Well, good evening, everybody.

Welcome to the City of Somerville's uh City Council meeting of the legislative matters committee.

Uh it is Tuesday, December 2nd at 6.01 p.m.

Pursuant to chapter two of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote participation and uh audio video recording will be available on the city's website shortly after completion of the meeting.

Uh with that said, we got a pretty packed agenda tonight, and hopefully we can get through all of it since it is uh anticipated to be the last uh meeting of the year for legislative matters.

Uh we're going to be taking item number four out of order at the administration's request.

Otherwise, plan on hitting this uh top to bottom as it appears in the agenda.

Uh with that said, first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes of October 20th.

Uh I'll move to approve those.

Is there any discussion?

All right.

Then let's go ahead and lay that motion on the table for approval uh with a single vote at the end of the meeting.

Uh coming up next, let's take uh number four.

That is uh the ordinance uh amendment to insert the words, including abutting curb cuts if applicable.

This is uh councillor Klingon's submission.

Uh and while uh it's been in committee for a little while and is ready to go out uh as as drafted.

Uh we did also receive a memo today uh from analyst Salisbury uh with an extensive rewrite for I'm told uh style guideline reasons.

Um let's I'd love to start off first with Director Zaino, uh, if there's any context or uh anything from my SD on enforcement uh and and the writing on it.

And uh I'm sorry to spring this on you, Director Zano, uh, or deputy director Zaino, but uh there's a lot of new text here.

Uh good evening.

Uh good evening, uh Chair.

So uh you have reviewed this and uh gone over it, I I presume with uh Councilor Klingon or with the city staff to make sure that this is something that uh won't be a problem for ISD.

Uh the uh uh uh chair Scott, yes, to confirm this is something that we went over internally.

Um and then yes, we're we are comfortable with the text um as written um to be something that I see can enforce.

Um and then to clarify too, the stylistic updates are you know, um we're told uh stylistically the update, the stylistic updates are also in line with that as well.

Sorry, did that answer your question?

It absolutely did.

Uh and it reminded me uh that while I can see that we have a quorum here on camera, we did not officially take a roll call to establish quorum.

So uh now that we have Councilor Davis in the room, let's go ahead and do a roll call to establish quorum.

This is roll call, Counselor Davis.

Here.

Councilor Straza.

President.

Councilor Mbaugh.

President.

Councilor Young Campen.

Here.

Counselor Scott.

President.

All counselors present, we have quantum.

Woo.

All right.

Well, uh, with that taken care of, uh, I don't have any questions about this.

I appreciate the work on it and uh and getting it updated.

Let's see here, Counselor Davis.

Uh I see you have questions about this text.

Yes, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I I I it's not questions on the text per se, although I would ask if the clerk it's possible to increase the size a little bit, um, even with my magic lenses here.

Um there we go.

Thank you.

I'm I'm officially, could you please make that a little bigger years old?

Um I I guess I just want to put out for my cause, I know we've been working on this.

I know we've had this conversation before, but you know, the effect of this is that for a private homeowner, if I understand correctly, and please, you know, Dr.

Zenith, correct me if I'm wrong.

Um, if if a uh a homeowner or uh uh a renter who um you know has in their lease a responsibility to clear the snow um lives on a corner, and we have any moderate size snow, and our plows come around and do their job.

Um that can result in some pretty big snow piles.

And and as we know, as we've experienced in today, sometimes you know uh snow rain lines move back and forth.

And you know, it's we certainly all have seen the scenario where it snows.

Um if you're lucky you get out there and move it before it freezes, and then that giant pile freezes.

And I gotta say, I'm a little hesitant to put this on our residents to be trying to deal with it to be you know at risk of fines to be trying to deal with you know what could be pretty significant piles of frozen ice.

And uh, you know, I'm not sure the way around that other than maybe we should just not put this on the on the and not make this amendment and um you know commit to investing more to taking care of ourselves, the city, which frankly is is what I think we should be doing in the first place.

Um so I want to put that out there for or for my uh my colleagues.

I I don't I I'm I don't think I'm on board with this still.

Um I think I raised this concern the first time we talked about it.

And um I don't think I've heard a good response, and if but if I did and I've just forgotten, then I'll apologize.

I look forward to hearing it again.

Um, but that's that's kind of my my concern there.

I just think this is potentially putting and and likely putting a pretty significant hardship on folks um that really is something the city ought to be taken care of.

And to be clear, not to suggest that we shouldn't clear the paths and have accessible sidewalks.

I just there's a very real scenario where this just really isn't practical for some renter with a snow a snow shovel from you know Star Market.

All right, thank you, Councilor Davis.

Uh Councilor Mbaugh, I see you.

You have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair Scott.

Um, and thank you, Director Zana.

I just I think Councillor Davis, you know, when he started speaking, I thought maybe he brought it home for me, but I want to still make sure that I'm pretty clear because when I saw this myself, you know, one of the things I'm I'm reading, I'm like, how will add in including about cupcuts if applicable change how residents or even developers comply with this session?

Or in other words, like what specific issues or dispute is the language intended to resolve.

Like I'm trying to make sure that they are not unintended consequences for property owner, like the good counselor mentioned, you know.

Uh I have not also like heard exactly what and also like just lastly, how will implementation be monitored, even uh I'm sorry, Councilor Mbog, but could you run that question by me again and and let me know who you'd like to address it?

Um absolutely no, there's like so many things going on through my head.

So let's say, for example, like uh thank you, Chair Scott.

So first is so what specific issues or dispute is this language intended to resolve.

Okay, we're talking about the snow and ice removal uh from handicap ramps uh from the making sure that when folks clear their sidewalks and they're into their driveway, that they also, if they uh abut a corner, uh that they clear the snow and ice there so that folks with mobility impairments can actually use our sidewalks and crosswalks.

Okay.

Scott, how will implementation be monitored?

Uh director Zaino.

Uh I mean uh through uh through you the chair to um to counselor uh mba.

I I mean it would be implemented as um, you know, we'd update I mean the staff is aware that there's a pending amendment currently as to what that would mean.

So once this would pass, um I mean implementation would be the same as um current practice, so it would be you know, if there's complaints that come in, and also while inspectors are out uh doing inspections if they saw that these things were cleared, um, they would potentially issue tickets.

Um so I think it would go in line with um a typical sidewalk not being cleared.

Does that answer your question?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, and and and why I'm asking that question is just also like uh not create uh any unintended consequences, you know.

Um like the good counselor mentioned for property owners, you know.

So yeah, that's where I'm at.

But uh I'm open to hear what my colleagues have to say on this.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh thank you, Councilor Mbot.

I see Counselor Strezzo next.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um following up on what uh counselor Davis is saying on um the unintended unintended quant consequences of this um amendment.

One uh I I do want to talk about how this may impact uh renters or um some of our constituents.

I am the council rep on the ADA task force.

And one of the points that some of the task force members who of course are constituents and either are caregiving for a someone with a a disability or are a person with disability within Somerville.

One of the things that they brought up is the fact that it is very common right now or becoming more common for landlords to put into the lease that tenants are responsible for show snubbling and clearing of ice um in the winter.

And as far and so the members of the task force were saying how this is this impacts them if they they have ADA needs, how exactly are they going to be show snuffling if they can't?

They need an apartment.

And so there are residents that are holding their breath and signing leases, you know, on other stuff too, of course, we know.

But um on this element of their lease, because they need an apartment and it's in their price range, et cetera, but then they're forced to sign a part of their lease that they are responsible for this.

How exactly would that play into future uh leases and and tenant rights, etc.?

Addition to that, I don't even think it's legal for that to be included in a lease uh for our tenants, and and that brings a whole other uh issue with with housing rights, and that's a different uh issue we can address it at different time.

But how would this, and I'm this is a rhetorical question.

Um, how would this in addition to that impact renters and those leases, etc.?

So I have I have great pause with that.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh I see Councillor Davis wants a second bite at the apple there, or did was that a leftover hand race?

Yeah, on on two of those points, Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Um actually, well, it's sort of in uh follow-up to my own point, something that I remembered after I stopped talking, and then and and further to counter uh Streso's point.

Um so my recollection is that we have had a discussion about that specific issue in terms of the the passing down of the obligation um in a lease, and then we've been advised by the law department that that that is perfectly legal.

Uh it's a you know a private transaction.

I do see that we have uh assistant uh city attorney Shapiro here.

Um I uh you know, I don't know if you can speak to that um uh uh you know off the top of uh off the cuff or not.

But the other thing, and this also would relate to um the law department.

I I'm now recollecting that when we or at least I think I recol I remember that when we talked about this last time, we we posited that that perhaps this could be applied to you know to larger buildings, um, you know, four unit count or five years, you know, X unit count or above, um, and not to to you know the the the smaller buildings um to to avoid this specific thing.

And I my recollection is that we received an email confirming that yes, we could treat different sized buildings differently as it related to this law.

I may be applying that to a completely different issue that we were talking about.

Um so forgive me if that's the case, but I don't think I am.

I think it was I think it was about this.

So I'd like through you, Mr.

Chair, if um you know, and I recognize I'm putting Mr.

Sparrow on the spot here.

Um, but uh I I would like to ask first does any of that ring a bell um to uh to the assistant city attorney?

Um and if not, no worries, but is that something that maybe we could look into if you know if if it's not the will of the committee to move forward with this proposal this evening?

But it does ring a bell.

And I actually remember that one, believe it or not, even though it happened back in March.

Um the question essentially was whether you were legally allowed to treat larger buildings differently than smaller buildings, essentially.

That was the question I was asked, and I recall answering it that you legally could as a legal matter.

Um as to your other question about private transactions and um flow up to Council Strezzo's point, um, I can double check this, but my recollection is that the state sanitary code may have some restrictions on what you can and cannot put into a lease regarding snow shoveling.

I'm I do want to double check it.

Um but I I believe that Council Strezzo is correct purely off the top of my head, but I do want to double check that aspect and I will do that tomorrow and let the uh committee know whether there is a restriction under the law about uh uh what you can and could put into a private lease involving snow shoveling and that sort of thing.

But I remember something from 10 years ago.

I just don't remember exactly what the current state of the law is in that.

So follow up, Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Sure.

So uh thank you, um uh attorney Shapiro.

I so I I guess on the first point, um I I I guess we just it kind of slip must have slipped through the cracks between between then and and now um and uh you know, here we are.

But I I I still think would much prefer to see something that was applicable to you know only to larger bit larger buildings with unicats.

I I I think we need to find a way as a city to um clear these these spaces and and you know, I recognize that's expensive, but um, you know, and and you know, perhaps it's similar some similar to the um uh the approach of uh counselor Ba will recall the um invasive species where we decided not to make an ordinance um and and impose fines on people for doing stuff, but to teach and encourage um you know, uh to take the approach of look, it's really important to clear these accessible curb cuts, please do it.

ASAP when you're out there if you can.

But gosh, I I just I I shudder to think about what the email is gonna say the first time we start getting responses from constituents who are getting tickets for this stuff when it's a concrete wall of snow and and none of us could remove it without a without a jackhammer.

Um on on the second point, you know, to through you, Mr.

Chair, to the uh city's assistant city attorney.

Um if if it does prove to be accurate that there's some limitation as to you know the extent to which a landlord can require tenants to um comply with a uh snow removal ordinance.

Um gosh ge, it sure seems like they do that all the time in the city.

So if if that's the case, then you know, then what?

I I think we need to we need to come up with a a real aggressive plan to um to undo that uh wrong because uh my understanding is that's very commonplace.

Uh we hear it all the time that it's you know it's it's pushed down to the to the tenants.

So um I I'll leave it at that.

Um I see that Dr.

Zaino has his hand up, so maybe there's some um correction or or f or uh follow up to to something there.

But I I you know I I maintain I reta I maintain uh my concern with with this as it's drafted, and I think I'd like to see it revised to apply to uh not to the little folks um before we move forward.

All right, appreciate that.

Um Director Zano, is this in direct response?

Uh I do want to get to Councilor Ewan Campin as well.

Uh Director Zayn, why don't you take it right now and then we'll move on.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Uh it's pretty close uh uh through the chair to uh to counselor Davis.

Uh just just as like from a practical enforcement perspective from ISD only, nothing about what you guys uh from a legislative want to in your will to do.

