are not the right people to speak to the particulars of what we are doing today, and I do not know that I said it is identical. We are certainly taking significant security measures this evening for safety, given the challenges that we have had until this point post-game, which are quite serious. We want people to be able to celebrate peacefully and safely — safely for everyone celebrating, safely for police officers — and we are trying to do our very best to act responsibly to make sure that people can celebrate in a safe manner. Obviously we are taking it one day at a time, but is the plan to have similar security measures at future games? I really cannot speak to that.

(02:00:24)

Okay. So a few more final questions on Int 0843-2026 and then we will conclude if no one else turns up for questions. So Int 0843-2026 by...

(02:00:37)

CM Stephens, 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?

(02:00:57)

In the school context, obviously we have the entire School Safety Division, as you know, and so we are in dialog with schools. If we have some emergency in a school, again through school escape and otherwise, we are going to be in dialog with the leadership of the school. My understanding is that DOE has its systems for providing notification. Certainly not the experts on that, but they certainly have mechanisms for communicating with parents. If we have to respond to an emergency at a private school, you do not have the same systems in place as you do with school safety. But the nature of any sort of police response, we are going to be reaching out to the leadership of that school and talking to people at the school. We have police officers arriving on scene and in dialog with the school. It is more formalized in the public school context because of the School Safety Division, but in a private school, as with other institutions, if we are responding to the scene we are going to be talking to leadership on scene for communications.

(02:02:14)

What communications challenges does the department encounter during school emergencies? I am not sure who the right people are to really answer that question.

(02:02:27)

I guess what are the existing communication protocols between the NYPD and the Department of Education? Education also plays a role during these situations, right. So in terms of the way you are talking about the Bill, our point is that to the extent we are talking about notifications, that is really in the public school context a combination of DOE and to whatever extent NYPD is involved. That is really a question for DOE and NYPD. In the private school context, that is really a question for NYPD.

I totally understand that from our side of it, we learn of some emergency at a school, we are responding, and so we have that information. You can certainly imagine a Bill where we are passing along the information to NYPD and they are making notifications as appropriate. But to the extent the Bill is suggesting that the NYPD directly should be making those notifications, we do not think that is really in our purview.

(02:03:40)

Thank you for the information. Any other questions? I do not see any other questions, so thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you for working to keep New Yorkers safe. We look forward to continuing all the conversations on all these Bills. Thank you. Thank you. Let us go next.

(02:03:57)

We are going to take a five minute recess and will resume. Thank you. Thank you everyone. We are going to resume the hearing and I will now open the hearing for public testimony.

I remind members of the public that this is a government proceeding and that decorum shall be observed at all times. 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. When recognized, you will have two minutes to speak on topics related to the legislation being heard today. Again, I will repeat that part: we are specifically hearing testimony on legislation being heard before this committee today. If you have a written statement or additional written testimony you wish to submit for the record, please provide a copy of that testimony to the Sergeant at Arms. You may also email written testimony to testimony at council dot gov within 72 hours of the close 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 will first call the first panel: Mark Trager, Pope H. Rosenberg, Jacqueline Goodman. We will start in that order. So Mark Trager, then the next, and then Goodman. Good to see you all. Yes, you may begin when you are ready.

(02:19:57)

Let me first begin by thanking you, Chairman Feliz, for overseeing this hearing, and CM Encarnación, thank you for your leadership. It is 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 commitment to seeing this through.

Before I came on, there were a lot of comments that were made that were appropriately 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 7, I was walking home on West End Avenue with my three young children, 12, 10 and 6. A pack of teenagers passed us by and they yelled at my kids, "Should we kidnap the boy or the girl?"

I share that 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, and are 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 are safe. What was done with respect to our houses of worship 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.

(02:21:20)

CM Feliz, dear friends and CM Encarnación, thank you for your leadership, and to all the Council members and staff folks who are present. This is personal for me. I have tremendous respect for this esteemed body and for this institution.

Building on what was just shared from our great community partner federation, what I will share is that JCRC convened a community solidarity event early on when there was a massive swastika spree in Forest Hills and our neighborhoods in Queens. As the NYPD testified earlier, houses of worship can also house early childhood education programs, and in the case of Queens that is exactly what happened. Children, families and staff were waking up that day and walking into a situation where there was a crime scene and a massive swastika scrolled. I do not know which child education site housed in a synagogue had swastikas scrolled, but they were also scrolled in people's homes and it was just a very frightening scene.