Just from a practical thing, if you do limit to certain types of buildings, it just might make it from a practical enforcement aspect just a bit more complicated in the field to be able to make sure that that is we will we'll do it.

It just creates some practical implications for enforcement for the differences to be able to make sure that we're accurately doing it for those ones versus other ones.

All right.

And uh mistakes do get made.

I had to uh intercede from time to time on uh trash tickets for dumpsters coming to the wrong address.

So uh appreciate that.

Counselor Ewan Campen, you're up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh and through you, thank you to Counselor Davis for for raising these concerns, which I I certainly share.

I think we all want these corners to be cleared, obviously.

That that is the the goal here.

Um I I think where I'm apprehensive is sort of in not fully understanding what the enforcement would look like in reality.

I think um if this was the sort of thing where you know someone makes a little mistake, doesn't get it done in time, there's ice, and they're immediately hammered with a with a large ticket.

That is not something that I think any of us would want as an outcome.

On the other hand, I think we all know there are certain property owners around the city who just year after year, storm after storm, really don't deal with their responsibilities.

Um and it would be nice to have the tool in the toolkit of more intense enforcement when possible.

But I I think I I I agree kind of as it's drafted, it it's to me, it it makes me concerned that too many people are gonna get um tickets despite maybe their best efforts.

Um so uh yeah, I I wish I had more kind of productive ideas.

I applying it to larger buildings that might help address it.

You know, if there was some way to have this be kind of more clearly a last resort um for you know serially delinquent um uh properties where they're kind of getting complaints over and over and over about the a situation not being addressed reasonably.

Um, but as it is kind of I I think the kind of casts too wide a net is is my concern.

Um I am extremely supportive of more city resources to do this because I agree, you know, it's completely unacceptable that there are not accessible routes after a snow or ice storm.

I there's there's no disagreement about that, but whether this will actually affect that versus just kind of like wind up hitting a bunch of people with tickets without solving the problem.

Um that's why I'm apprehensive.

All right, appreciate that, counselor.

You and campen.

Uh uh I I appreciate this.

It does remind me of that discussion, Councilor Davis, uh that I had forgotten about.

Um I I just I'm thinking about uh we are here in the first not quite snow, Snake wintry mix of the season.

And uh I I've seen Union Square over and over and over again be basically untraversable.

Uh so I wonder if it might be uh if it might be acceptable to my colleagues to put a restriction on this uh to apply to only commercial properties, uh commercial or mixed use.

That is to say any anything that has a uh commercial use on the ground floor.

Um and then we can come back to the question of larger apartment buildings.

But I I think I think it is an important piece of being a good neighbor.

Uh good being good business is to be a good neighbor.

So uh I am uh in the hope of keeping our squares a little bit clearer.

I wonder if my colleagues would be open to accepting that.

Uh I see Director Zano, and then I see Councillor Stress.

Um sorry, Chair.

I just to back up one second to address the the concerns about the um the wall of ice potentially um going back on the curb cut and whether or not you know good efforts would be considered um sufficient.

I do I can I can comment on general practice um that the term you know where um where it talks where in practical um it shall be treated with uh sand or other materials that instances where something has been plowed over um and people have shown effort to clear the space has typically been treated as by uh ISD as you know reasonable effort and meeting still the ordinance that wouldn't be ticketed, just to comment on that.

Uh yeah, appreciate that.

Um I've not known ISD to be interested in uh ringing people up unnecessarily.

Uh Counselor Strezett.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and I totally agree with what you're saying.

Sign me up.

Uh Union Square is yes.

Um there are some repeat offenders that just keep getting amnesia every snowstorm to not do the shoveling.

So yes, let's let's start with uh exactly what you say.

I I I think that's a wonderful springboard, and we can take it from there.

Okay.

Uh I see Council Davis.

Yeah, um, thank you, Ms.

Chair.

I mean, I I look I I I appreciate that.

I I have no uh I have no concerns with applying this to commercial properties.

Um I my feeling right now is that we we have the conversation about um larger buildings.

We know that we treat larger buildings different for um uh for you know trash removal.

I think that I think the cutoff there is six units.

Um you know, this will have to be reworked um to incorporate uh commercial buildings.

It's not it wouldn't be the drafting isn't easy to just because of the way it's drafted, you you really need to create a you know break out a separate section or or something, I think.

Um and my question would be to just you know commercial buildings or you know, buildings with six or more units uh with someone's confirmation that that's the that's where we draw the line on on um municipal you know trash collection seems like a good place to draw the line here too.

Um and I don't think that'd be is it too too difficult to do.

And I'm you know, if if we could as far as the enforcement goes, I think that'd probably be relatively straightforward.

And if there's a few mistakes on the margins, then you know we can figure out a way to make it easier for y'all to deal that with that.

But um, you know, if we can sort it out for trash collection um by address, then I assume we've got a list somewhere.

So maybe we use that.

That would that would be my inclination.

Let's just you know let's let's not leave uh uh the door open here if we have a uh a reasonable solution.

And let's also do better job cleaning it up, cleaning the rest of the corners ourselves as a city.

All right, thank you, Councillor Davis.

Uh Councilor Streso.

Thanks on that point.

Uh through to um counselor Davis, I hear you with uh six or more properties.

However, what is the I need more information on with units of six or more um I'm sorry, which which with uh buildings with six or more units, uh I wouldn't feel comfortable getting into um how are tenants are they responsible for in addition to that?

And are we talking condos?

Are we talking about apartment buildings?

Are we talking about because then we head back into the lease conversation of our tenants with leases of six or more?

Are they responsible for that?

What is the what is the average on that?

I don't actually know the answer to that.

Um we can get that answer between now and the next meeting, unfortunately, which will be the end of the year, but then we head back into the argument.

So I don't know what to think about that.

I'm on board with with uh commercial properties.

I think that's a necessity.

I think it's an important one.

But heading back into the the lease conversation, there we go again.

All right, guess what?

Mr.

Chair, on that fair point.

Um, you convince me I think if there's uh if if there's a question about whether that we would inadvertently be still putting it on tenants in those large apartment buildings, then fair enough.

Let's let's let's punt that one sort it out and and I I would support just the added commercial.

Thank you for that.

Uh for that point, Council Strauss, I agree with you.

All right.

Well, in that case, uh let me ask a question to uh Annalist Salisbury then.

Uh Annalyst Salisbury, do you think you'd be able to work up the language uh on your new form here to uh to create an obligation to clear the uh accessible curb ramps where applicable uh for commercial properties only.

I know it would probably require uh 128B uh or some other uh division there.

Is that something uh you feel like you can do between now and the next council meeting?

Oh, between now and the next council meeting, absolutely, Mr.

Chair.

Uh if the ask was for tonight, I would have to give an unequivocal no, unfortunately.

Um there are actually other subsections within this section.

The only one present before you tonight is subsection A.

Oh, but uh subsection B, C and D do already exist.

Um so I would need to uh do a little bit more maneuvering than simply adding some uh additional text to the bottom here.

Right.

Okay, well, I will count on you to do that.

And just to make sure it's clear for the minutes, um, I I'm going to uh move that this committee requests our policy analyst to draft language that would extend a responsibility for commercial property owners to clear uh abutting accessible curb ramps.

Um that way we can mark this item as work completed and then uh work from the new submission when it comes in, hopefully on next Thursday.

Chair, could you say that language again for me?

So if you are making that request, I can have it exact in the minutes.

Sure.

I mean, I don't I don't think it's super necessary, but I do I why not?

Uh let's say uh that the committee requests uh analyst Salisbury to draft language uh creating an obligation on commercial properties to clear abutting accessible curve ramps.

Thank you.

As well, this item is sent for recommendations, so work completed is not a disposition.

Um so I will let you over that.

We can uh counselor Davis.

I might suggest maybe we we uh discharges from committee without a recommendation uh with that request that the uh that that the original change requested be limited to commercial properties um such that we could then uh take a look at it.

Um I'm happy to take a look, uh Brendan, you know, ahead of our next uh council meeting, final council meeting for the year.

Um or you know, Mr.

Chair, obviously you're more than capable to take a look, make sure it looks good, however, how we want to do that, and then um, yes, we can have a little conversation ahead of time if need be and polish it up and have it ready to go uh for the council and and then you know if it's the will of the body at that time, then we can put it into place for the winter if it's actually gonna snow this week, which they say it might.

Uh well, there's always next year as the Red Sox say.

Uh, but yes, I would love that.

So let's go ahead and discharge this item uh without recommendation, and then we can give it a disposition at the full council.

Uh and that'll give us a reason to talk about the item uh and hopefully bring in the new submission.

So uh unless there's anything further on this, we'll go ahead and uh lay the motion to discharge without recommendation on the table so we can take that vote up with a single vote at the end.

And uh thank you uh to Deputy Director Zano and uh thank you, Solicitor Shapiro for being here tonight.

Uh let's go on back to the regular order of the meeting, uh, where I will take up uh number uh agenda items number two and three.

That's uh a request of the city council, uh city clerk work with the council to amend the code of ordinances to better regulate the sale of secondhand goods, and then the response to that request, which is 251686, amending chapter 8, article three pertaining to secondhand dealer licenses.

There is a lot of red here, but I know that our clerk, our city clerk and uh our analyst have done a lot of work on that.

Uh Clerk Potter, are you here to talk about that one?

Mr.

Chair, through you, yes, I am.

All right, great.

Please take it away.

Mr.

Chair through you and Michael Potier licensing operations manager.

There was a request put in to take a look at this ordinance to see if we could clean it up.

So the amount of red you see is somewhat deceiving in the sense that we just moved some things around and clarified some language.

Um a lot of that substance has kind of been lowered into um section 862.

Um a few just highlights here.

Um major change that we made that wasn't present in the ordinances that currently existed was to capture those who sold goods, whether or not they purchased them or not.

Um sale for profit is something that we wanted to capture in here so that those who were engaged in that business would come before the city council with an application that had been reviewed by um Somerville police um in advance.

Um we also clarified some of the identification and record keeping requirements.

Um most of the changes in additions with that regard come in the um in an effort to sort of help prevent theft and resale, even if the um the secondhand dealer themselves isn't aware that the goods that they're reselling um may or may not have been um improperly obtained.

Um, there's just a change in some of the record keeping and transmission um language towards the Somerville police department.

It was previously directed towards the chief of police.

We sort of expanded that language so that I could work with our liaisons in SPD, and I do see Captain Sheehan and Lieutenant uh Di Oliver here in this meeting.

Work with them to create a system of record keeping uh that is most useful for them without um creating too much of an administrative burden.

The penalties remain the same.

Um and yeah, those are the main changes.

Happy to answer any question that the members of the committee might have.

All right, thank you for that.

Um questions from members of the committee.

Well, while I'm waiting for that, uh I know there have been concern about the uh uh the threshold for uh first say let's let's say uh operate a vintage clothing store and uh I'm you know I'm going to a yard sale.

Do I need to get a uh valid government issued photo ID uh from for the person I'm purchasing from.

Oh, you're muted, sir.

Apologies, I thought I clicked that.

Uh Mr.

Chair, through you.

Based on the way that this is written, that would be a requirement.

The idea is this the straight answer to your question is technically yes.

Um the way that we envision this as drafted was more as um with regard to the storefront, and we'd be happy to consider any sort of uh amended uh language that you uh may want to offer.

But someone coming to a storefront and selling something to a store owner, presenting an ID such that that a record could be um kept, or the age of the person could be verified.

Um if they're you know, the the shop owner may be hesitant to purchase something from someone who's a minor, for example, but technically that would be a strict enforcement of it.

If they were to go to a yard sale and purchase, they would want to see the ID of the of the person they're purchasing from.

Um and I'm wondering how to capture that here.

I will uh hold my thoughts on that for a moment uh and offer it up to colleagues here.

Are there any other thoughts or colleagues?

Counselor Mbai, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Uh good to see you, Mr.

Potter.

I guess one of the things also almost the same uh line of thinking that we can create all this policy, which is really great, but it's about enforcement.

So uh one it's like um so how will you know your office or inspection uh office ensure compliance and two what are the uh uh what what is happening in netboarding communities?

Like do we I'm sure we don't live in a bubble like is it like any netbody community?