But once the headlines fade, once the newspapers stopped writing about it, once the cameras are gone, the providers who actually serve the kids in the program are the ones fielding phone calls from parents and staff saying, "Is it safe to send my kid to school tomorrow?" Providers are being inundated with questions on a routine basis: is it safe to send my kid to school? What is the plan?

I think, Mister Chairman and members of the Council and staff, this is an issue that has exposed a gap in our transparency structure. I remind folks that between DOE and NYPD there is a memorandum of understanding that governs the relationship between NYPD and DOE buildings. But over 60% of early childhood education programs in New York City are not housed in DOE buildings. They are housed in community-based settings like houses of worship, to which there is no MOU and there is no transparency like there is for DOE buildings.

So in my strong and humble opinion, as a former teacher and former chair of an education committee, I believe that transparency makes people more safe, not less safe. Having more understanding about what the plan is is not just about protests. Even though obviously we must respect the First Amendment and people have a fundamental right to protest, we have no fundamental right to intimidate anyone. It is not just about protests. It is about what if there is an incident at the site, whether it is a swastika or some disruption. People ask rightfully, what is the plan? We do not know, because as the NYPD said, there is not enough data because there is no requirement to collect data. That is why the Council members passed Bills to get transparency.

So I just want to say that 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 funding and our critical stakeholders. I truly appreciate the leadership of this Council for being deliberative and very thoughtful about this process and exposing a real transparency gap that exists in the system today. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you.

(02:25:04)

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Liz Bender. I am the policy counsel with the criminal practice at the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem, a public defender office serving upper Manhattan. I am here to speak about this Bill because it does not achieve the transparency that we have heard many people talk about today. General Counsel Gerber mentioned many times that what he viewed the Bill in its current form as doing was requiring them to report on what they are already doing.

But that is 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 are already doing. And in fact, he could not point to any 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 incident where they have had to respond to a protest activity in K through 12 schools in the way that it is contemplated in this Bill.

So this Bill is aiming to meet a need that even NYPD is saying they are not aware exists. But what this Bill could be amended to do, and should be amended to do, is provide that transparency. I do not know why it is read 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 we oppose this Bill is because we believe that anytime you ask NYPD to propose, generate or do something new, what that means is that the clients we serve will bear the brunt of that increased NYPD activity. 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 have 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.

(02:27:34)

Good afternoon, Chair Feliz and CM Encarnación. I am Joe Rosenberg, Director of the Catholic Community Relations Council. We thank the committee for holding this hearing on CM Encarnación's legislation. It is an important and timely measure, especially following the latest NYPD data indicating that hate crimes are up by 74% in May 2026...

(02:27:54)

...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. Parents as well need to be assured that their children and 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 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 is protected while at the same time the legislation helps to safeguard schools against growing and increasingly violent threats.

Like other faith-based organizations, we are fortunate in having the NYPD as a strong partner. They have been responsive and proactive in confronting the challenges facing our schools and our children. This Bill will continue their ability to do so by making it more transparent, creating more dialog, which is what people need to hear, and will provide more protection for not just the students but the faculty, the staff and the parents. We thank Speaker Menin and you for recognizing these growing threats and we hope that this legislation passes.

(02:29:41)

Soon. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jacqueline Goodman and I am an attorney with the Legal Aid Society 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 am 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, LGBTQ+ and immigrant students. It will further expose young people and other community members who are already at risk of criminalization for engaging in protected speech and expression. It will suppress student 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 and Public Schools," which analyzed 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, an increased police presence around schools undermines feelings of safety rather than promotes them. Research also shows that school-based policing disproportionately impacts Black and Brown students as well as students with disabilities, who are already more likely to face disciplinary action and law enforcement intervention. Extending police activity beyond school buildings through expanded security perimeters risks further entrenching these inequities.

The proposed Bills also raise significant concerns for LGBTQ+ youth, particularly transgender, gender non-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 are advocating for their rights and participating in civic life. This Bill has a chilling effect on expression and discourages students from exercising their rights to speak, organize and engage in their school communities.

More specifically, the Bills' 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 increased surveillance, policing and barriers to civic engagement. Instead of investing in a greater police presence around schools, we should prioritize proven strategies that promote school safety and well-being, such as funding comprehensive mental health services, more counselors and social workers, and investing in restorative justice programs that help students develop effective school communities. Thank you for this opportunity to share...

(02:32:56)

...our thoughts. Thank you. Thank you so much. I just have a super fast question for all of you. You could just answer in about 20 to 30 seconds. We have about 30 people signed up and want to make sure we are hearing from them as well. But I just want to briefly hear from all of you to make sure that we have a full conversation about the issue.

Of course, this Council fully supports initiatives including restorative justice programs. But on this Bill, my understanding is that it does not require or put any new police officers in the area, and does not give them any new authority or power. It is simply requiring that they tell us what they are doing to respond. So I am just curious if anybody wants to give us 20 to 30 seconds on that, to make sure we have got a full conversation and a full understanding of everybody's perspective on this.

(02:33:47)

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...

(02:33:59)

General Councilor Gerber said in his testimony was that such a plan does not already exist, that their response to schools is varied, it is guided by a number of different things, and that that is not 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. And there is a 45-day period where that is submitted to the Council and to the Mayor before it is publicly published. That 45-day period suggests that there is going to be back and forth, amendments and changes to that plan. So it is asking them to do something new.

If what you want is information about what they are 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 did not really have. He told you something like he listed the factors that they look at, but there was no "this is how we respond."

(02:35:10)

This also requires that the proposed plan be about security perimeters specifically. It is not "show us, tell us what you are doing to respond to protests in schools." Security perimeters specifically. So...

(02:35:26)

It is. I disagree with the characterization that this is a transparency...

(02:35:30)

Bill. There is a transparency Bill that could be the result of an amendment process starting from here, but...

(02:35:37)

We are not there right now. Okay, I refer the Committee back to the hearing in the Chambers when things were packaged in terms of houses of worship and this...

(02:35:51)

Discussion about education settings, settings where the NYPD said, you know, we do have stuff in our patrol guides, or we do have stuff. Some members of the Council were questioning, well, if it is already in guidance, why do you need to pass a law? I respectfully remind the Council that many of the laws we have passed started off as guidance or an executive order that became codified by the Council. The reason why Council members do that is because it creates a binding, concrete accountability and transparency tool.

As I mentioned earlier, when it comes to DOE buildings, there is an existing written memorandum of understanding between DOE and NYPD and that is already on the books, it is written. But the majority of our early childhood programs are not in DOE buildings because of insufficient space. We rely on community organizations, whether houses of worship or other settings, to house these programs. I know what the discussion today has been so far about protests, but I remind the Committee it is not just about protests. It is 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?

I also remind the Committee that if you look at a national nonprofit security grant program that started off around $180 million 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, 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 workers? Folks who know me know I absolutely love social workers and counselors and support staff. The Council has 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 do not have the resources to keep their stakeholders adequately safe?

So this Bill, fundamentally in my opinion, will say to the NYPD: if it is in your guidance, make it public. Also, the Bill calls for a mechanism that says there is a draft proposal, there is input for the Council and stakeholders to finalize it with stakeholder input. To me it is about transparency. When you do not have transparency, Chairman, that is when communities are actually less safe. That is my take. I urge you to pass it.

(02:38:32)

I concur with that. I concur with more too, but just also to add that...

(02:38:36)

There is a plan, and in instances like this, this is about sharing it with the public so we know as well. People are missing that point.

(02:38:48)

So I would join with my colleague from Neighborhood Defenders, and I would just...

(02:38:51)

Also mention that there are already criminal laws that address alleged harassing and violent conduct outside of educational institutions. A law requiring the creation of security perimeters, even while requiring the police to take steps to ensure that the zones do not 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 the police's attention to these sites and saying you must do a plan, similar to what my colleague said, I think especially in the context of the students that attend these schools, that are already over-policed, that are part of marginalized communities, I think it does set up a very clear likelihood that there could be over-policing and these youth could be placed at risk.