How how is that being regulated?

All right.

Uh I guess I'd put that out to uh Clerk Potter.

Mr.

Chair Through you, thank you.

Um just take the second part of the question first.

I'm not uh specifically familiar with what other cities around us are doing.

Um, but what I can say with regard to the first part of your question is that um the the enforcement comes in the renewal process.

So effectively the requirement of transmitting to SPD records of transactions and things of that nature um would be going to the police, and what we would do on renewal is uh send a review route um to our liaison in the police department to confirm that that the um the shop owner, the licensee has been in compliance with that as a as a condition of renewal.

Thank you, thank you, Chair.

All right.

Uh there we go.

Thank you.

Uh appreciate it, Councilor Mba.

Yeah, I uh is there purchase merchandise or accepted for consignment.

Um perhaps we could just add a dollar limit on the uh value for the purchase.

Uh before purchasing merchandise uh uh valued at greater than uh $50 or or even $20.

Uh would that be uh would that be an acceptable edit here for the Mr.

Mr.

Chair3?

If that's directed to me, uh absolutely that's well within your discretion.

Um the dollar amount would also be within your discretion and then it would be up to the judgment of the licensee and the on review of the um SPD liaison if that purchase is if that dollar amount uh is accurately reflected in that purchase because as we know that market, you know, the value of certain things could be less or more than that.

Um just you know go ahead.

No, I I'm I am mindful of uh the gift card transactions and how much uh gift cards get used in the the pawn and resale world.

So uh I'll send it to Counselor Davis and then back to Councilor Mbah.

Counselor Davis.

Uh thank you, Mr.

I actually was just looking for a clarification.

Um I I couldn't see where that language would go in the proposal.

So I was just trying to have a question.

I have a hard time following along what what you were proposing there.

Uh it would be I'd put it in 861 C.

Uh, which uh yes, right there at the bottom of the first page.

Um you know, this requirement just it becomes a real burden if somebody's going to an estate sale or a tag sale, or you know, uh somebody's just doing uh vintage shopping and rethrifting.

So uh I'm trying to find some way to allow those shops to continue to operate without having to document the the driver's license of everybody they buy something at a yard sale from.

Um so yes, hopefully that answers question.

Yeah, it does.

Thank you.

I think that makes sense.

I mean, I I'm pretty sure folks have a tag sale or right.

I mean, I I'm pretty sure folks have a tag sale or sorry.

There's a little little circle around Western Mass where we call them tax sales.

Uh I learned that wasn't that was that wasn't everywhere.

Uh a yard sale, a garage other.

Probably not doing it under license.

So I'm not sure that would be uh but I but I see your point.

Um and and so I yeah, let me ruminate on that.

Thank you.

Uh all right.

It's the counselor you and campen.

Well, just Mr.

Cher, on that uh uh if I'm understanding the discussion, it's it's that someone who operates a second hand store could go to a yard sale or an estate sale and buy stuff and then sell it in their vintage store.

And this would require those people at the time that they're buying it to check the ID of the person running the yard sale and keep a record of it.

I to uh, you know, I that to me seems not like something that I would like to put on secondhand shop owners.

Um, I I'm not naive to some of the issues.

I without naming names.

I used to work at a record store when I was a teenager that would regularly take possession of stuff that was sold to them by people that even as a teenager I could tell was like recently burgled from from people's apartments, and people would call the store and complain about it, and you know, there was nothing that could be done.

So I I I'm not naive that this could be an issue and we might want to regulate it somehow, but this to me, you know, just knowing plenty of people who run vintage shops or anything like that.

It's you know, the the way they make their business is they go around to flea markets and yard sales and estate sales and the idea that they would you know ask people for ID when they're buying stuff to then sell.

Just I'm not so so could I just threw you, Mr.

Chair.

Currently, we don't require any of this.

Is that is that correct for secondhand shops?

It's just kind of the largely unredlined paragraph B there in 861.

Is that correct?

Uh no, there's required repet record keeping farther down in the old 865 uh that's been and it has the same language in there about requiring it.

Uh as as I recall, Councilor Ewan Campen, uh this resurfaced in part because uh a couple vintage dealers in town who are not running pawn shop style uh storefronts, uh were wanted to do the right thing, wanted to be licensed and want to be compliant, uh, but we're just running into the enormous overhead of having to document every year's.

So that that is a requirement that currently exists.

We would we have an opportunity here to clean that up and relieve that right.

Got it.

Mr.

Chair, I I apologize that I'm not prepared tonight to propose what I think would be a better idea.

Um, but I am I am concerned about this requirement.

If you know, if we're revisiting this, I I would want to take a harder look at this, and I'm I'm happy to do that in the future.

All right.

Well, it sounds like there's uh I know I have that concern.

I appreciate uh counselor Ewan Camp and Councillor Davis also have similar concerns.

So uh why don't we do this?

Uh I will talk to uh I'll talk to the clerk's office.

We will work on it if any colleagues do have ideas about what a threshold uh might be if it was a dollar amount threshold or a purchase size, what whatever.

Um I'd I'd love to hear it.

Uh we can hopefully find some creative ideas and come back and next time we visit this, hopefully be ready to amend and approve.

Uh is there anything further on discussion for this this evening.

All right.

Then let's go ahead.

We'll keep that one in committee, Mr.

President.

I sure hope items are getting renewed in January 1st.

But that'll be at your discretion.

I I can speak to that just so folks know might as well uh my understanding is that anything that is uh in committee um for an action, like um, you know, such as this uh proposed amendment will be renewed.

Things that are for discussion will not be.

So that it would be at you know at the discretion of the chair or the maker of the motion uh or the sponsor of the item or or anyone to you know to revive things that are in a committee box.

And my understanding is that the clerk's office and or Mr.

Salisbury and or others are already working on a list of stuff, so we all have access and uh nothing gets missed.

God bless.

Uh all right.

Let's see here.

I don't see anybody else on this, so let's go ahead.

We'll keep this uh this item, these two items in committee.

And we'll move on to the next order of business here.

Being item number five.

This is a request of the mayor uh requesting ordainment of an amendment to section 2-309.9 and 2-309.10 of the code of ordinances to clarify term length and appointment process for the community preservation committee.

Uh there was a CPC memo that uh is attached here as uh as a handout to the meeting.

Uh and I guess I will go to oh who got director Sing, is this you to introduce?

I believe so.

Uh thank you.

Yes, uh, unfortunately, relevant staff could not attend, but a memo is attached that clarifies um the reasoning behind the changes that are being proposed.

There are two changes that I can um quickly outline for the committee.

One would allow members to serve um do full terms in addition to any uh partial term um that they have already uh served, and this is in alignment with our current policy for appointed members for multimember bodies, and then the second change is to eliminate an unusual step that is in the current ordinance that requires the city to advertise um all of the candidates on the city's web page.

Um we think this um is a barrier at attracting um potential candidates and uh not in line with our uh current practices.

All right, thank you for that.

Um just before I hand this off to my colleagues, I just want to check in on the interaction with the uh charter.

Is this is this creating a special case or uh is the CBC sufficiently enabled by uh state law that it would require a separate ordinance.

Uh Annelist Salisbury.

Uh good evening, Mr.

Chair.

I realize I neglected to introduce myself last time.

Uh Annelyst Salisbury, legislative and policy analyst for the city council.

Um if I take your question correctly, is this a question about whether this would be moved into the administrative code?

Uh and thus an amendment to the ordinance might be out of order.

Is that is that the question?

Yeah, it's mostly we we've got a new uh charter approved.

Uh and I presume it takes effect real soon now.

Uh you would be correct, Mr.

Chair.

The the charter has taken effect already.

Uh uh, it does the provisions of it take took effect with the exception of any that that had a time of taking effect within six months or something like that.

Um, but the provisions of the charter do also include a provision regarding the continuance of existing laws.

Uh and so until an administrative code is put in place uh that would capture the the community preservation committee uh and various other multiple member bodies that are established by ordinance, uh the ordinances do retain effect.

All right.

So uh the answer is hopefully we won't need one very long into the next mayor's term.

Uh, but for now, we can clean up this, uh an extension of the uh terms to allow somebody to serve two full terms and a partial, uh, and removing the requirement that uh each candidate has their resume posted on the city's website for two weeks before the appointment happens.

Um is there any discussion on that from my colleagues?

All right, well, seeing none, I'm uh inclined to approve this.

I think it's a very simple simple thing, and uh hopefully we will approve this now and have it be uh uh overwritten or obviated uh forthwith shortly.

All right.

So on that, since we're recommending this one, I'll move to recommend this amendment for approval.

Uh, is there any discussion on the motion?

Seeing none, let's go ahead and call roll on that motion if you don't mind.

And on approval for agenda item 525-1652, Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor Strozo.

Yes.

Councilor Mbaugh.

Yes, please.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

Yes.

And Counselor Scott.

Yes.

With all members in favor, that is recommended to be approved.

All right, wonderful.

Thank you very much for that.

Uh then let's move on to uh item number six.

This is a mayor's request of an amendment to section 12-178 of the code of ordinances to remove the prohibition on sourcing neonicotinoid treated plants.

I'm gonna brush off my shoulders, presuming that I said that correctly.

Uh is there anybody I see Director Oliveira here.

Uh, I I know there's been some conversation I've had with mayor staff uh about this, and uh this goes back to when this ordinance was first passed.

Lord, I want to say back in 2020 or 2021.

Uh so Director Oliveira, if you wouldn't mind introducing uh this simple change, uh it looks like it's eliminating the sunset clause for it.

Good evening.

Yes, can you hear and see me?

We can, Director.

Please, you have the floor.

Sure.

My name is Luisa Oliveira.

I'm the director of public space and urban forestry.

And uh through the chair, we are eliminating this sunset clause that we are not allowed to use any or to source any plants that have neotonictinoids, or for the ease of speech, we'll call them neonics beginning in January of 2026.

While um neotonictinoids or neonics are a huge problem, uh both in pollinator decline, but for other reasons too.

Uh pesticide is a huge problem in this country.

Um it is a particular problem for bees.

Uh and they are uh class of neurotoxins that are systematic and are uh prevalent in agricultural crops, lawn and gardens, as well as the nursery industry.

So um having just finished the Somerville Pollinator Action Plan, that was one of the recommendations, and we wholeheartedly support this recommendation.

The problem is that uh not being able right now, neotonictinoids is the is prevalent in the entire nursery industry.

While there are smaller nurseries that are growing neonic free plants and specifically neonic free native plants, which is what this applies to, um, it's very hard to buy the quantity of plants that we need on our projects through these smaller nurseries.

Um, and sometimes absolutely impossible to do that.

So we have a number of projects that are coming up that are middle and larger uh projects, and those projects would be in jeopardy if we continue with this clause in January of 2026.

So the projects that we are putting up, and I'm just looking for that right now, the projects that we are going to be going out to bid.

Um what happens is they go out to bid with a large um construction document set, one of which is the planting plan.

And a contractor usually either sources these plants or has a subcontractor who sources these plants to then install them.

And um, they then go and find, you know, um 19 oak trees and 150 little blue stems or sometimes 600 um of one plant or another and deliver them to the site and put them in.

So if you go, for example, to the new Somerville Junction Park, that park has 91 trees and um 6,000 plants.

At the moment, we are not saying you cannot use neotinictinoids.

If we said that, it would be very difficult for them to be able to complete our projects.

Um I want to just run through the projects that are in jeopardy.

So again, there are small local nurseries that many of our projects we can get.

For example, we have done five uh habitat projects this year, adding habitat to different planting areas and parks, and all of those were sourced without neo-nix because they're smaller quantities.

But we have the Kennedy Schoolyard renovation, um, spring and fall tree planting, and I'll get I'll discuss the trees in a second.

The Mystic River outfall and sewer separation project that has um green infrastructure that will be sourcing plants, Morris Ave linear stormwater drainage, and the blessing of the bay um greenway.

So those are all projects that are going to be uh put out to bid this winter or in uh 26 or 27.

If we don't remove this clause in January of 26, we are not going to, we're either going to see much higher prices because as soon as the the contractors see this, which is not a normal convention, they're going to um raise the prices on everything because it requires so much extra work and the plants uh are more expensive because they are grown without pesticides.

Um, as well as we may see not being able to plant as many plants.

So while we are 100% also against the use of neonics, the nursery industry just isn't there yet.

And we really fear that not removing this clause is going to put our projects in jeopardy.

All right.

Well, I appreciate it.

Uh I I see you, Counselor Davis, before I go, I just want to uh make sure my recollection of when we first passed this, uh, there was a similar concern about the state of the nursery industry.

Uh and this sunset date was picked as being sufficiently on the future, where hopefully the purchasing pressure would encourage that.

It had it sounds like there are more people doing this kind of neonic-free uh supply than there were four or five years ago.

Is that correct?

Through the chair, absolutely.

There are more and more.

However, they're small nurseries, they're not there are a couple of um larger scaled ones, but they're not selling the quantity of plants.

Uh some and they may sell some of them.

So we might have a plant list where they have 30 of one thing, but then you have to go to another nursery to find a hundred of something else.

So there could be a combination of non-neonic and neonic.

Um, but requiring this, requiring that they not be treated with neonics means the contractor will have to do a lot of work in finding the ones that exist that are neonic-free.

And then the ones that are don't, they cannot find that don't have neonics will not be planted.

All right.

I see Councillor Davis followed by Counselor Ewan Camp.

Counselor Davis, you have the floor.

Thank you, Ms.

Chair, and thank you, Director Alvarez, as always, um, for your attention to all these matters.

Um they are they're a lot more important than I think a lot of people appreciate.

Um, but I appreciate it and and I'm glad that we're talking about it.

Um I I just have I have some questions and I have some thoughts.

And you know, as always, um I'm you know, I'm I I welcome the opportunity to be uh you know convinced that I'm wrong.

Um and to change to have my mind uh changed.

Um so first off, just so the the the new connectinoid um pesticides specifically are are they uh I obviously as you said they're they're uh still I mean, still you didn't say this specifically, but I think it's fair to say they're still very commonly used in nurse either nursing industry, or we wouldn't be having this conversation, that's clear from from your your statement.

Um and I I guess just for for my understanding, um why is that?

I I mean uh is is it is it that I my understanding is that you know what I use at home, right?

Neem oil and insecticidal soap and um I guess I could I could editorialize and you know uh and and comment on the effectiveness given that I seem to be doing that on a multi-weekly basis and still having the bugs in my inside plants, but that's maybe countered.

Maybe that just goes to support your point that there's not maybe not good alternatives.

But is it are those so first of all, the those types of things do not contain this this um chemical, is that correct?

Or this type of um comment?

Through the chair, yes, that's correct.

Your neem oil or uh dishwashing liquid don't contain uh neonix.

And I believe neonics are banned in Europe, but um not in the good old US of A.

Uh, and they're prevalent not only in the nursery industry, but in agriculture as well.

Yeah.

So yeah, that the you know the the this search engine for what it's worth and it's AI um assistant is telling me as you know to their banned in the UK, that there are some that that you know, some of the large big box um nurseries are are committed to phasing it out, but we you know great to tell us when you do.

Um so that that all you know that all tracks.

I I guess so.

So let's let me so then let's flip the conversation then.

Um I totally am with you on you know, finding it on not having it such that our RFPs are going to come back, you know, way over budget and we're ultimately not gonna be able to, you know, to do things.

Um but I I know you've thought about this.

I have no no doubt.

So um tell me your thought process in terms of um, you know, rather than just taking this out and saying we're gonna do our best, which the the warnings would still say we're we're going to you know prioritize sourcing native plants that have not been treated that we'll still do that.

And and that's good.

But um you know, given the impact that that the neoconnectinoids have on pollinators, especially as we said, bees, um, wouldn't it be better to just maybe plant fewer uh have a uh you know a more sparse planting plan than kill a bunch of bees to put it bluntly, you know, it's oversimplify it.

I guess like well, what uh what what was what's the thought process there?

Or or maybe to use non-night, mix in a few more non-natives, mix in a few less plants rather than say, oh well, I guess we're gonna use these pesticides and some bees will die.

Maybe it's not.

I mean, I guess it would just like I said, I'd love to hear your your sort of thought process on that.

So through the chair.

So a couple of things.

Um, non-natives can are also treated with neonictinides, so it's not uh a question of nativity.

Um, and the native plants are specifically being planted to host our native pollinators that are we know are in decline.

Um so when we're there's small amounts, like I said, um, Alison Maurer on our team has done a great job of finding nurseries that don't use neonics, and some of the advocates have also then supplemented that with more lists.

So we are starting to have a really great lists of nurseries that don't do not use these.

But the again, they're fine for a filler project, but harder um to use on a larger project, or for example, you know, if DPW needs to do a planting and they have contracts with specific nurseries in this area, they cannot find source a neonit-free plant without doing a lot of extra work.

So then they end up, if this is on the ordinance, they'll end up planting less.

And the problem with planting less is that we actually want to create more habitat to support these pollinators, right?

That's the whole point of the plan that we just finished.

Um the one thing is that the research shows that neonics don't stay in plants forever.

Now there's a lot of different science about this, and we don't have any conclusive evidence.

I've actually reached out to the scientist who uh worked on our pollinator action plan to ask him his, I've had long conversations with him about it.

His thing is that we could plant plants and take the flowers off in the beginning because the pollinators are going for the nectar.

And if they're not getting that nectar, the next year they won't have it.

And it's systematic and very small amounts uh kill bees as well.

So there's still a lot of research to do on this.

One thing that we have talked about is trying to pilot a change in our planting specifications and seeing how difficult that makes the projects, right?

So if you know, our planting specifications say they have to be, you know, American nursery certified, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

But what if we said that whenever possible they had to get neonics and we actually provided them with the list of neonic free nurseries?

And the hope is that we can continue to build on this.

Um, so we wanted to try to see what kind of a difficulty does that cause.

Does it give us some pushback?

Uh, we've had conversations with the advocates about this.

Um we need to really work on the state level to push neonics out.

But the other thing is that we can we would like to continue to work with them to get people to learn about this problem and to uh change their specifications or change the way that the more people that go to nurseries saying I'm looking for neonic free plants, the more demand there is for it, theoretically, the more supply there will be.

So for example, we are all landscape architects in PSAF and we're part of the Boston Society of Landscape Architects.

They just the pollinator plan has been a huge shift in people's thinking.

People are using it all the time to do their designs, but why uh can't we also try to explain how bad the neonics are and try to get people to change their planting specifications?

I think we kind of need a movement because they're doing this because it's you get a better plant product because it's not bitten by anything, right?

It looks perfect.

It's kind of the organic versus non-organic situation.

And it's cheaper because you don't lose plants and you don't have to keep applying less harmful um pesticides.

So I mean, like everything, it's it's about money and about production.

And nursery people get very um testy about this suggestion because I think it is much harder to grow, especially in large industrial quantities, um, which brings up the other part about trees.

When you do research into the supply chain of the trees, they often are grown in these one like uh central area that I'm not doing a very good job of explaining this, and I now uh am realizing Vanessa explained it to me in depth.

But it it's pervasive.

Like it's a very it's almost impossible to source trees without neonics.

Um so that's another issue.

So we too would love to be able to get all of the trees neonitch free, but we don't have the buying power to change the industry, and we the industry hasn't changed yet.

So I think there are some things we can do to move the needle on this, but we're not gonna be able to do them by January 1st.

Okay.

Um so I I thank you for that.

I guess Mr.

Chair, if I may just follow up, um and you know, more searching at your favorite um corporate web engine um now is suggesting that that that the big orange box store has actually discontinued use since 2019.

So it sounds if that's true, may not be because AI.

But um so I'm hesitant to take this out.

Um I I think uh for all the reasons that you articulated, it sounds like changing the date might be uh you know a fair consideration.

Um, but you know, for other for for the all the same reasons that you just made that the that you know, keeping this conversation going and and and keeping the pressure on um, you know, I don't want the headline to be Somerville removes your prohibition, right?

I want the summer the headline to be Summerville pushes it at worst, somewhat pushes it back, right?

Um and I you know I'd rather see no trees than trees that are gonna kill the bees, right?

If if it's a native if it's a non-native or if it's uh or or there's nothing there, that's better than a tree that was going to you know wipe out a local you know ecosystem of of pollinators or or or or significantly impact it.

Um and you know, so if we if we can't in these and and in these larger projects, if we can't source plants that we know are gonna that we know aren't going to be or less likely to be harmful to our to our um local pollinators, then we should you know who we should change the plan, as you said.

And so, you know, if that's something that can be managed in the in the in the planting um in the designs and the plans um and and you know, using that prioritizing it, like you said.

Um, but I I don't know.

I I just to me it just still it it doesn't it doesn't kind of align to say, well there's not there's not enough available yet, and um so we're you know, and it would make the the projects really cost prohibitive.

And so you know, we know we're just gonna have to buy some.

Well, maybe you know, maybe it's some combination of of you know far, far, far fewer plants that have been treated.

Maybe it's digging harder, you know.

I mean, like I said, I don't know if this is true about Home Depot, but it seems to say like they're not using it.

Um here's another thing from two years ago that says low is doing the same thing.

I don't know.

Um the internet could be could be wrong on all that.

Um we are we are aware of all of that.

However, all you know, 50, you know, also the research we've done is like 51% of bee-friendly plants use neonics.

So I'm not really confident that Home Depot or Lowe's is actually doing that because where are they buying them?

They're not going to like, you know, the smaller uh focused native stuff.

So I I don't really believe that.

I think the question is the neonics we know are in the plant for a particular amount of time, one season, two seasons.

And it does sacrifice the insects that are landing on it at that time.

But once the neonics are out of the plant, then it's actually providing valuable habitat.

So I don't think that it is um, I don't think we have the luxury of saying don't create habitat because you're killing you're killing the pollinators for two years, but then what about the other years that a plant that a tree exists?

Also, we would not be able to do our 350 tree planting, uh plant the 350 trees that we plant on Somerville streets because trees are not available without neonics.

So there is a real trade-off that we have to consider.

And while we would love things to be different and we can work towards making them different, I don't know that we have the luxury of of doing nothing or doing less.

Um okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um thank you, Director.

I I I'd like to see this pushed out um and not just removed all together.

I think we need to remain keep the pressure on the industry.

I'm reading a Lowe's policy right now that seems you know clearly focused on uh going deep into the supply chain um to uh to phase out these uses.

Um we don't know how long they last the plants.

I I think I think we should seriously consider you know scaling back planting plans if if we think that the plants that were put in the ground are going to have you know significant impact on um our our pollinators uh that to me that's the whole point of the pollinator action plan.

And then we're like, well, it's hard, it's expensive and hard to buy them, so we'll just go ahead and use them you know in these large projects.

To me, that just doesn't seem like the right answer.

Um and I know that's not exactly what you're saying, and I appreciate that.

And I don't want to, you know, I don't want to oversimplify here, right?

I I do appreciate and I know that you you know your the intense detentions are are are pure and good um and that you know there's financial challenges, but um I think you know at least at worst, I'd like to see this day just push back rather than take it out altogether to me.

I think you know we need to keep the pressure on to keep changing the industry and you know some punches above its weight when it comes to drawing attention to ourselves sometimes.

And this is actually a thing that we actually are doing in our city, and it also has symbolic meaning.

So to me, I think that that would be my preferred approach.

All right.

Thank you, Council Davis.

Uh I see counselor Ewan Camp and then Strezzo, then Mbah.

Counselor Ewan Camp, and you have floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Sheyer.

Through you, uh thank you, Director, and thank you, counselor, for that.

That was really helpful.

And um, let me also just say I have a um uh former constituent who has published extensive research on neonicotinoids.

Let me just read you the title of one of his papers, it's been cited over 300 times, Ward 3 legacy.

Neonicotenoid exposure disrupts bumblebee nest behavior, social networks, and thermal regulation.

This is specifically about how even when it doesn't kill insects, it disrupts like functions of colonies and you know overall health of the animals.

Um with all that said, I I am reluctantly convinced that January 1st, 2026 is not the date.

I I I I concede that point as much as I don't want to.

Um I I also do agree with with my colleague.

I think when we first started talking about the native plant ordinance, I think there were a lot of kind of similar concerns, right?