(02:39:46)

Sounds good. Thank you so much. Thank you everybody for your perspective.

(02:40:11)

Thank you so much. We are going to call the next panel: Judy Baum, Ariel Saranski, Reuben Pope-Zaka, and Alan Abraham. You can testify in that order, or actually just go from left to right. You will have time. You could begin when you are ready. Great.

(02:41:05)

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 is Judy Baum and I am Co-Chair of the Government Relations and 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 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 things, having this Bill passed makes me sleep better at night knowing my grandkids will be safe and protected by the NYPD and the City of New York.

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

(02:43:01)

In addition, I was a kid who was protesting against the Vietnam War and I remember all of the things that we went through, and we need to keep those protesters safe. I have to wind it up right now. Okay, well I will just say thank you so much, Chair and the Committee. And as she suggests, I call her a Council member. Thank you so much. Thank you.

(02:43:32)

Thank you, Chairs and members of the Committee. My name is Alan Abraham. I am a New York City resident and the Director of Organizing at the People's Plan. I grew up in the New York City school system as well. I am here today to oppose the Bill as it is 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. Amended legislation should also explicitly affirm protections established by the 2024 protest settlement and safeguard First Amendment rights under both the federal and state constitutions.

Supporters of the Bill have not identified a single instance of students being harassed at 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 is drafted. The City does not 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 Matter protesters in 2020 and requires police presence at demonstrations to be minimized whenever possible.

(02:45:19)

Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee on Public Safety. I am pleased to serve as the Director of Government and Community Relations at the 92nd Street Y. While the 92nd Street Y is not directly 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 the 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 Jewry address, patrons entering the building were met with drums, flags pushed into their faces and shouted insults. This did not only impact event attendees. Children's programs, students attending classes and other programs were also affected.

Our 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 and Council members 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.

(02:47:38)

Chair and members of the Committee on Public Safety, I am proud to serve as the 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 CM Encarnacion, 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, targeted harassment and obstruction.

This Bill is a critical piece of Speaker Menin'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 and responds 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, 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-12 schools have unfortunately become hotspots 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. CM Encarnacion'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 chorus in supporting this common-sense measure to ensure safe access to K-12 educational facilities across New York City. As part of Speaker Menin's five-point plan, we urge this Committee to give Int 0913-2026 a favorable report. Thank you.

(02:50:00)

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next we will hear from Jay Champion, Randy Rubin, Scott Richman, Stephen Worrell and Raul Pena. I am Randy Rubin. He called me Ruben before so I came up. I do not know if I was in there. Oh, that is fine.

(02:50:56)

We will start from left to right. Oh, thank you, Chair and members of the Committee. I am Ro Pena, Co-Founder and Director of Programming for Transformative. I advocate for improving the lived experience of trans and non-binary youth and the educators who support them. We oppose this Bill in its current form and urge the Council to amend it into what it should be: a real transparency measure.

Advocacy saves lives. Through organizing, we helped build Aunties for Liberation, which pushed the Community Education Council to rescind a resolution undermining protections for trans youth. We also organized 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 NYPD. That is the problem with this Bill. It assumes protests near schools are a security threat requiring police perimeters. But where is the evidence? The educator in me is looking for the sources, and this Bill is turning into an incomplete assignment. There is no record showing K-12 schools are being targeted in a way that warrants 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 is a lot of power for an unproven issue. We know that broad police 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 students. Trans youth, 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 are not a disruption of democracy. They are how people learn to participate in it. Restricting advocacy near schools risks sending the message that civic 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 First Amendment protections. If the goal is transparency, let us show our work and stick to the assignment. Thank you.

(02:53:53)

Hello. Unfortunately Steve Worrell had to step out. So Strokes Defense... Strokes is a Brooklyn-based, next-generation 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 Menin, Chair and the members of the Committee for giving Strokes the opportunity to be a part of this discussion. Strokes would like to speak in support of Int 0913-2026 by CM Encarnacion. Strokes 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...

(02:54:36)

Proactive planning is clear. A June 2026 NYPD report shows that hate crimes remain a significant challenge across New York City, with antisemitic incidents continuing to account for the largest share of reported hate crimes. While felonies and other crime rates 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 remains secure.