That like the industry wasn't there and um I have just been totally blown away by the shift that has happened kind of in the public consciousness.

And you know, now you go to Mahoney's and there's huge signs on all the which plants are native.

And there has been the kind of movement and shift uh on a large scale that Director Oliveira was just talking about.

And I think that that is starting to happen with these, and I want it to continue.

So I I would certainly support pushing this back.

I I really do kind of um respect obviously the expertise of the department and you know uh I I don't I don't think that the folks who just wrote the pollinator plan are uh blowing smoke that this isn't gonna work by January 1st of next year.

Um so I I would also support pushing this back for you know three years, whatever that number is.

I'll leave it there.

Thanks, Chair.

All right, thank you, Counselor Young Campen.

Uh Counselor Streso, you are up.

All right, thank you.

Uh quick uh through you to uh Director Oliveira.

Um I had a quick uh a few quick follow-up questions on what you've mentioned.

I'm not on finance.

So I I don't and I don't uh I haven't looked at the order and purchases that PCP does with what specific where they were you specifically purchase your um your stock.

Uh can you tell me quickly?

Through the chair, I'm not sure that I understand the question.

Are you asking where do we purchase our plants?

Correct, yes.

Through the chair.

So when we are building a park, we do not purchase them directly.

There is a bid put out, and a contractor, lowest bid contractor wins that bid, they purchase the plants.

Um additionally, there are procurement laws that we cannot tell them where they must purchase the plants.

Uh that's against Massachusetts procurement law.

We can ask them to purchase, we can do it, what's called a performance spec.

So we can say you must buy a plant that's neonic free, but we cannot tell them you must purchase it from these this nursery.

Um they we need there's always an as equal clause.

That is mass state procurement law.

When we purchase PSUF, when we do smaller projects, for example, the pollinator garden in front of City Hall or the five pollinator editions that we added to different parks this year.

We purchase them from a uh variety of smaller nurseries that are that we know do not use pesticides.

So part of the problem is we cannot control where our contractors are purchasing them.

DPW, I believe has a P open POs with a number of different nurseries to get plants at.

IAM engineering who are doing the streetscape projects, they do the same um process that I just described for the contractors.

A contractor is awarded a big contract to separate the sewer, and then they have a subcontractor that down the line is going to be putting in the plants for the green infrastructure.

They cannot tell them you must buy them from this nursery.

Um they could say they must be neonic-free, but that you know, that has cost and time implications.

And people will say, well, you could contract grow them, but you in order to do that, you need to have be doing this a year or two before.

So there's no quick answer to this.

If there was, we would just do it and we wouldn't be here.

Um I I don't know if that answers your question, but that's kind of the sources of where plants are coming from for us.

I do.

I I appreciate that.

Um, and I and that's what I was looking for.

Um with that, Mr.

Chair through you to uh uh to director.

Um how if you can give just a guesstimate of percentages of say how many plants were I'm not trying to put you on the spot.

I I'm trying to suss out um a little more depth to the the um how can you give a guesstimate of percentages of like how much of the purchase that like PSUF or the city purchases versus how much how um how is supplied with the the contractors or or the the bidders um of how much stock is being planted here in our city.

I say stocks as plants, and and the reason I didn't go into details of that because I understand that it's complex.

There's flowers, there's plants, there's there's bushes, there's trees, etc.

I know it's very complex.

I was trying to elaborate on you know, short brief, get a briefer uh sense of time, brief the time on this.

So can you give a guesstimate of a percentage of how much PSUF or the city purchases on plants versus the contractors?

Um, or is that like a longer follow-up question?

Through the chair, um our parks projects on our IAM projects, the sewer separation and green infrastructure.

We are talking about thousands and thousands of plants.

On the PSUF side, we are talking about maybe 8,000, maybe 500.

So it's a very different scale.

And that is essentially the problem because at scale for smaller scale, we can find those, we can source those, but at a larger scale, you cannot, because the large nurseries are not growing plants without neonics, nor are nor is agriculture growing the food that we're eating without them.

So that's essentially the the problem.

Thank uh Mr.

Chair through you too, director.

Thank you very much.

Um that's that's helpful.

Um has there been, I I know that there are uh mass gen law restrictions on on preferences of of companies, et cetera.

Um, and I I know there are laws in that, but has has PSUF or within this conversation.

Have you reached out to and had conversations specifically with the nursery here and the nursery the the adjacent nursery next door and also in in Boston on their thoughts or or or if they aren't uh fully up to um compliance with what is proposed, how they could be or what they could, or are they just too small to handle the capacity of what Somerville would order and they could deliver.

Through the chair, I'm sorry, I don't understand which nurseries are you referring to a particular specific nursery?

Well, I guess are they I don't know, maybe they're too small a scale than that uh technically the one say in Union Square, is that too small for that for what we could purchase?

Um the through the chair, absolutely.

They don't carry all natives, and they're certainly not buying from suppliers that are neonic-free because it would be a lot more expensive if they were.

Um this is a this is a industry-wide problem.

And yes, people have to band together and push against it.

Um, but that's not going to happen before these projects are slated to go out to bid, and we put those at risk if we keep this date.

I um, Mr.

Chair, through you to direct, yeah, I get that.

I hear what you're saying.

Um with with um, I'm trying not to name them because uh to not show preference, etc., even though it's very clear that um we have a nursery or a small uh plant seller in our city.

Um, and my my hope is always loyal to our local companies and opposed to a huge big box store um who has different uh agendas and motivations, etc.

Um, I like the local aspect of us.

Is there uh going forward?

And I know that this is not what we're immediately um discussing, because we need to make a decision in this committee on what we're talking about, but going forward as we whatever decision is made, is can there be a conversation or thought of pulling an economic development small business and and finding out within, of course, uh procurement laws, if we can find ways to um work within uh the union square um person, you know, company that sells plants and the adjacent one in Boston and the adjacent one in um Cambridge, um, to help us get to speed and the visionary compliance we want to be at going forward.

That's of course not what we're gonna be deciding tonight or or not, but where we need to go and how we pull in people to get on with our vision and and collaboratively work with that.

Perhaps it's more of a rich a rhetorical open-end question, but um how do we get people on board and and help them help us and help us all succeed and then also pull together for our environment and and our world directly in front of us.

Through the chair um in regards to local nurseries, the local nurseries that we have around here are not wholesale nurseries, they grow things for people to buy and put in their garden.

They are, I don't know for a fact, and I would love to be wrong, but I'm I'm gonna bet that they are not sourcing plants from neonic free nurseries.

Um, because they're not readily available, that requires some extra work and some extra cost.

So we can't really uh would would it be great for them to start selling neonit-free things and uh for everybody in Somerville to only want to buy neonic and buy in Union Square?

Sure.

That would be wonderful.

Um they are not a wholesale nursery and could never provide the quantities of plants that we use in our projects, even in our smaller projects.

Also, because they are not neonic free, we would not use them in our small projects even if they could, because we're now committed to buying plants that are not neonic-free whenever we can.

We just cannot on the bigger projects.

Um Mr.

Sher, thanks for indulging me.

Uh uh one more question uh to director on this, um, through you to director.

Um, I hear you.

But I mean is more, yeah, I get it.

They're they're they're a different um, I I get what you're saying, a different business philosophy.

I get that.

But I'm also saying is in a in a future conversation, can we find ways to bring them on board so maybe a small percentage of their plants are wholesale um that we can help them make that transition as well.

And uh and and pulling in another department, such as economic development and small business and and different ways that we help guide our our Somerville businesses to get in vision with that.

Um, and even if it's a small percentage of what we're purchasing in the city, and I know there's numerous conversations aside of this.

This is but can we find ways to help our businesses thrive within that vision that's open-ended?

So I'll stop right there.

Thank you, Counselor.

I really I'm gonna try to bring the discussion back to the uh prohibition on neonic noise right now, but it does sound like a good policy order.

I'd be happy to to work with you on in the future.

All right, uh, Counselor Mbai, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chester Scott.

Uh good to see you, Dr.

Oliveira.

Appreciate all the work you're doing and your thoughtfulness around you know these issues.

I guess here in this conversation, one question, quick one that I have is that is it possible, you know, to make the neonic apply to street trees only through the chair.

Um sourcing trees that are free of nick neonics is the hardest thing because they are not available because of the way that the trees are grown in the industry in the nursing industry, the nursery industry, and because of their the inability to follow the supply chain and to know for a fact that they're not neonick free.

So uh if you are asking, could this apply to everything but trees?

That's or are you applying are you saying that this should apply to the trees?

Yeah, I'm talking about like just to street trees.

So the chair.

So just to clarify, you are saying that we would not be able to buy trees unless they are neonick-free.

Yes.

We would not be able to plant our trees.

We would not be able to plant even a small fraction of the 350 trees that we plant every year.

Gotcha.

And and also like I also just you know would think that, you know, uh basically having like a sunset clause on you know, neonix usually will you know force us to start sourcing, you know, uh for plans that are neonics free, you know.

But you know, it's uh because like I think Councilor Ewan Camp said, like usually we can actually push for some of this stuff, but again, you know the space, you know the you know the industry, but it's about thinking about how to set a standard again.

And then usually I always go about best practices also like what has been other communities like Cambridge and you know, if there's a if there's no precedence, we can actually set one.

You know, I'm not interested in what the UK is actually, you know, like doing is but is about the practicality of what is within our scope.

Through the chair, there are there is no other city that I know of in Massachusetts that has done as much work on this issue as we have.

Uh and and even with the native species ordinance, you know, we were never against native species.

We were trying to set appropriate percentages so that we don't have um an all or nothing approach.

And I think that this is true here.

We could say we're never planting anything with neonix, and then that means we plant nothing.

But I think there is some nuance to this and some direction in moving towards you know, trying to find more and more plants that are neonic-free.

Uh, I do not think that uh we should we should say we're not, I mean, we can, we can't say we're never planting anything that uses neonics, but then we're not planting.

So there is a balance here and there's some nuance.

I think there's a lot of work that can be done.

We're hopeful that our uh advocates will spend some of this great energy pushing state legislation uh to ban neonics.

You know, there's a lot of um value in partnering with you know people who are selecting plants like landscape architects or other municipalities, but the municipalities that we know of uh or the ones that are adjacent to us, they have not, none of them has gone as far as we have.

So yeah, we could be the first and say we have no neonics, but that also means that we're not planting, we're not able to plant our projects.

So there's a little bit of um uh trade-off and also practicality in terms of do we still want to have wonderful parks?

Uh through you uh chair director Olivera, I still want to have wonderful parts.

Thank you.

Me too, thank you.

All right, thank you, Counselor Mba.

Uh colleagues, I very much appreciate the discussion.

Um I tend to believe that we should put our money where our values are.

I remember this discussion pretty strongly from uh I went back and looked.

We we finally passed it in March of 2021.

So I I'd be comfortable.

I understand the concern.

It sounds like we're making great progress towards having an industry where we will be able to source at scale.

And I think the way to do that is to, as my colleagues, some of my colleagues have said to keep the pressure on.

I'd be inclined to support Councilor Davis's uh suggestion to move the date out.

But uh I see Councilor Ewan Campen and Councilor Davis.

Uh gentlemen, after the discussion, motions to amend are of course in order.

So uh Counselor Ewan Campan, you have the floor first.

Oh, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh I was just uh so you know we want to act on this before the end of the year.

Um if it is the will of the committee.

So it's my thought that we should um if it is if if we are in agreement that we want to push back the date rather than get rid of the sentence.

Um I was gonna suggest um 2029 um and hear what the committee has to say.

You know, I I don't but I'm coming up with that in the course of this meeting, and I welcome any feedback.

All right, Councilor Davis.

I was gonna suggest 2028, but 2029 sounds good.

Uh now call a question.

All right, so just to make sure we are clear on the motion that is being made here, uh it is it would be to amend the section 12-178 to uh change 2026 to 2029 and not make uh the strike throughs that are requested here.

Uh correct?

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, if I if I may, I I think um procedurally, because we have a proposed amendment before us, I I and the clerk please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think it would be the the motion would be to amend the proposed amendment before us by replacing the the final um sentence or the final bit of the uh uh of the previous sentence uh that is struck, uh beginning with the word provided and ending with uh neocon neocon neocotinoids.

Um but uh we're changing the date uh 2026 to 2029.

All right.

Sounds good.

I think I think you are right about the procedural order of operations there.

Uh Councilor Streso, before we get into the procedural yes, thank you.

I am gonna propose 2028.

Um I would be fine with 2029, but I think that 2028 is a good checkpoint.

And if we need to come before, uh I I think um if we need to come before and and have this discussion discussion again uh in 2027 as 2028 is hovering above us, then we can then we can go push it to 2029.

I I um so if I I understand if 2028, um sorry, uh 2029 is is is before us.

But I would uh be interested in in uh well convincing my colleagues to 2028, and if not, um I would um if that doesn't, we I guess we can vote on it.

I I don't know.

Chair, you tell me.

Yeah, all right.

So just uh just to take these procedure me here.

Yeah, procedurally, what I'd say is uh given that uh we already have a motion on the table uh for 2029.

Uh let's go ahead and complete that, and then uh you can propose another amendment for 2028, and we can just take a quick vote on it, and we're either yay or nay.

Right.

So uh for that uh the motion is to uh amend the amendment before us to restore the struck language from provided to neonicotinoids and replace 2026 with 2029 in that sentence.

So let's vote on that amendment first.

I believe I need to, I know you just read it, but I believe I need to read it into the record as I do it.

So just bear with me.

So on the motion by Counselor Ewan Campin to amend Section 12178 by replacing the sentence that is struck and replacing it with provided that is January 1, 2029, the city shall not source native plants that have been treated with neonictinoids.

Counselor Davis Yes.

Counselor Strezo.

No.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campan.

Yes.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

Before counselors in favor, that is approved.

All right, thank you.

Uh, before we move for recommendation on this, uh, would you like to make uh proposed amendment to 2028, Counselor Strezzo?

Uh Mr.

Chair, yes, I would.

And uh my colleagues have voted, but I want it on record, and I I do think it's a good point.

So let's go with that.

Thank you.

All right.

So on amending the amendment before us currently to replace 2029 with 2028.

On the motion, Mr.

Chair.

On the motion, Councilor Diggs.

Thank you.

Through you to uh Director Oliveira.

Um given the nature of the projects that we have lined up, um and the and the um you know expected time frame on those.

Um is there you know, does would you expect that uh you know two years versus three years might have an impact, or is two years enough to sort of get our RFP is in the door, and then we we sort of could take it there if we were to go to 2028 on this.

Um did I didn't do a very good job of asking that question clear.

Do you understand what I'm asking?

Thank you.

Through the chair, yes, I do.

Unfortunately, we do not as a city have the buying power to change the market.

I think giving an extra year to create awareness and try to get uh partner with other groups and other professional organizations, nursery organizations, um, in order to push this in my mind uh a better, a better idea than sooner.

The extra year could be used for that, yes.

Let me let me ask it differently, Mr.

Chair, if I if I may.

Um the projects that you that you noted that um the the larger projects that um you we hope to you know to have out to bid early in calendar year 26.

Um do we expect those to go into calendar year 29?

Uh sorry, uh calendar year 28.

So the chair, yes.

Yes.

And once the this ordinance, once the contract is out, we couldn't then add a specification afterwards.

So in other words, let's say we we put out a contract for a sewer separation project and they uh we get a bidder, we could not then amend it in 2029 and say now you want or 2028 and say now it has to be no neonix.

So it would be that date, whatever contract begin, for example, contracts that we can't retroactively change the contract, it would be from that date forward.

Okay, so so I guess what so that then what you're saying then is if is uh uh if this provision is not in place in January of 26 and we put things stuff out to bid, if this date were changed to January 28, the the the effect would be that the contracts that were bid prior to that um that sunset period would effectively would would not apply.

Those bids would be what they are, the this plants can source so going to the 2000 uh 2028 time frame wouldn't affect the contracts that are bid next year, it would only affect the contracts that are bid after that.

Is that correct?

So the chair, yes, that is my understanding.

I mean, we don't usually the contract is what it is unless you were to do a change order, and though that would be very pricey.

That makes sense to me.

But I I think the way you know the law goes into this date, so that would be any contract signed after that.

I guess it would be the the real question would be you know how the law would would consider the word source, right?

When are we sourcing something?

Is it and the city is effectively sourcing it when the contract's signed is is what you're saying.

So thank you for that explanation.

That's all I needed to hear.

Um, sorry, I'm I'm inclined to stick with the original 28 that I had suggested that Councilor Strazo then motioned.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And uh Mr.

Chair, if I may.

Let's uh on on uh on the motion, I see Councilor Mbaugh, and then uh recognize you, Councilor Mbaugh.

Uh thank you, Chair Scott.

Just back to Director Olivera.

Again, you had an expat.

What is what is uh what do you recommend through the chair?

It is your decision whether you'd want to do two or three years.

I do not believe we'll be in a place in two years or three for that matter, where neonics are not allowed unless we are uh moving at a state level.

Uh and there have been some state, there is some uh active state legislation that is trying to ban neonix, mostly it's for agriculture.

But um unless there is a law or a demand, the nursery industry is going to do whatever gets them the most money.

That is capitalism, right?

So I think we can work on growing awareness, growing a demand.

We everyone can tell their constituents not to buy plants with neonix, and here's a list of where you can get the other ones.

Uh and there is a push uh with our elected officials to create a law at the state level.

Okay, thank you.

I would I will stick to my already not 2029.

Thank you.

All right.

So uh Council Strezzo, before we uh go to a roll call.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Final words on this.

Like I said, just quick reminder, colleagues.

Um I'm fine sticking with 2029, but I think uh keeping it or proposing 2028, and even if it fails, that's fine.

But um I I want at least a chance to present 2028.

And I I do want that because even if we have to, if it if this does pass, and it does end up being 2028, we can always modify and and and when it's before us, and and then uh move it to 2029.

Then I think it's a good checkpoint for us, and it keeps the dialogue happening, and it's a good it's a good uh goal to reach.

And that's why I'm proposing it.

I'm sticking with it.

Even if I'm the Lomwop voting for it.

Ready to go, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

So on that motion, uh Madam Clerk.

Councillor Streso has made a motion to amend the amended version of section 12178 to replace 2029 with 2028 on the motion.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Councilor Streso.

Yes.

Councilor Mbaugh.

No.

Councilor Ewan Campan.

No.

Councilor Scott.

Yes.

Let's go with yes.

With three counselors in favor, that motion has passed.

All right.

I appreciate uh everybody's time tonight.

Uh this is I think a good opportunity as said to keep the keep the conversation vital in future legislative sessions.

So uh on now the recommendation.

I'm moving to recommend approval uh on the amendment.

Uh so this is to refer it out of committee, uh, recommending approval on that motion.

I see no comment or discussion, so let's do a roll call.

Recommended uh excuse me.

Item six to be recommended as amended.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Councilor Streso.

Yes.

Councilor and Baugh.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campan.

Yes.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

With all counselors in favor, that is recommended to be approved as amended.

All right.

Then uh this takes us to our uh next to last uh items.

Uh item number seven here is a submission from the city clerk amending the rules of the city council to align with the provisions of the city charter.

Uh I have gone through these and uh like what I see, but uh, I'm sure Annalist Salisbury would probably like a chance to talk about this.

So Annal Salisbury.

Uh Mr.

Chair, you know me so well.

An opportunity to speak.

Um to introduce these for you uh as uh the item indicates.

Uh this is amendments to the rules of the city council to bring them in line uh with conforming to the new charter.

Um so the the sort of thrust of this is of course that the the vote is required um because of course you cannot have rules that are in conflict with the uh constitutional foundational governing document of the city.

Um, but I will happily walk you through these changes um and also uh answer any questions that you might have.

Um first, of course, at the top uh is that the charter does amend the uh uh mechanism for establishing the time and place of the meetings of the city council uh and does require that those be done by ordinance.

Uh the city clerk's office is currently working on drafting an ordinance to that effect.

Um please stay tuned.

Um moving forward, uh, we did also, uh as you can see throughout the document, correct a number of references uh to uh make sure that they are in line with the actual uh current sections of the charter rather than previous sections of the charter.

Um moving forward to rule number six, um on the uh on the document.

Um if the clerk could scroll down to that.

Thank you.

Uh the first change that you will note here is the uh much discussed change from solicitor to attorney.

Uh and then subsequently the uh change from one week's notice to 14 days notice uh in compliance with the provisions of the access to information um section of the charter.

Um similarly in rule number eight, as you can see, once again a change to attorney, as in rule number nine as well.

Um in rule number 10, uh the charter does say that rather than the oldest in age of the members, the member with the most years of service shall serve in the uh as uh president pro tem until the election of a president and vice president.

Um which uh I'm sure we will all miss the jokes.

Uh rule number 17, very small uh change just uh in terms of form.

Uh and then uh same with rule number 18.

Uh I will admit that these are, of course, my uh particular influence here.

Um moving on to rule number 30.

Uh this is just a slight change um in terms of procedure.

Uh, this is actually not directly related to the charter.

Um, but rather than recommending that something should not be approved for the current practice is that something is recommended to be not approved.

Uh so we just wanted to make sure that that update aligned with our current practice, uh, or to update to align that language of that current practice.

Uh and then we don't have any further changes until rule 53.

Um, this is to align with the changes to the charter that that included posting to the website uh as being sufficient for for posting and dissemination of information.

Um and so the requirement that printed copies be disseminated to all members of the body um does not really align with the values of the charter.

Naturally, of course, um printed copies will be available upon request, as I note in my weekly uh bi weekly emails to you.

Um rule 55.

Uh this is where we begin the most significant changes.

Um this is the charter right.

Um, as uh you can see really what was done here is is a simple copy paste.

Uh I moved the provision of the charter uh into this rule.

Um you will note, of course, that uh while previously uh there was an ability to postpone for multiple meetings, uh making the second postponement, uh, that does not exist anymore.

Um moving on to rule 56.

Um, this uh once again is just to ref it's a copy and paste job um to take the provisions of the charter here.

Um nothing really there's nothing really different here.

Uh it's just uh largely changes to the language.

Um and it relates to the uh approval of ordinances and measures by the mayor, uh, as well as the city council's capacity to override a veto.

Um then uh I believe the last substantive change uh is in rule 59.

Uh as you may recall, the city clerk no longer has a three-year term, but in addition to that, uh the city clerk is also uh no longer the only individual who is able to uh clerk meetings for the city council.

Uh their designee may now uh accomplish that without needing to be sworn in as a clerk uh pro tem.

Um so that is it for substantive changes.

The final change that you will see is in Rule 62, which is simply amending the section 15 reference to section 29b to reflect the uh new section where the charter right lives.

Uh and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

All right.

On this uh submission of the clerks.

All right, Councilor Davis.

I waited to see if anyone wanted to raise their hand first.

So I wasn't always the kid in the front row, but here I am.

Um thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um thank you, um, Mr.

Salisbury uh for this.

Um I had I had a couple questions.

I think you answered um one of them for me, but let me just make sure I um reading this uh correctly because I I now remember um I now remember that's this piece of the charter.

But so in rule 55, um and I think you know, so there was there was also a question of the you know, the first occasion that the question of adoption of a measure is put into the council.

Uh I know that there was a question about you know how that would apply if something was submitted but was not um was not taken up by the council, although that doesn't, I think the rules are what they are.

My view is that if something is not um if it's not put to the council for a vote, then um you know at the next meeting, this this rule certainly could be um could be exercised.

Uh otherwise it would seem to have um well, anyway.

So that that that's for what it's worth, that's my reading, but that's neither here nor there.

Um I don't think it I think that that the the um the the key point here that I wanted to ask about is just the the second sentence.