(02:55:42)

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 a thoughtful planning process. It requires the NYPD to establish clear standards for when security perimeters are appropriate, how they should be implemented, how school administrators should be consulted and how the public should be informed.

(02:56:11)

Thank you, Chair. My name is Joe Zehra Champion and I am here to speak to you today regarding a personal matter regarding public safety. 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.

(02:57:03)

There is 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 have 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 is anyone here that is proud to support the people of this City, please take the time to speak to me and offer your assistance in any way possible.

(02:57:38)

I will be extremely grateful for the chance to finally be able to live a normal life again. I have made efforts to do so by contacting the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Queens District Attorney's Office, the Department of Health, the Civil Complaint Review Board and of course the NYPD's 101st Precinct. I am a citizen, a member of this society, and it should never be this difficult to find just one person who...

(02:58:05)

...cares about my safety. Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you so much everyone for your patience. The next panel: Naila Awan, Janice Chong, Anna Maria Aguirre, Ariana Havanya. Out of the five that I called, just two are in the room, so I will call some additional members who are still with us. Andrea Ortiz, Rasheeda Brown Harris... not here. Sabrin... I will take two more. Habiba, representing Kaiser. All right, so I guess we will start this time from my right to the left. You may begin when you are ready.

(03:00:38)

Thank you. My name is Nilo Joana. I am the Co-Director of Policy at the New York Civil Liberties Union. I am here today to oppose the new security perimeter Bill being considered, and to express extreme concern at the speed at which this Bill is being advanced and that the hearing is happening today — a day that advocates have fought for so long — and are having to also split their time between testifying on the budget.

While the preconsidered 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 a hundred organizations, representing a wide variety of constituencies as well as educators, students and community members, have expressed. As we heard earlier today, there is 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's schools, helping to fuel the school-to-prison pipeline and undoubtedly being disproportionately enforced against Black, Brown and LGBTQIA students.

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, to craft a proposal for the deployment of security perimeters around schools, and then gives 45 days for back and forth between the Speaker and the Mayor before the plan is even made public.

It does not recognize that there are 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. It 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 is shocking that the Council has chosen to reintroduce a Bill that fails to address the bulk of the concerns that have been consistently raised. We ask the Council to pause any further movement on this Bill until an array of stakeholders have been properly engaged, and ask that at a time when the federal government is trying to stifle protest, our City does not proceed down the same...

(03:03:28)

...path. Hello, my name is Andrea from Dignity in Schools New York. We are here today in strong opposition to this school security perimeter Bill. The Council cannot point to a single incident of students being harassed outside of schools or threatened by protesters. This Bill as written is not a transparency measure and it does not respond to a 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 will deepen harm, particularly for Black and immigrant families. This is especially concerning given that NYPD school officers can add individuals to a secret gang database with...

(03:04:07)

...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 2024 protest settlement and with First Amendment rights under the federal and state constitutions. Freeze hiring of school police or even eliminate all vacancies and reinvest approximately $90 million in savings into restorative justice, mental health supports and immigrant protections. Protect restorative justice and mental health access by baselining $6 million 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 Int 0798 to eliminate the NYPD gang database.

(03:05:27)

New York City must choose between expanding criminalization or investing in what actually makes schools safe: care, trust and support. We are urging 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.

(03:05:45)

Good afternoon, esteemed Council members on the Committee on Public Safety. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Janice Chong and I am a youth leader with the YAYA Network and an intern with the Dignity in Schools Campaign. Even though I graduated high school just last year and I am now an incoming sophomore at Georgetown University, I am still here to fight for the rights of the next generation of public school students and college students.

First, I want to acknowledge the success we had in blocking Bill 175-B 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 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 and 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 an educational facility 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-12 schools without justification? Why is there an expansion of fear and criminalization for immigrant, low-income and BIPOC students through increased police presence? Where is the transparency in 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 the 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 constitutions. To every student, instead of justifying additional police presence in or around schools, the City should invest 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.

(03:08:20)

Thank you, Chair and Council members. My name is Habib Al-Idee. I am an organizer at Malika Community Safety Organization in Queens. I am here today to voice my resolute and categorical opposition to the Bill in its current form regarding the security perimeters around educational facilities, and instead to call for it to be turned into what it should be: a true transparency Bill.