Um if two or more members object, the distinction there is that um if one person objects, then that the item can be taken up at a special meeting, right?

at the next meeting this this rule certainly could be um could be exercised uh otherwise it would seem to have um well anyway so so that that that's for what it's worth that's my reading but that's neither here nor there um i don't think it i think that that the the um the the key point here that i wanted to ask about is just the the second sentence um if two or more members object the distinction there is that um if one person objects then that the item can be taken up at a special meeting right but if two people or more object then it can't be taken up at a special meeting it has to wait until the next regular meeting right that that's the difference between the first two sentences uh that is correct mr chair um uh counselor davis my apologies uh old habits uh the the the to put a sort of fine point on it if one member objects then there is certainly a world where that item could be taken up again within 48 hours at the call of a special meeting um with two members objecting it does put a a pause on that for a minimum of two weeks uh certainly if this were to be done at the beginning of recess for instance it would pause it until the next scheduled regular right to either longer than two weeks or you know shorter than two weeks if it was at the end of October or beginning of November I suppose yeah okay very well thank you and then the the the last question so this is in in the in the in rule 59 um the I'm not sure that I agree that the the addition of um or the designee in the second sentence um and maybe this isn't the intent but I I don't think it it uh you know stands in the place of the of what the last sentence provided uh because you know the the second sentence is is specifically to you know attending the meetings recording etc etc etc um but the first sentence talks about other stuff and um so I I guess let me just put it it it if there if the clerk was absent for some reason um and and hadn't designated someone to attend the meetings or had designated to someone to attend the meetings but we have a question about keeping charge of journals records and documents of the council and a testing warrants for example wouldn't we still need that second sentence or am I am I just not reading it the same way you do uh the the last sentence admittedly I I don't think we're reading it exactly the same way um I my understanding is that uh this and that are um uh the the same thing um because the the journals records and documents of the city council are a component of the clerk's role as the clerk of the city council um and so to the extent that the clerk as the clerk of the city council may assign a designee um that final sentence does have the same effect does that I I apologize if that did not answer your question clearly no I I guess I don't know I I just I I think the way it reads that that you know the second sentence by by by only including designee in the second sentence to me it reads that that that is the only you know clause to which that concept could apply um you know uh yeah I think the the several sentences follow sort of naturally apply to the meetings but um I I don't know I I I guess I I feel like there's some ambiguity there um by by just saying and they or their designee shall attend meetings um it it it it requires some interpretation to understand that that means that all of the duties of the clerk in rule 59 can be performed by the clerk's designee.

I I'm not sure I'm comfortable that that's clear enough I guess is what I'm saying.

Certainly um and Mr.

Chair through you to counselor Davis um I I will note of course that the the rules are uh supplemental to the charter and that to the extent that the charter provides a more clear uh statement on this that the charter would of course prevail there um I think that the what I will say is I I think that to the extent that you feel uncomfortable with the way that this particular rule amendment is drafted I would be happy to discuss um further changes um I would hesitate to suggest that the entirety of these amendments be held up by that if if that uh if that's not overstepping my position yeah no uh Mr.

Chair um through you to uh Miss Salesby no completely agree um my thought is maybe I I'm inclined to to um you know move to recommend approval of of you know the entirety of this um with the caveat that maybe we could take a peek at 59 between now and the council meeting and and see if there's a little clarification that we could add um to uh to put before the council if that makes sense makes sense to me Mr.

Davis Councilor Davis all right so is that uh is that all that that's it that's it for me I see my other my colleagues have questions soon I'll I'll hold the motion for for the moment to let for other folks ask questions.

Appreciate that councilor Mback you are recognized.

Uh thank you, Chair.

I just also wanna thank Dr.

Salisbury for uh the heavy lifting and all the work you've been doing for us.

Appreciate it.

I guess uh the first question that I have is the first rule.

I just want to understand, you know, clearly, like I said, Cinder, you know uh you struct through multiple lines, you know, like the council data for meeting, second and footage and all what not.

I'm not sure, like, you know, what the are you saying that there was like some this Korean rule that you're striking those on misalignment with the Chata?

And if if so, like what operational or procedura challenges have this discrepancy created?

Like what is like if you I'm seeing you striking a bunch of stuff, yeah.

Like on the second and foot those day evening of each month, uh 7 p.m.

except blah blah blah.

This is already what is in place.

And so it I'm not sure exactly like uh what is that misalignment there.

Mr.

Chair, through you.

Um my apologies, Mr.

Chair.

I if you if you would prefer to answer the question, I'm happy to defer.

Uh seeing that that uh m Mr.

Chair, through you to Councilor Mbaugh, uh the the charter uh as amended does actually specifically require that the date and times of the city council's meetings be set by ordinance.

Um and so to the extent that the rule purports to set the the date and time of the meetings, uh that would be inappropriate and in conflict with the charter.

Um so as I noted at the outset, the city clerk's office is currently um working on an ordinance to effectuate this.

Um other than that, there's there's not much more that I can explain.

Um we simply made these changes to make sure that we are not um uh uh in out of compliance with the uh with the the charter.

Uh as I had noted earlier in the meeting, certainly there is uh a provision within the charter about continuance of existing laws.

Um I I certainly don't expect that any reasonable reading of the charter would indicate that the city council may not meet until such an ordinance is uh before them, as that would certainly present quite the catch 22 of how would one approve said ordinance.

Um that being said, um it's my expectation that this practice of of second and fourth Thursdays will continue until or unless uh uh said proposed amendment to the ordinances changes that practice.

Excellent.

I thought so too.

Thank you for the clarification.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you, Councilor Mba.

Uh all right.

Looking for any further discussion on it.

So seeing no further discussion, Councilor Davis moves to recommend approval on these amendments.

Uh seeing no discussion on that motion.

Uh Madam Clerk, if we can call the rule.

And on approval of agenda item seven, Councilor Davis.

Yes.

Councilor Shaza.

Yes.

Counselor Mba.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campin.

Yes.

Councilor Scott.

Uh yes.

All counselors in favor, that is recommended to be approved.

All right.

Thank you very much.

And now we come to the final four items of our agenda.

This is uh items eight through eleven.

These are the submission of surveillance technology impact reports uh for four systems that were previously not included in the administration's production, although as the memo uh there is a memo about this.

As the memo points out, uh several of these technologies were uh things that we had in our possession, and uh we're we're just coming back to make sure we document.

So that's great.

Uh I have reviewed them.

This is just as a reminder, not a thing that the city council uh modifies uh in any way.

This is just a documentation of uh what the city intends to do and what uh technologies they tend to intend to use, uh, which are then approved by the city council, not modified.

So uh I want to open it up to any questions about any of these four reports.

Uh councillor you and can you have Mr.

Chair?

Uh I just have a kind of general statement on all of them.

So the the major motivation for the surveillance technology ordinance, the overview ordinance, is really to kind of focus on technologies that have significant impacts on privacy on civil liberties.

Um just as a basic transparency, good governance uh thing.

So I'll just say for my perspective, these three technologies ball cameras, thermal imaging, monoculars, and underdoor cameras.

Um, I'm not particularly concerned with the kind of big picture civil liberties privacy issues.

Um I know my my colleagues often have really helpful feedback on kind of the details of the stirs of the impact reports.

Um, but just kind of big picture.

I'm I'm comfortable with these technologies and don't have issues with with their use in Somerville.

All right, thank you very much, Councilor Ewan Campen.

Uh, is there other discussion on these items?

Counselor Davis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I feel like Council Campbell was uh deliberately cueing me up there.

Um, so I'll oblige.

Um I did read through um these, and I want to um um thank Captain Sheehan and everyone else who um you know who put time into the into these.

Um I I every time we come to these, I it's worth um taking a moment to just say how uh you know how much I appreciate the collaboration from the beginning of this process, um, how how much I I like that we have this ordinance um and uh and you know how important it is that that you know uh that we do have that cooperation because it wouldn't really be very meaningful otherwise.

And this is a a perfect example.

Um, you know, these are as as we if you know as we saw in the memo and the and the um the ordinances are technologies that it did exist, but sort of on reflection, uh the department decided, you know, these this probably should put in a stir for these.

And so great, perfect.

That's how it's supposed to work.

You know, better if it comes in initially, but um certainly it seems to be have been no attempt.

I I think as as my colleague from Ward 3 noted, there's uh there's sort of a fundamental difference between the these three particular pieces of technology and sort of the other things we've talked about, so I can see where maybe that decision was made initially, but um, but I I I agree that it's appropriate to have a stir um for them, and I and I appreciate that we have those now.

Um I did want to ask, I do want to have I do have some a few specific points that I want to kind of flag.

Um and the first one is is specific to the um mini ball camera.

Um and but uh they all really apply to all three of the ordinances.

And and none of these are like you know big massive concerns.

I don't think that anybody's trying to hide anything or anything.

It's you know, more purely in the spirit of of transparency and the public understanding, um, particularly where there where there is um any um you know uh permit or permanent or you know, uh uh ability to be uh to be to make permanent recording or or or data that is created, right?

Um, you know, stuff that's used in the moment, uh, you know, is what it is, much less of a concern.

But for all these technologies, it appears that there is there is an ability to record video um and potentially audio in some of them.

Um that that um that video could then be uh produced um you know in certain circumstances as talked about.

So that's you know that that's where I start to look a little bit more closely.

So um, in the in the for the ball camera, in in the response to question three C, the data retention, um it says the device has two storage options.

One is local where the videos are stored in the device memory, um, and that is a default setting.

Um, so that they could be replay replayed under deleted by the user.

Um and then the second is a is a cloud option, um, where uh the the provider, third party provider um has a uh streaming service or you know, sort of a cloud storage, um, but it it indicates that there's that that subscription will not be purchased.

We're not gonna provide the cloud storage.

Um but then the there, you know, there's other discussion um either actually before and after the talks about uploading and downloading videos um from the device, um, you know, data that could be shared on investigation, um uh, you know and so I'm not clear what is the download scenario, right?

I I think if if there's only two storage options and one is one is on the device itself and the other is a cloud and rocking into the cloud.

Um it it sounds like that maybe that maybe that's not actually entirely accurate that the maybe there would be video stored in some other maybe not, but I I just want to I I want to further understand kind of how that would work.

Um, you know, if X period of time down the road for this investigation, I do we just leave the video on the ball itself and hope we don't need to use it again, or is it you know, would it be downloaded and stored in safekeeping somewhere else?

And if so, you know, what are the parameters for that?

Because it does we don't really talk about that in here.

Um so it seems like there's maybe a uh a little bit of piece piece missing.

Does that make sense, Cap Sheen?

Or uh yes, um uh through the chair to uh counselor.

I'm gonna actually defer to uh Lieutenant Di Oliveira who wrote the um the stir for the ball camera.

Um he might be better able to uh answer that question for you.

Perfect, thank you.

Uh through the chair, uh Council Davis.

Uh you are correct, there is a way to uh save down low dose.

Uh we only mentioned that so that you know that there is that possibility, although that decision would only be made if the situation calls for it.

Um it would it wouldn't be a shared drive, it would be a separate computer that the SRT commander would have possession of it and he has the control of it.

It's not something that anybody has access to it.

So it's not saving a way that other people have access to it.

And unless it will be used for um an investigation, the DA's office asked for it.

Um I'm assuming that I I think it's fair to assume that it will be deleted within a timely manner once we find out that we have no use for that video.

Okay.

Um that's a great answer, as is all almost always the case with these.

I I'd love for it to say that so you know people fully understand because hey, we're doing exactly this is exactly how it should be handled.

Um that's you know, that that's the kind of thing I I think it would be great to add in here.

Um so you know, if if we do a revision of the if you if you're willing to do a revision, um, I would love to just you know see a little more clarity there, just explain exactly what you frankly almost verbatim what you said, I think would be a perfect response and and and really provide that that explanation.

Um then the the other comments I think are applicable to all three.

Um, and so Mr.

Chair, if if it's okay, I mean just the interest of time, you know, maybe I'll I'll make these and and you know, to the extent that it it um there's some adjustments that can be made to to all of them because I think the you know the answers were somewhat similar.

Um and there's similar comments to at least one of them is is is is similar to some discussion we had on on uh a recent one of the more you know recent ones, uh STRS that was submitted.

No, it's it's been a bit since we've had one of these.

Um but in subsection uh E.

So I guess it would be what three yeah, three E.

Um the the question specifically asks for um the uh you know a required legal required legal uh required justification and legal standard necessary, right?

Um and I think in the past it would, you know, the the that that response has said, you know, if it would be under a subpoena or in accordance with you know, etc.

etc.

Um that really that piece is really missing, and I think in all three of the responses.

Um, you know, it's I understand that it's there for reading it because I've seen enough of these and I've talked to y'all y'all about it, and I know how it I know how it works, but I think if a member of the public picked this up, um I'm not sure that that they would interpret it the same way I do.