Let us be clear about 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 policing expanding in ways that should be deeply alarming. By codifying these security perimeters, 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. This 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 the political process is something that should be contained and surveilled, rather than the vital civic exercise that it is. Furthermore, we have seen increased policing presence around schools inevitably target, criminalize and traumatize Black and Brown youth, reinforcing the school-to-prison pipeline that the City claims to be trying to dismantle.

Moreover, the Bill threatens to actively undermine the 2024 protest settlement, which was a direct consequence of the NYPD's historic brutalization of protesters in 2020 and which explicitly necessitates that police presence at protests be minimized to protect 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. We need radical transparency. 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 on their existing practices 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.

(03:10:50)

Hi, my name is Kaiser. I am speaking on behalf of the Alliance for Quality Education, for quality public education for all children regardless of zip code. On February 25th, hundreds of New Yorkers submitted testimony against Int 0175. 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 Int 0175 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...

(03:11:48)

...can share their input on the entire executive budget, across the street the 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 do not want this. A narrow constituency with outsized resources is pushing it and they are hoping the rest of us do not notice.

In the absence of a convincing story about how this Bill would prevent violence, the Council has resorted to claims that it 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 the NYPD to create a new plan. In response to questions about whether a new plan is needed, the 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. $6 million 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 the 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.

(03:13:32)

Thank you for your testimony. Next I will call the final panel: Chancy Young, Maria Batista, Sandra Mitchell, Alake Daniels and Gavin Henley. Also, if you have not been called and you are here and wish to testify, please see the Sergeant at Arms. And also, I know I called some individuals earlier today who have stepped out. If that is the case, please also see the Sergeant at Arms and notify them so that we can call you next. All right, thank you.

(03:14:34)

You may begin when you are ready. My name is Chauncey Young. I am a resident of the Highbridge neighborhood and a member of the New Settlement Parent Action Committee. We stand with coalition partners in strong opposition to the school buffer bill. At a time when ICE activity and the federal government make people feel unsafe, the 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 was the 1964 school boycott, where over 640,000 students protested segregation and 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 and further criminalizes Black and immigrant communities. Current safety policies rely too heavily on punishment, disproportionately harming Black and Latino students. Black students, who make up just 20% of New York City public school students, account for 45% of superintendent suspensions and 52% of school police interventions, with the Bronx seeing the highest rate of interventions.

We urge the Council to amend the bill to make it a true transparency bill that both the Council and the public seem to desire. Protect rights. Amend the bill to enshrine the protections consistent with the 2024 NYPD protests settlement and First Amendment rights. Divest from policing. Freeze hiring of school police.

All I will 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.

(03:17:09)

Hi. My name is Maria Bautista. I am an organizer, a lifelong New Yorker, and I have been organizing for over 20 years. I am 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 the 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.

I got up today and I questioned why Trump-like policies are being peddled here in New York City. I question why you are smiling, Councilmember, and you have been doing that as people have been giving their testimony, and it is very disturbing. I also question why two leaders that are Latino themselves, representing thousands of Black and Brown New Yorkers, are pushing this. I question the politics behind it.

I have organized countless rallies and protests at schools and all of them have been directed at the failures of the City, this 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 students at those schools. Instead, they have used their voices to fight against systemic oppression and state-sanctioned violence.

This bill does not protect New Yorkers but will oppress them, as we have seen across the country as Trump has increased surveillance and policing, and as you are trying to push here in New York City. It is a shame. What this bill does do is threaten our ability to freely speak out against the fascism we are experiencing at every level — city, state and federal. Hundreds of New Yorkers rose up and beat back Int 0175, and instead of listening, you fast-tracked a similar version of this bill with the same outcomes.

We are 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 and protect the 2024 protest settlement and our First Amendment rights. Thank you.

(03:19:49)

Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Gavin Healy. I am a member of the District 2 Community Education Council. I am speaking today just as a public school parent. 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. 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 have seen as a 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 is in this bill: intimidation. They said they felt intimidated by families coming to our meetings to call them out for marginalizing transgender students. They threatened those families with police removal. I do not think it is your...

(03:21:31)

...intention that this bill will be weaponized against those families.