Um, and I I think I um I I think I'd like to see that, you know, because like you know, like I said, that the questions here are are in the statute.

They're specific that we know we went through these, um we went back and forth about these a lot, and they're they're crafted, you know, to to make sure that certain specific information is included.

And so I think having that um, you know, a what what the justification would need to be and a legal standard necessary would is is important to have in here.

Um, if for no other reason that that that they would then be consistent with um, you know, with the others where we're included that um, you know, and I note that like the the response here um data could be shared depending on the investigative investigation.

Uh in the middle, uh images could be shared if there was a joint investation, you know, could be shared as a pretty broad concept, right?

Well, we know when, under what circumstances, under what legal like that's what I think, you know and I I read these sort of um you know, we'll try to through through the eye of a member of the public who you know hasn't had these conversations and might be looking for looking for a gotcha, right?

So, you know, not that not that I think our our constituents are doing that, right?

But but if what what we want to draft these so that anyone can be comfortable reading them in there, and they're not gonna raise something.

I think you know, I think somebody could definitely um read that sort of could be shared and say, well, wait, that's not really a legal standard, could be could mean anything, right?

Um so I I you know, as I said, the the answer to this question in some of the other stirs.

I think once we were once they revised that we that that was you know, the legal standards were stated a little more clearly.

Um, and then at the end, uh you know, shared with the uh members of the investigating group who had permission to use the services, you know, what permission from whom?

What would what would those circumstances be, right?

Same concept.

Um, and that's true of all three of these.

So I think you know, what whatever the answer is can probably be you know leveraged for for all of them.

I don't want to, you know, that we need to go through them all.

And I don't think you need to, you know, craft a fully different unless the answer is different, right?

Unless there is a legal standard, of course.

Suspect it's probably not, but you know, to the extent that they're the same.

Um, I definitely, you know, I know I don't want to make you know more work um for you, but I think that is um is a relevant point.

And then the other thing, uh all three of these, and I know we've done this in the past, and and it may just be that I didn't pick up on this, but I want to put this out there just um for your thought, because as the counselor from Ward 3 noted, these do feel like different types of technology than many of the other ones we've talked about.

Um and so we're where we reference the the surveillance technology use policy and specifically the video surveillance technology data and use by the police department, which I'll note for members of the public was a policy that existed before we even put the surveillance technology ordinance in place.

So the department was already well down the road and and you know, putting um you know, putting uh rules and regulations in place for using surveillance technology, and that's to the accreditation department.

I think it's worth noting um as well, so folks understand that that's where this came from.

You know, it was sort of revised a little bit and ported into the use policy because y'all already had it, which is great.

Um, but when you read that, it talks about the video surveillance system.

And I think it's really talking more about you know, sort of the larger the other stuff, right?

That the kind of things that that counselor you and campan noted at the outset.

I don't think it really applies to these specific things the way that one would would assume just from reading it, you know, um, and maybe a member of the public would go pull up and you can yeah, can find that policy pretty easily, um, which is which is also good.

Um, you know, just where uh a web search, but the video surveillance system that's talked about in that um the the technology data and used by the police department policy, I don't think that's talking about these things.

Um, because it's it's pretty robust and it has a whole bunch of of you know steps and and things that that I think we probably don't need for this stuff, right?

Um so I just want to throw that out there and ask you to maybe you know take another look at where where you've leveraged just references to that general policy and um you know and consider whether it applies or not.

And and I don't, I'm not the expert, right?

So I I'll I defer to y'all whether whether you know maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but um I don't want to suggest how it should be changed because I you know as I said, I it's not uh I don't have the expertise you you do.

Um, but when I read that it it the video surveillance system that's talked about in the policy doesn't sound like it really is meaning the same thing for for these two these three really sort of discrete use types of technology.

So you know, maybe there's a maybe there's a simpler answer that um that actually is on point because you know, as we thought of these are you know, really for sort of specific use in a specific scenario if we ever need it, God forbid.

Um and uh and I think that would I think if somebody went down the rabbit hole that I did and started reading the policy, they might start going, oh whoa, whoa, wait a minute, hold on, you're gonna do all this.

And it's like, well, we're not, right?

These aren't that's not the same type of technology as the video system that we have.

So those are my only comments.

Um you know, if you're willing to, I'd I'd love to to um uh to see a revision.

Um I you know, I think that I I acknowledge that that that y'all, you know, we've had these technologies in place, and so um I think if there's a an exigent circumstance uh that you know you felt it was needed in emergency, I you know, I certainly wouldn't wouldn't make a stake if you needed to use them between now and you know January when we can talk about this again.

Uh you know, I want to say that because and by no means do I mean to uh you know to to keep the department from being able to keep everybody safe and use the you know the technology that's needed to do that in a in an emergency situation.

So um let that be clear.

Um but for the for the sake of of kind of just dialings in a little bit, uh, you know, I I think that I think there might be a few tweaks that could be made to um so so folks that are digging through these if at any point have some concerns, their concerns will be eased by reading all the good answers and good policies that we have in place and and uh that transparency will serve its purpose.

Uh thank you for that.

Uh I'm gonna hand it over to Captain Sheehan in a second, says it looks like he has a direct response, but uh I just actually went and pulled up the uh covert device um surveillance technology impact report and the language in three e there uh specifically talks about shared as with the district attorney's uh office as part of submitting evidence for criminal case, et cetera.

So uh I think the language is there and just uh in in other ones.

So it shouldn't be that hard of a revision.

Uh Captain Sheehan on uh in response there.

Oh, or not.

Captain Sheehan.

Oh, that yeah, exactly.

I just wanted to through the chair uh to the uh to council Davis and to you, Councilor Scott.

Uh we do appreciate working with the council.

Uh obviously, this a lot of this stuff is new to us.

Uh these reports, we're we're getting the hang of it.

Uh, we're more than welcome to work to work with you as we have in the past.

Uh we will put together uh as uh council scott, the chair, you did indicate that language is there because we have worked on this.

I'm I'm well aware of that.

And uh we will put that together and we will get together um hopefully in January, and we'll have the language uh that you're looking for.

And Mr.

Chair, quick follow-up if I could, just to acknowledge it.

Absolutely totally get it.

Appreciate this is this is this is great.

Um, you know, what's there already is perfect.

I uh I'm just like I said, looking to maybe you know, avoid if avoid any questions, but um by no means you know, do my comments suggest that this is you know that there was any uh failure to do it right or anything that you know we're we're still refining this process, and y'all are are just really knocking out of the park in terms of of quite collaborating on this.

So I really really appreciate it.

Um so thank you.

All right.

So uh given all that, it sounds like there's a request for uh amendment on that.

Um I wonder, would you uh want to approve these as they stand and then count on the administration to bring uh amendments uh an update in the new year, or would you like to recommend against approval of these and just take up the new ones when they appear on our agenda?

Mr.

Chair, the the we we've done this two different ways in the past.

Um in all cases, we have taken no action on the current version.

Um and then uh a new version has been submitted.

Um because as you noted, this isn't something the council uh can amend or change.

It's not our document, but we this is the piece of the surveillance technology um ordinance that we do need to approve ultimately.

Um and so I I think the the most recent uh preference it would is to um simply place the it once a new one comes in to place this on file or mark work complete or you know some some disposition in that manner and then take action on on the replacement one.

We used to think the administration used to withdraw the initial one, but we're not doing that anymore.

Unless we've changed our mind, either way works, but we don't have to do anything with this right now.

Um at least my my view would be, and as I said, uh I I would certainly look at it as if something needed to be, you know, the surveillance technology ordinance does have an exigent circumstance provision in it.

And certainly, you know, I would not look askew at all if something needed to be used in an emergency between now and January.

Hopefully not, but um, you know, I I don't have any concerns with um you know with that potential scenario um and just keeping these here until we get the the revised versions.

That's my preference, but you're your call.

No, let's uh go ahead and do that then.

Let's keep these in committee.

It'll be a good reminder that we're uh looking for those updates.

Um, you know, this is we're getting um we're not quite in scripters era terror territory here, but uh as you said, these reports have been getting better and better every time they get submitted.

So uh really appreciate it.

You know, that to your other point, these are kind of uh different systems uh in that you know they're being deployed either as a result of a warrant or uh in an emergency situation uh as part of a well, I don't want to call uh use the technical term on it, but uh as a as part of a tactical situation.

So uh I I appreciate that there's a difference, but you know, any time the video is recorded, it could end up somewhere.

So I appreciate uh submitting these.

And I think uh more disclosure is always better than less.

So uh why don't we go ahead and keep these in here?

Uh Sergeant Sergeant D'Albert?

I'm sorry, is it Sergeant or Lieutenant?

Oh Mr.

Chair, Lieutenant Jolivan, apologies.

I was having a problem with my computer, yeah.

Uh that's okay.

I'm old.

Uh I think I knew you when you were sergeant.

So uh Lieutenant, thank you very much.

And uh uh Captain Sheehan, uh I've been fighting the urge to call you Lieutenant Sheehan all night, but uh it's uh good to see you both.

Uh I'm sure we'll see you again before too long.

Let's go ahead and keep those in committee.

And that brings us to the end of our agenda this evening.

Um we have uh an item, a few several items that were laid on the table for a single roll call vote uh for approval later.

Uh and uh motion to adjourn is going to be in order momentarily, but let's see if Director Sing uh is gonna remind me of something I forgot.

Uh Council Scott, um, I'm not sure if you took up item 11.

Um back report for the joint usage at the high school.

Yeah, we took up eight through eleven.

Apologies.

Sorry, Mr.

Chair, um, if I may.

Sure.

Um and I thank the director for for flagging that actually.

Um my thought, uh I I read through that one too.

That as you I'm sure saw it was really specific to uh uh uh completely different use of technology using the drone to inspect the high school to figure out why panels, couple of panels were fallen.

Um I would have no problem approving that one tonight because it's in my opinion really straightforward, no issues.

Um we can take that one off the list if if you're so inclined.

Okay, I love that.

All right, so let's uh my motion has been made to approve uh recommend approval on item 11 and we can reiterate that eight through ten are remaining in committee.

Uh and uh on top of that, I will move to adjourn and try to take up all the items that we have laid on the table for a future vote and vote on those along with motion to adjourn.

Uh Chair Scott, I just you only have one item laid on the table, and that is the approval of the minutes, and then you have agenda item four that is recommended to be discharged without a recommendation, and then you have agenda item 11 that is recommended to be approved.

All other are kept in committee.

So I do not think um we should take those all up at once as they are all different dispositions.

All right, then let's go one at a time.

Why not?

Okay.

Uh Director Singh, uh, can I help you?

Do the chat apologies to the clerk.

Did we miss item five for approval?

Nope.

Item five was approved.

Um, we took a roll call vote on that earlier in the evening, and then item six was approved as amended.

We had two motions for amendments on that.

The second one um prevailed, and then item seven, we also approved.

So just to go through the lists again, item one is laid on the table.

We'll accept those.

Two and three are being kept in committee.

Four is discharge without a recommendation, five was recommended for approval, six was recommended for approval as amended, seven was recommended for approval, eight through ten is kept in committee, and then we will still take the vote on 11 recommended for approval.

All right.

So with that summary, uh, we will I I believe take two roll call votes, correct?

One on uh acceptance of eight through ten, and then a second one for accepted approval of the minutes.

How do you want to divide that up?

We can yes, we can do two.

We can do two.

We can do um, I can do it right now on the acceptance of agenda item one, approval of the minutes of the legislative matters committee meeting on October 20th, 2025, and the approval of agenda item 11, approval of the surveillance technology impact report for use and of an unmanned aircraft system at the high school.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Councilor Shell Councillor Streso.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Yes.

Counselor Ewan Campen.

Yes.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

And with four counselors in favor, those motions are approved.

And then on agenda item four um and adjournment to discharge without a recommendation.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

Counselor Shou.

Excuse me.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Yes.

Councilor Ewing Campen.

Yes.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

Item four will be discharged without a recommendation, and we are adjourned.

Thank you once again to all city staff and of course my colleagues.

I know the hour is late, but we still got out of here in under two and a half.

So uh thank you very much, and I will see you all soon.

Good night, everybody.