(03:21:34)

But someday in the future it very well could be. Perhaps it will come after your terms have ended, when you are not around to ensure accountability.

(03:21:42)

But we are 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.

(03:21:52)

Use your power today wisely to ensure that our families' right to protest will not be taken from them. Thank you. Thank you so much.

(03:22:02)

The comments... you know, some people smile when they make eye contact with others. It is just a natural thing, but that is me. All right. Would anyone who is here and has not testified like to testify? If not, we will move on to online testimony. All right. So we will now move on to the virtual panelists. For virtual panelists, once your name has been called, a 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 announce that you are beginning before delivering your testimony. I will now call our first virtual panelist: Cesena Assad, then Christopher Leon Johnson.

(03:23:01)

Time starts now.

(03:23:04)

Hi everybody. My name is Cesena Assad. I am a public school parent and education advocate. I want to begin by stating my opposition to the perimeter bill and encourage the Council sponsors to course-correct and make this bill a transparency and data disclosure bill by the NYPD.

But I really want to emphasize the confusion on the part of the public and even on the part of the NYPD in determining what the impact of this bill might be. There seems to be a willful conflating of what the bill's language is and a negligent insertion of unfounded benefit analysis. The NYPD says the bill does not change anything, but also says they will, for the first time and for this particular circumstance, establish and memorialize a plan — and that is an exception and therefore new. The NYPD says that they do not have an MOU with schools in regards to safety plans, and that is something that was even admitted to. But DOE Chancellor Regulation A-414 establishes committees with school stakeholders including NYPD that collaboratively develop plans and gives initial and primary deference to NYPD, excluding all other community stakeholders.

NYPD says they are ready to develop a plan but cannot name an incident where the context applies and therefore cannot address the non-existent issue we are hearing about today. We are hearing today from plenty of private and parochial school communities — that is important — but I want to point out the lack of engagement from K-to-12 public school students and parents, who arguably this process is marginalizing and disenfranchising. I hope that the Council is ready to bear the burden of this bill's impact.

(03:25:12)

Thank you so much for your testimony. Next we will hear from Christopher Leon Johnson.

(03:25:18)

Time starts now. Hello. My name is Christopher Leon Johnson. I oppose this bill, Int 0552-2026, the perimeter bill. Let me make this clear: these nonprofits that support these bills — as the lady mentioned — I will explain that all these nonprofits care about is that next discretionary payout, a security discretionary payout for FY27. I want to know why the City Council decided to have this hearing on the same day and at the same time right across the street from here, where they have the hearing for public testimony on the finance budget. Because that is to make sure that the public does not come out to this hearing and instead waits to speak at the public testimony for the finance hearing, because they know that the money is over there. It is a way to try to make sure that they do not repeat a 75-to-69 vote like last time earlier this year.

I want to say right now: this bill technically just gives a blank check to the NYPD to do what they want and set numbers for how far back protesters have to stay from events that the City Council might want to put their organizations into. Everybody knows it. I will say this right now: I hope that Mayor Mamdani vetoes this bill again like he did last time with Int 0175. These nonprofits that support these bills only care about getting a paycheck. That is all they care about. It is not about safety. It is not about protecting the rights of so-called Muslims and Jews and others. This is all about making sure that these guys do not get protested for the things that they are really doing and destroying the City.

I will say this right now: I hope that Mayor Mamdani does a repeat like last time and repeals this bill again. This bill should die again. I am opposed. This is a bad bill. I trust the state more than the City Council because the City Council just gives blank checks. At least the Governor is writing a real check. But that is all I have to say. This is a bad idea for the City Council. This hearing should not have been scheduled on the same day as the finance hearing. So I will leave it there. Thank you.

(03:27:32)

Thank you so much for your testimony. I am also going to call three individuals who signed up but were not here when we called them: Amanda Holland, Ashley Davis and Mallory Jimenez. Is anyone here who signed up and has not been called yet? All right. So I think we have 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. If we inadvertently missed anyone who would like to testify virtually, please use the raise 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 and filed by the committee staff, may be submitted to the record up to 72 hours after the close of this hearing by emitting testimony at council dot nyc dot gov. Once again, testimony at council dot nyc dot gov. Thank you to everyone who joined today and who...